Talk:United Kingdom

Common names

Great Britain is a widely used common name for the UK. It is, for example, the name of the UK Olympic team. In my view this should be be added to the opening, which I propose be changed to "(commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain)". I know that Great Britain is also the name of the largest island of the nation, but this is does not change the fact that the name is also commonly used in this context.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the full name of "Team GB" is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team. Someone obviously thought Team GBNI didn't sound quite so snappy. — JonC^ॐ 09:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Usage of GB is described in the Terminology section. I think if it does go into the lead it needs to reflect that it is deprecated in the UK (other than eg Team GB) and is largely limited to the US. Too much of a mouthful for the lead I suspect. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed i do not think it should be put in the lead, especially as it will add to confusion when the next line in the article mentions the island of Great Britain. Outside of the olympics which is only a few weeks every 4 years, use of Great Britain is nowhere near as common as United Kingdom or Britain so not mentioning it in the lead is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That is true yes.. the BBC for example in their medals table put Great Britain + Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's partly historical: until 2004 Team GB literally was only GB. NI was (and still is, I believe) represented by Ireland in the eyes of the Olympic authorities. The Northern Irish were entitled to join either the GB team or the Irish team. Then in 2004, Team GB unilaterally declared itself to include NI. As might be expected, there was a bit of a rumpus about it. Not sure what the eventual compromise/solution was (if any). This explains. According to the Team GB article it's pretty much just a commercial brand name owned by the British Olympic Association. But I think I read somewhere that Ireland still represents all of Ireland in the Olympic charter so technically Team GB may not be a UK team (at least in terms of Olympic officialdom). DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a UK team. Athletes from the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and BOTs compete under the Team GB banner too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever may or may not be the case about the Olympics, "Great Britain" means England plus Wales plus Scotland. Any other usage is simply incorrect and should certainly not go in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And despite everything Great Britain is still a common name for the United Kingdom particularly in the UK and is still widely used as such outside wikiland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A name does not to be a scientifically correct description of the subject however. For example "America" as used as a name for the United States, or "Russia" as used as a name for the Soviet Union. Even proper names are often not scientifically correct, for example The Carphone Warehouse is hardly an accurate description of the subject. In this case the question is whether "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK. In my view it is, particularly in the US and Germany. If cites were provided demonstrating this would it affect editors' stance?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No. One can cite incorrect usages for all kinds of expressions, but they are still incorrect. I bet many people who say "Great Britain" when they mean "UK" are simply unaware of any distinction between those two entities, but I do not think we should copy or legitimise their ignorant behaviour. It's like people who say "infer" when they mean "imply", or "diffuse" when they mean "defuse". The thing is, they're just wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So you would wish to remove "America" from the lead of the United States article? And "Britain" from the lead of this article, since it is itself merely a contraction of "Great Britain" and therefore also not scientifically correct? A name is a name. Someone could have the surname "Short" but in fact be tall. A common name in particular is defined by useage alone, there is no such thing as an "incorrect" common name, the only test is whether it is commonly used. The alternative is to remove all of the "common names". However there needs to be some consistency here, not an exclusion of certain common names for wholly subjective reasons. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Should add, your examples are not names, I don't therefore see any relevance there. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that "Great Britain" is commonly used to mean "United Kingdom" by significant numbers of careful or well-informed writers. "Great Britain" has a very specific meaning, which is different from "United Kingdom". We should preserve that distinction, and not encourage sloppy and ignorant misuse. -- Alarics (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an incorrect common name. One will see "America" used as a description of the United States in all manner of formal and informal settings, the same with Great Britain as a description of the United Kingdom. "significant numbers of careful or well-informed writers" sounds horribly subjective to me. However a cursory look at Google archive reveals a vast array of examples of useage: [1]. You can adjust the date field for the search and find large numbers of examples for each year, in all manner of highly reputable sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC);

I agree, in WP policy terms, "correct" and "incorrect" is not relevant here. But what is relevant is the extent of usage. Based on the sourced statements in the Etymology and terminology section, usage (eg newspaper style guides) of GB is significantly less common than "UK", "Britain" etc and is mainly a US phenomenon - as reinforced by your Google search. (Remember that policy requires it to be English language usage &, eg, Großbritannien isn't relevant.) For it not to be misleading, a reference to GB in the lead would need to be so caveated in this way that it would make it unsuitable (in terms of detail) for the lead. It's best left for the body of the article. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point regarding German useage. I also accept that the use of the term in the UK is significantly less common than in the US (that may be because of editorial guidelines laid down by a relatively small number of UK based media organisations which have a very large share of national media output, but it is undoubtedly true).

However what cannot I feel be denied is that "Great Britain" is a very common name for the UK in the United States (perhaps they, like the Germans, have a higher opinion of the British than the British do of themselves!). We need to avoid a UK-centric approach here. I believe that all of the contributors to this thread are British, as am I, but we should consider that the majority of native English speakers, and readers of this article, are not British. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC);

WP:OR but I've always assumed it's because it was GB in 1776! I think not just in the UK, but in global English generally, “UK” and “Britain” is much more common outside the US. But, I admit, it does seem unrealistic/parochial to ignore US usage. How about ...and, in North American usage but not generally elsewhere, "Great Britain". DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Its also the case that in the US a lot of people use England interchangeably with the UK. Common use does not require us to perpetuate a wrong name, or a false interpretation of "Great". ----Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"England" is only used colloquially to describe the UK. If the same quantity of high quality written sources could be found as exist for "America" being used to describe the US, or "Great Britain" being used to describe the UK, then yes England should be included. Once again, there is no such thing as an "incorrect" common name - a common name is a name which is commonly used to describe a subject. That is not the case for England however, not in terms of quality written sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it certain that "Great Britain" is being used as a synonym for the UK in these circumstances? "Great Britain" is the correct name for the island that is the territory of the vast majority of the UK. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those using "Great Britain" are referring specifically to either the island or those living on it. And btw, I disagree with the suggestion that England could be given as a common name for the UK. It is incorrect and only used due to ignorance. For quite a time the Chinese referred to the US as imperialist running dogs of capitalism. Would you accept that as a common name for the USA or Americans if enough sources existed? Daicaregos (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On your first point - absolutely, look at the Google archive. On the Chinese point - firstly "imperialist running dogs of capitalism" isn't a name but a description, secondly the Chinese are not English speaking. On the England point, I disagree. Many people referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia". If it could be shown that "England" is widely used as a common name for the UK in quality English language sources then it should be included. However that is not the case and I have never proposed the addition of England to the lead in this way, in fact I would strongly oppose it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I was under the impression that editors making a proposal needed to provide sources. But, as it appears to be up to me to look, I can confirm I have found none. As I recall, 'capitalist running dogs' was used as a noun instead of using America, the US or USA. English speaking ... if you are proposing to only use English language sources on the English Wikipedia, this is not the venue for that proposal. And I didn't say you proposed the addition of England to the lead in this way. I said "I disagree with the suggestion that England could be given as a common name for the UK.", as it was suggested that, given certain circustances, England could be given as a common name for the UK. I disagree because it is inaccurate. As I disagree with showing Great Britain as another name for the UK. Great Britain and the UK are not synonyms. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have linked to the Google archive results. Thousands of examples are available there. Am I supposed to individually link to each of those thousands of sources here? If you have found none, then you have not bothered to look at the link which I provided above to Google archive. If I linked to five here, no doubt the response would, only five? What does that show? If I linked to 10, the same.

There is a fundamental failure here to grasp the meaning of firstly a name, and secondly a common name. A name does not need to be a scientifically accurate description of a subject. And the only requirement for a "common name" is that it is 1. a name, and 2. commonly used.

Re the Chinese point, policy in that case has already been described by DeCausa above in response to my comment about German useage of Great Britain. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree that England is is not a synonym for the United Kingdom but clearly outside of wikiland Great Britain is a synonym for the United Kingdom, which is why the subject keeps getter raised regularly on these talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To try to be objective about it, let's look at the first line of United States as an analogy:

"The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States)".

They bring in at least one very widely used but technically wrong usage ("America"). So there isn't some kind of bar on Wikipedia article intros on major subjects giving widely used common names that are technically wrong. This would surely apply to "Great Britain" and it might also be worth having "England" in there and mentioning that it's incorrect. Certainly right across the US, the two are used wrongly and interchangeably. This article serves a world en-speaking market, not just a UK-based one. In addition, opposing having the Great usage in there on subjective personal grounds to do with local nationalisms is NOT a valid criteria for debate on this point, any more than wanting it in for glorification reasons would be. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it - first line bracketing

One other issue in the intro - the use of double brackets to embed "UK" - is this right? It might be better to replace

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain)

with

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,

Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need the bracket around "UK", we never used to have them they add nothing and they aren't used in the US example shown above. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It could just be commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK or Britain. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I added them in because "UK" isn't short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it's short for "United Kingdom" specifically. I'd support Jamesinderbyshire's proposal to de-bracket the "commonly known as..." sentence. — JonC^ॐ 11:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, understood about the reasons, the problem is we're writing in the English language, not doing algebra. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the above discussion is forgetting that the following is already in the article with two decent sources: "However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom". The question is should the lead reflect this? I think yes, and propose adding "and "Great Britain" (often considered incorrect, but common in North America)". And dispense with the brackets per James. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "often considered incorrect" citeable? That isn't in the three sources used in the article at present. I also feel that any such qualifying text would be best put in a note.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC);

From the article: The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales.[32][33][34] DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually only one source (correctly cited). MOS:LEADALT says: “Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." "Great Britain" is noted the Etymology section already. The relevant section says: "The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales. However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom." This single sentence, referring to GB use in the entire article, cannot be sufficiently notable to require inclusion in the lead. Further, any proposal to alter this important article along these lines, must cite relevant MOS guidelines and reliable sources. Daicaregos (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The MOS guidelines are just that, and in this case are both unclear and not in any case being followed by this article at present. We have a separate name section which refers to the "Britain" name, and yet that still appears in the lead. The United States article has five common names given in the lead but also has a name section. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's a little more common sense than that. GB is widely used in the US (per Rangoon's Google search & as we all know, or should know). Given the US's importance in absolute terms & in the context of WP readership, this is an obvious lacuna in the lead. This is turning into one of those silly WP terminology disputes so I think I'll drop out now. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, the common names policy does not require to present a mistake as a fact. I think we can say that Great Britain and sometimes England are wrongly used as synonyms for the United Kingdom. That would reflect common usage but also inform. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a sentence like commonly known as a, b and c and also often called (innacurately) e and f. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to drop out of this discussion after this post as it is proving too painful, I should have known better than to open this up. There is no such thing as an incorrect common name. Many people commonly call the UK Great Britain. That is not "incorrect", it is simply a short hand, just as Britain, the UK and United Kingdom are shorthands (BTW where do people think that "Britain" comes from exactly? From the "Great Britain" part of the proper name. It is also scientifically incorrect in the sense that it does not include Northern Ireland.). They are all contractions using part of the proper name. The US lead does not say "and, incorrectly, America".

"America" is not a scientifically accurate description of the US in the sense that it is also the proper name of the continent. However it is wholly meaningless to describe it as an "incorrect" common name. Saying that is incorrect is also, of course, unciteable. There is no source capable of making such a claim with authority.

"England" is a complete red herring. It isn't used in large numbers of high quality written sources as a common name for the UK in the manner of Great Britain, it is used colloquially. "England" does not appear in the proper name of the UK and is not a short hand for it.

