Talk:United Kingdom/Terminology archive2

England and the UK are the same

By the logic which the far right is using here, if Britain is now, suddenly, the same as the UK because many people equate them then by the same rationalisation England is now the same as the UK because many people equate them, not least the United States of America and numerous other states which still appoint Ambassadors to England. Either Wikipedia is applied equally, or it is not. As another editor pointed out, the Netherlands article, for instance, does not imply that Holland is the same as the Netherlands, and in fact states it is not. The British far right here just cannot abide even a mention of the inaccuracy of equating Britain with the UK. This is POV to a new level. Anyway, if Britain is the UK then England most definitely is the UK if we are being consistent with the British far right here. El Gringo 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on your fellow contributors (accusing them of being "far right" when you know nothing about them). Your behaviour is verging on vandalistic. Gsd2000 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that any part of Ireland is a part of Britain, as opposed to the UK, is a claim of the British far right, and a claim which runs counter to even your own legislation, most noticeably the Act of Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 'And' is the key word which people of your, shall we say, "nationalist spirit" wilfully omit in their ahistorical revisionist drivel- utter drivel- that claims Derry and Armagh are now in Britain. Now, you please piss off with your abjectly offensive jingoism towards Irish people. El Gringo 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer accurate jingoism over this amazingly inaccurate blurb. It's "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and *NORTHERN* Ireland", for a start - not as you claim. Secondly, the presence of the province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom is not a point of debate or discussion - it was ceded officially by the referedum in the Irish Republic (where over 90% of the vote approved) which removed a claim to "The Island of Ireland". So before you're ready to throw your pseudo-academic nonsense about at least bother to read a couple of books. And for the record, I'm Irish. Your rhetoric reminds me of those guys who used to stand outside church each Easter collecting money for guns...never failing to get told "where to go" as we say here.Iamlondon 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, please try and get it right and not be such a wannabe intellectual yourself. I said that the constitutional basis, in British law, for the current British state in Ireland is the Act of Union of 1800. It is. The factual basis of the continuing British occupation of this part of Ireland is mass murder, genocide and British state terrorism starting with Walter Devereaux's expeditions here in the 1570s. That honesty is clearly too much for you, and the rest of your cut. To be honest, I haven't exactly been brought up on a love for you British when it comes to your fanatically imperialist (excuse the tautology) claims to Ireland. That the aforementioned constitutional basis was amended from Ireland to the six county Northern Ireland statelet following the Government of Ireland Act 1920 does not change this basis. Now, please spare us your evidently abundant intellectual deficiency on Ireland's British colonial problem. Thank you. And, back to supporting the bombings of Iraq, old bean? Oh, how superior of you, 'Mr I hate terrorism!'. You are, like so many of your fellow countrymen, consumed in your own self-deceit when it comes to using violent means to achieve political aims. British state violence to achieve political aims is grand- always, it seems. Anybody else who uses violence to achieve political aims- even to complete the freedom of their country- is a "terrorist" in the fanaticism of the British rightwing. Congrats. 'Blinkered' doesn't cover it. El Gringo 23:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just placed a warning about no personal attacks on your talk page for this. Gsd2000 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK is not generally synonomous with "England" as claimed by user El Gringo; therefore I have reverted his recent change. "Britain", the "British Isles", the "British Nation", "Great Britain", the "UK", are all reasonable. England has quite a specific widely accepted meaning, regardless of any political point. MarkThomas 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. In Ireland the UK is never synonymous with Britain. The reason why is obvious. 2. Had you ever been to Ireland, you would quickly find that calling Ireland one of your British Isles is far from reasonable in Ireland. In fact, it is considered offensive. A visit to Talk:British Isles is evidently much needed. Indeed, turn on your British television and the use of the term is now much, much rarer than ever. 3. Great Britain is patently not the same as the UK. 4. Britain has quite a specific, widely accepted meaning, namely as the shortened form of Great Britain, regardless of any political point (this time being made by those seeking to push Ireland further into the British world and out of Ireland). El Gringo 23:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of your paragraph is contrary to the evidence. As I mentioned in the previous debate (which we are now repeating) I went to the website of an Irish newspaper and found many matches for the term Britain, including this one:

Irish Times Article - New British ambassador leaves post in Ottawa

Patsy McGarry

Britain's new ambassador to Ireland, David Reddaway, will take up the post in August or September. He will replace Stewart Eldon who has been appointed Britain's permanent representative on the North Atlantic ...

Gsd2000 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ps anyone wishing to check my results just type in "Britain" into the search box of http://www.ireland.com. El Gringo does not speak for the entire population of The Republic of Ireland. Gsd2000 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is nothing of the sort. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick. It is simply an Irish refusal to embrace the concept of the UK, as that entity involves a claim to Ireland. This is so basic, and so remedial, that it is baffling that you could twist it into the very thing it is not. I have never once referred to the "UK government" of the "UK state". It is the British state, and it is not in Britain but Ireland. That is the key point, and the necessary language to accurately portray the presence here on the island of Ireland of that state from across the sea. Saying the "UK" is an attempt to normalise the profoundly abnormal nature of the British state here; to pass that presence off as something it isn't. Saying 'British', on the other hand, conveys its alienness when talking about its rule not in Britain but in Ireland. Britain dresses its claim up to part of Ireland by renaming the British state as the UK state. At no stage since 1800, even under British law, has the UK and Britain been coterminous. It is quite simply a lie to say otherwise, as this article does. El Gringo 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to anyway. :-) Sharp-eyed user Gsd2000 beat me to it, thanks! MarkThomas 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto this point, England is not the United Kingdom. England is a country within the United Kingdom. Jefffire 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And, should you consult a map, you will find that Britain is only part of the United Kingdom, just as Holland is only part of the Netherlands(despite misunderstandings in certain benighted quarters about that). This, once again, is why the full title of the United Kingdom is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and- see that word, everybody?- Northern Ireland'. Ergo, by your very logic, Britain is not the United Kingdom and thus should not be referred to as such. It is sheer British nationalism which refuses to concede that Britain is an incorrect term for the UK. Contrast this with the Netherlands article which makes it clear that Holland is incorrect, while acknowledging it is widely used. El Gringo 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo has a point about Britain not including NI. However, it's not the fault of Wikipedians that people often refer to the UK as Britain. The footnote seems to address this issue, although perhaps as a compromise it should also mention that technically this is an incorrect abbreviation. But vandalism is no way to get around this issue, and it's not helping your case... Cordless Larry 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re inclusion of "technically incorrect" - we've been over this multiple times and had oodles of debate on it - see above. Things had finally settled down until El Gringo came back on the scene just now. Gsd2000 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And things "settled down" in Ireland too after Oliver Cromwell "until those Irish came back on the scene"? No part of Ireland has ever been, or will ever be, in Britain regardless of the agenda of the British rightwing here. Complete nonsense that goes against even British political history and the constitutional foundation stone of the modern British state here in Ireland, namely the Act of Union of 1800. El Gringo 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo, (curious name for an Irish Republican, but nice all the same!), I think most people here understand where you are coming from and realise that the history, politics and use of words surrounding the north of ireland and the role of England and the British state are all extremely hot issues to some Irish people and that a number of Irish Republicans in particular would have very strong views about that, as would some or many protestants living in what they see as the UK. However, I think what you need to realise is that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and as such tries to reflect commonly accepted usages and terms that people around the world would quickly identify. There is no doubt in the minds of contributors over some years to these articles that most of the world uses "UK" and phrases like "Britain" interchangeably. Now we all accept that you and many other Irish Republicans have very strong views that this is not acceptable, and indeed these views do have a place on Wikipedia in getting both mentioned and discussed, and many think they are. However the basic introductory text that you are repeatedly trying to change is not intended to give a full and final political description of the makeup and political relationships of the UK, Ireland, Northern Ireland, England or Ireland/Eire, but simply to show common usages of the terms, to help most users from around the world understand which page they are on. I realise this won't mollify you politically, and it isn't intended to, but I am trying to explain (as incidentally a US citizen, so no axe to grind I hope!) how Wikipedia sees pages like this to give you a better feel for where comment sits and common usage. Thanks for your comments. MarkThomas 08:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that using something due to the prevailing popular culture can be translated as hard fact. Anyone who read this article in its current form would think that the use of "Britain" to describe the UK is synonymous with "the UK", which is quite definitely is not. I personally would want it removed, but at the very least I think it should be clarified better - it is not a synonymous term. DJR (T) 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this viewpoint of Djr; how about it being phrased as follows?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (incorrectly) Britain) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be erroneous. The term "Britain" to refer to the UK is not incorrect; it is simply an abbreviation. Mucky Duck 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No The term "Britain" to refer to the UK is incorrect as the UK includes Northern Ireland. You would not expect an encyclopaedia to include mistakes even common ones! -- Chris Q 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a mistake nor is it incorrect. Britain is a de facto informal form of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland used by native academics, media and politicians alike. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"The UK includes Northern Ireland" - As does Britain in its political sense, and Ireland in its geographical one. Mucky Duck 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here are some encyclopaedia references:

1. Columbia
2. Encarta
3. Britannica

Mucky Duck 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I was under the strong impression that technically the US (and others?) appointed their ambassador to the "Court of St. James" or something similar. Correct me if I'm worng however. Badgerpatrol 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - the current US ambassador to the "UK / Britain" (!) says (according to the US embassy website 1) "Robert Holmes Tuttle is U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's". Not sure if this is in any way relevant to our discussion though - it's just an old formula going back to medieval times. MarkThomas 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See El Gringo's initial post.... Badgerpatrol 13:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo is right. Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland. Any popular usage of Britain to include a part of Ireland should be flagged as inaccurate.--Shtove 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

People from Northern Ireland are British citizens and can apply for British passports. Unlike the patently incorrect use of "England" to refer to the UK, Great Britain is an acceptable short-form version of the UK's full name - by which it is known in the Olympic Games, international rugby league, etc - and the ISO codes for the UK are GBR and GB, not UK. If Great Britain is synonymous with UK and Britain is short for GB then it is clear that it can also mean the UK. Historians and political scientists use Britain to mean the UK, but they would not use "England" to mean the UK. Yorkshire Phoenix 07:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"British passport" is (unfortunately for your line of argument Yorkshire Pheonix) just another "popular usage" - the passport is officially known as being the passport of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". MarkThomas 08:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

British citizen, however, is the legal term. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People born in Northern Ireland are subjects of the Queen of Ireland, and their passports are issued under the authority of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Your use of the term British is an example of Begging the question: the premise assumes the very thing sought to be proven in the conclusion.--Shtove 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they are the subjects of Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Irish crown was only treated separately before 1801 and from 1927 to 1953. The passport example has been dealt with, but the legal status of thier citizenship remains British citizen. Yorkshire Phoenix 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the statement "Britain is Britain, Ireland is Ireland". Both of these terms have two separate and different meanings - a geographical one and a political one - and in neither case does the political entity correspond exactly with the geographical one.

