Talk:Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Compromise proposal: a simple disambiguation page

Since the article as it stands is essentially a repetition of other articles, how about this compromise proposal: make it a simple disambiguation page. Article would read:

A Euler diagram clarifying the terminology. Geographical locations are written in red, political entities are written in blue.

The term Britain has different meanings in different contexts

As shorthand for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: this is the most common usage and it is to this that the nationality British refers (except when referrring to the British Isles).
As an abbreviation of Great Britain.
See also British Isles (terminology)

Comments? --Red King 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Redirect: Britain to Great Britain

Apropos to the discussions below, why does this page still exist? Britain has always been a short form of Great Britain. The sole purpose seems to be to claim that the UK is the same as Britain, which goes entirely against Wikipedia's aim to be accurate. Just to confirm, the Oxford English Dictionary defines Britain thus: 'The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain.'

Note that this has been edited, the OED's definition continues: "now also used for the British state or empire as a whole". Mucky Duck 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds like being selective to the point of being purposefully misleading. john k 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree to redirect Britain to Great Britain

[edit] Agree:

Agree El Gringo 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree Tiocfaídh Ár Lá! 21:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree The term is an abbreviation and should redirect to the full article. If it is right for OED, then that settles it. Anything else fails the "no original research" rule. --Red King 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree Great Britain is a fancy name for the Island of Britain. I agree with the merge unless someone can convince me otherwise. -MelForbes 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree Dermo69
Agree As above, WIkipedia must be accurate and consistent.--Play Brian Moore 01:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree:

Disagree. Regardless of perceptions of accuracy, "Britain" is used to refer to the UK far more often than it is as a reference to the island of Great Britain. The redirect should be to United Kingdom, or the content changed to a disambiguation page to give visitors the choice. After all, they know which of the two they were looking for; we don't - although I think it far more likely that most visitors would be thinking of the UK, not the island. Waggers 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1. A simple DAB article to the GB, UK and Terminology articles seems a fair compromise to me. --Red King 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. As Waggers says, it is more commonly used to refer to the UK as a whole than the island of Great Britain (or the political units of England, Wales, Scotland). john k 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree This issue has been discussed before - see the archives. There are too many contemporary and historical meanings of Britain to redirect it --82.63.152.130 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Because the UK and Britain are not mutually inclusive. Fergananim 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1. If you agree that the UK and Britain are not coterminous then you actually agree with the redirect, Ferganainm. This article, and those who disagree with the redirect, are claiming that the UK and Britain are the same. El Gringo 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. No, we are not. --Zundark 08:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, but not for that reason. This article was meant to be about the WORD Britain; information about Britain itself is under Great Britain. Unfortunately this article has lost its way in the edits of the last few months. Can we not restore that? I would delete the modern use sections and make them link to the other articles on contemporary Britain.--Doric Loon 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree There are two different concepts here: The political entity (more fully the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) which is called Britain (not Great Britain) and includes Northern Ireland, and the geographical Great Britain which is occasionally referred to as Britain. Mucky Duck 08:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Britain does not always, or even usually, mean Great Britain, and so should not redirect there. --Zundark 08:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Britain is most commonly used to mean the United Kingdom. For example the Economist magazine uses the term "Britain" in their section which clearly refers to the UK not GB. GB is clearly rather specific and geographical, while Britain is more versatile.~~Howard

[edit] Older comments

Why is a page about Britain even mentioning Ireland? Ireland may have been part of the United Kingdom at one time, just as Northern Ireland now is (no ambiguity there) but it has not been part of Britain (or vice-versa) since the last Ice Age. However the article sems to claim that it was part of Britain until 1921!

This article is very misleading and I'm inclined to ditch the references to Ireland unless someone can come up with good reasons not to. -- Derek Ross

In response to Derek Ross: Part of the United Kingdom does mean that Ireland was literally connected to the mainland! It means that it was ruled and overseen by the United Kingdom (Actual full name when Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom-'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland') unntil it was granted independence in 1921! hmmm? Not up on your history are you?

Yes Derek Ross, it doesn't mean part of literally! Michael Collins went to London and did a deal with Westminster that partitioned the country in two, how it still is today, with the 6 counties of Ulster remaining as part of Britain-now the full name is 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.TammiMagee 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have articles on Great Britain, the British Isles, England, Scotland, Wales, and the United Kingdom. Is this article even necessary? -- Zoe

A very good point -- Derek Ross

Redirecting this article to Great Britain - I think we agree that the contents are unneccessary. KJ 17:45 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

I disagree about the redirect, agree the contents need changing.

According to The Oxford Companion to the English Language, when Ireland entered the Union in the early 19th century, it was referred to as "West Britain" (I don't know who by) - see http://www.xrefer.com/entry/441278 Whether this should be under "Britain" or "Great Britain" I'm not sure, but I should think the former. There is also the historical use of "Britain" before "Great Britain" was thought of. You have Great Britain the island, West Britain (for a time), and Brittany (Little Britain if you like) in France. I don't know enough about this to elaborate, but it seems there could be a decent historical article here.

Also, many of the English (and maybe others, I don't know) refer to the UK as "Britain" in speech - perhaps this rather subtle twist resulted in the somewhat messed up article that was here. A note pointing this out could be useful. In any case, surely "Britain" alone deserves an article. I'll do a bit of research and see if I can put something together. --Camembert

This is old news now, but I want to go back on what I said here - I now think that it's correct that Britain should redirect to Great Britain (I reserve the right to change my mind again later...). --Camembert

I think the "West Britain" discussion belongs in British Isles. A particularly interesting point for that article is whether Ireland was always part of the "British Isles" or whether it was added as "West Britain".

"West Britain" may be by analogy with "North Britain" for Scotland and "South Britain" for England which were also coined by some the more zealous Unionists in the 19th century. However none of these terms came into general use by the British or Irish population apart from in company names like The North British Railway. There is a small amount of logic in calling Scotland and England, "North Britain" and "South Britain", whereas calling Ireland "West Britain" just seems silly. Most Britons and Irishmen would think that West Britain meant Wales or Cornwall -- never Ireland. No doubt that's why it didn't catch on even in Unionist circles. You could add this North/South/West Britain info to the Great Britain article or the Ireland article if you really think it worthwhile but I don't see that we need a separate "Britain" article for it. -- Derek Ross -- Derek Ross

The BRitain/great brittan/brittany thing is already explained on the great britain article... KJ

It's probably OK to redirect Britain and British to Great Britain, if the latter article discusses the terms and explains the confusion. One possible confusion would be if people from other islands describe themselves or are described by others as "British". It should be easy to explain why the NI Unionists are sometimes called "British" by the (rest of) the Irish.

Also, what's the correct term to describe a citizen of the UK, if it's not "British"? I guess it's "UK subject"?

Accoring to this discussion, articles like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1815014.stm 'Gibraltar wants to remain British' quote: "Gibraltar has been British for nearly 300 years and we want to continue to be British. We don't want to be Spanish." don't make a lot of sense. Perhaps the BBC (British(!) Broadcasting) misuses the term?

No worse than using "American" to mean "Unitedstatesian", is it? In linguistic matters, common usage is correct by default. --Brion VIBBER

Often this is the case, which suggests to me that the redirect to "Great Britain" is incorrect. "Britain" was an old term for Great Britain and Britany which got reused for the new combined realm that became the UK. I.e., the association to the UK is now the strongest usage. So I think the previous versions of Britain and British should be reverted and the Britain article improved as required (don't remove the stuff about Ireland, which became part of the "British Empire", but improve as required).

It's not a good idea to confuse an article on Great Britain, which is a well-defined concept of an island, with stuff about "Britain" which is used in various ways.

I think rather than re-direct all of "Britan" to "Great Britan" we should do this to make it clear that "Britain" is often used ambiguously. So I'm putting some text back here - a sort of disambiguation page, with a bit of text expalaining why there's confusion. I've tried to keep it a history of the word "Britain" and leave out politics as as much as possible. That can go in the other articles.

I don't think there's any ultimate authority for what is the "correct" use of an English word - just common usage. (There are "official" country names, but that doesn't help in this case). But we can say, for instance, that certain usages can be offensive to some people. Andy G 16:50 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This page looks like a good explanation. I'm not sure about redirecting British here, though. That term seems to be used uncontroversially enough to mean "of the United Kingdom", rather than "of Britain". Or have I got that wrong...? -- Oliver P. 02:43 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what word you'd use to mean "of Britain" if not "British" - it certainly seems ambiguous to me (usually context will sort it out, of course). That said, I think it's fine that British redirects here since this article explains the various usages of both words (I suppose it's also fine if it's a disambig page and doesn't redirect here). --Camembert

Sorry, I just meant that "British" can mean something other than "of Britain"; a redirect would suggest that it only meant "of Britain". Yes, I know that's not what I said, but that's what I meant. I really shouldn't keep coming here at 02:something in the morning... But yes, I agree that the term is ambiguous. I reverted British back to an old disambiguation page last night. However, I suppose if this page makes clear that "British" doesn't necessarily mean "of Britain", then redirecting it might be all right. Then again, it might not, because someone seeing themselves being redirected to Britain might just think that it means "of Britain", and not bother reading far enough into the article to find out that it might not. -- Oliver P. 01:39 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Well, I think it's OK to keep British as a dismabiguation page, to be on the safe side. It doesn't do any harm, I don't think. --Camembert

Revert the following:

The word Britain is used to refer

to the island forming the largest part of the territory of Great Britain,
colloquially, to the political entity Great Britain (comprising England, Wales, and Scotland), and
least accurately of all, to the United Kingdom as a whole. Although common, the use of "Britain" in this sense is best avoided, especially in political contexts, since the terms Great Britain and the United Kingdom refer to different entities.