Great Britain as regards the UK is directly analogous to America as regards to the US. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the continent is NORTH America, not America... just saying. MrZoolook (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Apparently authoritative statements should be accompanied by sources to back them up. WP:OR should have no place in these discussions. The American Government use “America” or “U.S.” as a shorthand to describe themselves, whereas the British Government use “Britain” or “UK”. “Great Britain” does not constitute all of the UK, so it is inaccurate to use it as a term for the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there needs to be backing from sources for commonname usage, but that doesn't mean it has to have some seal of approval from the relevant governmental authority before we announce that it's commonly called something in Wikipedia; the fact that the US government sometimes mistakenly calls it "America" isn't needed to know that there's a widespread common usage, US = America = USA = Uncle Sam, etc, etc. The only question really is how common things are, how widely used, sufficient to justify mentioning them in the opening sentence. America is such a widespread misusage it would have gotten in anyhow. To use an Americanism. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c "Britain" is simply a contraction of "Great Britain". Great Britain when used as a shorthand to describe the United Kingdom does not exclude Northern Ireland. Neither does "Britain", despite clearly also excluding it in terms of semantics.

This is not a discussion about what is the preferred nomenclature used by the subject itself (and in any case the current British government does not equal the nation, they are two wholly different things; the Government is merely a part of the nation. And Government policy can change at any time, as can the wording on a website like the Directgov page you link to).

The relevant issue is only what are the commonly used names for the subject. And "Great Britain" has for a long time, and continues to be, a very commonly used name for the United Kingdom: [2]. I know that some people do not like the name used in this way for reasons of political correctness but that is also irrelevant.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the UK because it is incorrect. Please link to current WP policy and/or MOS that would allow an incorrect name to be included in the lead – no more OR, please. The link provided shows using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the sovereign state a long time ago, current usage seems to relate to sports. It isn't just the UK government that deprecates using “Great Britain" in this way. The BBC style guide begins its Great Britain entry: "Great Britain comprises England, Scotland, and Wales. It is a geographical term; … ". The Guardian and Observer style guide says "UK or Britain in copy and headlines for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but note Great Britain comprises just England, Scotland and Wales)". And regarding American use: here is the NSA style manual. It says, under UK, "Use the abbreviation for the United Kingdom either as a noun or adjective … In most cases use British for the adjective rather than UK". Daicaregos (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't incorrect, there is no such thing as an incorrect common name. And even the sources which you have yourself provided do not state that using "Great Britain" to describe the "United Kingdom" is incorrect, they are primarily explaining the composition of the proper name, including that "Great Britain" is the proper name of the largest island of the nation.

Here are some examples of "Great Britain" being used to describe the United Kingdom. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

There are thousands of examples available in a few seconds using Google, as eveyone here no doubt knows, but it seems that some still wish to deny the fact.

Interestingly, when one actually bothers to look, one finds that "Great Britain" is used as a common name for the United Kingdom worldwide, not just in the United States by such well established outlets as the New York Times and USA Today.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's used all the time in the US media to mean "UK". I think people will need to get over to the US article and query their use of "America" if they think innacurate commonnames are barred from mention in the opener, not to mention about a million other popular articles. Please. This is pretty obvious stuff and the objections are nothing to do with supposed WP policies really are they? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate by the edit summary “Objectors should state their real views”. I have stated my real views i.e. using “Great Britain” as a synonym for “United Kingdom” is incorrect. Great Britain is a geographic term for the island containing Scotland, Wales and England. I have provided reliable sources to support that viewpoint from both sides of the Atlantic. I have also quoted from MOS:LEADALT, which says if the subject has more than three alternative names, they should be noted in an Etymology section – which is how the article appears currently. If anyone wants to propose changes to that, then Wikipedia policy and/or relevant MOS must be noted as part of the proposal. If you can't do that, stop wasting everyone's time. If you can, do so. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline about the 3+ alternates is repeatedly broken all over the place, including, as pointed out, the US article, which suggests (given the importance of that article) that it is just a guideline and not a rule. If we did stick to it, it's arguable that Great Britain is actually a significantly more common usage than Britain - and that also both are wrong. Your argument Dai that we can't use Great Britain because it isn't accurate holds no merit. Britan is not equal to UK. Nevertheless, it is often used that way and we have it right there in the intro. The argument really here is are only the three we have sufficiently widely used to get their intro mention, or are there four, as in the US article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just realised that we now only have two alternates following the removal of the surplus brackets - "Britain" and "United Kingdom (UK)" - the latter being the same thing in reality. Even with Dai's proposal that we exactly follow the guideline, there is room for one more. I propose we have:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Great Britain (Britain), is a sovereign state located off... (etc) - or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Britain is not "simply a contraction of Great Britain". The term "Great Britain" was devised as a means of differentiating between the main areas once occupied by the British - the island, and Brittany. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the arguments have already been rehearsed, but I have to say I cannot agree with moving to something that says "commonly known as ... Great Britain". I might be able to live with something that points out the inaccuracy more clearly.--SabreBD (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you say why you could not agree to that, since that is a wide common usage meaning "UK"? See the Olympics and the US media for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the name of something is not a vote. The fact that there are lots of Americans and lots of them have the internet or that the BOA cannot resolve its descriptive issues is really not that important compared with what the country is actually called. Anything that is pointing to popular usage would need to make the erroneous nature clearer.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sporting use is not analogous to using Great Britain as a synonym for the sovereign state. The UK team has often been called Great Britain, or Team GB as it is now. Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Olympic team is hardly a casual "sporting use" as you put it - that's one of the flagships of the UK in the world's public eye. Search for "Great Britain" on any major news site worldwide and you pull up thousands of references that cover UK, Britain, England, etc. The terms are considered absolutely freely (and admittedly cluelessly) interchangeable in most of the English-speaking world. Can I remind people (again) that this article is NOT in the UK space only - it's a global english-speaking world article. We need to address things like this head on and not from within local viewpoints. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, Team GB does not directly represent the UK. Athletes from other parts of the world represent Team GB too. Therefore, it is not analogous. Daicaregos (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@Sabrebd: what is "erroneous"? What makes "Britain" correct and "Great Britain" not? Since 1707, the name of the state has been determined by statute either expressly or by inference. Britain is "correct" because, I believe the argument goes, it is sanctioned by government and other official sources. But that is ultra vires. Governments can't change statute. It's just a form of common usage, albeit highly influential. All names other than the names sanctioned by statute are "incorrect", it's just a question of whether there is significant common usage. I think heavy use in the US of this particular "incorrect" name is as valid as the usage of the other "incorrect" names in the list. But I do think when GB is mentioned it's North american popularity needs to be explained. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Its only valid to say "commonly known as Great Britain: is we say "commonly known (eroniously) as Great Britain". We have a duty to acknowledge a common name, but also to inform people as to its correctness. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK's legal name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's three alternative (or common) names are the United Kingdom, the UK and Britain – noted in the lead. Great Britain is already noted in the Etymology section as a common name, in accordance with MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A few people are here stating that "Great Britain" is incorrect as a common name for the UK. Pure POV. Not a single source has been provided which states this. And of course it can't be, because there is no such thing as an incorrect common name.

Great Britain is used by outlets as prestigious as The New York Times [24], Der Spiegel [25], and USA Today [26]. In the face of this there needs to be some overwhelmingly good reasons why it should be excluded here. Those reasons don't exist. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

... US State Department, US President, the White House...DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't just ignore this. Daicaregos (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Plenty of articles do. It's not policy. It's a "recomendation" contained in a "guideline". DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

America is Not the World, Rangoon11, and, last time I checked, Der Spiegel wasn't an English language newspaper... — JonC^ॐ 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Really scraping the barrel now I fear. Who said it was? It has over four times more native English speakers than the UK however. Der Speigel has an English language version, look at the link.

Sources have in any case been provided which show useage in Russia, the Middle East and South East Asia. Many more can be provided.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And how many native English speakers are there in Russia, the Middle East and SEA, as opposed to those speaking English as a foreign language? I'm afraid the Americans making an error and the rest of the non-natively English-speaking world following suit isn't a very convincing argument. — JonC^ॐ 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that this has been discussed before, and it's the same predictable names taking part for the exclusion side, it is really shocking just how thin the arguments are. In fact arguments is being very kind. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall our ever meeting... — JonC^ॐ 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall discussing this before either. Daicaregos (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, please address the content issue rather than commenting on other editors. You are not dealing with the arguments or the evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Which arguments or evidence? "America is Not the World"? Or "the Americans making an error and the rest of the non-natively English-speaking world following suit"? I've not heard anything worthy of response the last few posts.

In fact, in the entire thread thus far, the sole even remotely coherent argument I have heard against inclusion is the one regarding the MOS. That's it. The rest has just been piss and wind. Just as I expected. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon makes some quite valid points. Why is Great Britain wrong? Because some editors say it's wrong. It's not uncommon for a large or otherwise powerful subentity to be used to identify the larger entity pars pro toto, and due to historical circumstances it makes even more sense here (the same I assume, applies to why England is sometimes used to refer to the whole UK). Cuba has islands other than Cuba, Taiwan has islands other than Taiwan, the Isle of Man has islands other than the Isle of Man. Just because the UK has other common names that are more widely accepted doesn't make the others wrong, especially in a language like English which grows organically rather than under a governing body. Anachronistic or depreciated maybe. CMD (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a point here and that people are being a bit too dismissive of it - the "error" of using Great Britain for the country as a whole is not as egregious as that of confusing England for the UK or E-S-W, which is an outright mistake that no reputable source would make without subsequently correcting themselves. Yes, technically, GB for UK is incorrect, but it is, as noted, fairly common in quite a few half-decent sources and even in effect incorporated into official country codes (and let's not get started on "Team GB"). That said, I'm not sure it needs to be in the lead, especially when we already have "Britain" there - the coverage in the Terminology section seems to cover it with sufficient prominence and in sufficient depth. Equally, I can see the case for adding something brief along the lines of "sometimes referred to as Great Britain" to the lead, which would note the usage without endorsing it (or explicitly having to qualify it by an explanation or with a denial of its correctitude [sic]). N-HH talk/edits 06:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that despite the widespread use of "Britain" here in the UK, the most common international usage is "Great Britain" - this is the En-Wikipedia, the first line is supposed to give the most common alternates and the plain fact is that GB should be in there, possibly even to the exclusion of (or at least in addition to) "Britain". If we are being objective, because more than half the English-speaking world uses GB before it uses B or UK. If instead we are attempting to use Wikipedia as a political tool, not a encyclopedia, and not pay attention to the facts of what is common, but instead use our local cultural and political norms as a guide, then we won't use the commonest ones. It's really that simple. I agree with Rangoon that many of the "arguments" being put up, apart from the MoS guideline, are basically nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Rangoon needs to cool down, that last post files fails to assume good faith and just raises the temperature. Secondly it seems to me that the issue is not inclusion or exclusion, but how it is included. I am happy for it to be included, but we need to be clear that it is inaccurate. The use of "England" is the same error, but its different in scale. Great Britain or Britain excludes Northern Ireland, England adds Scotland and Wales to the list. Sorry James, your comment on political tools is a think excessive. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform and educate, so we reflect common use, but we also educate as to correct use. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But this is the problem: what is "correct use". Why is Great Britain any more inaccurate than Britain? Just because one is used in governmental circles and the other not doesn't alter its accuracy. That is about usage not accuracy. None of the "common names" are accurate (including "United Kingdom" in the sense of the whole truth and nothing but the truth). "America" isn't described as inaccurate in the opening of the US article. There is no logic to GB being treated differetly to the other common names. What is different is that usage is more restricted i.e. predominantly to North America, and I see a case for saying that in the lead opening. But to ignore deprecate American usage is really not sensible relevant: love it or loathe it is is very very important and it smacks of Little England (inaccurate - I should say Little Britain, I know, but that gives a different message!) to say it's just Americans getting it wrong. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, Britain doesn't. If consensus dictates it must be in the lead, not the more appropriate "terminology" section, then I'll accept that, but it must be made clear it's erroneous. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's excluded from "Britain"! It's just that one pars pro toto is in common use in the UK and the other isn't! DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting ignoring the common use DeCausa, I reference my above comment that we have a role to reflect that usage but also the make the facts clear. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Britain is used by numerous sources to describe the United Kingdom, unlike Great Britain where it may be used by some, including many Americans, but there are sources clearly stating the term does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the UKs name demonstrates it. Many American sources describe Her Majesty as Queen of England, something so inaccurate is not what would be worthy of being included in the opening sentence there even though it sadly does have common usage. It just seems easier to handle the GB usage in the section of text where a detailed explanation can be given, rather than trying to fit it into the intro with the necessary qualifications. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded: I wasn't suggesting you were saying ignore it. My comment was in respect of qualifying it by saying it was "inaccurate". It's no less accurate than the other common names. Where it differs is more limited (though still substantial) usage. DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa, "Britain" doesn't just mean Great Britain and doesn't by definition exclude NI. It's much more ambiguous than that. The terms "Britain" and "British" originally referred to the pre-Roman Celts of the British Isles. Great Britain is an island; Britain is much more. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It referred to the pre-Roman Celts of, well, Britain, - Britannia i.e. the big island - not Ireland. The Brythonic "Britons" were from the big island and the Goidelic Celts (not Britons) from Ireland. Not sure where you've got that from. The "Great" was added intermittently in the middle ages and was only popularized from the time of James VI (.e. 17th century) DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also an underlying historical confusion to the usages in the US, where many people either do not identify Northern Ireland as part of the UK, or else are unaware of its very existence other than marginally - there is no doubt that to many if not most Americans, "Great Britain" = UK. Also of course, to many around the world (and here still, even today, in England!) England = UK. Agree though with Snowded and others that provided it's clear that it's a mislabelling, the "Great Britain" term can be in the first para and explained. The GB misidentification is the commonest. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My mistake. Still, "Britain" doesn't always (or even most of the time) refer to the island anymore. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reference in the lead should imo avoid making an overly explicit and unwavering assertion, in WP's voice, that it is an outright error. As noted, it's more of technical error and one that's to some extent muddled by the use of GB in official abbrevations; and one whose complexity and nuance is better explained in more detail, as it is currently, in the terminology section, rather than being tackled inadequately and too didactically in the lead. Perhaps it could be done not by adding it to the first sentence along with the other more correct short-forms but by appending a parenthetical note to the existing reference to Great Britain in the second sentence, ie: "The country includes the island of Great Britain—sometimes also used as shorthand for the whole country—the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands". That way we separate it from the (more correct) short forms noted earlier and also don't need to add any bold editorial judgment or statement about "error", since it's implied by the immediately prior (more correct) identification of the term with the island. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To say that "Great Britain" is a valid equivalent to "United Kingdom" is wrong because "Great Britain" has a specific technical meaning (England + Scotland + Wales) which is not the same thing as the United Kingdom. That is why the full official title of the state is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If "Great Britain" means the same thing as "United Kingdom", that would be like saying "United Kingdom of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland", which would be absurd.

