User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms

I have made an article out of the proposal here. I haven't found the time to work on it the last few months and I won't find the time either in the foreseeable future. Also, it doesn't attract much attention here, so I decided to just make the article and see what happens. I also wanted to include a link to here at the top of all the articles in the list below, but I won't do that for now. I have put it at the top of the Britain article to show what I mean and because that article is already mentioned for a merger. Here's the link-text:


 * Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms.

A variation of this could be used for the articles about Ireland, like this:


 * Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like Ulster, (Republic of) Ireland, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms. 

Let's see what happens now.

DirkvdM 10:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Original text (started 2005-04-28)
Big OOPS: having just written all this, I realise that there already is an article like the one I am proposing, though not quite as extensive as this, namely Wikiportal/United_Kingdom. I may be new at Wikipedia, but so are many others, and most of them will miss this article just like I did, and at least the beginning is something that readers need to know first in order to understand the various articles. Also, the title of this portal says it's about the UK, which doesn't cover what my article is about (it doesn't cover the Republic of Ireland and Brittany, though they are mentioned in the articel, but the Republic not linked). So should this maybe become a portal? But two separate portals for the UK and the British Isles (or whatever it is goning to be) would be too much. Also, this is more than a portal, it's also a clarification of terms, though that shouldn't be a problem.

Anyway, here's the discussion-text as I wrote it before I realised this.

There is much confusion concerning terms like England, (Great) Britain and the United Kingdom. Explanations of these terms are spread over many Wikipedia articles (see list below) and in too much detail, so I've tried to condense all this into one overview. In the process, I noticed some discrepancies between these articles, so this effort may at least serve to correct these errors (though I haven't been keeping track of what was where, so that would mean a lot of double work). I've included some history and politics, but tried to limit that to subjects that can help clarify the terminology. I haven't dealt with the peoples of the islands and their origin (Celtic, Germanic, Vikings) and language, though that might also be useful. How much is to be included has a lot to do with whether this is to remain a separate article (and under what title then?).

In a sense, this is a list of links, like in a category, but put into context. This idea might be expanded upon (if this is to remain a separate article). However, I didn't make, for example, Bermuda into a link because I mentioned it just as an example of an overseas territory (which I did link, so that's then the link-link for Bermuda). Nor did I link the dates, to keep the linking-idea as tidy as possible (it's already messy enough as it is).

I suggest that, for now, you don't alter the article (except for spelling errors and maybe other linguistic stuff), but add comments here. I will then check it regularly over the next few weeks (if I find the time) and change it myself until I feel confident to include it in the relevant articles (or whatever needs to be done with it).

Some remaining questions:

Which islands exactly comprise the British Isles. Is the isle of Man part of it? What about the other islands that are politically part of England and Scotland but not geographically part of Great Britain? I avoided the issue of these islands to avoid an even bigger mess.

In the United Kingdom article there are some (possible) discrepancies with other articles"
 * "Northern Ireland (...) is often described as a province of the United Kingdom". But in the Northern Ireland article it is called an administrative region. I suppose a province is an administrative region?
 * Yes. Province is a traditional term. Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of Ulster, which is one of the four traditional provinces of Ireland. The administrative regions of the UK are an EU inspired piece of bureaucracy and have only been around for a decade or so. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are each a single region and England is divided into nine regions.Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "the term 'British isles' is never meant to include Ireland." But elsewhere it says it does.
 * Irish nationalists loathe any association with the term British in any context, but in terms of physical geography the Ireland of Ireland is one of the British Isles whether they like it or not. The group of islands is obvious on a map, and there is no other name for it. Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "'Great Britian' means 'all of Britian'". But elsewhere it is said to mean something like 'big Britain', to distinguish it from 'little Britian' or Brittany in France.
 * "Great" used to mean big. Great Britain is the big island on which mainland England, Scotland and Wales are located. The term is also used casually to refer to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, including all the islands, and also less correctly to include the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Jersey and Guernsey are crown dependencies". Elsewhere, it just says that they are Bailiwicks. Are both true? I've also read that these and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK. But they are UK dependencies? Again, I suppose both can be true? And can ''UK dependency' and 'crown dependency' be used interchangeably?
 * They are both. The bailiwick is the particular form of government which these two crown dependencies happen to have. Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the following true (not something I read anywhere, just a thought)? "In the middle ages, the British Isles had many small kingdoms (or clans), as elsewhere in Europe, but England was the first to unite under one king and consequently that kingdom started to absorb more and more of the surrounding land." Can one speak in such terms of England, or was it just a continuing expansion, with the entity 'England' formed only later?
 * England came to be in the late ninth century when the Kingdom of Wessex absorbed the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. There is no particular date when this occurred, usage changed over a period. Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and a linguistic thing: when I use, say, 'English' as an adjective (I mean as in 'the english language' - that's an adjective, isn't it?) I don't capitalise it. That's the rule in Dutch. Is this the same in English? I keep getting that in red, indicating it's a spelling error.
 * A capital is always used in English.Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The next question is what to do with this. The reason I started to write this is the widespread misunderstanding about several terms realting to the various british Isles. So there should at least be a short note, such as the first bit, in at least some of the articles in the list below. The rest could be placed in a separate article. In this case it might do with some expanding (with the peoples and languages and the other islands perhaps and I have have only touched on the information in the British overseas territory and crown dependency articles).