With regard to El Gringo's diatribe; Britain (the UK) makes no claim over any of the territory of Ireland (the RoI). The reverse, although watered down recently, is not true. Mucky Duck 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just been made aware of this debate, I have to say that I agree with Mr Gringo on this one specific issue - namely, that in wide international usage, "England" is indeed synonymous with the UK. Here in the British Isles most people would probably baulk at such a usage, but the fact remains that for the majority of English speakers in the world such a usage would be unexeptional. When they use it, however, I doubt if they are thinking of boundaries and such like, and so whereas they do use "England" as a synonym for the British state, they probably - if they thought about it - would not include Northern Ireland or even Scotland in with that. And in a sense, they are not wrong - England makes up 83% of the UK population and dominates it completely. But in any case, if we are talking about usage, then "England" is undoubtedly widely used to mean the UK. TharkunColl 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right TharkunColl about the very common confusion (yet again I have to remind: hugely elaborated on the somewhat confusing-and-in-need-of-further-work British Isles (terminology) page) over the use of England to mean the UK. Yet I think the base definition at the top of the key page should not repeat this very deep confusion if at all possible. Clearly, England is not the UK. Neither actually is Britain, but that is less clear. The word "England" to mean "the UK" is most commonly confused in the US. Perhaps we need a special page for US'ers? But seriously, do we have to account for every widespread confusion, do we try to set people right, or do we just use (and I go with this one) the _most common_ usages and the rest can go hang? Especially since we are (attempting) to explain the confusions properly on another page? You do have a point, but how do we use that in the context of the introduction in the light of writing an Encyclopedia for everyone, not just confused Americans? MarkThomas 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You won't hear historians, academics or politicians referring to the UK as England. They do, however, refer to it as Britain: this is informal usage, not incorrect usage. Gsd2000 11:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mucky Duck, Northern Ireland is certainly not Part of GREAT Britain, however Britain is not the same thing as GREAT Britain. Britain is used to refer to the UK by the media, governments and the common people alike. Britain has been used interchangably with the UK for so many years and it is commonplace all around the World, and in all nations and regions of the UK, but not necessarily by all people of course. Marky-Son 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

however Britain is not the same thing as GREAT Britain. Er, since when? Go on, tell all of us Irish that Conamara, West Cork, Kerry, Donegal and the lot were part of "Britain" until the 6th December 1922 at 2.45pm when the Butcher's Apron was, after 121 years, removed from Dublin Castle. Because that is precisely what you are saying is the case in 2006 about Derry, South Armagh, West Tyrone etc in this article. Intellectually, historically and politically it is quite simply a lie to equate Britain with the UK. Edward Said had it so, so, sooooooooooooo right when he observed that one of the central impulses of colonial powers is to control the representation of the native and his world. If this article were to be accurate, it would point out clearly, unequivocally and impartially, just as the Netherlands article does on the Holland issue, that Britain is an incorrect name for the UK. All attempts at putting that fact into this article have been resisted by people who are really raging more against multicultural Britain than us Paddies (in fact, nowadays even the white (?) Paddies would be welcome!) The source for this fact is the very basis in British law- your own law- of the modern British state in Ireland, the Act of Union 1800, which explicitly makes the distinction between Britain and Ireland. It is sheer rightwing pov which is trying to now, in 2006, equate Britain with the UK without flagging the fact that this is incorrect usage in the same way as using the common Holland for the Netherlands is. Wikipedia is discredited by this politically inspired crap from British nationalists. El Gringo 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Although some of the above by El Gringo 21:42 5-9-06 is complete rant and assumption of all kinds of malice and bias on the part of WP editors and therefore against various Wikipedia policies, deep breath, nevertheless.... there is a good point in there about Holland. To quote from the Netherlands article intro:

"The Netherlands is often referred to by the name Holland. This is not terminologically precise, since the provinces of North and South Holland in the western Netherlands are only two of the country's twelve provinces. (For more on this and other naming issues see Netherlands (terminology).)"

I wonder if we shouldn't be using the phrasing I've already suggested, eg:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (incorrectly) Britain) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with MT, and with El Gringo (despite the ranting). All that's being asked for is a flagging of the use of British to mean the UK as inaccurate (my preference over incorrect). The only objections I see are the weaselly one about abbreviation, and the geographical/political distinction (which has been twisted to opposite ends on Talk:British Isles). Let's all retire to Talk:Adolf Hitler, where the atmosphere is so much healthier.--Shtove 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Thomas...your suggested wording is "the UK or (incorrectly) Britain", I think incorrectly is too strong a word. The Netherlands/Holland article uses not terminologically precise, which I think would be more appropriate. Marky-Son 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the strength or POVity of my phrasing, OK, how about this everyone? (User El Gringo, please do comment but please also try to remember we are all basically well-meaning around here)...

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (inexactly) Britain) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept 'not terminologically precise' as a very euphemistic compromise, with an explanation in a similar vein to that which exists regarding Holland in the Netherlands article. El Gringo 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not that the term "Britain" can be used to mean "the UK", but that the article in its current form does not make it clear that the term is not formal usage. It is fine to say that "Britain" is used to mean the UK, but as an encyclopedic article, it should not encourage or dress up informal labels as formal. DJR (T) 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to qualify this at all, "informally" is a better compromise than "inaccurately". As noted above in the previous discussion cycle, it would be contrary to the Oxford English Dictionary to mark it as "inaccurate". We should not be in the business of contradicting the OED. Gsd2000 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest debatably, but informally seems like the best option. Marky-Son 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. To say the UK is the same as Britain is quite simply factually incorrect and saying it is merely 'informal' does not address the correctness, precision, or accuracy of equating the UK with Britain. We are talking apples and oranges. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias deal in facts, regardless of how unpalatable some of them are. El Gringo 23:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but who exactly are the "OED", and why shouldn't they be contradicted? Are they a reliable source? DJR (T) 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary, which as our own page on it says, "generally regarded as the most comprehensive, accurate, and scholarly dictionary of the English language". I would be very impressed if one could make such a statement about El Gringo. One cannot work out the meaning of a word from first principles - a word's meaning cannot be known a priori. Dictionaries are the closest thing we have to an absolute frame of reference for language. Gsd2000 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000: Very impressive. Having vandalised my page in the most obnoxiously pompous way possible, claiming I was making personal insults, you then make another personal attack on me. You should be ashamed of yourself! (blah, blah, blah- hang on while I, like you, revert to ten years of age and find a few threats....) When it comes to Ireland I have more precision about the mentality of your ilk than you could ever imagine. El Gringo 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks [1] you are making on your fellow British contributors. You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension, the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. Quite frankly, I couldn't give two monkeys whether Northern Ireland is part of the UK or the Republic of Ireland. Whatever makes the people there happy is fine by me. Gsd2000 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1) A little light hearted humour on my part does not equate to the attacks..... Oh well, I suppose it must be grand then if you say so. 2)You are absolutely not helping your argument by being so belligerent and quite frankly, racist. Please, name the race in question. Thank you. 3) Although this seems to be beyond your comprehension. There is sea between Ireland and Britain. When it comes to what is, and is not, Britain the rest is not exactly rocket science. So I'm sure you'll forgive me if I refuse to take a lecture on comprehension abilities from your fine self. 4) the entire population of the United Kingdom is not an ardent imperialist who wishes to permanently subvert or insult your countrymen. Judging solely on your Irish-related edits to date, you're no Tony Benn or Ken Loach, so get over yourself quickly. The lovely Mrs Thatcher comes more to mind. In other words, the "entire population" of Britain has nothing to do with your mentality. 5) When a British person says the word "Britain" it is not political point scoring or a backhanded insult. It is precisely that when they are deliberately using it to refer to a part of Ireland, and rejecting all attempts at incorporating the imprecision of the name into this article. Then, it has everything to do with their national narrative, and nothing to do with transmitting factual information through an online encyclopedia. El Gringo 01:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the older section on this page, I made a point about the Holland issue, which seems worthy of repetition because (1) because it speaks to the fundamental point that what human beings choose to call a thing is up to human beings and not some external constant/reality (and this point must be grasped and considered before the argument can progress), (2) it addresses this issue of inserting such words as "inexactly" and "inaccurately", and (3) it addresses this England = Britain = Great Britain = the U.K. issue. I'll leave in some of the wording that was originally in response to a specific editor's post; bits in quotation marks are quotes from that user's post:

A fact is that many people do use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.; a fact is that many people (though probably fewer than those who use Britain as an exact synonym of the U.K.) do use England as an exact synonym of Great Britain and the U.K. (though this seems less common than it used to be); and a fact is that many people do use Holland as an exact synonym of the Netherlands. Just as much as it's a fact that, by certain standards and among certain persons and in certain contexts, this synonymy is false, it is a fact that this synonym exists by other standards, among other persons, in other contexts. If x is sometimes used by some persons as an exact synonym for y, then it's just plain false to say, without further qualification, that "any suggestion that [x and y] can be used synonymously is simply wrong". Denying a fact that is not only theoretically possible but is also true in the real world is simply silly. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting facts. You say it's "completely wrong" to say that the Netherlands are "also known as Holland". Yet the gist of your post indicates that you do understand that some people do know the Netherlands as Holland—so you do know that it is true, not false, to say that the Netherlands are also known as Holland. What things are known as in the human world is governed by human beings, not by some external constant. If some people know London as Londres, then London is also known as Londres. You can qualify this by saying "although this isn't the English name of the place"; but it is not wrong to say that people also know London as Londres.