Rangoon keeps saying that "Britain" is simply a contraction of "Great Britain" but it is not clear to me that that is the case. "Britain" is used officially to mean "United Kingdom". "Britain" and "Great Britain" are not the same thing. "Britain" is actually a larger entity than "Great Britain".

Of course you can cite a lot of (mostly overseas) sources for people misusing "Great Britain" to mean the whole state, but surely in most of those cases the writer is simply not thinking about whether or not Northern Ireland is included in what they are saying because it would not be relevant to the particular point they are making. I don't think you can seriously claim they are consciously including or excluding Northern Ireland, so their usage is neither here nor there.

Why has the all-lines railway timetable always been called "Great Britain timetable" and not "United Kingdom timetable"? Because it does not include Northern Ireland Railways (which operates as a completely separate system). This correctly illustrates the distinction that we should not lose. -- Alarics (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Alarics, but you are misunderstanding the purpose of common alternate names - we all know it's "technically" wrong, that's not the point - the point is that GB=UK is an extremely common worldwide alternate, regardless of accuracy. This discussion is about how we say that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look in my Oxford English Dictionary. It states as follows: "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.". Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not disputed that it is used Rangoon, so that adds nothing. I like the solution proposed by N-HH ----Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been disputed throughout this thread. And note that the OED does not even qualify it by saying something like "in the United States".

So, good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel and USA Today. But not for a handful of POV-pushing WP editors, some of whom can't even use "it's"/"its" properly, some of whom do not understand basic aspects of British history, and some of whom appear to not understand that the United States in an English speaking nation with a far greater population than the UK.

And not a single source has been provided to support the tediously repeated argument that Great Britain is "incorrect" - which of course it can't be, 'because there is no such thing as an incorrect common name, and a name can be used to describe more than one thing.

Rangoon11 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That it is used has not been disputed, that it is incorrect is very very clear, if you really can't check those sources for yourself then I suppose you could be helped (if anyone else supports that position). Perhaps you would point me to some authority that says a common name is by definition correct? Otherwise stop attacking other editors you have been around long enough to know that is wrong and to understand the consequences. Lets focus on agreeing some form of wording here please ----Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That it is "incorrect" is very very strongly contested, it is pure POV, a politically correct opinion for which not a single cite has been provided in support. Not one.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Its called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", your own source says that Great Britain is sometimes loosely used as an equivalent, but its not the correct constitutional name. That is a simple matter of fact, not a POV. So two questions (i) Are you really disputing that is the proper name? (ii) what is your objection to referred to the fact in any use of the 'common name'? ----Snowded ^TALK 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

FFS, "Britain" is not the "proper" name either. We are discussing common names.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Britain is not the proper name. The CIA Fact book is very clear on the proper name. So would you please answer my two questions. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your questions are incoherent, perhaps you could rephrase.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting use of the word 'incoherent" but I will attempt to clarify. (i) Are you disputing that the constitutional name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? (ii) Assuming you are not then what is your objection to following what appears to be a majority view, namely that we reference Great Britain as a common name, but at the same time (in a form of words to be agreed) indicate that it is not the proper name and only properly refers to England, Scotland and Wales. ? ----Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(i) - You know I am not, and have not done so. (ii) I am very happy for the lead to state that "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island in the nation, as well as a loose common name for the whole nation. I have never opposed this, it has simply not been raised in the discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add of course that such wording about the island is already in the lead.

A formulation such as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." is crystal clear that (i) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the proper name, (ii) "Great Britain" merely a common name for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and (iii) "Great Britain" also the name of the island of Great Britain. For me this is more than clear enough, although the lead could be adjusted so that it is absolutely clear that the said island comprises England, Scotland and Wales.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to find sources to say what something in not. Banana is not the correct name for a giraffe; but try finding a source to confirm that. What is not in dispute is that “Great Britain” is the name of an island in the northeast Atlantic, comprising only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Self evidently it is not analogous to the whole of the UK, which means that using “Great Britain” as an alternative name for the entire UK is incorrect. As James says, this discussion is about how we say that. My view is that the subject is already being handled correctly as an alternative name and in accordance with the relevant MOS guideline i.e. MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about common names not proper names. Banana is not commonly used as a name for the giraffe by the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, USA Today or any other reliable sources.

"Great Britain" is commonly used as a name for the United Kingdom. It is also the proper name of the largest island of the nation. Names do not have to have a single meaning, neither do words.

In your opinion "Great Britain" is an "incorrect" common name for the United Kingdom. Clearly in the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, USA Today and innumerable other reliable sources it is perfectly correct, as an informal common name. In the face of that overwhelming weight of sourcing there needs to be some pretty spectacular sources which state that it is "incorrect". You have thus far provided none.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I really do not think it is needed, but it is how it is handled that matters. I strongly oppose simply putting GB in line with Britain and United Kingdom without any qualification. If there is a way to briefly make reference to GB whilst explaining its not strictly accurate, then id not oppose. But i think its going to be rather difficult to clarify briefly right in the first sentence. Especially when the next sentence goes on to talk about the island of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I know these things get lost in the verbiage, but Ghmyrtle and I have both proposed, separately, similar solutions that in my view <ahem> elegantly and subtly deal with all those problems. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

One of the problems with this discussion is that there is a three way argument going on - and it makes the discussion quite opaque and highly unlikely to reach a coinclusion in that format. One set of editors thinks "Great Britain" is just wrong and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. One set, although thinking it's incorrect, thinks it could be mentioned in the lead with an explanation that it is incorrect. One set thinks it should be mentioned and the "incorrect"/"correct" distinction is irrelevant (although within that there may or may not be an additional explanation of the extent of the usage. Would it simplify this thread if we simply establish whether there is a consensus to mention GB in the lead at all, and then subsequently work out how it should be described (if there is a consensus on that)? DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion.

We must remember that in WP reliable sources are required though. That "Great Britain" is an incorrect common name for the UK is an opinion, not a fact, and one for which no adequate sources have thus far been provided. Mention of it being an incorrect common name, stated as fact, is therefore out of the question. It is a fact that "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK (although some above have still made ludicrous attempts to deny this).Rangoon11 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it's handled at the moment? It's all there, in "terminology". — Jon C.^ॐ 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Its an incorrect name, and its a common name. Pretty simply really and you are pushing the boundaries again. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is fine how it is, handled in accordance with MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is highly lead worthy as has been demonstrated by extensive highly authoritative useage. Exclusion from the lead for subjective "I don't like it" reasons is unacceptable. I can see that the only way of moving this forward is going to be an RfC.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wider community scrutiny of content and behaviour issues is always welcome. Maybe you would help that along by answering by questions above?----Snowded ^TALK 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now replied.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that courtesy. I think that leaves us with two options. (i) leave it as it is (ii) add in the use as common name, but clarify that it is not a constitutional name. I read your reply as saying that you support the second subject of course to agreed wording. Maybe we should resolve which option, and if the second is agreed we can discuss wording. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The second option has always been my preference. The fly in the ointment has been the suggested use of words such as "incorrect".Rangoon11 (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only constitutional/legal short name is "United Kingdom", which is the short name given to the UN. Britain also lacks such standing. I agree we should use (ii), noting that it is less commonly used in some way. CMD (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no need to change the existing wording. But, if the wording is to be changed, it needs to differentiate between, on the one hand, the terms United Kingdom, UK, and Britain - all of which are officially sanctioned - and, on the other hand, Great Britain, which is not officially sanctioned and which can therefore be called less correct or inaccurate. I would support a wording such as: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes inaccurately applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above completely. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd already suggested something like that here, which only one person seemed to pick up on ... Anyway, not being precious. However, my preference would be to avoid explicit claims of error or inaccuracy. It may be fair, but there is something of an academic and theoretical debate to be had (as seen above, at great length) about whether a common term - which also appears in some official terminology let's not forget - can be described explicitly and definitively as inaccurate; plus, as noted, it's redundant if we've only just said that actually it's the name of the island. Maybe "loosely" per the OED, or simply "sometimes" on its own? N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be ok with me with the word "inaccurately" deleted. Britain isn't any less "accurate" than "Great Britain" and official sanction can't change it's accuracy. DeCausa (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the "sometimes" and "inaccurately" are uncited POV. The Oxford English Dictionary says often and loosely. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Great Britain for the UK officially sanctioned, other than "Team GB" (a trading name of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Assoc.? — Jon C.^ॐ 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll count Team GB, if that's OK, along with other sports teams. The IOC code as well? ISO GB/GBR codes? Car plates, which cover NI too as far as I know? David Cameron (I assume he was not excluding NI)? This is covered in the etymology section. I never said - nor did anyone else, I think - that it's an equivalent official name, but it does crop up on the sidelines, both in UK and international official and quasi-official references. Anyway, I think we've got beyond this now. The fact of its use, informally or otherwise, isn't really in doubt nor is it ignored in the main body, it's how to reflect that briefly in the lead, if at all. N-HH talk/edits 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets go with Ghmyrtle;s proposal but with the DeCausa variant, namely that Britain and Great Britain while common names are inaccurate ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncited and unciteable opinion. Let's go with the Oxford English Dictionary. "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."Rangoon11 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC);

What is "Uncited and unciteable opinion"? Are you challenging "sometimes", if so that seems unreasonable. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Rangoon was challenging "that Britain and Great Britain while common names are inaccurate" (emphasis challenged). I feel Rangoon is right that "loosely" would be a useful descriptor, because it conveys the idea that the name is not perfectly accurate. CMD (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c The Oxford English Dictionary says "often"; the very different "sometimes" is both uncited and suggests a far less frequent useage than is the reality as is clear from searches on Google archive.