Surely if Great Britain is intended, the outlying islands are included - just as the Isle of Man includes the Calf of Man. For the single island alone, you'd probably say "mainland Britain". And the use of "Great Britain" in the inclusive way is hardly "colloquial", seeing as it's used in official contexts. Andy G 18:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Query! If King George II is establishing a colony in 1732, is it a "British" colony or an "English" colony? jengod 23:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

British. Morwen 23:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, a Merikin jengod 23:09, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Olympics/Merge Article?

I'm not sure that the following is correct.

"Other terms also cause confusion. Great Britain is undisputedly the name of the large island, but is occasionally used to mean the UK, for instance in the modern Olympic Games. "

I believe that Great Britain ( meaning England, Wales and Scotland )competes as an entity in the Olympics and Ireland competes as an entity ( meaning Rebublic of Ireland and Northern Ireland ).

I'm not sure if there is a sporting event that the United Kingdom competes in.

Motown

You are incorrect. The Republic of Ireland competes in the Olympics as "Ireland". The United Kingdom competes as "GB", indicating Great Britain. As part of the nation of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland competes under the tag "GB". Although these terminologies are incorrect (for both "Ireland" and "GB"), this is simply how it is. In the case specifically of Northern Ireland however, a resident of NI can compete with the Republic of Ireland team if they so wish. Sometimes it depends on the governing body of the sport to which they belong. For example, some Judo clubs in Northern Ireland belong to the IJF (Irish [Republic] Judo Federation), and some to the NIJF (Northern Ireland Judo Federation) which is affiliated to the British Judo Federation. Reference to Northern Ireland and its inclusion in the national Olympic Games GB team is mentioned in the official website. --Mal 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that `"GB" indicat[es] Great Britain'. GB is the country code (or abbreviation) for the United Kingdom according to Iso 3166-1 and several other standards (e.g.: car number plates). It is therefore more commonly used to refer to the UK than as an abbreviation for Great Britain.

The US-led Iso committee did not use UK for this purpose on the IMO irrelevant grounds that the letters of UK stand for a non-geographical/generic term (which of course doesn't apply to their decision to use US for the USA). Of course many country codes don't even stand for anything.

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be merged with Great Britain or the other various topics mentioned, there is a little information here, but not deserving of its own article.

I think the two articles should be merged also. 'Britain' and 'Great Britian' refer to exactly the same thing in a geographical sense. The use of the different terms to (incorrectly) describe the country United Kingdom can easily be explained.

However, the word "British" refers directly to nationality. I will be redirecting the entry for "British" to the article on British Citizen. --Mal 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any merger (not the British/British Citizen one). It is NOT INCORRECT to call the United Kingdom 'Britain'. Brtiain and Great Britain are distinct entities and should be kept as independent articles. This article could possibly direct to British Isles (terminology) but I don't really see the need to. Robdurbar 10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I question the British/British Citizen one. The content of 'British' was merged into and is now contained in this article. Either that conent should be moved or British redirect to this page Robdurbar 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is incorrect to call the United Kingdom "Britain". Britain is an island. The UK is a country which comprises of more than just that island. "Britain" is incorrect terminology, however, it is used colloquially to refer to the country.

I redirected article 'British' to reflect its meaning as being that of a national description. It has now been redirected to 'British nationality law'. --Mal 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder whether that British nationality law page is a bit complex for most uses of British that people want here. I really don't think that Britain is 'incorrect' for the UK. Britain can mean BOTH Great Britain and the UK. Inaccurate or potentially misleading, perhaps, but not incorrect. America for the USA is inaccurate or potentially misleading, but not really incorrect. Robdurbar 17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect, what you think is not of importance in an encyclopedia. Whatever the misuses of the words or phrases are, an encyclopedia should inform readers of the correct information, and then go on to supply the alternative uses, whether they be "accurate" or incorrect.

With regard to what is "inaccurate", it is indeed inaccurate to describe the United Kingdom as "Britain", as "Great Britain", as "England", or to describe England as "Britain" etc etc. It is also misleading to perpetrate incorrect usage. I have personally come across many foreigners who are completely confused by the concepts - concepts that are really very simple. For example, someone telling me (I am a British citizen and a resident of the UK) that I was wrong and that the UK is England and vice versa. I think I may even have seen a similar suggestion in talk pages here too.

But the use of the word British and the use of the word Britain (or the phrase Great Britain) are two entirely different concepts. --Mal 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But this isnt especially what I think. Look at the sources on the page - this is as used by the government and the BBC, not just your 'average man in the street'. Whilst defining terms technically, Wikipedia also has to reflect offical useage, even wherfe it may be wrong. Note that I use the term inaccurate to mean soemthing different to incorrect. The British Isles terminology page is clearly linked at the top of this article for people who are confused. But that does not change the undisputable fact that Britain means UK and that 'British' should direct here, to an article that expalins clearly its uses. Robdurbar 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it change the undisputable fact that the misuse of the terminology in incorrect - despite which public bodies (mis)use them. This particular discussion is slightly irrelevant though I think, because I still maintain that the article 'British' should refer to a previously-written article on nationality.

Although the article I have redirected this to explains, very clearly, the uses of the word British, it does not appear to include any reference to the commonly misused terminologies. Perhaps, as a compromise, we should put a note at the top of the British nationality law article which either briefly explains it, or points to an article that does. --Mal 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

It seems to me we have too many overlapping articles on Britain etc. I am trying to make sense of these. In keeping with the consensus reached above, I would like to focus this page more specifically on the WORD Britain. Therefore I have added more etymology of this word, including Brittany since it is one etymological complex, and deleted some points on distinctions with other terms (Anglo etc) which are better discussed at British Isles (terminology). --Doric Loon 09:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a note about the Olympics, the team which competes is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK's the IOC country code is GBR (technically our TLD should be .gb, but in a break from the rules we use .uk. The "United Kingdom" is not used, I think, in any International sporting event, the UK Nations usually compete individually, for example the Commonwealth Games and the World Cup. It should be noted that some Northern Irish athletes choose to compete for the Republic of Ireland, See 2004 Olympics for more. Keith 16:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Word derivation The statement that the fact that the modern Welsh name for Britain is Prydain supports the theory referred to is nonsense, of course; although this would be true if the word was present in ancient Welsh.

"Prydain" is recorded as having been used in Welsh c. 1100. Rhion 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brutus of Troy

I assume, from reading this section of the article, that the etymology based on Brutus of Troy is now utterly discredited? If so, this should be stated explicitly. Robertbyrne 16:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

These eponymous etymologies of nations were discredited 400 years ago at least, though as late as the 18th century Louis XIV had a historian executed for doubting the derivation of France from Francus, I seem to remember. This is typical mediaeval etymology, but interesting as historical trivia, and does belong in the article for that reason. --Doric Loon 23:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[3] [4]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [5]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 13:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isles of Elishah

The article describes the first recorded name for the British Isles as the "Isles of Elishah". The first time I saw this part of the article I did a google search for the term (actually at that point it said "Isles of Elishas") and the only references to it were either taken from copies of this article, or said that the term referred to the greek islands e.g http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd118.htm I deleted the reference to "Isles of Elishas" in this article.

The reference was put back in place by Setanta747 as "Isles of Elishah" with a user comment:

(Historical evidence strongly suggests the first inhabitants of the British isles were the descendants of Javan (from his sons Elisha and Tarshish), and of Gomer and Magog.)

While I am pleased that Setanta747 spent time to explain his views, this comment does not cite where this historical evidence can be found either online or in books, and describes the first inhabitants of Britain as being various Biblican characters for whom there is no other historical evidence.

I later added a "Citation Needed" but it was quickly removed by the same user... does anyone think this part of the article need to be looked at? kaid100

Firstly, I wouldn't place too much faith in a Google search to be honest. However, I have also performed a Google search which confirms the Isles of Elishah as referring to the British Isles. You should have looked harder. --Mal 04:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello? "I wouldn't place too much faith in a Google search", yet you're using Google to justify your insertion of this? Hrm. Alphax ^τεχ 07:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you link the pages you've found that refer to the Isles of Elishah as Britain? The only ones I have found are copies of the Wikipedia page. These pages refer to them as the Greek Islands: http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeeze27.htm http://phoenicia.org/ships.html http://home-3.tiscali.nl/~meester7/engarabia.html http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/history/phoenicia/part-1chapter10.html kaid100

I used Google in response to your use of it.. hullo? --Mal 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Setanta747, can you source it please. I also stumbled upon Greece on [6]. --dcabrilo 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Google. --Mal 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely too much. "Try Google" is not a useful response to people who are asking for a source for a statement. We have all tried Google. We have all found Ez 27:7 and this mention of "the isles of Elishah". We all seem to have found the same "believed to refer to Greece" glosses. What no-one has yet found is a link between any of this and attested references to "Britain". WP:RS and WP:V are fairly clear on what constitutes a reasonable cite. "Try Google" is not one. This purported factoid should be removed from the article (and certainly from a section called "attested") until we have something more substantial than vague assertions of historical evidence in edit summaries. Telsa (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've 'hidden' this sentence for now using the <!-- thing, with a note that it is currently being contested here. Robdurbar 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It refers to the British Isles - not to Britain. I am re-adding the fact(oid). --Mal 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is entitled "Britain". And the list is entitled "Earliest attested references". I think it's fair to take that as "references to Britain". I take it the book you added in a cite tag is your reference? What exactly does it claim? It's out of print and the reviews on the web are more interested in its claims about Cruthin being the original inhabitants of Ireland than in the idea that the Bible mentions any part of these islands. I only ended up with this article on my watchlist after correcting a link somewhere, so this is not a topic I have strong opinions on (beyond finding it unlikely that Ezekiel was referring to Britain). But I do have strong opinions on Wikipedia sources and quoting them: so what exactly does this book claim? And is the author someone in a position to demonstrate that isles of Elishah refers to the British Isles, rather than to parts of Greece? Finally, arbitrarily restoring this claim to view every time you edit the page is a bit unilateral. If there is any consensus on this talk page, it is that this information is at best dubious. So why do you keep reinserting it? Please, explain a bit more on the talk page. Telsa (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the title article and of the section heading. The last entry in the list also refers to the British Isles, and the history of that term is intrinsically linked to the name Great Britain. I think it's fair to take that as references to the British Isles.