Or maybe it would be better to place it in the Britain or British Isles article and then link to there from the other articles below, which are the ones I got my information from.

Or it could be placed as a template in various articles. In the latter two cases it might be better to shorten it a bit (and more than a bit for a template).

Or a combination of the above?

List of relevant articles


 * Britain
 * British
 * Alternative words for British
 * Great Britain
 * Kingdom of Great Britain
 * United Kingdom
 * England
 * Kingdom of England
 * England and Wales
 * Wales
 * Principality of Wales: redirects to Wales
 * Scotland
 * Ireland
 * Republic of Ireland
 * Northern Ireland
 * Ulster
 * Lordship of Ireland
 * Kingdom of Ireland
 * Irish Free State
 * Islands of the North Atlantic
 * Wikiportal/United_Kingdom
 * Commonwealth of Nations
 * British Commonwealth: redirects to Commonwealth of Nations
 * Commonwealth of England
 * Crown dependency
 * British overseas territory
 * Brittany
 * Bretagne
 * British Empire

Furthermore there is the List of United Kingdom-related topics, which is itself a list of links, as are the categories British Isles and United Kingdom.

I've also used: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/

Another question (depending on what is to be done with this) is what the title should be. The 'working title' is British Isles - Clarification of terms. It is not really about disambiguation (various meanings of the same term), because it is about different terms and and also 'various terms for the same meaning'. 'Terminology in the British Isles' doesn't quite sound right either.DirkvdM 08:05, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * The first option is probably as good as you can get (but drop the capital C). The problem is that you can't avoid using one of the terms you are seeking to clarify. There are already several articles on specific terms at the top level of the UK menu. I don't think articles like United Kingdom and England should get bogged down in these matters; they should just contain a definition of their own subject. Oliver Chettle 22:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that in the Britain talk page there was a discussion (starting in 2002) about whether there should be a separate article under that title if there already is one for Great Britain. Ultimately this led to a slight consensus that Britain should then become sort of a disambiguation page, rather in the sense in which I am proposing. That would mean that there is no need for yet another article on this broader subject (there already are too many, as you can see above). Another suggestion there is to then also remove (or rather redirect) the British article. Or maybe all of these can be redirected to a Britain Portal. And then the UK Portal could then be removed and incorporated into that. That would certainly clean things up. DirkvdM 09:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Removing the UK portal would be an outrage. The UK is the political entity and it is just as legitimate as the Netherlands or any other country. You might as well propose deleting a US portal and shoving it into one for North America. Oliver Chettle 18:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to sound angry as I know you mean well, but I was shocked by that suggestion. There is no way you could get it through anyway. Oliver Chettle 18:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Removing the UK article would indeed be the outrage you speak of, but there are loads of subjects (and countries) for which there is no portal. For example, there is no portal for the Netherlands, so should I be outraged now? (not that I'm a nationalist, far from it, ok, should I be outraged that there is no portal for Ghana? :) ) I didn't suggest to remove the UK portal, just move it to what seems to me to be a more logical broader subject.
 * There is hardly any information about what portals are meant to be (that I can find). So, what is a portal, really? There are portals for 6 countries, 2 smaller regions (Quebec and Hong Kong) and only 2 for larger regions (EU and Africa). Shouldn't portals be only for larger regions?For example, there is a portal for the People's republic of China, but it seems more logical to me to have one for China, which then refers to the smaller subject of the present-day situation (ie the Republic). I'll post a question about this in Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal DirkvdM 07:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Ireland