"Inaccurate" is the same as "incorrect". Uncited and pure opinion.

We know that neither "Great Britain" or "Britain" are the proper name and that to state that either were the proper name would be inaccurate/incorrect. That has never been proposed. What is now suggested above (as I understand it) is that we state that "Great Britain" (and perhaps "Britain" too) are inaccurate/incorrect as common names. This is what I am challenging. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are tilting at windows. To varying degrees they qualify as common names. However they are not accurate or correct names and that has to be noted. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is a very big difference. They are, of course, incorrect as the proper name. To state that they are incorrect as common names is to move over into the realms of pure subjective (and thus far uncited) opinion however. And opinion that directly conflicts with sources of the quality of the Oxford English Dictionary and the New York Times.

A formulation such as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." is crystal clear that (i) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the proper name, (ii) "Great Britain" merely a common name for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and (iii) "Great Britain" also the name of the island of Great Britain. For me this is more than clear enough, although the lead could be adjusted so that it is absolutely clear that the said island comprises England, Scotland and Wales.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, they are incorrect as a common name, exactly what I and others have been saying. So if they are included as a common name, it has to be clear that they are not correct. Your formulation lists them as if they were proper short form names which they are not. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they are incorrect as the proper name only. The formulation in no way suggests that they are the proper name and is completely standard in WP, with the proper name given first, and at the top of the infobox, and common names given after the proper name in brackets and prefaced by "commonly known as". Rangoon11 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am running out of ways to say this, but I think we are agreed they are incorrect as a proper name; please stop tilting at windmills The issue, and I think most are agreed on this, is that it must be clear that the common name British Isles is incorrect as a proper name or a short form of that proper name. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, it isn't as if there is a proposal to move the article to "Great Britain", which would demand a high standard of proof - this is an "also/often known as" which only requires two types of evidence - (1) that it's commonly also/often known as and (2) that it's common enough to merit inclusion in our first line. GB succeeds on both counts. The remaining issue, is it accurate, is marginal in this context. I'm not against a brief intro line mention though, on the grounds that Wikipedia is always a good chance to educate as well as reflect, esp. to our US audiences, no sarcasm intended. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "correctness" or "incorrectness" really matters. The point is about whether the term is used or not to mean UK. I know there are some references, but to me the majority of sources appear to refer to sports, so I'd say leave it out of the lede. Might be an idea to change "commonly known as" to "also known as" too - I believe it reads better. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a Google search right now only reveals Olympic references? That's hardly surprising, if so. I think there would be a very different story if the Google search is performed a few months after the Olympiad. It's actually a bit ridiculous to say it's just a sporting reference, GB is incredibly widely used in the States to mean (interchangeably and semi-randomly) either the UK, England or Britain. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

State of play

The beginning of the previous thread suggested we all note our preferences. Going back over this discussion I've noted which editors are in favour of changing the lead and which editors are in favour of the existing wording. Please change your entry if I've misunderstood your preference, or note your preference as applicable:

• change lead ............. Rangoon11

• keep current lead ...... John C

• change lead............... De Causa

• keep current lead ...... BitishWatcher

• keep current lead ...... Daicaregos

• keep current lead ...... Alarics

• change lead ............. MilborneOne

• ? ............................ Snowded

• change lead ............. Jamesinderbyshire

• change lead ............. CMD

• keep current lead ...... Ghmyrtle

• keep current lead ...... SabreBD

• change lead .............. N-HH

• keep current lead ...... HighKing

Daicaregos (talk)

I don't see any great reason to change it, but have no objection as long as it is very clear that the use of Great Britian, while common is incorrect----Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see a huge need to make any changes (given that we have the etymology section second in, which has all the detail, and the space to explain) but equally wouldn't object to a note in the lead that the term is sometimes seen. I'd prefer to avoid explicit assertions that it is "inaccurate" or "wrong", which seems a bit didactic and simplistic; the error, such as it is, I think can be better explained by noting its use after the first mention of GB as the name of the island, rather than amid all the other slightly more correct alternative short-forms (per my and Ghmyrtle's proposals above). N-HH talk/edits 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, essentially. I don't think there's any need for change (and clearly there is no consensus for any change at present), but of course I'm not opposed to constructive improvements. If GB is to be mentioned in the lead, it must be clearly differentiated from the other - more correct - terms such as UK and Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is needed, but it is how it is handled that matters. I strongly oppose simply putting GB in line with Britain and United Kingdom without any qualification. If there is a way to briefly make reference to GB whilst explaining its not strictly accurate, then id not oppose. But i think its going to be rather difficult to clarify briefly right in the first sentence that. Especially when the next sentence goes on to talk about the island of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I think people need reminding about the purpose of the common alternates in the first line - they are NOT, repeat NOT, a declaration of accuracy, they are about what is commonly used! We are not defining, we are reporting. It is also a mild form of wikigaming to kick up a contentious apparent controversy about something that is fairly self-evident (because one's personal political views are opposed to it) and then claim that it cannot be added or discussed because it's contentious! Please. The facts are - (1) it is incredibly widely used as an alternate - the US media for example uses it all the time and so do US politicians, business leaders, cultural leaders, etc and (2) - we could give a mildly explanatory note about it, but we don't *have* to - because that isn't the point of "commonly known as" statements. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole "accurate" point is the result of a complete failure to understand the distinction between a proper and a common name - "Great Britain" is wholly accurate and correct as a common name in the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Consensus is also not established by vote. The arguments in favour of exclusion have been paper thin. I think what is needed here is some editors who are fresh to the article and the issue, via an RfC. We have seen the "usual faces" lining up in pre-set positions, and it was clear that whatever sources were provided and whatever arguments were made their views would remain the same. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::::Agree totally - the "contention" is the result of well-known POVs about the phrase "Great" rather than any objective view on the common-ness of the term. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen nothing in any guidance that suggests that it helps readers of the encyclopaedia to give equal weight to both less accurate and more accurate information. We are here to be accurate, informative and educational, not to confuse readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think US readers are already confused? They are probably wondering why "Great Britain" leads to that wierd Great Britain article at the moment. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT A SINGLE CITATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH DESCRIBES "GREAT BRITAIN" AS AN INACCURATE COMMON NAME FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We're getting bogged down a little in semantics and abstract argument - it is accurate/correct in the sense that it is used as common name (and acknowledged as such by sources such as the OED); it is inaccurate/incorrect to the extent that its use is noted as being a bit confused and not 100% accurate (in plenty of other sources) in a way that does not apply to alternatives such as UK or Britain. There's no correct answer as to its, er, accuracy/correctness or otherwise (hence why I'm opposed to explicit, definitive statements about accuracy or otherwise). I accept and line up behind the "report the use" argument - the only issue is how to present that in the lead, if at all. And actually, there are plenty of non-pre-set and open-minded positions on display here; and if you want to open this to wider debate I suspect you'll mostly find people shrugging their shoulders at why such a tiny point should create such drama. N-HH talk/edits 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Stop shouting. No citation has been provided because no one has agued that it is not a common name. The issues have been if it needs to be included, and if so with what qualification. If you put some effort into reading and thinking about the contributions of other editors rather than varying forms of polemic we might get somewhere. I'm sure if you come up with well worded proposal that respects and responds to the concerns of other editors you might make progress. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we use the wording from the Oxford English Dictionary itself (if anyone can think of a more authoritative source, please say) - "often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"?Rangoon11 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle came up with a better phrasing some time ago - I suggest you read it. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since my question has been ignored I will repeat it, why can't we use the wording from the Oxford English Dictionary itself (if anyone can think of a more authoritative source, please say) - "often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"?Rangoon11 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because, verbatim, it wouldn't make sense when inserted into the prose context here? Because the OED is simply one source among others; and simply having a source, or a quote from a source, does not offer a definitive answer as to how to incorporate and weight that information on a page here? I would be happy with one of the two following options:

• Insert directly after "commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain" in the first sentence: "or sometimes as Great Britain". The "or sometimes" gives some separation from the first two rather than simply adding it directly as a third option, but slightly jars with the following sentence about the island; or
• As suggested a way back, several times and not just by me, insert directly after "The country includes the island of Great Britain" in that second sentence: "—a term sometimes/loosely used to refer to the country as a whole—", then continuing "the north-eastern part ..". That has a greater separation from the first two common names and introduces the more technically precise use of the term GB as the name for the island first, and then notes that it has come to be used for the whole place. It's slightly more clumsy overall perhaps though.

Now, I'm off for a lie down. N-HH talk/edits 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked in the Cambridge Encyclopedia and the reference for Great Britian says "See United Kingdom". The reference for United Kingdom starts "United Kingdom (UK), also United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Great Britain".

I am prepared to accept your second suggestion, i.e. "The country includes the island of Great Britain" in that second sentence —a term also loosely used to refer to the country as a whole—" as a compromise.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, any inclusion has to make it clear that the use of GB is incorrect as a proper short form for the UK (which is not to say it is incorrect to say it is a common name, it is). The purpose of Wikipedia is to education, not to perpetuate common beliefs at the expense of verifiable facts ----Snowded ^TALK 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't incorrect and you have no source which says that it is (and "proper short form" is a meaningless phrase and also uncited). RfC it is then.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I'm not sure it's objectively clear what a "proper" short-form name is. Also, I'd say that using the word "loosely" and placing the observation straight after the identification of GB with the island does more than enough to identify and explain any "error", without the text having to instruct the readership that the term is "incorrect" - even if it is, in one sense of the word. Yes WP should inform, but it doesn't need to lead people by the nose, especially through oversimplified "right/wrong" labelling of an issue. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted by DeCausa above, there is no consensus to change the lead to include Great Britain as an alternative name. Unless any new argument is introduced, re-stating previously made argument is pointless; still less, shouting at at everyone. This discussion should be put out of its misery, and closed. Daicaregos (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus to close it either. It's important because it is a very common name for the UK, which, for POV reasons, is being excluded. I note that those opposed are pretty squarely within the Scottish/Welsh nationalist and Irish camps. Why is that then? It also holds no water that because the above seek to make it contentious, the wider editing community should pack bags and regretfully retire, unless you perhaps they subscribe to the notion that all English-language Wikipedia articles about the UK should be controlled by people who share those opinions only? Maybe not? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that nationalism is a problem - and I'm not sure it is - it can of course cut both ways. Don't forget that there's politics - potentially - in overly focusing on "Great Britain" as well. It's a bit of a right-wing nationalist theme, eg "put the Great back into Great Britain" etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I pointed this out in a comment early on in the thread. The point is that neither should be guiding thinking on this topic, but they do appear to be intruding. As per. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's RFC or time to wrap it up I think

This is what I posted earlier: Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, what I said has come to pass. This is only going to get more rancorous. There isn't, IMO, consensus for change. I think those who feel strongly about changing it should open an RfC. But otherwise this discussion will only continue to go down hill without resolution. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If an RfC is raised then I suggest Rangoon pays careful attention to the various suggestions and issues raised by other editors. Persisting in the belief that people are saying its inaccurate to say its a common name when they clearly are not will just end up with another confused discussion. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You may not think that's what some editors are saying Snowded, but self-evidently some are. And making some pretty unlikely statements in support of that contention. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

On balance, I'm neutral as to whether an RfC is worth it for this. But the participants in this thread are (1) mostly the usual ones for this talk page (2) apparently all UK/Ireland based. I think there's no harm in fresh, potentially more international, sets of eyes here. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur, happy to help phrase something if Rangoon wants ----Snowded ^TALK 13:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean phrase the RfC request, or phrase wording for the lead?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

either, although I think the Ghymrtle proposal is fine for the latter ----Snowded ^TALK 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC request needs to be something like "There is currently a discussion ongoing as to whether reference to "Great Britain" as a common name for the topic should be added to the lead of the article. Comments are invited." Thoughts?