The book I added is a reference. The author is knowledgable about the history of both the British Isles and Christianity. I'm not particularly concerned with the reviews the book got on some website. --Mal 15:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion, and the Isles of Elishah reference, would be better placed in the British Isles article. However, I still think the entire claim is highly dubious, and a quote from the book would be welcome (under fair use of copyright) either on a talk page or in the article itself. kaid100

I added the following clarification to the inclusion of the term, which was then reverted without explanation. I think that if it is included, we should note that this is far from a certain reference and clearly disputed. I felt that this compromised between including it but also noting its questionable status. My version read:

'Ezekiel chapter 27 in the Bible (dated to c.500 BC) refers to the Isles of Elishah which some claim to be a refernce to the British Isles and Brtiain. This is because the Iseles of Elishah, like Britain, were at the time known for their production of a blue dye. This references is contested, however, with many claiming that it refers to islands in Greece [7].'

However, if we are contesting this version, perhaps we should be getting sources for all of these claims? Robdurbar 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that Setanta747 has removed the compromise version and replaced it with his own. I have decided to take the liberty of removing the Isles of Elishah completely. My reasons are as follows:

No webpage mentions any connection between Isles of Elishah, except this page and copies of it.

No Usenet article suggests a connection, and most wild theories- whether true or false- end up there at some point.

My copies of Mythology of British Isles by Geoffrey Ashe, Bulfinch's Mythology and the slightly lower-brow Mythology For Dummies make no reference to the Isles of Elishah

Many webpages suggest the Greek Islands are a possibility for the Isles of Elishah

The webpage linked in the article does not mention the Isles of Elishah, only a person named Elisha

As far as I can tell only one person has ever suggested a connection between the Isles of Elishah and Britain

By the user's own admission this is a reference to the British Isles, not Britain, and so I would argue it is more suited to the page on the British Isles

If any user should put the Isles of Elishah back on the main page without consensus here, I think we should consider going to arbitration. kaid100 18:09, 17 April 2006 (BST)

I agree with almost of Kaid's points. However, if Mal aka User:Setanta747 does not accept this suggestion that the thing be removed pending a quote (not just a book title), then I am not sure that arbitration is necessarily the immediate step from here. There is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography first. Or we can ask the regulars on some of the related pages: British Isles (terminology) springs to mind. But before anything like that, can I ask Setanta747 again for a nice quote from the book so that we are all sure what we are discussing? We seem to have moved from "The Bible mentions Britain" to "the Bible mentions the British Isles" to "A book about Irish Picts supports this" with no explanation of which of the first two "this" is. We really do need a quote and some context from that book. (Well, I think so, anyway. :)) Telsa (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right Telsa, I may have been a bit hasty to suggest arbitration. More viewpoints would help. Kaid100 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now placed a notice in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Thanks for the suggestion Telsa :) Kaid100 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. In my opinion, there is no way this claim can go in without a reliable source (as is clear from WP:V). User:Setanta747 seems to being very vague about the source. If he or she can provide a direct quote from the book, and the book's reliability can be established then of course it can be included. But even the compromised version,at the moment, includes a (at present) unproven claim. (Incidentally, arbitration would've been rejected, see WP:DR for steps which must first be tried.)Trebor 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)} 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of re-adding the reference to the origin of the Isles of Elishah. Reasons you cited Kaid:

"No webpage mentions any connection between Isles of Elishah, except this page and copies of it."

.. I seem to recall adding a website reference as a source to my last edit (which I will be adding back once I have finished editing this talk page)

"No Usenet article suggests a connection, and most wild theories- whether true or false- end up there at some point."

.. they may do. However, is usenet any more or less authoritive than Wikipedia itself?

"My copies of Mythology of British Isles by Geoffrey Ashe, Bulfinch's Mythology and the slightly lower-brow Mythology For Dummies make no reference to the Isles of Elishah"

.. and yet copies of books I have read have mentioned it.

"Many webpages suggest the Greek Islands are a possibility for the Isles of Elishah"

.. and also Cyprus specifically, and other locations.

"The webpage linked in the article does not mention the Isles of Elishah, only a person named Elisha"

.. yes, and this is later mentioned in the Bible.

"As far as I can tell only one person has ever suggested a connection between the Isles of Elishah and Britain"

.. then I'm afraid you can't 'tell'.

"By the user's own admission this is a reference to the British Isles, not Britain, and so I would argue it is more suited to the page on the British Isles"

.. as I have explained - the origin of the word Britain is intrinsically link with the origin of the British Isles name. Also, the final reference in the relevant section mentions the British Isles (1550).

Tesla: A few points...

"if Mal aka User:Setanta747 does not accept this suggestion that the thing be removed pending a quote (not just a book title)"

.. had you noticed my latest edit, before it was removed (again), you'd have noticed that I included a website reference.

"can I ask Setanta747 again for a nice quote from the book so that we are all sure what we are discussing?"

.. when I find my copy of the book, I might consider typing in the paragraphs that the author mentions this in.

"We seem to have moved from "The Bible mentions Britain" to "the Bible mentions the British Isles" "

.. I am not aware of the first step "The Bible mentions Britain".

"to "A book about Irish Picts supports this" "

.. the book in question isn't a book about "Irish Picts".

Trebor: "User:Setanta747 seems to being very vague about the source." Since when has citing both a book and a website reference been "being very vage about the source"? I do not understand your logic here.

However, I do appreciate the logic of Robdurbar : Why are the other claims not being contested as strongly by some users as the one I added? --Mal 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is something to do; however, you have also ignored all the comments from the rfc. I have moved the enitre section to the talk page for sourcing and sorting and will revert any attempt to add it untill all claims are proved. Actually, Im not gonna do that as my fone is now ringing. But i may do it later Robdurbar 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My comment on vagueness was related to the lack of any direct quotes from the book you cite. The author of the website article does not appear, at present, to hold any qualifications related to the matter. It is not the main focus of the article, nor does it cite what historical evidence there is. It gives the impression, to me at least, of him repeating something he read elsewhere - in my opinion, it does not qualify under WP:RS. Which means, pending authoritative quotes from the book, I don't think it should be included. I agree the others should be sourced, but are they disputed claims as your's is? Trebor 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know.. are they? --Mal 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To avoid edit-warring, I will stop editing the article page until this issue is resolved. Point-by-point:

"No webpage mentions any connection between Isles of Elishah, except this page and copies of it."

.. I seem to recall adding a website reference as a source to my last edit (which I will be adding back once I have finished editing this talk page)

.... Assuming the website you mean is http://www.soundchristian.com/man/ , the "Isles of Elishah are not mentioned on that page. If there is another page you mean, I would be happy to look at it.

You should read the article more carefully.

I did reas it carefully. As I said before, I can find no memntion of the Isles of Elishah, only a person named Elisha. Saying that Elisha was an ancestor of the inhabitants of Britain, even if true, is not the same as saying that the British Isles have also been called the Isles of Elishah

"No Usenet article suggests a connection, and most wild theories- whether true or false- end up there at some point."

.. they may do. However, is usenet any more or less authoritive than Wikipedia itself?

.... Usenet is less authoritative than Wikipedia. That is why it is a good place to discover theories that people have had. Your theory doesn't appear there.

If (in your opinion) usenet is less authoritative than Wikipedia, then why bother even to mention it?

See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

"My copies of Mythology of British Isles by Geoffrey Ashe, Bulfinch's Mythology and the slightly lower-brow Mythology For Dummies make no reference to the Isles of Elishah"

.. and yet copies of books I have read have mentioned it.

.... If you cited them, we could accept your claims more easily.

I did.

You cited one book. Which no users have access to, and no users can understand how this book would have a reference to Isles of Elishah in it given its subject matter. You have explained you have lost your own copy and are unable to quote from it.

"Many webpages suggest the Greek Islands are a possibility for the Isles of Elishah"

.. and also Cyprus specifically, and other locations

.... If many places are given as possibilities as the identity of "The Isles of Elishah" why do you keep putting it in this article under "Earliest ATTESTED References" (capitals mine)

Because it has been ATTESTED that this name referred to the British Isles.

Where has it been attested? Answering this question would pretty much solve the debate...

The webpage linked in the article does not mention the Isles of Elishah, only a person named Elisha"

.. yes, and this is later mentioned in the Bible.

.... I don't doubt that Elisha is mentioned in the Bible, I just don't see how this webpage relates to The Isles of Elishah or The British Isles

Because, if you read the article, it is suggested that the British people are the descendants of Elishah.. therefore people of Elishah.. and Isles of Elishah.

I refer you to Wikipedia:No original research#Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

"As far as I can tell only one person has ever suggested a connection between the Isles of Elishah and Britain"

.. then I'm afraid you can't 'tell'.

.... I can tell many things.

Apart from this.