You've sailed right by the point: A fact is that use of the term Britain to describe the UK is inaccurate. WP is not in the business of reporting fact or establishing truth: it is here to set out the sum of knowledge according to reliable and verifiable sources.--Shtove 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not inaccurate, many disagree with you. There is a pretty reliable source in the form on the Oxford English Dictionary, now where is your source to prove it wrong? Marky-Son 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept WP criteria on reliable sourcing - to this end, the OED is impeccable. But the OED definition doesn't address the accuracy of the term.--Shtove 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point about the England issue and whether it's a good point of comparison for the Britain issue is that the U.K. is much less often called England than the U.K. is called Britain. I also should point out that—although, in some contexts, Great Britain is an island, not a political entity—there are many, many instances in which Great Britain is indeed used as a synonym for the U.K.

Some plain facts are (1) that England, Britain, and Great Britain are all used as synonyms for the U.K., (2) that some of those usages are sometimes objectionable to certain persons and/or in certain contexts, (3) that those usages can be imprecise if the participants in a discussion haven't agreed on their distinct meanings, and (4) that those usages can be precise, exact, accurate, if the participants in the discussion agree on them (e.g., if two persons are talking together and understand that, whenever either of them says "England", all of the U.K. and all of the Republic of Ireland is meant, then, in that conversation, for those speakers, England has that exact meaning—it may be not the same meaning that it has in other conversations, and others overhearing the conversation may object strongly, but it is still an exact, precise, accurate meaning for those two speakers).

What can/should Wikipedia do? Report all of these facts, and report details about the history of the terms and the political and personal significance attached to them, citing appropriate sources.

Is every place in which it's appropriate to report one or more facts also the place for digging down into the details of the matter (e.g., in what context a term is imprecise or inaccurate, and in what context it's not)? No. The opening of this article is a place in which to report that the U.K. is often called Britain. I think there is also a case, though perhaps slightly weaker, for reporting in the opening that the U.K. is sometimes called Great Britain. And there is some kind of case, though I think it even weaker, for reporting in the opening that the U.K. is sometimes called England. — Is the opening of this article the appropriate place for describing the details of different viewpoints and debates about terminology? No. — Is it a place for having a footnote or a brief link to a section or article that does get into the terminology details? Yes. — Is the opening of this article a place for reporting, in addition to the 'non-U.K.' names for the U.K., that the U.K. is made up of England, Scotland, and Wales, all on the island of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland? Sure.

President Lethe 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with many of your points President Lethe, not quite clear in the final analysis what you are suggesting though, perhaps if you post your own version of my proposal? (GSD2000 / El Gringo - please refrain from any more pointless political/national point scoring - Wikipedia is not a political, religious, racial or inter-national conflict resolution service) - here are two versions of my proposal. Please suggest more if you think others would be better. Then people can say which one they think is best. I think the first is best. One thing to note is that Wikipedia is interested on the whole in official and widely accepted definitions, and also in reporting facts, including facts about perceived conflicts of interpretation and international controversies. The references given and links in the page do give people abundant opportunities to go to additional pages where issues like the history, role, extensivity and name of the political forces and peoples of the islands of Britain and Ireland are extensively discussed.

Excuse me, MarkThomas, can you please point out where I am political/national point scoring? For the second time (you were not part of the first debate) I am trying to get this resolved without resorting to that. Gsd2000 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (sometimes, inexactly) Britain) is a country, etc.... ??

(2) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or (imprecisely) Britain) is a country, etc.... ?? MarkThomas 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should match the Dutch example much closer than that. My proposed wording would be along the lines of the following.

“ The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK) is a country ... The United Kingdom is often referred to by the name Great Britain and thus shortened to Britain. This is not terminologically precise, since the definition United Kingdom has been used to define Great Britain and either Ireland or Northern Ireland since 1801. ”

But the Dutch case is not the same. Holland is a (historical) province of the Netherlands - unlike "Britain" it is not an abbreviation of the official name. The use of Holland for the Netherlands is akin to the use of "England" to refer to the "UK" and, although for fairly obvous reasons they are less sensitive about it, this developed in the the same sort of way - Holland was the dominant Dutch province in the same way that England was the dominant British power. The term "Britain" is much more analogous to, for example, the term "America" for the USA. It is not incorrect and is only "imprecise" in the sense that any abbreviation is. Mucky Duck 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy the America analogy, because there is no state in the USA called America; there is a state in the UK called Britain. In that sense, the Netherlands/Holland analogy is exact.--Shtove 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither is there a state in the UK called Britain. Geographically here exists an island called Great Britain just as there exists a continent called North America. There exists a political unit - the UK, informally called Britain just as there exists a political unit - the USA, informally called America. The only difference is that in the American case the geographical unit is larger than the political one. Mucky Duck 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a state in the UK called Britain - it was unified under the crown in 1603.--Shtove 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with my above proposal, though? Yorkshire Phoenix 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I was trying to put over was that the use of the Dutch example as a model is inappropriate. But though I prefer your wording to the other examples it still overstresses a self evident point: That an abbreviation is imprecise. To be consistent we should say the same about "UK" and United Kingdom" (UK could mean University of Kansas, United Kingdom could mean the Netherlands in the early 19th Century, for example). Or the USA when we mean the United States of America, or "France" when we mean the French Republic. Labouring the point just for "Britain" actually puts a spin on it. Mucky Duck 11:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Imprecise: no, as Mucky Duck says, any abbreviation is imprecise because it has information stripped out of it.
• Inexact: no, the speaker/writer is using it to refer exactly to the UK. The concept is an exact one.
• Incorrect: no, it is a widespread term, and anyway the OED deems it correct in a political context
• Informal: yes, it would not be used in legal documents, but it is used every day the world over to mean the UK. The Number 10 website [2] uses this term too: "On this site the term Britain is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Furthermore, it removes the sting to those who have strong views on Anglo-Irish issues because it is not making a political or historical statement, it is merely making a statement about informal usage. Gsd2000 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "informal" is the cleanest option, as it provides a better qualification for the term "Britain" than what is currently illustrated. Thus I would propose the following:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK; or informally Britain) is a country and sovereign state which lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe.

I believe using wording along these lines provides a good compromise between focussing on formally correct information whilst acknowledging the prevailing usage in international popular culture. DJR (T) 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The qualification has to be inaccurate or imprecise:

• Britain is not an abbreviation - it's a part that stands for the whole, like Holland for the Dutch Republic/Netherlands, or Russia for the USSR. USA is an acronym. France is coterminous with French Republic.
• It doesn't matter what the user takes the term to mean - only what the term means. And Britain does not mean UK.
• Incorrect is debatable.
• Informal is out, because it implies accuracy.--Shtove 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Several adjectives—imprecise, inexact, inaccurate, incorrect, and informal—are indeed applicable to this issue in certain contexts.

1. We can treat inexact and imprecise as synonyms. They both mean basically that the word is more vague than it could/should be. (But imprecision is more often about using the name of a larger set when we could be digging down to a smaller set: e.g., saying "I visited the U.S. in 2005" when we could be so specific as to say "I visited Florida in April 2005"—or saying "The main islands of the U.K. are in the Atlantic Ocean" when we could be so specific as to say "The main islands of the U.K. are in the North Atlantic Ocean".) There are contexts in which, because of some human beings' expectations, a use of Britain (or England or Great Britain) to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be inexact/imprecise, ambiguous. There are also contexts in which such usage is not inexact/imprecise.

2. We can treat inaccurate and incorrect as synonyms. Example of inaccuracy: "The main islands of the U.K. are in the South Pacific Ocean". There are contexts in which, because of some human beings' expectations, using Britain (or England or Great Britain) to mean the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be inaccurate/incorrect—i.e., just plain wrong. There are also contexts in which such usage is not inaccurate/incorrect.

3. Then we get to (in)formality. This issue is spread out so much over a broad spectrum, with many divisions and sometimes blurry borders, that we can't simply say that one usage is formal and another is informal. One option is to say something like "with varying degrees of formality" (instead of "informally")—but some may see this as bogging down the sentence. The intro sentence to "United States" once listed other names for the country with the blurb about varying degrees of formality; but it was decided that the article's first sentence, while it was the place for listing the most common names of the country, was not the place for pointing out the existence of controversy or subtleties of formality, precision, and accuracy.

So, I advocate reporting, in the very first sentence, the names by which the U.K. is often called (though excluding plain slang, like Limey Land or whatever). A little later in the article intro (this may still be the very first sentence or paragraph, or it may not), report that the four main parts of the U.K. are England, Scotland, and Wales, all on the island of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, on the island that's shared with the Republic of Ireland. And then that would be the point at which to introduce a simple superscript (or other small) link to a section or article that goes into more detail about names, precision, formality, controversy.

President Lethe 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Britain is not an abbreviation - it's a part that stands for the whole, like Holland for the Dutch Republic/Netherlands, or Russia for the USSR."

No, Britain, in a political context, is the whole - there is no component called "Britain". If you were talking about the use of "England" to mean the UK then you would be correct.

"USA is an acronym."

Quite true and exactly equvalent to "UK". The term "America" is equivalent to "Britain".

"France is coterminous with French Republic"

Only if you are referring to the French Republic. If you are talking about the geographical area know as France then they are certainly not coterminous. Mucky Duck 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

England to mean the UK is a red herring. Britain to mean the UK is plainly inaccurate. The OED doesn't address the matter of accuracy, and the slippery debate about political context (ugh!) just confuses what is a matter of plain speaking. The use of informally is the work of weasels (in a WP context, you understand).--Shtove 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "slippery" about referring to the political context and it is disingenuous to attempt to rubbish the argument by suggesting there is. There are two distinct meanings of "Britain" depending on context - the political one where it refers to the UK and the (admittedly less common) geographical one where it refers to the island of Great Britain. This is exactly analogous to both "America" and "France" where the term also means quite different things in political and geographical contexts. And there is nothing inaccurate about either meaning. Mucky Duck 08:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have quite a good working possibility from DJR:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK; or informally Britain) is a country and sovereign state which lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe.

Can we now say if we favour this?