I understand that Ghymrtle's suggestion involved reference to "Great Britain" being "incorrect" or "inaccurate" as a common name, which I oppose on the basis of it being 1. uncited opinion, and 2. in contradiction to very authoritative sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Encyclopedia, New York Times etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never used the word "incorrect", though I have said "less correct" and "inaccurate". Its use is not officially sanctioned, and is not supported by reputable style guides - unlike the terms UK and Britain. That is not opinion, it is fact supported by reliable sources. Additionally, it is my opinion that its inclusion is unnecessary and would create additional confusion if it is given the same status as the other terms. The term is, apparently, commonly and loosely used for the UK in some parts of the world - but that usage should not be given equivalence with the other, more correct, terms in the opening paragraph of the article. To do so would present incomplete information and create unnecessary confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your points have already all been dealt with ad nauseum. 1. there is no such thing as official sanction in the English language, the nearest we have to an official body for the language is the Oxford English Dictionary (which states "The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"). However examples of usage in official situations do exist, e.g. for the Olympic team and other sports teams, and ISO GB/GBR codes. 2. the style guides of the BBC and the Guardian are the only two I have seen linked to here so I assume they are what you are referring to. Even those examples of extreme political correctness do not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name to describe the United Kingdom is "less correct" or "inaccurate", they merely do not include it in that useage. "Less correct" or "inaccurate" is your own uncited opinion and essentially has the same meaning as "incorrect". And they are style guides, not dictionaries or encyclopedias. 3. Useage of "Great Britain" as a common name to describe the United Kingdom is explicitly approved as correct by sources of the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Encyclopedia, and The New York Times.[27].Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My reference to "official" was to the UK government, not to any linguistic body. I'm happy to agree that the term GB is sometimes used "loosely" for the UK - my point is that the other terms listed, such as Britain, are not used "loosely", but correctly. It's entirely your opinion that the BBC and Guardian's guides are governed by "extreme political correctness", whatever you think that might mean in this case, but anyway it's irrelevant - they are reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK government (which of course changes every few years and is a transient and small part of the nation) does not govern the English language. And does the present British government have a policy on whether or not "Great Britain" is correct as a loose common name for the UK? It would be surprising and rather odd if it did, but no citations have been provided which support such a claim. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The official UK government site is here. "Great Britain" has a different meaning to "Britain", as has been pointed out repeatedly. We should not confuse readers by suggesting they are synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All it does is explain the construction of the proper name, it does not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country is "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". And are you seriously claiming that a rather crappy page on the Direct gov website, probably written by a junior civil servant, is an expression of the policy of the British government? Oh dear. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider also, if the current administration in the United States announced that its policy was henceforth that "America" was no longer a valid common name for the country. Apart from being utterly ludicrous, do you really think that that would make "America" no longer thus?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider that the wording on the Direct.gov site "is an expression of the policy of the British government" - but it is an official statement of its position. If the US government took the view that you suggest, the lead of the US article would certainly need to state that its government considered that the term "America" was not seen as valid. But the point here is simply to differentiate between "Britain" and "Great Britain", which are not synonymous even if one is sometimes "loosely" used to mean the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That you consider that page on Direct gov an official statement of anything is rather tragic, but the page doesn't even state what you are trying to use in support of. That page does not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country is "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". In fact, still, not a single source has been provided which expresses that opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It states that "Great Britain" means one thing, and "Britain" means something different. You are claiming that they are synonymous. They aren't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not state what you are attempting to use it as a citation for. We know that Great Britain is also the name of an island, that is not what this discussion about and is not in dispute. This discussion is about whether Great Britain is a common name for the topic of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "Great Britain" is already used in the second sentence of this article. As I suggested, we could note in that sentence that the term is also sometimes used loosely (but inaccurately) to refer to the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurately according to the Ghmyrtle English Dictionary. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Imprecisely, then? WP:AGF, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All common names are imprecise in the sense that they are not the proper name. That's why they are called common names.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous or inaccurate common names should be identified as such, to minimise confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to be sure people aren't just pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this. RFCs rarely seem to end conclusively or with lots of new editors. The usual eyes on this page are seeing this discussion. Clearly many are bored of these points (as I feel most of the time) because of the gaming, but I persist because there is some hope that we might end up with something approaching objectivity. I suggest we instead compare sources for the two contentions - contention (1) that it's very, very common and should be included and contention (2) that it isn't - the former appears to be pretty widely agreed with, but there are still some naysayers - and then it's just a matter of comparing a few alternative phrasings. We are actually nearly there and don't really need an RFC other than if this is repeatedly claimed to be "too contentious", a position we should ignore. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the only two people to suggest an RfC (I believe) is myself and Rangoon, and we have both advocated including GB in the lead. So I'm not sure where the reference to "pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this" comes from. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that RfC is no more likely to kill the discussion than it is to take us to a consensus. It could do either, but since at present we have an effective deadlock it seems a sensible idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Should add that I completely agree that there needs to be a strong focus on quality sources in the discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. There isn't deadlock btw - the majority favour having something added, albeit with explanation. Therefore the point now is to consider alternative phrasings. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And I repeat, lets go with Ghmyrtle's. Despite multiple explanations from several editors Rangoon11 evidently doesn't understand the difference between something being a common name, and it being incorrect as a proper name. There comes a point when further explanation is just a waste of time. He doesn't like DirectGov, the CIA site or any others. Pity really ----Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are still continuing with this tedious attempt to confuse the common names and the proper name. Do you really think that the participants in this discussion are so dim that that they will be confused? Or are you just hoping everyone is going to get bored and go away.

You have rejected the position as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambrige Encyclopedia, The New York Times and endless other highly authoritative sources including USA Today and Der Speigel. And you have rejected them despite not having a single source which supports your claims of the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country being "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read, and if you read attempt to comprehend. I have been very clear that it is a common name and I have made no claim that it is less correct, inaccurate, incorrect as a common name. I have been very clear that it is an incorrect proper name and have pointed you (as have others) to sources to that effect. I have not rejected any source that I can see, please provide the diff. I am happy with the OED statement, I might question USA Today as "authoriative" but that is a minor point. Ignorance may be bliss, but obtuseness is not helpful. I am in fact making the same point as other editors and your inability to see the point is going to prevent progress. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"I have been very clear that it is a common name and I have made no claim that it is less correct, inaccurate, incorrect as a common name." It is good that you have now stated this, I think that we are making some progress here. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I and others have said it time and time again, if you have now understood it then maybe we are making progress. The issue for me is very simple, if it is included as a common name then there has to be statement that it is incorrect as a proper name. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never wished, in any way, to imply in the article that "Great Britain" is the proper name for the topic. In WP we do have a pretty standard and well established approach for handling proper and common names though, with the proper name going at the top of the infobox, and common names being given in the lead prefaced by something like "commonly known as". We don't say "commonly known as ....NB these are not the proper name which is ......". The "commonly known as" is not set in stone though and I am open to alternatives, such as "informally known as".Rangoon11 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for that, it can be listed as a common name. However it needs to be clear (as in Ghmyrtle's version) that its not a correct proper name. I really can't understand why you are not going with his proposal ----Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant to also add "informally or loosely known as" in my prior post.

My reasons against stating explicitly that Great Britain is not the proper name are two fold. Firstly, because "Britain", "United Kingdom" and "UK" are also not the proper name. Secondly, because it is not how we generally do it in WP (and I also personally agree with the usual WP approach, which I find clear enough).

A possibility is something like "The United Kingdom (formally (or officially) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the UK, Great Britain or Britain) This would have the benefit of putting the article title at the front. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, that means making things clear not avoiding them. My position is clear and you are wrong by the way. The United Kingdom and the UK are correct short names. I can't see agreement unless you are prepared to move, maybe best left as is. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How about

"The United Kingdom (UK) (officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as Great Britain or Britain)" Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because that gives "Britain" and "Great Britain" equal weight and status. One is commonly used, and officially used. The other is commonly used, but is not officially used, and is confusing to readers - partly because the identical term is used in the next sentence to mean something completely different (the island). How about my suggestion, up above somewhere? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It neither does nor does not give them equal status, it simply makes no comment. To give comment would amount to uncited opinion and value judgement. Please remind me of your proposal. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely [or incorrectly] applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It has to be "incorrectly" otherwise its misleading in this context ----Snowded ^TALK 08:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The suggested phrasing (without "incorrectly") is undoubtedly correct - ie that the term is used. Whether we wish to add "incorrectly" is a choice we make, it does not have to be added. Equally, as everyone has accepted, yourself included, it is not as simple as that - the use may be "incorrect" in one, technical sense, but it is not "incorrect" as a common name, since that concept is meaningless. A plain statement that its use is "incorrect" is hence explicitly misleading in a way that simply not passing comment at all is not. The suggestion of placing the note after GB has first properly been identified as referring to the island makes the imprecision point fairly clear to the averagely intelligent reader, one would have thought, without, as I have said, having to lead them by the nose in a didactic and simplistic fashion. N-HH talk/edits 08:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So long as the mention of GB is retained in the second sentence as I suggest, to differentiate it from the more precise and officially sanctioned common uses in the first sentence, I'd be comfortable with "loosely" rather than "incorrectly", for the reasons given by N-HH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But that isn't a useful proposal - I'm sorry, but you appear to be suggesting basically no change, as GB is already prominent in sentence 2 and this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions. That leaves the problem that despite GB being a very, very common alternate for UK, we won't say so - which is wrong. I propose we discuss the following change to the first sentence (refs only deleted here for copying brevity):

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain (also often Great Britain), is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe.

Something like this in sentence one is really where we need to get to. Definition happens in sentence two anyway, so the moderately intelligent reader sees what this is about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles need to abide by MOS. If this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions, the relevant guideline applicable here is MOS:LEADALT, which notes “if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.”, as has been applied correctly already. What is proposed here, to have several alternative names in the first line, directly contradicts established style guides. Daicaregos (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

At the top of that MOS it is stated: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus."

And the guideline itself in respect of this point merely says "it is recommended", not "they must". It also say "at least three", which can be taken to mean four (an interpretion strengthened by the prior sentence saying "if there are more than two alternative names" - that sentence would be meaningless if the next one also meant three or more rather than more than three. It is also questionable whether UK and United Kingdom should count as separate names. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We also of course have clear precedent from arguably the most high profile article in the whole of WP, United States. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

High profile or not, United States isn't even a WP:GA, let alone FA, very likely becasue it doesn't follow MOS. So if it is a precedent, it is for how not to do it. Daicaregos (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lots of big-country articles aren't GA, we can't read much into that and you really have no idea what the main cause is Dai, maybe because it's not been proposed until recently? It's now up for GA review anyhow, so we'll see. You're reaching. A guideline is precisely that - a guideline. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. It is not an article of the sort of quality to be used as a precedent, whatever the reason. Guidelines are there to be followed. Daicaregos (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Great Britain" shouldn't be given equal prominence to Britain. The latter isn't erroneous, is much more common and is officially-sanctioned. I still support the lead remaining as it is, but would still support something along the lines of Ghmyrtle's proposal if it had to go in. American use of "Great Britain" to mean the UK is adequately covered in terminology. — Jon C.^ॐ 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're using the leadalt guidelines to justify having Great Britain only in terminology, the same would surely apply to the other alternative names? CMD (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly where I've been coming from. The "correctness"/"accuracy" or even "officialness" (ugh!) of Great Britain and Britain is the same. The only difference is usage: eg Britain is used in governmental circles whereas Great Britain is not generally. Looking at page 7 of the Government's citizenship guide (published in 2007), which is cited in the terminology section of the article, "Britain" and "Great Britain" are defined and treated in exactly the same way i.e. meaning only E/W/S. But then Great Britain has greater currency in North America (IMO). DeCausa (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's more frequently used by North American media than British, for sure, but we must not forget that British sources of the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary and Cambridge Encyclopdia also confirm the correctness of "Great Britain" as a common name for the topic. We should also rememember that Great Britain is very widely used in this meaning by English language media in other parts of the world. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain is used in governmental circles whereas Great Britain is not generally" -- yes, but it is not by any means _only_ in governmental circles that Britain is used to mean the UK, while Great Britain is not thus used. That is the general practice in all *well-informed* circles, most of which are not, in fact, governmental. See the various style guides that have been mentioned.