I will avoid replying to this to prevent a rather silly war of words.

"By the user's own admission this is a reference to the British Isles, not Britain, and so I would argue it is more suited to the page on the British Isles"

.... Britain and British may be related, but no-one has suggested that the word "Elishah" has any connection with either word. An argument could be made for removing the 1550 reference, but not, I feel, for keeping the Isles of Elishah in.

Please tell me because I'm dying to know... is this whole thing a wind-up? Kaid100 21:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Updated Kaid100 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Mal 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wind-up". Messing people about.

I agree that sources are good. I seem to spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia finding sources for things, or looking for the sources that other people claim. Over the last month, I have hunted for sources on everything from possible meanings of the word Lloegr to purported port-passing traditions tomental hospitals burned down by their escaped patients (guess what? Not only did it not have escaped patients, it turned out that it wasn't a mental hospital either). Consequently I know how long this takes. Someone has dropped "citeneeded" templates onto half a dozen articles on my watchlist today, so you'll excuse me if I don't spend much time sourcing this article. That said, I have added a little more from the OED (which, conveniently, is free to view online this week).

Now, this claim that the Bible mentions Britain is unusual and the identification of these Isles of Elishah with some part of Britain goes against the majorities of suggestions on the name in biblical dictionaries. The onus is on you to find evidence for it: evidence which satisfies WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The initial response from the RFC has been the same. You have now come up with one book and one web page to support your idea, and you still haven't given us an exact quote. In fact, you are starting to appear downright evasive on the matter. In turn, I start to suspect that this is a fringe theory. WP:Neutral point of view does not compel us to give equal time to fringe theories. It doesn't compel us to give any time to fringe theories.

About the web page you mentioned: http://www.soundchristian.com/man/ is a web page written from the point of view that the Bible is a reliable historical source and that all peoples on this earth descended from three people in the Old Testament. Wikipedia has a lot on this theory (and several variants of it) already: Japheth, Japhetic, Gomer (Bible), Josephus (who wrote a lot of this down), British Israelism, and more. If this is the point you wish to see covered by Wikipedia, fret not: it is all here. What this web page doesn't include is any reference to Isles of Elishah. There's "Isle of Britain", "Isles of the Gentiles", "Tin Isles", but nothing related to Elishah.

So we are left with your book, Ian Adamson's The Cruthin. Of which you say, in response to my mention of references to it on the web, "it's not about that", but you don't tell us what it is about; and further, "when I find my copy of the book, I might consider typing in the paragraphs that the author mentions this in." Might consider? How .. considerate. From your responses to others ("I did cite it" etc), I think you may be misunderstanding what citing is. We need not just a book title, but either an accurate summary of what he's saying or some quotes directly from it, which interested readers can then follow up for themselves. If the book was in either of my local libraries, I would have found it and skimmed it by now just to find out what on earth this is all about. But it isn't. So I must rely on someone with the book bothering to summarise -- or to type in quotes with their context from -- the thing. Since you disparage the comments about it on the web (which is a surprise to me, since one of the top hits is a glowing five-stars-out-of-five review), we obviously cannot rely on impressions gained from the web, and are reliant on someone telling us what this wretched book's about and what, precisely, it says. You say you might consider this? Do let us know when you have finished your deliberations.

Telsa (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what "wind up" means. My question was directed to Kaid.

As for "still not giving us an exact quote", I have explained why. If you read the article on that webpage, you can see that it certainly infers that the islands may very well have been known as the Isles of Elishah.

Regarding Adamson's book - yes you're correct: it is considerate of me to find my book and type in the relevent text from it. Thank you for recognising that (your noted sarcasm aside). Suggesting that personal comments about the book is not necessarily any indication as to the accuracy of the content is one thing... "disparaging" the comments or reviews about the book is another, and not something that I remember having done.

Once again with the sarcasm too.. please do let us know when you've finished with your sarcastic attitude and are willing to consider a more appealing attitude. --Mal 10:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will of course answer any questions put to me, but I feel that "Excuse me?" is a statement with a question mark at the end rather than a question. As for the point about the Elisha webpage, I will again refer Setanta747 to Wikipedia:No original research#Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Also, if Setanta747 is claiming that the name Elishah is the same as Elisha in Hebrew, a cite would be handy for that too. We seem to be going round in circles, and this page is getting perilously close to being a candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars User:kaid100 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked Manchester Central Library for a copy, no luck. Kaid100 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The expression "Excuse me?" is used to convey disbelief. I considered your remark to border on WP:NPA. Please be more tactful in your attitude.

Also, you may direct your comments to me personally you know - I allow you. All this talk of "Setanta747 should X" or "I refer Setanta747 to Y" is rather impersonal and slightly disrespectful in my opinion. However, its your call.

The OR link you gave me is irrelevant to our discussion.

If you think this article is (close to becoming) a candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars then I have two things to say to you: firstly, I have stopped reverting as I have accepted certain points regarding policy that have been made to me, and I had accepted User:Robdurbar's suggestion at the top of the section below. Secondly, I think your suggestion is petty and ignores the fact that I had acted In Good Faith when I initially added the information. At the end of the day, I suggest you concentrate rather more on enhancing the article than on trying to discredit another member Kaid. --Mal 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest attested references

Right, it is the two earliest ones that are not adequately sourced and so i've hidden. I'm happy to include the Isles of Elishah with caveats that there are alternative explanations; we need sources for that and the following two, unless I'm mistaken: [NB: There were three sources needed at this time (Mal)]

Pretaniké; Pretanikai nesoi (Pretanic isles) - 325 BC
Britannia - 55 BC (Julius Caesar, Roman invasion of Britain)

Isles of Elishah - Ezekiel chapter 27 in the Bible (dated to c.500 BC) (added by Mal on 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Britain")

Robdurbar 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that Robdurbar. --Mal 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that even with caveats the Isles of Elishah shouldn't be here. We can't find any evidence that they were ever connected to Britain before Setanta first added the reference on 20 March 2006. I'm even wondering if this is Setanta's own private theory No original research. No-one has found any sign that this theory has ever appeared anywhere but this Wikipedia page and its mirrors. Kaid100 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No - you're just tempted, full stop. When you say "we", who are you talking about? You may wonder if this is my own private theory.. right up until you actually ask me if it is. As for "no-one has ever found any sign that this reference has ever appeared anywhere" - I have just told you: you stand corrected. You should have said, "I can't find any sign that..." --Mal 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will ask you straight, Is this your own private theory? If anyone has found a sign that this reference has appeared elsewhere, then they've yet to post it to this discussion group. I'm not sure that the book reference counts, as the person that referred to it can't find his copy and is unable to provide a quote from it.

Kaid100 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No - it is most definately not my private theory. You say that you're not sure that a book reference counts as the person who referred to it (that was me by the way), can't find his copy of it and is unable to provide a quote from it. Yet I have accepted many factoids in other articles when editors have cited books as sources - without having insisted on quotes from those books. I wonder why you cannot. --Mal 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a possible source for the first of those [8], although reliability could be an issue (do a search on the page to find the corresponding section). Trebor 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Caesar reference comes from his diaries.. I'm trying to search for it but I don't speak Latin :) My copy of "This Sceptered Isle" by Christopher Lee (book version) has an extract translated into English (Britannia has apparently been translated into Britain) on pages 1-2. I'll keep looking. Kaid100 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has the same extract, also in English http://www.roman-britain.org/geography/geographia.htm Kaid100 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've found a reference that might be good enough to cite. WP's article on Caesar's diaries is here: Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico That page links a site with both the English and Latin translations. Britain is found on this page: http://digilander.libero.it/jackdanielspl/Cesare/gallico/book_3.htm Its Latin equivalent is here: http://digilander.libero.it/jackdanielspl/Cesare/gallico/liber_3.htm The word for Britain there is Britannia. The inflected form Britanniam also appears. Kaid100 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to me putting Britannia back in? Kaid100 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I put Britannia back in an hour or two ago, pending any disagreements.Kaid100 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Tribes of Britain" by David Miles (p107) mentions that Pytheas called it Pretannia in 320 BC. These websites tell the story a bit differently: http://www.answers.com/topic/pytheas http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Pytheas Pytheas. They claim he called it Pretannike and a later writer rendered it Pretannia. Kaid100 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself already has an article on Pytheas saying that he was the first to mention the name Britannia. The article lists sources, but they are books so, unless someone has them, we still can't prove the part to do with Britannia. Trebor 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I should stress to avoid confusion that until I put Britannia back into the article two hours ago there were two [NB: there were three (Mal)] references awaiting verification:

Pretaniké; Pretanikai nesoi (Pretanic isles) - 325 BC
Britannia - 55 BC (Julius Caesar, Roman invasion of Britain)

Isles of Elishah - Ezekiel chapter 27 in the Bible (dated to c.500 BC)[9] [NB: third reference that had been awaiting verification (Mal)]

The Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico posts I made were about Britannia, the post about Pytheas was about Pretannia/Pretaniké/Pretannike. Of course I will follow the consensus view on which of these references it is right to include.Kaid100 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've found a book reference for the Prettaniké here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0316726745/ref=sib_rdr_ex/202-0342445-0061420?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00O&j=0#reader-page It is a scan of "Great Tales from English History: Cheddar Man to the Peasants' Revolt" by Robert Lacey. Shall I put the reference back in? Note: you will have to turn to page 6. Kaid100 22:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a later reference: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0444504656/202-0342445-0061420?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=prettanike&p=S00V&avc=1&checkSum=HbeSZw74jXqGwNB%2F2UHNBRNMe8ASKZuc%2FIpzsYBIkuk%3D Kaid100 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both those points qualify as referenced now, so I have no objection to putting them back in Trebor 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretannike is now back in, this completes the citations we needed to find. (Note: this was before Mal added the Isles of Elishah to the list of references needing verification) Kaid100 23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. We still need to find a citation for Isles of Elishas. I have edited your comment above to reflect this fact.