I have moved the vote to a new section below, Talk:United_Kingdom#Straw_Poll_On_Suggestion_To_Qualify_Shortening_Of_UKoGBaNI_To_.22Britain.22_With_.22Informally.22. Gsd2000 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Above, Shtove said that the OED’s entry doesn't address the accuracy of the term. This is because the OED is designed to be 'entirely' accurate. What I mean is that any definition given in the OED is there because, in some context or another, it's accurate. This is why, although the literal, concrete botanical fruit definition of apple isn't the same as the figurative use of apple in, say, apple of my eye, both definitions are there—but a denotation that describes apple as a kind of 7-legged bird isn't in the OED (because, in probably no form of Standard English does apple have such a meaning). When OED lists a meaning next to a word, it means that, in some context, that is the accurate meaning of the word.

(The England issue is not a red herring. This is a real matter in the real world. I know of formal school curricula in the English-speaking world that say (or have said, not many years ago) that Great Britain is another name for England (sic); and there is a routine by two famous comedians in which one character, hearing the name Wales, thinks of whales—and then is given the clarification that "Wales is part of England" (and the only joke is about the sea mammals, not about the idea that "England" encompasses Wales—and, no, there was no political agenda behind this routine).)

Gsd2000, the CIA World Factbook, which you linked above, does not "empirically verify" that Britain "is not the UK's formal name". That passage, in full, says

conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; note - Great Britain includes England, Scotland, and Wales

conventional short form: United Kingdom

abbreviation: UK

Mentioning one very formal name of the U.K. does no more to remove all possibility of other names' having some formality than saying "A patient in this hospital is named Alex" does to remove all possibility that "A patient in this hospital is named Sam" is also true.

But I do agree with you, Gsd2000, that the Times, Visit Britain, and Amazon links do verify that the U.K. is also known as Britain. This does, however, get us back to the matter of formality. I can think of loads of uses of English in the world that are much, much, much less formal than the usage employed by The Times, Visit Britain, and The Oxford History of Britain. While these sources may be less formal than, say, a prepared speech delivered by the Queen, or a law drafted in Parliament, they certainly have some degree of formality. Again, it's the degrees of formality. I still think we should either insert the bit about varying degrees of (in)formality (which may be obtrusive) or take no stance on the matter (formality, accuracy, precision, controversy) until we're in a paragraph that can afford to spend more words on it.

President Lethe 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if I understand your argument about formaltiy here, nor following your logic about the CIA factbook. States only have 1 formal name - the USA is only called 'The United States of America' - that is its formal name. In this case, the word formal is being used to mean 'official' or 'legal'. That calling the UK 'Britian' is more formal than calling it 'Blighty' or 'The home of Kieth Chegwin' is irrelevant here I think. We're not attempting to list every single name given to the UK, just the ones that users would commonly hear. --Robdurbar 19:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The logic about the Factbook seems to hinge on your and my different definitions of formality and legality. To me, the language used in most part of most news articles (opinion pieces may be a different matter) in mainstream newspapers is formal. I don't think that every name for a country that isn't written down in a law as its longest official name is automatically informal. (If formal just meant the same thing as according to law, then would we call all other names illegal or outside the law or but not by law?) To me, usage found throughout an Oxford University Press reference work is formal. If others here view formality differently, I can accept that (in a strange way). When the very first noun used to name the U.K. at the website of the British embassy to the U.S. is Britain, I take it as formal. (And Sir David Manning's greeting at that website doesn't even get to UK until after it says British three times and BritainUSA.com once. Then, after the first use of UK, there's a Britain and a British. After that comes, finally, a United Kingdom, and then three more UKs, before there's another mention of the website's name.) I consider this a kind of formality—and not just because it's a slight step above Blighty, but because it's the written text with which the British ambassador chooses to greet visitors to the website of his embassy, text that appears next to a formal portrait of him and very near the Royal coat of arms. So, the way I view the (in)formality, we would have to qualify a statement that Britain is an informal (or at least not a formal) name of the U.K. But at least some others seem to have a different idea of it—which, though I don't agree with it, I accept. — President Lethe 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, the OED is accurate in its assessment that Britain is used to refer to the UK. But that says nothing about the accuracy of referring to the UK by the term Britain. Where's El Gringo when you need him?--Shtove 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your point about who is using it and that it may not necessairily be more informal (in the sense of formality) than, say, the 'U.K.' I think you touch upon it when you say that the word informal has been chosen, when the actual meaning is 'unofficial' or undefinied. I think informal should be used unless we can get a better word - 'roughly'? Robdurbar 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting too bogged down in semantics though. The point of "informal" is just to mean that the formal, legal name is not "Britain", just like "Man U" is an informal, commonplace abbreviation of "Manchester United Football Club". Gsd2000 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, All.

While warming some rice, I hit on something that may satisfy many editors here. I'll explain it.

At the moment, just before the body of the article is a note reading "For an explanation of these and terms such as Great Britain, Britain, British, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, see British Isles (terminology)."

The first two paragraphs of the body are

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a country and sovereign state that lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe. Its territory and population are primarily situated on the island of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland, with settlements on numerous smaller islands in the surrounding seas. The United Kingdom is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and its ancillary bodies of water, including the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea. On Ireland, Northern Ireland has a land border with the Republic of Ireland to the south.

The United Kingdom is a political union made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom also has several overseas territories, including Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, while possessions of the Crown and part of the British Isles, are not part of the United Kingdom. A constitutional monarchy, the United Kingdom has close relationships with fifteen other Commonwealth Realms that share the same monarch — Queen Elizabeth II — as head of state.

I personally think that the details of the surrounding seas should be moved to the second paragraph, and that the mention of the four constituent countries should be moved to the first paragraph. The rest of my proposal is based on the idea that the first paragraph gives the names of the four constituent countries.

This discussion most recently has been about six names:

1. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

2. the United Kingdom

3. the U.K.

4. Great Britain

5. England

6. Britain

We have been discussing which of those names to list in the opening sentence, and how to describe the use of those names.

It is agreed that Name 1 should be very near the beginning of the sentence.

It is agreed that Name 2 should appear close by, as an obvious shortening of Name 1.

It is agreed that Name 3 should also appear close by, as an obvious shortening of Name 2.

Now we come to Name 4. While it is true that many human beings mean the whole U.K. when they (with varying formality, &c.) say "Great Britain", we probably don't need to mention this explicitly as another possible name for the U.K.—because it already appears in Name 1, and just about any previously uninformed reader will probably think "Aha. That explains why I sometimes hear United Kingdom as another name for Great Britain [or vice versa]." In addition to not mentioning that this is another name by which the U.K. is sometimes called, we also don't need to explain that, in other contexts, Great Britain means something different—because, soon enough, in the same paragraph, we reveal that Great Britain is the name of the island.

Name 5. While it is true that some human beings mean the whole U.K. when they say "England", we don't need to offer this explicitly as another name for the U.K.—because the info about the four constituent countries is nearby. (I prefer they be mentioned in the first paragraph.) This should lead to a similar "Aha" moment, of "So that's why I often hear U.K. when I think of the place I call England. Ohhh, and really England is only a part of the U.K."

Name 6. Britain. The one that we keep discussing. We have agreed to include it, but haven't agreed on how to point out some problems with the use of this name. Besides the emotional, political, historical stresses underlying this issue, we have argued about how to talk about this term's (in)accuracy, its (im)precision, its (in)exactness, its (in)correctness, and its (in)formality. This term is controversial. Its accuracy/correctness is controversial. Its precision/exactness is controversial. Its formality is controversial. So, though we may not all (or always) agree that the term is sometimes inaccurate and sometimes accurate, or sometimes precise and sometimes imprecise, or sometimes more formal and sometimes more informal, we can all agree that the term is controversial.

So how about something like

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (often shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, and (sometimes controversially) Britain) is a country and sovereign state that lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe. The territory and populations of its four constituent countries—England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—are situated primarily on the island of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland, with settlements on numerous smaller islands in the surrounding seas. The United Kingdom is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and its ancillary bodies of water, including the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea. On Ireland, Northern Ireland has a land border with the Republic of Ireland to the south.

("controversially" is a link to "British Isles (terminology)".)

Maybe that's not the exact best structure for the whole paragraph (for example, I personally don't like the fact that one sentence has some words, then "island", then six words, then "Ireland", then two words, then "island", then one word, then "Ireland", then five words, and then "islands"). But I think "controversially" is a more agreeable term to use about the Britain usage—and I just really think that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales deserve mention in the first paragraph. I think most people around the world, asked to give defining characteristics of the U.K., would bring up the constituent countries sooner than they would the the Celtic, Irish, and North Seas and the English Channel.

So, how about "sometimes controversially" (which is broad enough to cover all three issues: accuracy, precision, and formality)?