I completely disagree with the statement that 'the "correctness"/"accuracy" or even "officialness" of Great Britain and Britain is the same'.

I am in favour of leaving the article is it now stands. -- Alarics (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The evidence just isn't there for that. There is only one accurate name for the state: that is laid down by statute. Everything else is by definition "inaccurate". Governmental usage can't change that. What you can say is that UK governmental usage is to generally use "Britain" and not "Great Britain" but that is nothing to do with it being correct. Equally, as pointed out above, the Government is specifically and formally telling new citizens in a Home Office publication that "Britain" only refers to E/S/W and not the UK as a whole. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are telling people that they are simply wrong, and entirely inconsistent with normal official usage. Some ignorant young bureaucrat probably wrote it, and under a more competent administration the error would have been caught before publication. Governments themselves are not always wholly reliable sources. "Britain" undoubtedly means the UK. -- Alarics (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that in the US, "Great Britain" also typically means the UK, Alaric? Or do you deny that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not aware that that was particularly a US thing, though it may well be. I regard it as a "usage by the ill-informed" thing. There is no reason why Americans generally, or any other foreigners for that matter, should be expected to be intimately familiar with these niceties, so I don't regard their usage as very relevant one way or the other, any more than we should be influenced by the fact that the French routinely use "Angleterre" to mean Britain/UK. -- Alarics (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You patronise not just the writers of The New York Times, USA Today, Der Speigel, and countless other prestigious outlets, but also your own country's esteemed Oxford English Dictionary and Cambridge Encyclopedia. We are all entitled to our opinions, and you are entitled to think that Great Britain as a common name for the topic is incorrect/only for the stupid/grotesque or even sacrilegious but WP requires reliable third party sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Alaric is welcome to his opinion that the US common usage doesn't matter, but it is just an opinion - here in Wikipedia-land, what a substantial proportion of the English-speaking world commonly calls something does, sadly, matter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I spend the day on the South Downs Way and this is still going on with the same misunderstandings. Great Britain is a common name, lets list it, but lets also make it clear that its an error as it excludes Northern Ireland. That way we respect multiple sources, and at the same time the truth. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about the even more common "error" of "Britain" being used in the same way? DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not an error. Is it just me, or is this discussion getting more surreal by the minute? I'm starting to get existential despair just reading it. — Jon C.^ॐ 20:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't a source saying that it is an official short form then yes. We simply list both as common names but say that the use while common is in error as they exclude Northern Ireland. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian style guide? — Jon C.^ॐ 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC);

The Home Office official publication for the British citizenship test "Life in the United Kingdom: a journey to citizenship", p.7: the name Britain or Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

e/c They absolutely do not exclude Northern Ireland when used to describe the United Kingdom, just as "America" does not include the rest of the continent when used to describe the United States. Great Britain when used as a name for the island excludes Northern Ireland.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any question that the "official" sources all back up the norms we are all aware of, eg, that officially GB is not equal to UK and all the other terms. That's not in doubt, so we really don't need to debate the sources on it. It's accepted. The only question here is how to refer to the common usage "Great Britain", where it is popularly taken to refer to what officially (and most media sources and public sources on the Brit side of the Pond call) is known as the "UK". Snowded's analysis is basically correct, the only remaining issue is the precise phrasing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Adapting how a similar issue is handled in the Netherlands lead, how about: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or, as pars pro toto, Britain or Great Britain). DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because that would imply that "Britain" and "Great Britain" are interchangeable terms. That is emphatically not the case. "Britain" means the UK as a whole, not as pars pro toto but in all educated usage. Northern Ireland is part of Britain. It is not part of Great Britain. -- Alarics (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Amongst the many sources that disagree with you is the Home Office. You keep asserting it as an act of faith - but that's all it is: an act of faith with no objective basis or conclusive source. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the Home Office disagrees with me. As I have already pointed out above, the document to which you refer is obviously in error if it says what you claim it says. The usage to which I refer has been very clearly established for many decades. It cannot be undone by one erroneous document. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources which contradict you are "obviously in error"! "if it says what you claim it says", "The usage to which I refer has been very clearly established for many decades", "one erroneous document". Your quasi-mystical belief in the "true" meaning of "Britain" has left you with a very great blind spot (and a lack of awareness of the content of this thread). DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Lack of awareness of the content of this thread"? No, I have read every contribution carefully. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them all. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if we are to take that Home Office document at face value it must mean that the Home Office does not now think that Northern Ireland is part of Britain. That cannot possibly be right. It's plainly a mistake in the wording -- quite an astonishing one, I agree, but then who was it said the Home Office was "not fit for purpose"? -- Alarics (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary! "at face value it must mean that the Home Office does not now think that Northern Ireland is part of Britain". That is only the conclusion if one shares your quasi-mystical belief in the "true" meaning. The alternative is that it & the many other like sources mentioned in this thread do not have "plainly a mistake in the wording" & you are in fact wrong - or more accurately have grossly over-simplified the position. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that words and names can have multiple meanings, and calling one the "true" or "definitive" meaning is meaningless. The exception to this where something has an offical legal name. "Britain" can be used to mean Great Britain the island (therefore excluding Northern Ireland) or to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore including Northern Ireland. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

True. That Citizenship guide sentence about Britain not covering NI is however in line with many confusions at the state level with regard to the precise status of NI - not least in the official publications and websites of the NI government and assembly, which studiously avoid precise terms. NI at the governmental level is apparently floating in a no-known-status bubble! Compare the Home Office guide with the well-known DirectGov definition (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012517):

UK' or 'Britain'?

The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland':

Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales

The United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom.

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK. The geographical term 'British Isles' covers the UK, all of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the rock hard certainty that "Britain" means X in all contexts is very misplaced. IMO, it's very like the absolutist belief that the split infinitive is ungrammatical. It's hard to take that it' a relatively modern artificial construct if you were taught since the age of 5 that it's the worst crime imaginable! DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The DirectGov list of definitions under the heading "UK or Britain"? that Jamesinderbyshire has cited above is exactly correct, and that is what we should say in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... just to state yet again, this is about COMMON NAMES for things, not authoritative definitions. Can we stop messing about now please and go on to the main point, the revision format of the first sentence to include GB as a common alternate? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut the Crap proposal

Lets just go with The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. per the original Ghymrtle proposal and per MOS and per other guidelines about avoiding confusion. It acknowledges that GB is a common name, but educates the reader that it is not a proper short form. Failing that lets just leave it as it is. If someone wants to make this into a poll to test the water fine. Otherwise I can't see any progress being made above. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you must know it won't fly if you position it as GB is "incorrect" & Britain implicitly "correct". What about The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Britain or Great Britain, with official UK government usage limited to first three). DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because that doesn't adequately convey the difference between Britain and Great Britain. It's not just or even mainly a question of "official UK government usage". I propose the following amended version of Snowded's proposal, substituting "loosely" for "incorrectly":

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands.

-- Alarics (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to objectively distinguish between GB and Britain, other than governmental usage - the rest is your personal preference. If you get into other usage eg media usage, then it's an impossible task because the evidence (through WP:RS) is different (& mixed) usages in eg UK & US. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarics' suggested text above has been floating around for a while now but amid all the heat and light, no one has seemed willing to pick up on it and say what seems rather obvious to me - that it provides the perfect solution in terms of explaining without instructing, or without having to go into too much detail. Yes, some of us might insist on GB being flagged as "incorrect" usage or say it should simply be listed alongside the other common names already there - or not there at all - but that wording seems to sit happily in the middle of that. N-HH talk/edits 08:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's supported by a specific RS, avoids "correctness" & is a good compromise. I support it on reflection. DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Loose" is too loose, we need to be explicit either that is incorrect( (or if more than one person is hung up on that) be clear that its loose 'cause it doesn't include Northern Ireland or that it only properly applies to England, Scotland and Wales. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Then the same qualification is needed for "Britain". Alarics has put forward a reasonable compromise. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't hate either of the proposed sentences, but they both suffer from the problem that they aren't adding this very common name in the place where common names usually go, the opening sentence - instead, they are different expansions on the second sentence. As we've established that it is a common usage and that the "limit to three" is a widely-flouted guidance, why are we not going to include it in the first sentence? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Disagree I'm afraid, its actually not a compromise, the loosely v incorrectly debate has been around here for I bit. I'm suggesting a wording that moves away from "evaluative words) to a factual statement which should also be educational. Failing that I am inclined to no change. Also Alarics wording privileges Britain (which is not qualified) over Great Britain (which is) so not sure where you are coming from here. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain what you mean by "privileges Britain (which is not qualified) over Great Britain (which is)" - do you mean that if we accept his sentence, Britain is regarded as a common name but GB isn't? Or something else? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Where I'm coming from is a compromise, which means no one gets exactly what they want (which is the case for me in Alarics' proposal). But if you're determined on exactly what you want, as is Jamesinderbyshire apparently, then this rather tedious discussion will continue for the forseable future DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, I am suggesting moving away from evaluative words (in my case the correct "incorrect") to something that simply says how the term is limited in proper use. Trying to help here. And the point I hade about Britain and GB stands, you seem to be saying that is no longer important to you?----Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting (in terms) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Britain or Great Britain, although the latter two terms exclude Northern Ireland). Ok with me, but unlikely to have general acceptance DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

But "Britain" most emphatically **_DOES NOT_** exclude Northern Ireland. It is only "Great Britain" that, strictly speaking, DOES exclude Northern Ireland, though less strictly speaking, or "loosely" speaking, some people use GB to mean the whole state. I put forward the "loosely" proposal which falls short of what I think would be most ideal (because, while some editors agree with me as to what would be most ideal, other editors disagree), in a spirit of constructive compromise so that we could make progress. Now Snowded, who I thought agreed with me in the first place, doesn't accept my compromise proposal, while DeCausa, with whom I disagreed, does! It's a good job I am such a patient and even-tempered chap, or I would be losing my cool by now. -- Alarics (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Britain doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. As I've said before, I'm okay with including Great Britain, but as long as it's made clear it's not a straightforward synonym like the UK or Britain. Great Britain and Britain aren't the same thing. — Jon C.^ॐ 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironically I made my first edit in this place on this day in 2006 from Singapore, and 7 years on not much has changed, including location after 13 hours on a A380! If there is evidence (which people say there is) that Britain is now an official short name for the UK then much as I am appalled by it I will happily accept it. In that case it is listed up there with UK etc. Otherwise, for "Great Britain" I'm happy with DeCausa's wording but it might be better to say "although properly used this term excludes Northern Ireland" ----Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain" has been used as a short form for the UK, in government publications as well in much mainstream journalism, for a long time. I am mystified as to why you find that appalling. On your suggested wording, I think "strictly speaking" would be better than "properly used". -- Alarics (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

...because it's an inaccurate abreviation of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has gained currency! lol DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for that? I think it is more likely a back-formation from "British". At all events, it's been around a very long time. -- Alarics (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Its sloppy use of language and misleading - hence my being appalled. Britain and Ireland are islands, to use one to cover part of another is wrong to my mind. But that is my opinion and UK Government use would override it - although I would like to see the links. Great Britain on the other hand is clearly wrong as it is only part of the full name and is not properly used as an abbreviation - strickly speaking is too weak. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there is an "island of Ireland" but there is not an "island of Britain". The island is Great Britain, which is not the same thing as Britain. Britain is the state. These usages are long-standing and well-documented. -- Alarics (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is a common geographical use. Got any refs? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is common political usage, meaning the UK and RoI. — Jon C.^ॐ 08:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And geographical - a lot of Atlas's now use it ----Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Central Office of Information, a government agency, used to publish every year (not sure if it still does) "Britain: An Official Handbook" which covers the whole UK. Here is an extract from page 1 of the 1975 edition:

Britain, formally known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, forms the greater part of the British Isles, a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of Europe. The largest islands are Great Britain (comprising the mainlands of England, Scotland and Wales) and Ireland (comprising Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic)."