It seems to me that you are not interested in verifying this, yet you are happy enough to help verify the other references. Coupled with the fact that you claim that "this complete the citations we need to find", this suggests to me that you are, for some inexplicable reason, being baised. I suggest you have a think about that. --Mal 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all I've changed back the edits made to my post. By all means add more comments, but please don't change mine.

I think you misunderstand me Mal, I was never rabidly against the idea of the "Isles of Elishas" referring to Britain or the British Isles, in fact I quite liked the idea when I first saw it, which is what led me to look into more details, leading me to find the 'Greek Islands' references. It was having my changes to the main page, like deleting the reference and later adding a 'citation needed', removed with no citations that led me to bring it to this discussion page, rather than because I was dead set against the idea.

What reference was deleted? --Mal 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As the debate has continued, I've spent some time looking for references to the "Isles of Elishah" online and in books, even heading to my local library to chase up the Ian Adamson reference. I have by comparison spent far less time on the Pretannike and Britannia references, and the fact that citations were found so quickly means that the "Isles of Elishah" reference does not compare favourably with them, especially since no pages or books were found that said that either Pretannike or Britannia might refer to any other place. It was Robdurbar that included a list of references needing citations without the Isles of Elishah, and that was the list I was going by. You can still see it at the top of this section.

I see from your User Contributions page that you are used to taking the side of unionism against nationalism in pages connected to the Northern Ireland debate, often leading to long edit wars. That is a debate with firmly entrenched views, where citations will often not change people minds. My views are not entrenched. I would be quite happy for Britain to have been mentioned in the Bible -I am British myself- but I would rather the information given on Wikipedia about my home country was accurate rather than inaccurate, and that is why I have been trying to remove the reference. If you could share with me why you want to keep this factoid in so much, I think it would help us understand each others views. However, I notice that the more recent posts here, including this one, have concentrated less on finding evidence for the reference, and more on examining people's motives. That would imply to me that the discussion on the reference itself is now over.

You have stated here that I am "used to taking the side of unionism against nationalism in pages connected to the Northern Ireland debate, often leading to long edit wars." This is untrue actually. The vast majority of my edits have been of a NPOV point of view - what I usually do is change POV statements to a more neutral standard and these, for the most part, are supported by consensus. Occassionally though, some POV-pushers do try to revert some of my edits back. These are quickly reverted by other users in most cases though. On occassion I have also changed unionist-POV edits to a more neutral phrasing too. Perhaps you haven't noticed that as much - most unionist-POV edits are quite quickly reverted by other people.

I have no idea why this is of any relevance to our discussion here however. --Mal 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isles of Elishah - Ezekiel chapter 27 in the Bible (dated to c.500 BC) This reference has been moved to the discussion page awaiting citation. It may be here a while

Kaid100 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your last comments - they are altogether less aggressive and confrontational than past comments on this discussion regarding the disputed reference (at least from my point of view). I added the information with the view that it was helpful and enhanced the article. However, do not think for one minute that I have 'given up' as it were. Also, do not think for one minute that this discussion, and the points people raised about this issue has fallen on deaf ears.

I have found the book at last and, having read the relevant passage from it, I'm even more in support of Robdurbar's suggestion at the top of this section. I will make an edit in the following day or so to reflect what was actually said in the book, along with a reference to the same website and a short explaination - probably in the same section, but with much better clarification. --Mal 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mal, since Isles of Elishah is a disputed point, please could you post the edit here first so other the members of the discussion can see the validity of the citation and agree on the edit? --RickiRich 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I surely will Ricki. --Mal 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the book has been found and so the issue can soon be resolved. I've decided not to reply to the claims that I have been aggressive or confrontational -other than to say I disagree- as I don't think we will convince each other and anyone who is interested can simply read what has been posted and come to their own conclusions. It would seem to be against the spirit of Wikipedia to have a long argument about what users did and didn't do or say or intend rather than discuss the article. Kaid100 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting here because I saw the RfC, & have done some research that sheds some light on this source. Ian Adamson's work is criticized here by P.B. Ellis, an estabished historian, who labels Dr Adamson's research "historical revisonism." While Ellis' lecture is clearly polemical, he does show that Adamson's principal arguments are founded on shakey grounds. I would say the issue properly should be whether this identification exists beyond Dr Adamson's writings or it is solely his theory; if it is his own theory & he is the most prominent advocate of it, then should we include it in this article? (Note: Dr Adamson is a medical doctor & a politician; his background is not in history, archeology, or Biblical scholarship.) -- llywrch 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Adamson's books are criticised, yes. They are also highly praised. Most of the criticism comes from purists who still believe that what is written in the Lebor Gabala Erenn is the gospel facts. That historical documentation has been proven to be historical revisionism, and historical revisionism, with a specific emphasis on establishing the Gaels as the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland, reached a peak in the 19th and 20th centuries. Adamson's work (and the work he based it on) is seen by many established historians as going some way to redress the balance in that respect.

Adamson "founded the Ulster-Scots (Ullans) Academy and is the author of many authoritative books on Ulster history." He speaks ten languages (including Ulster-Scots of course). He is also President of Belfast Civic Trust, founder Chair of the Somme Association, founder Secretary of the Farset Youth and Community Development, Belfast, a former member of the Boards of many other local public sector and voluntary organisations, including The Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, Ulster Museum, the Titanic Trust, The Eastern Health and Social Services Board, the Ultach Trust. He clearly has more than merely a passing interest in history and culture.

However, I am not interested as much in defending Adamson against criticism and only offer the above in answer to the highlighting of criticism that was offered above. However, the criticism of his historical works by Ellis should also be addressed.

Ellis is obviously an Irish nationalist (as Adamson is obviously an Irish unionist). But Ellis claims that Adamson is anti-nationalist (part of the title of his article). He fails to mention Adamson's own words in the context of his books, which insist on his hopes that shedding light on certain glaring errors of the Gaelic Revivalists' (read: revisionists) accounts of history "provides for them a basis of common identity rather than the cause of that running sore which is 'The War in Ireland'".

Ellis also contradicts himself, and the basis of his article, by stating that "the label [Historical Revisionism] is meaningless" and that "all historians worth their salt are 'revisionists'". And again, when his article's subtitle states: "The New Anti-Nationalist School of Historians" and then states that it is "not ... a new phenomenon".

It is notable that Ellis does not appear to criticise nationalist interpretation of history which, he states, is "based on the premise that the Irish people had a moral right to fight for

their political, economic, social and cultural independence against the imperial ethics of their big neighbor" (which has nothing to do with ancient history). But he criticises what he called "anti-nationalist" interpretation only because he deems it wrong to have any other opinion on Irish history other than a nationalist (and anti-British) one. And that is the basis of all his criticism.

Further, his criticisms of Adamson's book make it clear that he has either not read it thoroughly, or has not understood it very well: he ignores much of what Adamson had said and researched, gives a poor summary of the book, and makes suggestions and draws conclusions that are contrary to what Adamson had actually written. He states that these "anti-nationalist historical revisionists" attempted to create a two-nation Ireland. Ironically history shows that, to a certain extent, and at various times in history, there were indeed two 'nations', or even four or more. But Ellis suggests that the two nations are the "a Catholic nation, which was Gaelic and nationalist, and a Protestant nation, which was English speaking and Unionist".. despite the fact that the Reformation and the development of Unionism were both late events in Irish history: Adamson doesn't mention in his book that the Gaels were Roman Catholic, not that the Cruthin were Protestant!

In summary, Ellis' criticism itself is founded on shakey grounds. --Mal 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My intent in supplying the link above was to prove some badly needed context for Ian Adamson. From the comments above, I think it's fair to say that you are the only person in this disucssion who had ever heard of him: the rest of us had no way of knowing whether he was a tenured professor, an independent scholar, or just some crank who spouts off rubbish at a bar. (And pointing to the Wikipedia article on Dr. Adamson does not help, because we have no way of knowing whether the two are correctly the same person. At the least, this link proves that they are.)

Whether or not his work is solid is irrelevant to this article, & in a way I'll admit that I should not have brought it up. However, both the lecture I have linked to, & you own words Setanta747, show that his claims are accepted only by a small & clearly-defined segment of society. This clearly indicates that this identification is not a fact, but a claim that Dr. Adamson has made for reasons you know but have not yet shared with us. They may be convincing arguments, or they may not be. In any case, the only accurate way to introduce this information would be to state that "Dr. Adamson has argued that the British Isles [or what ever part of them he writes about] are identical with the 'Isles of Elishah' mentioned in Ezekiel 27."

However, I think even this sentence does not belong in this article, because it is clearly about the name Britain for part or all of the island (I admit I'm uncertain about this usage), & not about the various names of the island. If this isn't the case, then why doesn't the article discuss another ancient name of this island -- Albion? If you re-read Britain, then you will see that mentioning "Albion" beyond listing it at the bottom with the other "See also" is irrelevant. And the usage "Albion" is far better known and attested than "Isles of Elishah".