President Lethe 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this. Who says it's controversial? Just because the WP editors can't agree doesn't make it controversial. Gringo's emotive rants don't make it controversial either. I provided several pieces of evidence that "Britain" is commonly used informally (even in the Irish press!), noone has provided any evidence (apart from heresay and generalisations, e.g. "noone in Ireland thinks so") to demonstrate that this is in fact controversial. Gsd2000 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lethe - your analysis much appreciated. Although inaccurate is my preferred term, controversially - linking to the terminology page - seems OK (but without the sometimes qualification). Thank you (in Cornish).--Shtove 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, having thought more about it, I agree with you: "sometimes" is unnecessary. Something that is controversial is, by definition, agreed on in one way (uncontroversial) within one camp (even if the camp has only one member), and agreed on in a different way (uncontroversial) in another camp—and the controversy arises when the two camps meet. So the 'sometimes-ness' is inherent in "controversially". — President Lethe 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shtove - please provide empirically verifiable evidence for the controversiality, beyond this talk page debate. For example, the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a controversial issue, I can verify this outside of a WP talk page: [3] I can find so many instances of the Irish press referring to "Britain" [4] that I simply fail to believe it is controversial for the majority in Ireland. It is certainly uncontroversial for the British, Canadians, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and the rest of the English speaking world. Gsd2000 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for inaccurate, because that correctly qualifies use of the term in this article - Britain and Ireland are distinct and separate in my literal mind. But I'm not rigid, and controversially seems OK as a compromise - at least it links the reader to the debate. What is this airy-fairiness of "Britain in a political context"? Where are the reliable, verifiable sources for this? Oops, of course - they're all over the place: in the military-industrial-fashion-TV listings complex called Fleet Street/News International Corp. Stop reading newspapers. I thank you.--Shtove 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, I'm a bit surprised and baffled by your ideas of controversy. Something that is controversial is the subject of "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion"; something controversial is the subject of "contention, strife, or argument". Just by arguing about it here, we've made it controversial. This is one point for which no external citation is necessary. Saying it's not controversial right in the middle of a dispute about it would be as silly as writing "Blibdabblinglordinalistically is a word that has never been written". You also seem to acknowledge that, although you think the term is "uncontroversial for the British, Canadians, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and the rest of the English speaking world", it could be controversial for a minority in Ireland. Once something is controversial for even one tiny segment of the human population, the thing can be called controversial. I've even suggested the qualifier "sometimes". Still, if you want some other sources, search [http://www.amren.com/0506issue/0506issue.html this page] for "the term Britain". BBC personnel actively selected the comments posted at this page, which has plenty of evidence of controversy about, among other things, the term Britain. I myself do sometimes use the word Britain to describe the whole U.K., and I'm perfectly ready to admit that it's sometimes a controversial usage, and I'm not Irish. See the second paragraph under "6pm" near the top of this page, a House of Commons debate. And this written evidence in the Select Committee on Public Administration. &c. — President Lethe 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These are very weak examples you have provided, very weak indeed. There is absolutely no indication that [http://www.amren.com/0506issue/0506issue.html] is referring to the Britain v Ireland issue (and who is "Bruno Gheerbrant" anyway?); I fail to see which of the comments in [5] is about Britain v Ireland; [6] makes no explanation why Britain should be removed; the only link you provided that does so is [7] which relates to a formal honour, so quite rightly it should use the formal name of UK. We are talking about informal usage here. Besides, the author's concern is for those in N. Ireland that might feel excluded, not those in Ireland that feel it is British political aggression. Gsd2000 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is looking to remove the term Britain - only to qualify its usage. We're not talking about informal usage here - we're talking about accuracy. And Bruno Gheerbrant is a Dutch transvestite (35-28-42; Gemini) who enjoys the British pastime of croquet, but doesn't realise it's a French game invented in Ireland.--Shtove 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My "removal" comment refers to the irrelevancy of Lethe's link [8] which talks of "getting rid of the word Britain" (for an unspecified reason), rather than what we intend to do on this page. Gsd2000 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Are you the real Bruno Gheerbrant?--Shtove 02:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about Britain as a synonym for the U.K. doesn't have to be related only to the British vs. Irish issue. It also doesn't exist only among some people in Ireland. I stand by my assertion that using Britain to mean the whole U.K. is sometimes controversial and that this Talk page is, itself, sufficient evidence of the controversy.

Anyway, we can find evidence of controversy about Britain as a synonym for the U.K. from as far back as Victorian times and from as recently as the 2000s.

On pages 262–263 of Memories and Thoughts: Men—Books—Cities—Art (New York and London, Macmillan, 1906), Frederic Harrison writes

Ever since the Union of Ireland, through the whole of this century, the use of the style "Britain" to describe the United Kingdom has been a misnomer. It has been bad in law, false in history, unjust to one of the three nations, and utterly anomalous in any point of view. Scots have insisted on it, because it gratifies Scotch pride and snubs Irish pride. It is a real offence in a politician, whether he be Home-Ruler or Unionist, to allow Scotch pawkiness to jockey both England and Ireland out of the running. One cannot say whether Home-Rulers or Unionists are the greater sinners against their own principles, when they use the terms "Britain" and "Britons," though they mean the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all the subjects of Her Majesty. "Britain," which is supposed to include both Wales and Scotland, most distinctly shuts out Ireland; and every time they use the term "Britain" to denote the Three Kingdoms, politicians are giving fresh offence—and just offence—to Irishmen, and justify the claim for a full recognition of Irish nationality. If English Home-Rulers do this, they are plainly minimising the claim of Ireland to be an equal member of the composite State. If Unionists do this, they are treating as a nullity the Act of Union with Ireland. Irishmen may very fairly say—"Whilst politicians, whether Liberal or Conservative, combine to ignore Ireland in speaking of the United Kingdom, we shall continue to cry out that Ireland is treated as a dependency, and not as a constituent part of the Crown!" There is no answer to this. And it is a great deal more than an accident of speech. It is too true that not a few of those who talk about Britain, when they mean the United Kingdom, deliberately choose to give a prerogative vote to England and Scotland. But that Mr. A. J. Balfour, or Mr. John Morley, should talk of "Britain" whent hey mean the Queen's Realm, is enough to make the blood of a patriotic Irishman tingle in his veins.

Pages 24–26 of J. G. A. Pocock's The Discovery of Islands: Essays in British History (Cambridge University Press, 2005):

A. J. P. Taylor's [1965] volume of the Oxford History of England opens—in a way which may or may not have escaped the attention of Scottish reviewers—with a flat and express denial that the term 'Britain' has any meaning. It is, he says, the name of a Roman province, which never included the whole of modern Scotland, and was foisted upon the English by the inhabitants of the northern kingdom as part of the parliamentary union of 1707. Morehover, he continues, the term 'Great Britain'—which properly denotes no more than the Anglo-Scottish union—is non-identical with the term 'United Kingdom', since the latter's scope included the whole of Ireland from 1801 and the dark and bloody rump of that island from 1922. There could be a Plaid Cymru comment on all this, I suppose, and one might also like to hear the views of Orkney and Shetland regionalists who may consider themselves a Norse fragment unsatisfactorily subject to an alien Scots culture. But Taylor's remarks conclude with an announcement that when he has occasion to mention people and things emanating from Scotland—which he clearly implies will be no more often than the exigencies of a history of English compel—he intends to use the adjective 'Scotch', not 'Scots' or 'Scottish', on the grounds that the former is the English word and the latter, though used by Scots to denote themselves, no part of his native vocabulary. Now, as Taylor knows very well, there are parts of the world in which men are killed for less; he is deliverately dabbling in the politics of language and the politics of identity, which are among the more murderous and aggressive pursuits of our murderous and aggressive world, but he clearly exects to get away with it. One finds the same insistence on using 'Scotch' instead of 'Scottish', on grounds which are unmistakably arrogant rather than merely pedantic, in the preface to C. S. Lewis's volume of the Oxford History of English Literature, though Lewis redeemed himself by devoting separate and serious chapters to the history of sixteenth-century Scottish literature, which he saw to be written in an autonomous if disappearing variant of the Inglis tongue. Lewis, after all, was an Ulsterman; but on this occasion he claimed the right to call himself English, not Scottish, and by a name which Scotsmen do not employ in speaking of themselves. Again, this can easily be a killing matter; but—as with the use of the macron vowel in Maori—things have not in fact gone so far. But we all were—were we not?—brought up to understand that it was polite to say 'Scots' and not 'Scotch', since Scotsmen so preferred; just as it used to be polite to call Black Americans 'Negroes'—with a capital N—until the rules of this game were somewhat suddenly changed. One hopes that the word 'Maori' will continue to give satisfaction.

[I've cut out part of the excerpt immediately above. I fear I may have made the page too long for more editors to add to it, at least in some browsers. What I cut out is visible in the history, of course. — President Lethe 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)]

Page 216 of Declan Kiberd's The Irish Writer and the World (Cambridge University Press, 2005):

It was only a matter of time before a play devoted to emptying the word 'Britain' of its residual content was staged. There was a certain inevitability abou tthe fact that this finally came to pass at the National Theatre in London. Howard Brenton's 1980 drama The Romans in Britain implied an equation between the Roman rape of ancient Britain and the contemporary conduct of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Page 32 of Philip Dodd's The Battle over Britain (Demos; not sure of year (Creative Commons)):

It's possible to imagine someone saying, 'Let's start by simply shuffling off British identity' and going on to demand that the four countries are separate out: England, (Northern) Ireland, Scotland, Wales. The attractions of this are obvious and it would at least allow the possibility of recognizing the complexity that lies behind the term Britain. And there are certainly histories that can be called Scottish or Welsh histories that cannot be swallowed up in what has passed for British history and ought not to pass as footnotes to English history—as did Wales in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, where, under the entry Wales, it simply said 'see England'.

Pages 29–30 of Malcolm Payne's and Steven M. Shardlow's Social Work in the British Isles (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London and Philadelphia, 2002):

The special and desirable notions of England were forcefully expressed on 22 March 1993, the eve of Saint George's day, when John Major, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, concluded his speech to Conservative Group for Europe with the now famous words that encapsulate a romanticised rural portrait of his country:

Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on country grounds, warm beer, invinciple green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and—as George Orwell said—'old maids cycling to holy communion through the morning mist'.

No matter that John Major used the word Britain, there is no state of 'Britain', and there is no region within the United Kingdom called 'Britain'. As Mikes (1946), himself a Hungarian, perceptively observed, the English have a historic propensity to confuse or fail to distinguish the country of England, the United Kingdom as a whole or the British Isles. In describing England as he did, John Major was describing an 'England' that is instantly recognisable to the English—even if it does not exist in reality. Moreover, Major's list resonates with similar lists identified by Paxman (1998, p.22) and by writers as diverse as George Orwell (1941 and 1947), Stanley Baldwin (1926), or with the sharply observed commentaries of Bill Bryson (1996). Not a lot has changed, at least in respect of Englishness, since 1946. The English, with a poor sense of 'English identity', still find difficulty in distinguishing the country of England from other countries within the United Kingdom and tend to assume, falsely, that a homogeneity exists across the United Kingdom. In that sense, England and the other parts of the United Kingdom often become synonymous with the English.

These excerpts show emotional, political, historical, and linguistic complexities and objections that people have to the term Britain. Some think the term is fine; others reject it for one or more reasons. Controversy.

I bet Norman Davies, in his The Isles: A History (Oxford University Press, 2000), also addresses the controversy of Britain along with several other place names and demonymic nouns and adjectives; but I don't have access to it right now.

Good night/morning/day, all.