-- Alarics (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me and makes the phrasing easier as only one term has to be qualified ----Snowded ^TALK 08:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. There's a ton of references that the big island is Britain or Great Britain eg, at random this or this. DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands."? This would be a step forward on the current text, although "often" would in my view be more accurate per the Oxford English Dictionary and the surfeit of sources available. We don't require unanimity here, just a consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. Only Snowded was against. It's certainly the proposal with the most & broadest support DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And with me (to restate that). As for the COI, I'm not sure it'll be publishing much in the future. Anyway, that publication quoted above is fine as far as it goes of course, but I'm not sure we should either be copying it verbatim or assuming that it on its own is enough - not least because, for example, it doesn't mention the current "UK" abbreviation that our lead correctly notes. Also, as argued ad nauseam, there is surely logic in also noting the use of GB for UK in some way - whatever we personally think of it - simply because it will be seen by people. And if we merely tell them in the lead that GB is the island, they're going to be left a little confused. If they can see immediately that it is sometimes loosely or casually used for the UK as a whole, they will get the point that Obama and Cameron, or the Olympic team et al, are not necessarily excluding NI when they refer to "Great Britain". N-HH talk/edits 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Change "loosely' to "incorrectly" or "inaccurately" or "mistakenly" and I'm happy too - but there are several editors who don't see any reason for any change so don't assume agreement yet----Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are well aware that that is completely unacceptable to a number of the partipants in the discussion. Why are you repeatedly proposing it?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And your proposal is completely unacceptable to a number of participants to. I've suggested a factual statement and some alternative words to "incorrectly" in an attempt to compromise. Perhaps you might reciprocate?----Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Only to you thus far. You know words like "incorrectly"/"inaccurately"/"mistakenly" are never going to fly, and rightly so.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, 'loosely' already represents a considerable compromise by some here, as does 'sometimes'. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out the summary of editor positions above, this section was my attempt to create something that would allow us to move forwards. I really can't see why you object to a some form of words (I am open) that make it clear that the use of Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland. Without that I will join those arguing for no change ----Snowded ^TALK 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You know that it does not exclude Northern Ireland when used in this manner. I think that it's now time to gauge opinion on this proposal, which has significant support. Perhaps an RfC will be the best way to do it. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is only one person insisting on an explicit and simplistic insistence, in WP's narrative voice, that such use of GB is "incorrect" or "mistaken". Can you tell us who else agrees with you on that? Can you also explain how following an explicit assertion that GB refers to the island with the phrasing "also loosely [sometimes] used to refer to the state" does not convey the point that said is technically inaccurate at one level? N-HH talk/edits 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Loosely is too loose and it fails to educate (my primary motivation here). I accept its a common name but I think we owe the reader information about the error of fact made if GB is used. As I say I am not hung up on "incorrect", but I think we need to provide information Otherwise you are of course entitled to think my views are "simplistic", I consider them simple, educational and useful. A majority of editors the last time it was checked were for no change, I'm happy to work with others to find a form of words that allows for change, but if that is not possible I will join those arguing for the status quo. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarics & Rangoon11 probably have the MOST polar-opposite views expressed in this discussion. If they can agree on this wording, surely everyone else can DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very flexible on actual wording, but sorry I don't agree with the current proposal for the reasons stated. I really can't see what is the problem with making a factual position clear for the reader----Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're going round in circles here. You haven't answered my questions - the second of which focuses on the education point and very specifically asks in what way the suggested wording does not provide information or make the "factual position" very clear. It's not just through the use of the word "loosely", but through the fact that it follows the explicit and unqualified identification of GB with the island. Nor have you responded to the point made previously: that you yourself accepted "inaccurate" was misleading, since the use of GB cannot be said to be that, at least as a common term. N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, if we're talking about education or misleading readers, the lead is in effect currently informing people that if Barack Obama or David Cameron, or the New York Times, refer to GB doing something or other - as they regularly do - they are excluding NI when they say that. Now that's misleading. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Loosely" proposal

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. was supported at one time or another by myself, N-HH, Rangoon11, Alarics, & Ghmyrtle but opposed by Snowded. I think this is the best opportunity of resolving this. Let's leave it open for others who haven't commented to do so & see if that remains the balance of opinion DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The alternative (given a lack of willingness to work out a compromise) is to go with Ghmyrtle's original proposal, namely The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the latter, if there has to be a change at all. I'm still of the opinion that the article is fine the way it is. Also, the intro currently says 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain..., which I also much prefer, as it makes it clear UK is an abbreviation for United Kingdom specifically and does away with those ugly brackets. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this sub-thread to commenting on this proposal:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands

& preferably by those who have not commented on it before. Drifting off in general opining & "alternatives" has contributed to the endless circles. Thanks DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jon C., could you just be explicit as to whether you can or can not live with this proposal. Thanks DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on DeCausa, its perfectly legitimate to give people a choice between proposals. Its equally legitimate to ask if you (and others) can live with the alternative ----Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also valid, is that some editors' opinions have not been swayed by any of these proposals. The intro, as it stands, is fine just as it is. There remains no consensus for change. Daicaregos (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and my preference is (i) Ghymrtle original (ii) Leave it as is. I think that is what it is down to and its not legitimate to try and restrict people's responses to a "can you live with this one" ----Snowded ^TALK 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my preferences in descending order of choice are (i) Ghmyrtle, (ii) Leave it as is, (iii) the "loosely" compromise. The one option that I absolutely cannot live with is Jamesinderbyshire's version which baldly asserts, wholly incorrectly as shown by the source that I cited earlier, that GB = UK. -- Alarics (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened this sub-thread to test the support for this proposal: if it has insufficient support, fine, let's move on to another. (So far, it has the broadest support, incl. the status quo.) This thread has plenty of meandering discussion and alternatives. There is no shortage of giving "people a choice between proposals". It's time to put some structure into this, rather than continuing aimlessly in circles. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So we give people alternatives and let them choose. It is against all WIkipedia practice to try and force a discussion on one proposal only ----Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK well if you would like to spell out the 3 or 4 proposals that are "on the table" and give them numbers, we can all rate them in order of preference, as Snowded and I have done just above. -- Alarics (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, if I have to support or oppose, I oppose it. I don't think it's necessary, but it's the best of a bad bunch. "Loosely" isn't the best word to use, and I prefer the de-bracketing that we have now rather than going back to (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK or Britain). — Jon C.^ॐ 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the debracketing, but that is a separate and subsidiary point. We can have the "loosely" version, if that is what people want, and still do the debracketing. -- Alarics (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need a table like this. Maybe it would help the ill-feeling and improve the article? With a link near to the article top?

Etymology and terminology: Summary

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: is the full name for the UK. Its name reflects the union of the island of Great Britain with Northern Ireland.

United Kingdom and UK: is a standard name and abbreviation for the UK.

GB and GBR: are the ISO 3166 codes for the UK, used by e.g. the International Olympic Committee (IOC), UK passports, and the UK licence plate country code.[1] GB is occasionally used as an abbreviation for the island of Great Britain [4]

Britain: is an name for the UK, which is also used for the island of Great Britain, so it is ambiguous.[2]

Great Britain: is name for the UK, whose use is discouraged as it can easily be confused with the island of Great Britain.[3]

[1] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Olympic_Committees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes

[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain

[3] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Davis_Cup_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team

[4] See e.g. http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/page-how-can-i-become-a-gb-boxer.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Not an actual term" in the FAQ

I just noticed the following sentence in the FAQ (under Q4): "This phrase [constituent country], however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK." What does it mean to say that this is not an "actual term". That doesn't seem to make sense and, I think, should be reworded. garik (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not the best time to raise a new question. I'll come back later... garik (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A country consisting of four countries?

Aside from the still raging debate over the terms UK, United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain and Great Britain, I also notice this in the lead: It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries. A country consisting of four countries? Really?? Not a hint of confusion there I see. MrZoolook (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG I think that we are all going to have a nervous break down if this is reopened at the same time as the above discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I already had my nervous breakdown, the 35th time it was aired, which was some time last year if I recall correctly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec):Simple fact - check out Countries of the United Kingdom for details ----Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is special being made up of four countries, whilst the situation is not ideal in terms of clarity the sources do show lots of use of "countries" for the four nations of the UK. There will be no consensus to change that sentence. Its a reasonable situation at present clearly stating the UK is a country whilst recognising the four nations are described as countries too, even though it would flow better if it simply said the UK is a country in its own right made up of four nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference used for "Countries within a country" - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 - is (as I've said before) an archived page dating from 2003, not current, and in my view shouldn't be used to support that wording anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, that source clearly states "On this site the term ‘Britain’ is used informally (my emphasis) to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Why not use that wording in the lead instead of incorrectly, commonly, sometimes, hardly ever etc. If it that good of a source for countries within a country, its good enough for that too... right?

Snowded, the problem telling me to look at the article Countries of the United Kingdom, is that the lead there cites a page that does NOT indicate 4 countries making up a country. It in fact clearly states "United Kingdom - Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." and "Great Britain (GB) - Often used to refer to the United Kingdom, though Great Britain only refers to England, Scotland and Wales (i.e., the United Kingdom without Northern Ireland)." No mention of "four countries in a country", and in fact clearly stating that "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - (UK)" is a sovereign state, a fact mentioned in THIS article's lead right before the "4 countries in a country" claim. Thus adding to the confusion!

BritishWatcher, are you getting the terms Nation and Country mixed up? You seem now to be saying that the UK is a country consisting of 4 nations. Taken in the context of the lead here, we now have the UK as a country consisting of 4 countries, a country consisting of 1 nation, a nation consisting of 4 countries, and a nation consisting of 4 nations. MrZoolook (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All true and if you check out the note at the top of the talk page you will get the details ----Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also no shortage of sources available which give this description: [28].Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search term is flawed, producing everything with the words "United", "Kingdom", "country", "composed", "of" and "four" (the second "country" would be discarded as it is already in the list of words to match). The search should be United Kingdom "country composed of four countries" to look for the phrase. [29]. This gives a startling LACK of reliable sources. MrZoolook (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search actually gives a large number of sources which state that there are four countries within the UK. Yes of course it also throws up results which are wholly irrelevant. Your search is excessively narrow using a single very particualr turn of phrase so it is no wonder it generates far less, including far less relevant results. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not disputing that the UK consists of 4 countries. I am disputing that the UK is a 'country' consisting of 4 countries. So far, the one attempt at a source points to a reference that states no such thing. MrZoolook (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are contesting the fact that the UK is a country.... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is that it would be less complicated to simply describe them as 4 nations of the UK, as many do think of sovereign state when they think of the term country. That was certainly my primary understanding of the term. But there are sources saying the UK is made up of countries so its justified.