Does anyone else agree that this is an important point? Although the island had other names in the past, they are not necessarily important to the subject of this article; to mention either "Albion" or Isles of Elishah" in this article requires the contirbutor to prove that they are relevant. And because I can see no reason to mention "Albion" in this article, there is clearly no reason to mention a possible, but little known, identification with another. -- llywrch 19:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Adamson is from Northern Ireland, and reasonably well known here. I don't expect he'd be quite as well-known in other regions or countries as he writes about pretty specific topics. I don't think I did point to his Wikipedia article, did I? You say that Adamson's claims are only supported by a "small segment of society"... well I can't tell you that is not the case to be honest. But nor can I reasonably assert that it is the case. Certainly, the Ellis article doesn't necessarily shed light on that. Adamson's work was based on (other) scholars by the way.

You say, "This clearly indicates that this identification is not a fact, but a claim that Dr. Adamson has made for reasons you know but have not yet shared with us." But that is simply not the case. How you arrived at that conclusion, I don't know. However, having found my copy of the particular book by Adamson, I have re-assessed my interpretation to it (I will type in the relevant part of the book later on), as I indicated in my comment above. Something similar to what you have suggested is how I am going to suggest here by the way. I'm not going to refer to him as "Dr" though, as that is not how he refers to himself in the book.

As for the reference to the island of Britain - as I've said, the two are linked. Britain comes from the word Pretani, which was used to refer to the islands. There are already references to the islands in the section ("Grate Briteigne", "British Isles" and the Pretannic Isles .. though I see this has also been changed). The introduction of the article also clearly shows that the word "Britain" is used to describe the UK. --Mal 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Telsa linked to Adamson's book above. As I said, his works aren't familiar to the rest of us, & she may have been mistaken in the identification. And I called him "Dr" because it is the custom in my part of the world to use that title when referring to MD's. (I have found that people with Ph.D.s vary in their day-to-day use of this title in proportion to their own sense of self-importance; MDs are far less flexible.)

As for how I arrived at the conclusion that Adamson has only claimed the identification -- but is not a fact -- is a matter of historical evidence. He has expressed an opinion &, I would hope, offered arguments for it. (Again, apparently only you are familiar with how he asserts the identification of the "Isles of Elishah" with Britain.) Unless he is citing some document where the author of the book of Ezekiel admits that by "Isles of Elishah" he meant Britain, then it is a theory. This is a matter of epistomology.

However, you didn't respond to my fdar more important point: that the "Isles of Elishah" reference is as irrelevant as a reference to "Albion". Should I conclude that you accept my reasoning on this point & you will take this discussion to another article? -- llywrch 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that even if true, this reference would be more suited to a British Isles article. I sense that we won't find a solution to the question of the Isles of Elishah that will suit everyone, so I'm going to suggest that once the quote has been provided we put forward some proposals about how to include or not the reference and put it to a vote a la WP:POLLS. Included among the proposals could be one to omit the Isles of Elishah and all the 'Britiscc Isles' references in the Earliest Attested References. Kaid100 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GR8B

I added gr8b.com to the site but was told I needed to create a discussion. GR8B is a Great British Discussion Forum with talk relating to Great Britain so I think it deserves a place on the site. I run the site myself and it's a non-profit organisation: www.gr8b.com (Not created it as a link)

Standard rule all over wikipedia is that we don't have links to forums/fora. --Red King 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK: "Incorrectly..."

It seems clear from this talk page, as well as other sources, that the "correctness" or otherwise of referring to the UK as Britain is a matter of opinion. Because of NPOV, any indication of whether or not this reference is correct should not be included as it would not represent a neutral point of view. Waggers 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion that Britain is the short form of Great Britain. No part of Ireland is in Britain, and that is why the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' was invented. By the precise same logic which is being used here we should say on the England page that it is also an informal term for Great Britain, as it is throughout the world. What's sauce for the goose.... 193.1.172.138 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Britain is also short for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - there's nothing "incorrect" about that. Since the word "England" doesn't appear in the formal name of the country, there is a distinct difference between those two cases. Waggers 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we consider using a different word to note that the usage is technically incorrect but often used? Would anyone be unhappy with the word "Colloquially"? 193.35.248.8 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Waggers and 193.35.248.8. It seems that one use of the word 'incorrect' remained in the article. The article claimed 'Briton' (meaning person of British nationality or residence) is incorrect, but didn't give a source for that claim, so I removed it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Micra Bretannia?

"The earliest reference to a collocation with a word meaning 'large' is in the writings of the Greek geographer Ptolemy, who called the larger island Megale Brettania (Great Britain), and the smaller island Micra Bretannia (Little Britain)." (Britain#Great_Britain)

I do not understand that which island in the Isles is Mirca Bretannia. Is it the island of Ireland? --yes0song 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be the Isle of Man, Atlantis or Hy Brasil. The ancient Greeks were (what was at at the time) a phenomenal distance away and knew as much about these islands as we do today about Mars, maybe less since it was all multiple hearsay. But do you have a source for that? --Red King 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There may be a problem. I just looked up the English translation of Geographia (Ptolemy) (it's online) and I found there the island names translated as Albion and Hibernia. That sentence about Megale Brettania should be removed if it is not sourced. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] terminology

This section may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

The terminology "Britain" is not a mere shortening of "Great Britain" since "Great" refers to the "greater" or larger isle in "Britain". Since "Britain" is the base of "British". The "British Isles" and "Britain" can be the same thing since Ireland is included in the "British Isles" and therefore "Britain" isnt the same as "Great Britain". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.178.146 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2006.

The OED defintion is:

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

Personaly I am doubtful about the fact that it is used for the island of Great Britain - its use as the informal name for the UK is at the very least far more common. But however that may be it emphatically does not include either geographically the island of Ireland or politically the Republic of Ireland. Mucky Duck 09:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As the British Isles are British (hence the name) (and since Ireland is part of the British Isles, therefore they may be classified as Britain NOT POLITICALLY BUT REGIONALLY! The reason for (Great) Britain is to distinguish the larger isle.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.178.146 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 August 2006.

I have reverted the edit asserting that "Britain" is a geographical term including the island of Ireland. Please stop changing the article to indicate otherwise.

-- Chris (blather • contribs)

06:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good revert, Chris. User:67.151.178.146 is repeatedly editing the article to claim that Britain refers to the British Isles. He is not stating any sources, and I, personally, have never heard of this usage. I think that you should continue to stand on Mucky Duck's OED quotation. It may be common for the largest island of an archipelago to share the name of the whole archipelago, but it is not the case here, nor for many other island groups. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting if he/she could come up with a (reliable) source, as it's not a form of usage I've heard either. But until a source is forthcoming, I agree that Mucky Duck's quotation should stand.

-- Chris (blather • contribs)

10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding the trolls, "Little Britain" is Britany in northern France, not Ireland. Blame the Normans. See various wiki articles. --Red King 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a new edit originating from the same IP address to meanings of the word "Britain", which replaced Great Britain with British Empire.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e)

20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain as the British Isles

I'm not going to revert the edit that says Britain can mean Great Britain but I would like an explanation as to why "geographical" Ireland isn't included in "geographical" Britain since Ireland is included in the British Isles. Doesn't British mean it's of Britain? And what about "Great Britain"? There was a reason that British Cartographers added the "Great" term to refer to the larger isle and not just the rest of Britain including Ireland (the isle, not the republic). As I said I wont revert this for a week unless someone comes up with an sensible explanation as to why this isn't correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corvidae682 (talk • contribs).

Ah, there's that adorable British sense of humour once again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.148.177 (talk • contribs).

I personally have never heard anyone refer to the British Isles as "Britain" or even "Great Britain". My understanding is that the term British Isles (or the precursor thereof) is actually older than the term Britain. The earliest name for the islands was the Pretannic Islands, and Britain itself was called Albion. The "Pretannic" bit started to apply to the largest island as well, and the Albion name was lost except as a poetic name. The 'P' started to be pronounced as a 'B' in some languages.

If Corvidae's suggestion to make the British Isles be called "Britain" is ever taken up, however, it will leave the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales stuck without a name, unless there is a serious plan to revive the name Albion. Personally I think both etymological sense and current usage imply that Britain and the British Isles are different things, especially since the term "British Isles" is avoided in the Republic of Ireland and I imagine calling the republic part of "Britain" would be even more repugnant to them. Kaid100 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi first time here. Britain is described as England Scotland and Wales..... and as an island. Well we are part of the British isels, there's more than one island and Northern island is part of Great Britain. (in the game family fortunes one of the questions is name a group of islands, despite being a British game, none of the people surveyed mentioned the "British isles", ! This upset me a bit the the British were so ignorant about themselves) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottyShakespear (talk • contribs).

Ahem. Speaking about being "ignorant about themselves", how about this: 'Northern island is part of Great Britain'. I rest my case. El Gringo 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornwall - The Hidden Nation

About this paragraph, which has now been removed by multiple editors but reinserted by one editor on multiple occassions:

When the Italian cleric, Polydor Vergil, was commissioned by the English king, Henry VII, in 1505 to write "the History of England" (1535), he gave the following description of Britain ^[1] in the introduction:

"the whole Countrie of Britain ...is divided into iiii partes; whereof the one is inhabited of Englishmen, the other of Scottes, the third of Wallshemen, [and] the fowerthe of Cornishe people, which all differ emonge them selves, either in tongue, ...in manners, or ells in lawes and ordinaunces."

This distinction of Cornwall was also reflected by the first Duke of Cornwall when, in 1351, he commissioned a survey of his Duchy of Cornwall lands to ascertain what was held, and by whom, of his tenants in "Cornwall & England". There are many historical references to corroborate this distinction (see constitutional status of Cornwall) and it has been the Cornish perception of themselves up to the present day but hidden from the world by being classified, since 1889, as an English administrative county.

It is argued ^[2] that to ignore the Cornish as one of the constituent nations of Britain is to deprive the Cornish people of their history and rights as a national group within the United Kingdom and the greater Europe and deliberately facilitate actions detrimental to the future existence of the Cornish people.