President Lethe 05:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That helps - thanks again to Lethe. It's a slippery fish.--Shtove 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate! I would agree that the introduction is not the place for lengthy discussions about the political connotations of a generally-accepted word in common usage unless that controversy is the focus of the article itself. 'Informally' doesn't seem to properly fit the bill either, as the name 'Britain' is used in formal, or certainly semi-formal, situations. This is essentially a debate about pedantry and semantics, which could be acknowedged in the introduction. Perhaps an addition along the lines of: 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain (although technically the latter refers only to the British mainland))...'? 136.8.152.13 13:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that would not be correct. The word Britain refers to the island only in the geographical context. The political unit "Britain" includes Northern Ireland. It's a mirror image of the case of the word "Ireland" - geographically that refers to the whole island but the political unit does not include Northern Ireland. This isn't a technicality. Mucky Duck 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and personally I feel that the distinction is already clear enough in the article. However, the debate is centred around confusion of Britain (the geographical entity) with Britain (the political entity) and the apparently offensive lack of distinction that some percieve in usage between the two. The fact is that Britain and British are commonly used to refer to the entire UK: we have a British Army, not a United Kingdom Army, and it includes the Northern Irish regiments. In the absence of a lengthy disclaimer, spoiling the flow of the introduction, I would argue for leaving the article as is. BTW 136.8... is me, I just wasn't logged in. EyeSerene 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll On Suggestion To Qualify Shortening Of UKoGBaNI To "Britain" With "Informally"

Proposal: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK; or informally Britain) is a country<ref> [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country], Number 10. Accessed [[29 May]] [[2006]] </ref> and sovereign state which lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe.

• I vote Yes MarkThomas 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• No - Out! Out! Out!, as someone else said - because informally is inaccurate. And this is all about accuracy.--Shtove 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Marky-Son 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. It's not a weasel word, because one can empirically verify that "Britain" is not the UK's formal name [9], but that it is also so used informally to mean the UK. Simply open a newspaper and turn to the "Britain" section [10], turn on the TV and listen to the news, open the Visit Britain website and head over to Northern Ireland [11], or read a book [12]. Gsd2000 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, per Gsd2000. Yorkshire Phoenix 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, I'm sure the article has read similarly before. However, we could still keep the ref linking to British Isles terminology. Robdurbar 19:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Change to no re the various concerns Robdurbar 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. Obviously, saying a name is "informal" does not address, in any manner, the accuracy or otherwise of that name. As such, trying to pass "Britain" off as an "informal" name for the UK is profoundly dishonest. It is only British nationalism which is reaching to equate both. Rational, impartial thinkers wouldn't even attempt to do something so cerebrally challenged. No part of Ireland, be it Derry in 2006 or Glenmalure in 1906 is now, or ever has been, part of Britain. It is abject idiocy, and ultra nationalist British idiocy at that, to claim otherwise. El Gringo 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - obviously I'm gonna support my own proposal. DJR (T) 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia is about accuracy, and this is not a proposal that adds accuracy. Besides, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already has a correct and far more accurate abbreviation that not only follows convention but also is in common usuage - the United Kingdom. Crimsone
• No. Qualify it with "controversially", or leave the qualification to other sections or other articles. — President Lethe 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. No qualification is necessary in this, the first sentence of the article. It puts far too much prominence on what to most people is a minor point. "Controversially" would be still worse. Leave it unqualified; discuss the controversy later/elsewhere. Mucky Duck 10:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes commonly used and accepted term for UKoGBaNI. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "informally" is a compromise solution between the two opposing sides - those that think it is no big deal, and those that think it is a very big deal, so people voting "no" are either voting no because they want no qualification, or they want a stronger one. Should this vote end with the no's winning, then we are back where we started. Perhaps the vote needs to be restarted with the various options laid out, so everyone has to vote for a solution, rather than against a compromise. Gsd2000 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I personally voted 'no' because I think that the current version (with no qualification) is better than having a version that - although I kinda agree with - uses 'informally' because its the best we can come up with, even though we know its wrong. Once this vote has finsihed, your proposal may work. --Robdurbar 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And I voted "No" because I think "controversially" is a better compromise than "informally". In a single word, it takes care of the debate (the controversy) about precision and imprecision, accuracy and inaccuracy, and formality and informality. So my vote is not because I want no qualification, and it's not because I want a "stronger" qualification. I want a single qualification that takes care of the three main issues. The whole fact that not everyone agrees whether it's an inaccurate term speaks to the presence of a controversy—as does the fact that not everyone agrees whether it's an imprecise term—and the fact that not everyone agrees about what counts as formal and what counts as informal. Even the debate about whether there is controversy proves that there is something controversial going on. — President Lethe 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people dislike the term and will argue voluably about it. This does not make it a controversial term. To the majority there is no problem at all. This is not in any way to say that the majority view should be ignored, it should be discussed elsewhere in the article. But to promote it to be the most prominent issue in the article by putting it in the opening sentence is to blow it out of all proportion. This is not the place for any value judgement qualifications - here there should just be a neutral, factual statement as there currently is. Mucky Duck 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we clearly disagree about the meaning of controversially/controversy. And I must say I think the mainstream English dictionary denotations of controversy support the view that this a controversy—just as much as they support the view that Britain is (among other things) another name for the U.K. Saying that something is controversial isn't a value judgement. Saying something is incorrect or wrong or immoral or unethical or inaccurate or imprecise or informal is a value judgement. Anyway, Mucky Ducky, you and I at least partly agree—for I too would accept there being no qualifier about the usage of Britain stuck in the opening sentence. I just think that, if there is a qualifier, the qualifier should be "controversially". — President Lethe 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

American rule = apply generic truths where it supports the USA. Deny them where it suits antiqauted and racist notions of foreign nations. Plus, ignore basic facts. There is no debate, the Irish Republic declares it so - it is (as the Irish Republic freely declares it) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". See the Clause 4 referrendum as voted for by 90% of the Irish electorate. The Irish Republic makes no claim to the Six Counties. No more bullshit, no more "Wiki Consensus", just facts.Iamlondon 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what an "American rule" and "antiqauted and racist notions" have to do with this. All I'm advocating is that either (1) we don't put a qualification next to Britain in the opening, or (2), if we do include a qualification there, it be "controversially". People at this talk page and elsewhere in the world do argue about the appropriateness of Britain as a shorter name of the U.K. Even standard school/college textbooks written, published, and used on the island of Great Britain, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, take the time to clarify their own usage of the word Britain (e.g., whether they use it to mean the single island, whether they use it to mean the entire U.K., or what) specifically because there isn't just one meaning of the word and not everyone who thinks one of its meanings is appropriate does also think the other meanings are appropriate. — President Lethe 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. While British has a formal uses (such as British citizen), I am not aware that Britain does. I think informally Britain is the most accurate we are going to get for a while. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. josh (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Common enough used abreviation (especially in the US)to warrant a mention. Should be made clear though that although it is often used it is not technically correct Mammal4 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. I clearly misread the poll name. The UK is referred to as Britain in a popular sense by North Americans, to my knowledge. But let's put it a simpler way...if you were to ask anyone who lives in the British Isles, "Does 'UK' mean 'Britain' to you, or vice versa?" they would answer, "No". Everyone in this country knows what Britain is, and the difference between that place and the UK. The difference being Northern Ireland. The UK is never informally referred to as Britain by any Europeans I've met. "UK" is just the standard abbreviation. Britain is...well...not the word I've ever seen popularly used as an informal name by anyone other than North Americans.Iamlondon 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sweeping "anyone", "Everyone", "never", and "any Europeans" definitely contradict my experience with very many of the Britons and other Europeans (including ones from Ireland (the Republic), France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Russia, Estonia, &c.) with whom I've talked about the U.K., in addition to Americans, Canadians, Haitians, and others. Just turn on the TV or radio in the U.K. and listen; soon enough, a Briton will call the whole U.K. "Britain". — But there are two other issues to be understood: (1) We're talking about common, non-slang names for the U.K. in the English language, not just in your idea of what all Britons never call the U.K. (2) This poll is not about whether to mention Britain as another name for the U.K. in the opening sentence; it's about whether to include, in that mention, the qualifier "informally". — President Lethe 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Britain by Irish people can be a Shibboleth. So, if referring to the UK, but excluding the 6 counties of northern Ireland, the person betrays a republican/Irish nationalist view, which does not recognise a part of Ireland as part of the UK. If referring to the UK as such (the constitutional state), the person betrays a unionist/loyalist view and is prone to assert that the 26 counties of the south have no business being independent of the UK. Hence the sensitivity and the insistence on qualification of the usage. I think this split is at play here. It makes sense, but must look nuts to an outsider. When it comes to Americans, those conscious of their Irish backgrounds are likely to use it in the former sense too, while the rest are just content to use it to refer to the state without regard to the constitutional miasma that is Norn Iron. Europeans? Probably in the latter American sense, and both states are part of the EU anyway, and life is too short, and why does it rain so much?--Shtove 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Iamlondon claims above that "if you were to ask anyone who lives in the British Isles, "Does 'UK' mean 'Britain' to you, or vice versa?" they would answer, "No". Everyone in this country knows what Britain is, and the difference between that place and the UK.". This statement is definitely untrue. Matt 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

• No. As with Mamma14 above, though while this is in common usage, it is not actually correct or accurate. It is very common in the USA that Americans use the word "England" to describe the United Kingdom. This is equally not correct. Certainly, some reference should be given because of the notability of usage of both the terms "England" and "Britain". The argument is that "Britain" is an informal usage (being that it is part of the full title of the country)". However, nobody uses the phrases "Great", "United", "Northern", "Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" as a shorthand for the UK. Stick to the facts. --Mal 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be that some voters in this section are misunderstanding the question. The question is not whether to list Britain as another name for the U.K. The question is whether to qualify that listing by adding the word informally. — President Lethe 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Britain" belongs in the same place with "England" in a note that tells the reader that these incorrect terms are often used when people mean "UK". Thus my no vote. See Netherlands for how I perceive a correct explaination should be presented. --Mal 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I am happy with calling the usage "informal". If we also wish to say that the UK is also called "England", then I would suggest a stronger qualifier such as "inaccurate". Whilst both "Britain" and "England" are certainly used as synonyms for the UK, it is significant the the former is freely used by the British themselves, but the latter almost never is. TharkunColl 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. 18 votes so far. 11 votes for yes (would be 10 if we assume that IAmLondon really wants something stronger, but he hasn't changed it yet so I am assuming yes for now). Of the 7 no votes, one wants "controversially" and another wants to leave as-is (ie with no qualification). That leaves only 5 no votes, out of 18, that wish to add stronger wording along the lines of inaccuracy or incorrectness, 13 out of 18 do not want stronger wording. This is the second time this debate has flared up, the first time it was resolved until El Gringo reopened it, having already participated in the original debate [13]. We should resolve it once and for all now. The compromise solution of "informally" has the most votes, I suggest we just go with it, leaving the footnote for the meat of the terminology discussion on the British Isles (terminology) page. What do others think? Gsd2000 12:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Two curious points about "British Isles (terminology)", which should and does treat the terminology in much more detail: (1) it has the word "informally" only once (as a qualifier for Britain as a shortening of the name of the island of Great Britain); and (2) where, at the beginning, it mentions the United Kingdom, the U.K., and Britain as shortenings of the full name of the modern political entity, it offers no judgement about accuracy, precision, formality, or even controversy.