I just want to clarify a few things about Ireland. Although it is geographically correct, it would be considered good manners not to refer to the British Isles when talking to an Irishman without reservation (i.e., one shouldn't start a conversation with "You live in the British Isles?", but there are circumstances where it would be appropriate). The official name of the country known as the Republic of Ireland is simply Ireland. The President is styled the President of Ireland, and not the President of the Republic of Ireland. It was only known as Ireland in 1937; the term Republic of Ireland was not granted official recognition until 1949 when Ireland left the Commonwealth. Also, terms such as 26 counties and 6 counties are quite politically loaded. I'd recommend the pages Irish states since 1171 and Style of the British Sovereign. Good luck, -WóCoill 12:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The official name simply reflects nationalist claims which aren't based on the reality on the ground as recogised by every country in the world. The President of Ireland may want to have authority over Northern Ireland but does not actually have it. Many countries make claims on other countries' territory, and many people choose to be offended when their dubious claims are challenged. The rest of us don't necessarily have to go along with this. I wouldn't say it is "good manners" not to dispute Irish nationalist claims and usage, but rather that it is generally not worth the hassle of provoking an Irishman to discuss the topic. Oliver Chettle 18:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. If you believe that Irishmen in general, and more specifically the Government and President of Ireland, believe that they have some claim over the whole island, you are very much mistaken. The term Ireland has two meanings: geographically it refers to the island of Ireland, whereas politically it refers to the country with the official description of the Republic of Ireland. I don't see how calling the country in the south of the island "Ireland" is biased towards nationalist claims; that is the name in the Constitution of Ireland and is the internationally recognized name of the state. I only raised the comment as a correction to referring to RoI in 1937. Many of those who know me would laugh at the idea of me being mistaken for a crazy Irish nationalist, having been accused of being a West Brit only this week! --WóCoill 10:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not mistaken, and I am aware of the points you make. The "two meanings" only exist because the island is politically split. It would be the same if Spain called itself "Iberia" and claimed that the name implied no dispute with Portugal's independence: it wouldn't be credible. It is silly to claim that Ireland makes no claim on Northern Ireland. Oliver Chettle 09:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A problem here is that people prefer simple names. The United States of America is shortened to America, the USSR was referred to as Russia and the European Union is often called simply Europe. And who ever speaks of the People's Republic of China? People speak of China, irrespective of whether that is meant to include Taiwan (which, I believe, also clams the name China) or Tibet. This problem does not come into play with Spain/Iberia because Spain is already a short name. But the Republic of Ireland is to much of a mouthful, so people are quite right to simply call it Ireland. It's even worse with the discussion about what title this article should have. There simply is no proper name to cover that group of islands, so British Isles will just have to do (unless Iona becomes a popular name, but that I don't see that happening soon, and anyway, it's a description that also covers Iceland, among others).


 * Oh, and speaking of Iberia, you forgot Gibraltar. Why? Because it's small, I suppose. And when people speak of the UK, they don't think of Gibraltar (or Svalbard, for that matter), because it's small and overseas. So common usage often has little to do with official terminology.


 * So the article should make a clear distinction between the official names and normal usage. I suppose that should solve these problems and keep everyone happy. That was my original intention, but I got so bogged down in details that I almost forgot about my original intentions. Hopefully I will find the time to work on this again soon. I'm still working my way though the talk pages of the above articles. And now WóCoill has mentioned some more articles for my list. Thanks a lot for that :).
 * DirkvdM 13:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)


 * Could I mention that Iona is already the name of an island off the west coast of Scotland, just to be awkward! So that would mean that "Iona is in Iona" just to make it even more confusing. However even the English have yet to get the hang of calling the island Britain and the country the United Kingdom and they have had 300 years to get used to it, so I think any change in name is a long time off.