^ [1] The Cornish: A Neglected Nation? by Mark Stoyle.
^ [2] Perceptions of Cornwall and the Cornish people

I really can't see the relevancy about something that either refers to the United Kingdom or England but not Britain being in a Britain article. It strikes me as POV (it has been the Cornish perception of themselves up to the present day but hidden from the world by being classified, since 1889, as an English administrative county) , uses weasal words (it is argued), references an extremely one sided website at number 2. I think it should be removed and would like to canvass the opinions of other editors. Regan123 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevance, whether you like it or not, is a historic reference to Britain at the beginning of the 16th century - of which there are others. I would have expected a reasonable person to query the inclusion of Cornwall, and in line with a quest for knowledge, to question it but not, as earlier, to dismissively delete the whole item which sought to put the issue into some form of context. If you wish to suggest that the referenced site is in anyway wrong, or incorrect, then please give your reasons why. What you describe as a one-sided website does not mean that what is said is not valid or legitimate. That would be another discussion but please feel free....! Perhaps a way forward, would be to include the original Vergil quote - to which, I would add others - and leave the rest as a reference/endnote? -- TGG 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually plenty of other people have been removing it, so it's not just me - it is only yourself that has added it. The paragraph is horribly POV as I have indicated above, there is no reason for Cornwall to be given special status in this article. It is not treated as anything else but a County both in and outside the UK. All that quote talks about is different languages meaning different peoples - hardly a definition of special status. And I am afraid that one sided websites are unlikely to meet WP:CITE. Finally, you have failed to address the weasal words and the POV and instead insinuate that I am unreasonable (I would have expected a reasonable person).

Nevertheless, I will further expand: it has been the Cornish perception of themselves up to the present day but hidden from the world by being classified, since 1889, as an English administrative county. Now compare and contrast with this from Cornish people - The number of people living in Cornwall who consider themselves to be more Cornish than British or English is unknown. A survey found that 35.1% of respondents identified as Cornish, with 48.4% of respondents identifying as English, a further 11% thought of themselves as British. This is hardly the Cornish perception of themselves - it is barely above one third.

Regardless the Britain article is not the place to argue over the status of Cornwall. If there is some relevancy then it could be easily dealt with under the See also section with a link which would allow viewers to visit the COnsitutional status of Cornwall page if they choose, though that article is also in need of a serious clean up.

Also, out of interest, are you the author of the TGG website referenced? Regan123 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for a delay in responding but felt that it deserved more than just a snap response.

To get the personality issue out of the way: Since you had obviously met my stated concept of a reasonable approach - to which I was responding - how could you possibly infer that I had insinuated otherwise? The comment was aimed at those who had simply deleted the section without reasoned qualification.

The reason for including the section was purely because the opening section excluded Cornwall from the list of constituent nations - a matter of dispute! – and requiring a ‘disputed page’ infobox. Your comment of how Cornwall is “treated”, is not one that reflects historical truth but purely modern perception applied retrospectively and from a POV built upon lies, deception and propaganda.

I am not sure why you simply pick up on language alone, or treat something as fundamental as ‘Cornishe people’ so dismissively, unless you are just expressing a POV based on prejudice? However dismissively you, and others, may wish to treat this, it points to a significant distinction. The quote, itself, was used by T.K.Derry & M.G.Blakeway as the opening statement of their book on "The Making of Pre-Industrial Britain" (first published in 1969) and qualified with these words (my highlighting):

So wrote the naturalized Italian cleric, Polydore Vergil, in a history of England which he composed at the request of the first Tudor king, Henry VII. In the present volume we shall try to trace the process by which these peoples were welded together to form the Britain of the mid-eighteenth century, whose name the youthful George III was to glory in.

Sometimes phrases such as “it is argued” bear a stigma as ‘weasel words’ but I could easily replace this with numerous references – even from just within wikipedia – to prove that it is in fact a truth and these references will continue to grow. If this phrase is non-wiki, then please suggest some acceptable phrase that isn’t just plain wicked! Are you suggesting, for instance, that it is not being argued?

I fail to see any relevance in your comments on Cornish perception of themselves and the statements, you quote from the article on Cornwall and would welcome some form of clarification. Possibly, you may have a different concept of what ‘Cornish’ means? Perhaps you are unwilling to accept that the consequence of State lies and deception on gullible minds are designed to manipulate perceptions and create fragmentation/change of identity (see Lemkin’s own definitions of genocide). Even worse, you might feel that if you wait long enough, the Cornish will finally be removed - the final solution!

I am not arguing over the status of Cornwall at all. I am simply putting the concept of Britain into its honest perspective and presenting clear evidence to show that Cornwall should be included within the opening section. From that position it would then be proper to invite visitors to ‘see also……’ but the main article should initiate that need, and possibility, for further investigation.

Is the author of the referenced website(s) relevant? -- TGG 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the detailed response. I will try and reply to the pertinent points and expand on my previous thoughts.

Starting at the end, if you will allow, if you are the author of the referenced website then you cannot reference it as per original research. References must come from reputable sources as per citing sources. This does not indicate a lack of good faith but is a Wikipedia policy. If it does then it would require immediate removal.

On the perception of the Cornish people issue. The article you have added says the perception of the Cornish people which defines that as a whole. From the other article it states The number of people living in Cornwall who consider themselves to be more Cornish than British or English is unknown. A survey found that 35.1% of respondents identified as Cornish, with 48.4% of respondents identifying as English which suggests that it is not clear cut as a whole, but rather 1/3 of the people of Cornwall. This is not to dismiss the Cornish people because of prejudice, as you suggest, but to state that those identifying as Cornish amounts to a minority - again not the perception of the Cornish people. Not identifying as Cornish, doesn't stop them being Cornish. Identifying as British does not stop one being Scottish or vice versa.

Regarding the inclusion of Cornwall as a constituent country. There is no basis to include it in the list and Wikipedia articles should not be used to argue that something should be amended or included/removed. Towns that were in Staffordshire, but are now in the West Midlands are shown as the latter becuase that is the current recognised status. Beyond the Cornish nationalist cause, Cornwall is recognised as a county of England in law and perception, domestically and internationally. Wikipedia must deal with the here and now, not what might, should or could be.

Your comment of how Cornwall is “treated”, is not one that reflects historical truth but purely modern perception applied retrospectively and from a POV built upon lies, deception and propaganda. I'm sorry but I don't see what reason that is to justify the inclusion of this paragraph in this article. You obviously don't think it ia an historical truth, but what makes that so? To call something lies, deception and propaganda would fail the neutral point of view requirement - propoganda is merely a form of perception which automatically brings in weasal words. It cannot be made more "wiki" because it cannot be encyclopedic. Constitutional status of Cornwall has several sources listed that show that Cornwall is part of England, yet nothing of this has been put in here. Again this fails NPOV. To correctly fix this, would require massive expansion meaning this article would be more about Cornwall than Britain. This article correctly defines Britain as it is today accoding to custom and international law.

It is argued [2] that to ignore the Cornish as one of the constituent nations of Britain is to deprive the Cornish people of their history and rights as a national group within the United Kingdom and the greater Europe and deliberately facilitate actions detrimental to the future existence of the Cornish people. This is impossible to reference with a citeable source, something that has, to quote, to help users find additional reliable information on the topic, which I cannot possibly see how it can be found. That is a synthesis, which fails original research.

by which these peoples were welded together to form the Britain of the mid-eighteenth century, whose name the youthful George III was to glory in.. The Roma are a people but that does not given them special status or confer hidden nation upon them, even where they may form a majority of the local population.

See alsos do not require introduction within the article. There are several See alsos here that whilst relevant are neither introduced.

Language is important - even the name header is instantly POV because it presurposes that Cornwall is a "hidden nation". As you say this is arguable. Because something is being argued, doesn't mean it has to be included in an encyclopedia. If that was the case, articles would grow exponentionally.

As before, the quote doesn't refer to Britain, but the UK and/or England. Britain and the UK are not the same thing.

For all of these reasons, I believe the section should be removed and replaced with a see also. Regan123 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies again, but I am unable to respond fully to your above points until after the current holiday period when I shall certainly do so. I am attempting to understand wikipedia so, in the meantime, I would be grateful to be given the opportunity to ponder on the following:

a - what is the purpose of Wikipedia and its benefits over, for example, Britannica?

b - what is considered inappropriate about "the Vergil quote" itself, within 'the Britain' and wiki context?

Season's greetings to all wikipedians, Nadelek Lowen ha Bledhen Noweth Da! -- TGG 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

----------------------------------------Finally, a reply! -----------------------------------------------

re website: I see a problem with such things as disallowing ‘original research’ or some arbitrary qualification (by whom?) of what may be called ‘reputable sources’. Given that the website in question does contain referenced citations, why should it be a matter of concern? If it is considered as one-sided because the focus is specifically upon the rights of the Cornish people, then would it not be proper for those opposed to the Cornish position to include references to provide some presumed ‘balance’. What, indeed, would prevent others from including the said website retrospectively?

re perception: You will, I hope, accept that there is a dispute over the status of Cornwall and her people – the reason, once again, why we are having this discussion! Therefore, ‘Cornish people’ has a different connotation according to whoever is using it. We also have the general, but intentionally derogatory, use of ‘nationalists’ (interesting in its own right?) to stereotype/stigmatise those arguing the ‘Cornish’ version of history. I would contend that this fragmentation of identity is for no other reason than that the ‘Cornish’ are being written out of history. If there is a Cornish people, a Cornish language and a Cornish territory, and history records this as distinct from the English people, the English language and English territory within Britain, then where is the justification for excluding this from an article on Britain?