Also, by the way, the Encyclopædia Britannica also says that the U.K. is also known as Britain and manages to convey this fact without putting next to it any of these qualifying words we've been discussing.

And, to get back to the Oxford dictionaries for a moment: they readily qualify certain definitions by calling them "colloquial", "informal", "slang", "vulgar slang", "American", "Australian", "obsolescent", "obsolete", &c., and/or by pointing out that the terms tend are technical jargon in certain fields (astronomy, botany, chemistry, economics, &c.)—but the definition of Britain as another name for the U.K. is not given such a qualifier.

President Lethe 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy leaving it as is. "Informally" is supposed to be a compromise solution. Gsd2000 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just Oxford and Britannica that don't offer qualifiers about Britain as another name for the U.K.

Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus (2006), under "United Kingdom", gives many synonyms, some clearly less formal than others, and even has a note ("technically, England is not a country and neither are Scotland or Wales; England and Scotland are kingdoms and Wales is a principality. All occupy Great Britain, the largest island of Europe. Add Northern Ireland and you've got the United Kingdom, which is a country."), but doesn't qualify Britain.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), under "United Kingdom", says "Commonly called Great Britain or Britain.. Abbr. UK", and describes the three sizes (U.K. of G.B., U.K. of G.B. and I., U.K. of G.B. and N.I.), but doesn't qualify Britain. Under "Britain", it says to "See United Kingdom".

Princeton University's WordNet (2003), under "United Kingdom" and "Britain", offers the two as each other's synonyms, but doesn't qualify Britain.

I've provided references illustrating controversy about usage of the word Britain. Of the first thirty Google.com results for "britain informal united kingdom" (without quotation marks), the only ones whose snippets call Britain an informal name for the U.K. are Wikipedia's own "Britain" and "Great Britain" articles.

Wikipedia is supposed to have citations for the information it conveys, and isn't supposed to cite itself.

President Lethe 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. Downing Street's own website, [14], says "On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.". We don't need a large Google hit count to "prove" that "Britain" is the non-legal and non-formal (therefore, by implication, informal) name of UKoGBaNI, much like we do not need Google to tell us that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are the informal names that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and William Jefferson Clinton respectively go by. Gsd2000 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Which bit isn't quite true? Also, just to clarify: I offered Google not as proof of anything but just as an example of the relative difficulty of finding (at least in the snippets, and excluding the two Wikipedia results) an explicit statement, from a reputable source, that Britain is informal. Downing Street's statement seems to me a reputable enough source to back up a statement that the use of Britain as a synonym for the U.K. is sometimes informal. — President Lethe 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: I think "less formally" is a better compromise than "informally". A jacket-and-tie is less formal than a top-hat-and-tails, but it's not informal. "Britain" is not informal in the way "Dear Old Blighty" is, but it is less formal than "the United Kingdom". jnestorius^(talk) 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good comparison, jnestorius. I would accept "less formally". I prefer it over "informally". — President Lethe 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. "Less formally" implies that it is still formal, when it's not. "Britain" would not be used in an international treaty, for example. An ambassador to the UK would not be introduced as the ambassador to "Britain". The UN Security Council would not place a nametag containing the word "Britain" in front of a British government speaker: [15]. Gsd2000 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the "less formal" implies "but still somewhat formal". Perhaps my jacket-and-tie analogy suggested that it does, but equally, a T-shirt and jeans is "less formal" than a jacket and tie (or top hat and tails). On the other hand, to use your own example, I don't think "Tony Blair" is "informal"; it's used happily by the dignified presenters of the BBC's serious current affairs programmes. "Tony" or "Tone" would be "informal". "Tony Blair" is relatively unmarked, but undeniably "less formal" than Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Comparatives are sometimes used absolutely rather than relatively (a fuller figure; a less developed country) but I don't think this is an example. jnestorius^(talk) 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of formality in this context. Informal does not mean slang. The dignified presenters of the BBC's serious current affairs programmes also call the UK "Britain". But it would not be used in a legal document such as a treaty, any more than "Tony Blair" would appear in his passport or marriage certificate. Gsd2000 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been said several times that a direct comparison to this situation can be made with "United States of America" vs. "America". So it comes down to this - would it be acceptable to say "The United States of America (often shortened to the United States, USA or US, or less formally America). I personally think that this is not okay. In contrast, "informally" would be much more appropriate, as it emphasises that the common term is not formal in any way. DJR (T) 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relativity is exactly the point I've been trying to make about degrees of formality.

(And to carry on with two points about the Tony Blair & Bill Clinton comparison: (1) it's much easier to find plenty of sources saying that "Tony Blair" is short for "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" than it is to find a source saying that Britain is specifically an informal name for the U.K.; and (2) how many formal sources that reveal that the Prime Minister's name is Tony Blair qualify it (e.g., "Two years ago, the British prime minister, informally called Tony Blair, suggested that [...]")?)

To the "America" comparison: Yes, I would indeed say "less formally", not "informally", about America for "the United States of America": when someone delivers a formal speech that took weeks in composition, is wearing formal clothes, delivers it before a prestigious body, and doesn't litter the presentation with jokes—and, in the midst of this presentation, calls the country "America"—, this is some kind of formality—as would be saying "Britain". This hard-line idea that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "the United Kingdom" are absolutely and totally the definition of formality, and everything else is completely informal, just seems much more black-and-white than the real world and real usage of these words.

President Lethe 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to say that UKoGBaNI is the only formal title that can be used. What is being said is that Britain is, simply put, informal. To say "less formal" suggests that it has a degree of formality that it simply does not have. It can't be compared to Tony Blair - it's completely different in many different ways. DJR (T) 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(I was carrying on the Blair comparison put forth by Gsd2000 and elaborated on by jnestorius.) Well, it does seem that you're saying that Britain is 'right out' as a "formal" name for the U.K. It seems that your idea of "formal" is what would be used in, say, an international treaty—and everything else is informal. Have a look at the first fourteen denotations of "formal" here; some uses of Britain as a name for the whole U.K. fit some of these denotations. Maybe I've misinterpreted, but it seems that some posters at this page are saying that there are only two formal names for the U.K.—"the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "the United Kingdom"—, with all other possibilities under the sun falling into the "informal" category. I don't subscribe to this restriction. — President Lethe 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change to "informally" in accordance with the voting results and be done with it. There are far more important things to be done at WP than haggle over this triviality. Gsd2000 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• No No, a thousand times no. All abbreviations (or shortenings, or whatever) are informal. The country has only one formal name, and 'Britain' is not more informal than 'United Kingdom'. DJ Clayworth 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. This [16] would never say "Britain". Gsd2000 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the U.N. At the website of U.K. Mission to the U.N., notice the links (near the top) to "Britain at the UN" and "About the UK". This website wouldn't include those words with those meanings if they weren't seen as having a certain level of formality. It describes the role of the U.K. Mission to the U.N. as, in part, "ensuring that Britain’s interests and views are taken into account by UN bodies and the other member states" (emphasis mine).

But let's get more formal than a website. Let's ask the Queen herself, as she speaks when delivering prepared remarks. (All boldface emphasis is mine.) • In her speech at the Italian state banquet on 15 March 2005, she said "We in Britain today are enthusiastic admirers of Italian culture, Italian fashion and Italian food." This was the first point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name in this speech. • In her speech at the state banquet in the Zeughaus, Berlin, during her state visit to Germany, on 2 November 2004, her first mention of the U.K. was worded thus: "Britain’s part in Berlin's re-emergence as one of the world's great cities is a source of pride for me." In the same speech, she said "As part of this young Germans may realize that one legacy of Britain’s history is our diversity; we regard it as a strength." And "Britain and Germany have long advocated enlargement of the Union, as vital for Europe's prosperity and security." And "I am pleased that Britain and Germany are leaders in Europe on this issue." • When she gave a speech at a lunch at the Hôtel de Ville, Toulouse, on 7 April 2004, her very first mention of the U.K. began "Links between Britain and Toulouse have existed over many centuries". • In her Christmas broadcast to the Commonwealth, 2004, the first point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name was when she spoke of "an overseas visitor to Britain". • In her speech at the Hotel de Matignon, during a state visit to France, on 6 April 2004, she said "United Kingdom" once before saying "In Britain we have also seen a devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; in French, this was "En Grande-Bretagne aussi, nous avons décentralisé les pouvoirs, pour donner plus d'autonomie à l'Écosse, au pays de Galles et à l'Irlande du Nord". • In her speech at the state banquet at the Elysée Palace, Paris, on 5 April 2004, she said "Britain and France are two of the great nation states of Europe"; this was the only point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name. • In her speech at the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day, her only mention of the U.K. by name was in "Britain had been directly threatened by the enemy". • When she spoke at Potsdam during her state visit to Germany, she said, on 3 November 2004, "I am pleased that Britain continues to play an active role in promoting Brandenburg's prosperity." At the only other point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name in that speech, she again used "Britain". • I'm sure that, in every example in this is small sample, she didn't mean to exclude Northern Ireland. The person whose job is to be the United Kingdom's most formal representative to the world calls the U.K. "Britain" quite often—in her formal, prepared remarks in formal speeches during state banquets and state visits. Britain is a formal name for the U.K. — President Lethe 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sure that, in every example in this is small sample, she didn't mean to exclude Northern Ireland." - quite, we are not arguing about this. I agree 100% that Britain is a valid name for the UK. See my various posts above. But you're confusing the formality of the setting with the formality of the language. It is a fact that Britain is not the UK's legal name - it is an abbreviation. And as such, it is informal. Just like it would be if Lizzie started talking about "the UK". Gsd2000 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not call it what it is then (for the vast majority of people anyway!): an abbreviation for the sake of convenience. 'Incorrect' usage has become so prevalent that essentially both the meaning and formality of Britain depend on whatever the speaker or writer intends at the time, and have to be garnered from the context. If 'less formally' is replaced with a neutral term such as 'abbreviated to', then this whole debate about connotations etc can be sidestepped. EyeSerene 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems we're at a POV impasse on formality. In my view, whatever language the Queen uses in prepared speeches at state visits, unless she's specifically quoting someone else's informal usage, counts as formal. Ditto newsreaders, &c. So this is about trying to achieve a balance about points of view on the formality of Britain for the U.K. (The No. 10 source can be cited to support the statement that Britain is used informally at No. 10's website.) Often, at Wikipedia, the way to achieve balance in areas of POV is either to mention the points of view or to be silent on the matter. EyeSerene seems to agree that the formality of Britain as a name for the U.K. is variable with context.