The United Kingdom is a country, nation and sovereign state. England,Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries and nations of the United Kingdom. In terms of text of the sentence it would flow easier to say nations of the UK, rather than countries of the UK. But there wont be support to have "countries" changed. And i strongly oppose any removal of the part of the sentence about the UK being a country in its own right, seen as the first sentence of this article forgets to mention it is a country too.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My passport states my nationality as British, not English. Where does the notion of the constituent countries being nations in their own right come from? MrZoolook (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From their history, their culture, their institutions and the constitutional and legal arrangements of the UK, which is not a federation but a union.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So they WERE nations? MrZoolook (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI MrZoolook, the underlying problem is that whilst Scotland, Wales and England are all clearly nations, and known as such, the status of Northern Ireland is heavily contested - and in addition, the current "nationhood" of Wales, Scotland and England are debated. Therefore the rather less debatable term "constituent country" or "country" has crept in. The UK and Irish governments also struggle with defining these concepts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the numb of it. It's a meaningless phrase that transmits no useful information to a global reader. The underlying point is that it was a "POV settlement". Scots/Welsh/Irish/NI/UK POV in a tangle all wanting to make sure their respective claim to the magical status of "country" was respected. But then it appears that wasn't just a WP problem because the sources were in the same tangle. So, in a sense, the ugly yet meaningless phrase reflects the mess the sources are in in the real world - which is what a WP article is supposed to be doing. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

'Country' and nation are not synonomous with 'state'. Extensively debated, mediated and resolved - you have the referenence to those sources and a brief investigation on your part would take you to the prior discussions. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We have been over all this many times. The word "nation" is to be avoided. Almost any use of the word in any context is likely to be contested. For some people a nation is the same thing as a country, for others it is not, and neither of them is necessarily the same thing as a state, still less a sovereign state. There simply is no agreement about what constitutes a nation. Enoch Powell noted that people belong to a nation if they think they do. Some people think Cornwall is a nation. Many of the Flemish think Flanders is a nation. Some Scots do not think the UK is a nation, but some UK politicians do describe it as such, while not denying that Scotland is also a nation. Nationhood is a matter of personal identity more than it is lines on maps or sets of constitutional arrangements; there can be all sorts of overlapping identities, and the only neutral thing we can do is to eschew the word nation altogether. So for want of a better way of describing what is a messy and asymmetrical state of affairs, we describe the UK as a country (which in most senses it is) but also its four constituent parts as countries (which is not entirely uncontroversial, but not as controversial as calling them four nations), hence "a country consisting of four countries". -- Alarics (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you are aware for future Wikibattles Alarics, "nation" can and does often mean something very specific, eg, a UN-recognised nation-state. It can mean loads of other things, but to some authorities it means the precise opposite of a generalised fuzzy "identity-state". One reason we've ended up avoiding the term though is because of the points you outline. The other is that Scotland, Wales, England and NI are not modern nation-states in the UN sense. At least, for the time being. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the UN, but if we are going to start citing international organisations, the EU certainly doesn't talk about nations or nation-states. It has "Member States", which leaves those Scots, Catalans, Bretons, Flemings, etc. who wish to regard the smaller-than-Member-State entities that they identify with as "nations" free to continue to refer to those places as nations in conversation without its having any legal force in EU law. And incidentally the Member State we are talking about at present is always called "United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni / Vereinigtes Königreich" in all official EU documents. -- Alarics (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does the UK compete in as a COUNTRY? The Olympics for starters. If the UK was not a country and instead was merely a union of countries such as the EU, then the four home nations would obviously compete separately. What kind of country has it's own parliament at the highest level (not local assembly) based in another so called "country?" Do you have a Scottish or English passport? I could go on... This will not change unless the region of Scotland votes to opt out of the UK in two years. Check out the BBC Country profiles for more verbiage supporting the fact that the UK is indeed a COUNTRY: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1038758.stm (82.44.72.174 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

The Olympics is pretty much the only international event we compete as a whole in. Football, Cricket, Rugby... all are competed on an international stage as separate countries. And the Olympics commentators and reports I have seen and heard, refer to the UK as a nation. MrZoolook (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And during those Olympic medal ceremonies when we won gold, our "national" anthem was played. MrZoolook (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think all here agree, apart from MrZoolook, that the UK is a country. That doesn't stop its four constituent parts from also being able to be called countries by those who wish to do so. -- Alarics (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case (which IS about definitions - sheesh) you are totally wrong - the "wishes" of people are nothing to do with it! This needs sourcing, authorities, etc. Luckily it has some - just hoping to get through about the basics of Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was merely trying to explain to MrZoolook why we call the UK "a country consisting of four countries" as a compromise with wide though not total support. And in reply to MrZoolook's latest comment, I have already said that many people do describe the UK as a nation but some others do not accept this (in some cases because they evidently cannot cope with multilevel or overlapping identities, or the idea of a nation within a nation). The fact that the UK is described by some as a nation does not stop it from also being a country. The "problem" raised by MrZoolook is not in fact a problem at all. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who think there is a simple definition of the word country should look at the UK and say to themselves "My definition is wrong", rather than saying "The UK doesn't fit my definition of country, so IT must be wrong". Find a better, less simplistic definition of country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is indeed a country, as confirmed by the Prime Minister: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19232685 93.186.23.82 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but not because our inexperienced and ignorant Prime Minister says so. The Prime Minister doesn't know dick. He thinks the Americans helped us win the Battle of Britain! The Prime Minister is not a reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the PM thinks the US helped win the B of B when he's in the US. Doubtless when he is in France, he will explain how the French won it. :) Although the US did (for the historical record) help out in some ways, not just those rather pathetic lend-lease ships, but also with lots of raw materials at bargain prices, some vital machine tools, some volunteer pilots, etc. Nothing like what Canada offered, but something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well OK but I think it was evident in the context that Cameron thought the US had already joined the war, whereas the whole point about 1940 was that Britain stood alone, a fact one might have expected a British prime minister to know. -- Alarics (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me that he's a bit clueless, it isn't the only factual gaffe he's made. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The only country `in Europe` in 1940 stood alone against Germany you mean!.. On UK four countries, isn`t it three countries and 1 colony aka Wales make up the UK? On a serious note, four countries or nations is the best way to describe the nations that make up the `United` Kingdom --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if any of the three countries of Great Britain has been settled over and over by colonists, it's England, boyo. The whole point of Wales is that 20% of us still speak the same language they were speaking there two thousand years ago;) You can't even say that for Scotland. garik (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of Scotland is that it isn't England, despite the best efforts of a string of unmentionables from Edward I to Oliver Cromwell to James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, to, the list is long... Oh, and BTW, 2000 years ago everyone on this island was speaking the same language as the inhabitants of what is now called Wales; witness placenames Penicuik (Pen y Cog) in Midlothian, Pen y Ghent in Yorkshire, Pen y Fan in Powys, Pen y Bryn in Cornwall, need one go on? 81.135.132.151 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't speaking Welsh, or even the British language, in all this island. The Pictish Language is thought to have no relation to them. Clay More47 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually what little data we have imply that Pictish was pretty closely related to Old British. It seems to have been thought of as a distinct language, sure (so our anonymous contributor isn't quite right), but then the same goes for Dutch and German, and no one would say the latter has no relation to the former. In any case, this is a tangent that sprang from my tongue-in-cheek response to Rockybiggs's tongue-in-cheek dig at Wales. Let's not let it get out of hand. garik (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Against my better judgement, but more for the sake of qualifying my above comment and forestalling a discussion of the relationship between Pictish and Brythonic...) Of course the emphasis should be on the phrase "what little data we have". Pictish has been hypothesised to be everything from non-Indo-European to a dialect of Brythonic, and it's very hard to draw conclusions. It's not even clear that all the data we have are in Pictish! But my impression is that the majority view's in favour of it having been a P-Celtic language of some sort (quite probably with a non-Celtic substratum—or other significant non-Celtic influence—although the same has been claimed for all the surviving insular Celtic languages too...). garik (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Do these templates add any value to the articles they are in? That's main topic. Please comment, if you will. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Devolved administrations

Under the above heading it states that "Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each have their own Government or Executive". Should it not say that they have their own devolved government or executive? --Jonty Monty (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Don't all jump in at once to agree with me. I know when a suggestion isn't popular. :) --Jonty Monty (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly agreeing that it was worth adding - it's kind of clear from the section heading, but there's no harm in being more specific in the main text as well. I assume no one else responded because it wasn't a controversial change. Silence doesn't always equal consent, but this is quite a watched page I think. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the change seems good to me. -- Alarics (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No objection/I'm neutral. It's about as non-controversial as it gets - why did you feel the need to get consent rather than just doing it? DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See this [[30]]. I wasn't certain I could make the edit without discussing it. I know now that small edits like this are fine. As I was advised, I became bold. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has a lot of history, and in the past some editors have taken a strong line in relation to the wording of constitutional issues involving the national administrations in particular. It's tempting fate somewhat to describe any change to wording on such matters as "non-controversial". I was waiting to see what comments were made before commenting myself, but as no-one did you were right to make the change. It will be interesting to see if any other comments are made now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - one should never underestimate, as I did in my own comment here, the ability of even the most minor clarifying changes to spark controversy, however odd that might seem from one's own perspective ... but we seem OK here (so far at least). More generally, going ahead with a small edit, unless it's blatantly going to be contentious, is usually OK - the worst that can happen is reversion. N-HH talk/edits 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I happen to think the change is unnecessary as the heading - devolved administrations - makes clear that the governments/executives are 'devolved'. That said, it is not a big enough deal to consider reverting. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, adds nothing but so what ----Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds nothing. It clarifies the type of government/executive, and that's no bad thing. Jonty Monty (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It adds nothing because it is already stated in the heading. Keep up  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, people read in different ways - some people's eyes will be drawn to, and take in, bold section headings (and hence, in this case, the "devolved" will hit them immediately); others, by contrast, if already focused on the main text, may glaze over the heading without taking it in. The additional clarification can do no harm, and may have some benefit. Anyway, you have your responses now! N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A thread of 12 posts (oops, 13 with this one) on an edit that no one wants to revert...I love this page! DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay then! I'll take the blame! :) (14) Jonty Monty (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Better, surely, than 101 posts about something minor and relatively trivial where you don't even get agreement, but still probably have the "wrong" content. As seen ad nauseam, here and elsewhere ... N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Economic Section Badly Out of Date

Needs upgrading stat, the UK has dropped way down the list of countries by GDP due to poor economic policy between 2002-2010. India has over double the GDP and Brazil 10% more than the UK. Twobells (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, see below - the whole thing is a bit of a mess, not just here. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP figures.

Currently we have a bit of an issue with GDP figures, and how they are being represented across the articles on England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. The current situation as it currently stands: England - no GDP figures present. Why is this? No sources? I've tried to find some, but no luck. I blame London for this! Scotland - GDP figures sourced, (hooray - but currently marked as a dead link, but doesn't actually appear to be...someone more knowledgeable could investigate?) but the "GDP" per capita bit is clearly wrong, as it links to an article that has no mention of Scotland at all (List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita). Wales and Northern Ireland - Simply no source for the GDP figures given. Another point, though this sounds a bit picky, is why the figures are USD only...even the one which is apparently from a Scottish source on the Scotland article! I would like to get this cleaned up, but I really don't have the know-how. Thanks. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP is published on behalf of Governments. Therefore there is a GDP for the UK and the Scottish Government also publishes data, easily accessable on their website so not sure why you could not find it! For this reason there is no official stand alone data for England. Please don't make presumptions about 'London' or whinge about articles we are all capable of doing something about it.Tmol42 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A little unfair to call it a whinge, don't you think? Jonty Monty (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Total headline Gross Value Added (GVA) seems to have taken over from GDP. On the Wales page the 2010 figure (ref, p 10) of £45.5 billion is show in the Economy section and in the Lead. Couldn't find a source for GDP figs in the infobox. Perhaps the time has come to update it. Daicaregos (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say that GVA seems to have taken over from GDP I'm not sure what you mean. GDP figures are still regularly given. Jonty Monty (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In which case there should have been no problem finding references, which rather begs the question as to why they have not been found. You will have noticed they were not part of the stats set in the reference I gave. Please add the references. if you have the time. Or point us in the right direction, if you don't. Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay Daicaregos, I think I'm brave enough to eat a little bit of humble pie. Can I provide sources for my assertion? No. Are GDP figures given for Scotland and Wales? Yep, but I'm fu***** if I can find them. Look at these two sources [31][32]. In the first everything tells me that Scotland's GDP figures are there, but I'just can't seem to access the bloody thing. The second source tells us that GDP figures are given for Wales annually. Can I find? Can I hell. That could be my incompetence, who knows. Not been much help but I tried. Jonty Monty (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)