I admit I have a harder time finding Britain as a the U.K. synonym in, say, Acts of Parliament. I find "unofficially" a more generally true qualifier than "informally". Even though it would be stating what's likely to be obvious (that Britain isn't the official name (even though it is part of the official name)), I would accept such a qualifier—as I would accept the qualifier "controversially"—as I would accept the absence of any qualifier.

"abbreviated to" is superfluous: Britain is obviously one of the words in the full name, and obviously shorter than the full name.

President Lethe 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a genuine question: Are you able to find "the UK" in Acts of Parliament? Mucky Duck 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was looking for Britain in some recent (2000s) Acts of Parliament, I didn't look for "the UK". I may look for that later today. You, too, can search; the texts of many Acts are linked from the Wikipedia articles about those Acts, which articles are linked from a Wikipedia list of some Acts. In case my last post was unclear: I wasn't implying that "the U.K." is found in such Acts; in my posts, I use "the U.K." to keep from writing out "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" where I figure others will understand that it's what I mean. Anyway, my search was brief; there may be some recent Acts that do sometimes use Britain for the whole U.K. (last night, when I was searching some of the Queen's recent speeches, I found that not every speech mentioned the U.K. by any name (and, of course, when it was mentioned, there was a mixture of names—though my recollection is that "Britain" was actually more common)). — President Lethe 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The point I am unclear about, though is whether "Britain" is any less formal than is "UK" (or even "United Kingdom"). Your Acts of Parliament comment seemed to suggest that it was (I accept that isn't what you were trying to make but that's the way it appeared) but I don't think this test works. Mucky Duck 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes --Telex 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a word that is used so generally for different concepts is that it can only be understood by the context it is used in, and that will depend who the audience is as well. Someone determined to find offence (no names in mind!) will be offended by giving the word the worst possible spin, and there will be as many interpretations as people in the audience. I agree that explicitly stating that Britain is an abbreviation, or even used casually or less formally, is superfluous, but nevertheless it does seem to need highlighting. Googling a definition of 'British' comes up with similar results (1. Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or relating to the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations.). Given the fact that this debate arose out of a politically-motivated attempt to change the text, and that agreement seems to be hard to reach, in the absence of a clear consensus can we not leave the text as it stands? EyeSerene 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The voice of reason. I wholeheartedly agree. Mucky Duck 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More discussion on Britain

this section followed on originally from Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 7#Title is wrong --Robdurbar 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the ridiculous debates we have here about the name of the UK also happen at the UN Security Council when they decide what to write on the country name-plates. [17]. Gsd2000 11:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They certainly do and about many issues, such as for example the definition of Israel and Palestine, not that I want to open that can here. :-) Coming back to the UK/Britain thing, this isn't a totally ridiculous issue; the problem is that it's politically charged for some specific groups, in this case, the Republicans in Northern Ireland, who are sore on the question of the status of the "North of Ireland" and prefer not to class it as "British" - therefore, what most think of as a convenient shorthand - "Britain" meaning "the United Kingdom" is anathema to that group. And then to many others, for example, those living within England, Scotland or Wales - they often think of themselves as "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" - or "Cornish", "Yorkshireman", etc - so it's a complicated picture. I do think though that Wikipedia ought, as well as giving well-known usages, to try to show where these are wrong. I think it is objectively not quite accurate to give an impression that the UK is the same as Britain. I do think we need a sentence that indicates this:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or (inaccurately) Britain)

I know we've been round this before, but personally I this slight revision would resolve the arguments and create a more accurate opener. MarkThomas 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Britain isn't inaccurate, it's just informal. "England" is inaccurate (although 100 years ago it was not considered so, but was merely informal). john k 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the point we got stuck on before, and it's actually not that critical. It is slightly innacurate, because Britain is not the same thing as the UK. It also is the case that many people in the US use them interchangeably. (with respect to you John Kenney, I see you are in the US). This is incorrect and is a misunderstanding by people outside the UK. However - it is not and need not be a huge sticking point. To my mind the sentence could be

either...

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or - inaccurately - Britain)

or

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or - informally and incorrectly - Britain)

But we do need to make it clear. Otherwise Wikipedia is (a) giving out slightly wrong information about a very important subject and (b) annoying a great many people. MarkThomas 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As we've discussed many time before, it is not inaccurate. See OED, for example:

More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire.

(my emphasis) Mucky Duck 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your OED quote does not seem to either reflect your point or support/reject the debating points under discussion Mucky Duck - this points to either "Great Britain" or "Britain and its dependencies" or "United Kingdom" - we have "Britain" in our opener as a shortener for "United Kingdom" and that's what the debate centres on. MarkThomas 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is neither incorrect nor inaccurate. It is imprecise, which is something different. john k 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Semantics. It obviously is incorrect technically. To a general user it is either imprecise or approximate. The point is, it needs fixing. We can obsess all year over the exact word to fix it and never find one that meets every need. I therefore suggest we straw poll at least one good alternative. MarkThomas 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What needs fixing? Britain is an informal way to say "United Kingdom," but since it also means "Great Britain," it tends to be avoided in technical or formal contexts. What are you suggesting a straw poll about? john k 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The straw poll is about the current wording, which suggests that Britain is a direct alternative to "United Kingdom", which is clearly both technically innacurate and also considered either political or inflammatory in some quarters. There have been numerous attempts to correct it and I am endeavouring to discover the most popular alternative. It really does need changing. In fact, you appear to have an opinion yourself, and evidently from the above think it might best be described as "informal" from your sentence above - in which case there is an option for you in the straw poll below. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And what don't you understand about the OED quote that says precisely that it is a synonym for United Kingdom? Mucky Duck 18:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

May I invite a moment of Zen? Rather than justify or excuse the use of UK, can someone set out the objection to UKGBNI?--Shtove 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll - change to the opening text on the use of the word "Britain"

Please say if you prefer (a), (b) or (c) or (d) no change to the current opening text.

(a)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or - inaccurately - Britain)

(b)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or - informally - Britain)

(c)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or - imprecisely - Britain)

(d)

no change.

Thanks. MarkThomas 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer (c). MarkThomas 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we talk about this about a fortnight ago? Give it a rest. It's fine as it is. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) -- It's actually wrong as it is - but the wrongness is about imprecision and this should be said. MarkThomas 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• (b). But this debate can't keep resurfacing once a month. DJR (T) 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) -- It's a different debate this time - more precisely focused. It has fallen down before because people did not stay on topic. MarkThomas 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd vote for B, I guess. Basically, it seems to me that in certain contexts, using "Britain" in place of "the United Kingdom" is perfectly appropriate. As a metonym for "the British Government," or "the British state," "Britain" is perfectly appropriate. Britain has committed troops to Iraq. or Marijuana is illegal in Britain both seem perfectly acceptable to me. In some geographical contexts, however, it is highly problematic. Belfast is a city in Britain would, I think, be inaccurate (and unlikely to be used). It is an appropriate replacement for "United Kingdom" in certain contexts, but not in others. Basically, if "Britain" is being used as a political term, there can be no confusion - obviously the United Kingdom is meant. If it is being used as a geographical term, it tends to be inappropriate, because it is ambiguous whether the UK or Great Britain is meant. In other contexts, I'm less certain. The largest dog in Britain, for instance, would confuse me as to whether Great Britain or the UK is meant. I'm not sure how to deal with all this in a parenthetical remark. "Informally" seems the best, so long as there's a link to British Isles (terminology), which explains the issue in more detail. john k 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Glancing -- quickly -- over this whole naming debate, it strikes me that no-one seems to have recognised that Great Britain and Britain are not synonyms. Great Britain is the name of the largest island off the northwest European coast, Britain refers to the State, currently including Northern Ireland, and it is not inaccurate or imprecise to refer to the whole country as "Britain". - Arwel (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true. "Britain" can mean either United Kingdom or Great Britain, depending on context. This is why "United Kingdom" and not "Britain" is the official short form. john k 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

B (again) or D, but we can't keep having this silly debate again and again. Leave it as is and stop wasting people's time. Gsd2000 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• (c) - the reason this debate keeps coming up is that editors can't agree on which term to use to qualify use of Britain. The silliness comes from not having such a term.--Shtove 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (b) or (d), as long as there is no notion that the term is wrong. Why keep bringing it up every month? Nothing will've changed in that time. Marky-Son 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I quite like c. And b. And d. And I don't mind a, but I think people would misunderstand it. But yeah, c is my favourite. --Robdurbar 10:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again! (d), there is no need for a qualification here. (b) is correct but overstresses the point by being in the introductory sentence, the rest are wrong. Mucky Duck 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• D. If we are to make the case for a united Ireland then this should be done through sensible argument and perusasion and not through this sort of silliness. It brings the whole cause into disrepute. Naomhain 11:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is making a case for a united Ireland? This is an impartial encyclopaedia. Gsd2000 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but some parties here are trying to in a silly way. Naomhain 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's what is so wrong about this proposed change. It's not for Wikipedia to tell the world how to speak English - WP is not the English equivalent of the Académie française - WP should report how it is spoken. A point I've made repeatedly here is that what some are claiming is "incorrect" is defined that way without any issues by the OED. Ergo, it should be OK for WP. To make matters worse, the ulterior motive for pointing out incorrectness is to make a political statement about Ireland and Britain (more often than not by a particularly vitriolic contributor who advertises his complete lack of impartiality - and therefore unsuitability for a project like WP - for all to see by continuously making nasty remarks about his British counterparts). This case should be thrown out of court. Gsd2000 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(a) or (c) or preferably change to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK)Rogerrab 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)