Your interpretation of ‘the survey’ as indicative of only one third, clearly illustrates the Cornish Paradox and your misinterpretation of what I meant by ‘Cornish’. Do you, for example, consider everyone in England to be English? What is hidden from view by the survey you quote is how many of those surveyed are immigrants and how it measures factors such as continuity with Cornwall. If we simply concern ourself with the two identities of Cornish and English there will be those who consider themselves – and irrespective of origins - either Cornish or English. The former, according to the survey is 35.1%, the latter 48.4% with other nationalities (11% British although that is not a nationality!) making up the difference.

Hiding the Cornish Nation from public perception has the effect of inexorably marginalising the Cornish people out of existence and preventing a natural process of assimilation and integration of immigrants into the Cornish Community (q.v. recent concerns on multiculturalism). Whilst I would consider myself to be an inclusive person, it must be acknowledged that within Cornwall we are experiencing on a daily basis that which others elsewhere within Britain can only anticipate and fear. How can you justify a system that facilitates the ultimate destruction of one of the indigenous peoples of Britain, with the Cornish now a minority - an endangered species! - within their own country?

re constituent country: By taking such a position, you are aligning yourself, and Wikipedia, with a POV that rides roughshod over Cornish rights. This whole discussion is about the disputed nature of Cornwall and how this is being perpetuated within an ‘incomplete’ article on Britain. For Wikipedia to solely deal with, as you say above, Wikipedia must deal with the here and now, not what might, should or could be - but to singularly exclude, in fact, what was - is somewhat flawed within the full spectrum of knowledge.

Your point, propaganda is merely a form of perception, seems to ignore the processes of manipulative control inherent in official propaganda. Surely, this can be made encyclopedic by showing the contrasting ways that perceptions have been, and are being, manipulated. If you feel that expanding the article to provide balance and npov would result in the article being more about Cornwall than Britain, then you might equally reflect upon why this should be seen as a necessary evil. Cornwall is misrepresented within Britain and one assumes that those who identify as Cornish must have the right to see that this is reflected in any article on Britain!

re it is argued: Are you suggesting that this does not represent a valid hypothesis? Your previous concern about my use of the United Kingdom and Europe are irrelevant as these could be changed to say Britain without affecting the item. I could cite many references to which I would add the Lemkin definition of genocide.

I do not see that a comparison with the Roma is relevant. I am talking about a recognised people (the Cornish Nation) referred to by their gentile adjective (Cornish), with their own recognised national language (Cornish) within their own recognised national territory (the Duchy of Cornwall).

re see also: But surely, some form of introduction – particularly citations from reputable sources - would be ethically proper and expedient!

re language: Can there be any doubt that it is hidden? It is only those hiding under the yoke of the status quo and a preference for what is ‘disputed legal’ de facto, rather than legal de jure, who would say otherwise. Not sure why an article would grow exponentially(?) or why, in the interest of knowledge, a larger article should be considered a problem!

re UK/England: I am more aware than most of what is meant by Britain and UK. The higher constitutional levels were used to make the point that Cornish rights are not just an issue confined to a lower lever but one which wilfully affects our place in Europe and on the world stage. The reference to England (I assume this is a reference to the Duke of Cornwall’s 1351 quote?) was to show the constitutional distinction between the Duchy of Cornwall and England .

re removal: I accept that much of the section could be included as endnotes and/or references but the original quoted item – a specific description of Britain from a reputable source - is as valid as anything else on that page to which I shall certainly add further corroborating quotes. Given this willingness to compromise, how would you re-phrase the section?

-- TGG 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retabbed for easier reading I will no doubt add to this tomorrow as the hour is late, but I wanted to respond to a couple of points quickly.

Original research The relevant official policy is here WP:OR. Whilst it does not prohibit citing oneself, this appears to be restricted to publication in a respected journal. Has this been done for this information (whether by you or someone else)? If so, then it is citeable.

it has been the Cornish perception of themselves and hidden from the world by being classified, since 1889, as an English administrative county. are both surely syntheses unless there is a scholarly source for these.

It is argued [2] references your website. How can this be anything but original research?

The Hidden Nation is another synthesis unless a scholarly source can be found for this. I have tagged the section as being possible original research and as such it should be removed.

External links Wikipedia:External Links#What should be linked states that Sites that contain neutral and accurate material should be linked to. Kernow TGG certainly doesn't fit that criteria. On Cornwall it is described as A radical look at factors affecting perceptions of Cornwall - not, I would suggest, a generally recognised indication of neutrality.

Perception I have to say that I am concerned that we are entering soap box territory here. Wikipedia should not be used to counter so-called propoganda. Statements such as rides roughshod over Cornish rights, inexorably marginalising the Cornish people out of existence, Cornwall is misrepresented within Britain, those hiding under the yoke of the status quo are all examples of my concern.

deliberately facilitate actions detrimental to the future existence of the Cornish people. is neither NPOV and again looks like soap boxing.

Constituent country It is being NPOV to report the facts as they are at the moment. Yes there is a court case, but unless that changes something, Cornwall is and will stay a county of England. No there was no Act of Union, but to say that means it must be counted as a constituent country has no basis in citeable fact except as an extrapolation of other information.

Etymology Finally this page is about the Etymology of the word Britain or British. If there is a proper place for this it is in the see also page or possibly England or the UK. It is in effect a super disambiguation page. As there is no discussion of a country called Britain (there isn't one) this is not the proper place for it.

~~I will respond further tomorrow if you will allow me the time. --Regan123 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~ OK, this distils the relevant points and answers them I believe --Regan123 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to respond and, also, for your forbearance.

Original research: I know that the website has been in existence since 1997 and submitted to various organisations and academic instututions (in an attempt to awaken academia) as was a critique of the Duchy of Cornwall – the basis for the site - compiled for the reasearch organisation Cowethas Flamank and published in 1986 (a copy of which exists within the Duchy of Cornwall archives). The site has been included as a link (with comment) here -> www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/

You have yourself quoted a survey showing that 35.1% of the population of Cornwall specifically describe themselves as ‘Cornish’ (as opposed to British or English etc.). How can the only too obvious fact of being classified as an ‘English’ county (hiding the facts of history) with an estimated 60% postwar growth of immigrants (mainly from affluent southeast England) be considered to be syntheses in showing how the Cornish are being socially and politically marginalised out of existence. Please see “Cornwall at the Crossroads? - 1988” by Deacon,George and Perry (ISBN 0 9513918 0 1 ) where this is analysed and which cites numerous references.

The ‘it is argued’ hardly seems to be one of original research given the political culture within the Cornish Duchy and beyond – not least the many discussions that I have seen within Wikipedia. But, again, this identifies a hypothesis which, like the preceding comment is only too self-evident and provable. I accept that Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to prove it, but I would consider it a fundamental principle that all the facts are available as a resource within Wikipedia to enable others to draw their own conclusions.

The Marc Stoyle reference is a look at Cornwall the Neglected Nation?

External links: The kernowtgg site is radical in the sense that it is not afraid to present evidence and analysis normally avoided by ‘the Establishment writers’ whose future invariably rests in keeping faith with their paymasters. It is compiled from a ‘Cornish’ perspective as befits a site about Cornwall and the Cornish people. As a site, it seeks to maintain a neutral stance (within its remit) by not being critical of people (as individuals) but only of the existence of a hostile political and social inertia. The site has always welcomed some academic critique of the site – particularly with regard to its presumed failure over neutrality(?) – but it has been compiled with full knowledge of the status quo (legal or otherwise) and it is this that it sets out to address in order to provide some balance to a discussion on Cornwall.

Perception: I have no wish to make this a soapbox. Life is too short and too much to do and I have already stated that my only aim is to record the existence of the Vergil quote (see Etymology below) within wiki principles

Constituent country: It is also, surely, NPOV to state facts as they were? I have no other agenda than stating this fact.

Etymology: This is inherently the study of the evolution of words and suggests that my call for things to be recorded (that were) is equally valid to (what is). Perhaps, then, we could agree to expand the following sentence to include the mysteriously omitted reference to Cornwall? From which, we can then reference to “see also” and also update any associated referencing elsewhere as required to complete the jigsaw?

Mediæval English politics was such that Geoffrey of Monmouth and others created origin myths for the parts of the island of Britain that were not within the Anglo Saxon sphere. Brutus' sons, Albanact, the supposed founder of Scotland, and likewise Camber for Wales, and Corineus for Cornwall.

Interesting observation on ‘Country’(?)

-- TGG 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Thanks for the external link. From what I can see that is a personal website, but it does provide some usefulish info.

considered to be syntheses in showing how the Cornish are being socially and politically marginalised out of existence. To make this not a synthesis you would have to provide a good reference for the actual decline in the population of Cornish. It would be like saying that the English are being marginilised out of existence by a Sottish dominated cabinet. Without cold hard facts, that is a synthesis.

Constituent country

The BBC article talks of the Cornish language (it's main argument for the Cornish nation that seems to extended) being almost extinct before the Act of Union between England and Scotland, where a sovereign state called Great Britain being formed. Therefore there were no constituent countries of Britain at this time, Wales having being formerly annexed into England before this date and Cornwall being ruled by the heir to English throne. it might be arguable that there were 3 consituent countries of the Kingdom of England at some point, but there would have to be some non trivial sources for that. To describe Cornwall as one now would be to misrepresent the current status of Brtain which is what this article is about.

Etymology

From the above I think this argument fails.

External links

The wikipedia guidelines/policy requires that the link be neutral. Whilst you state that it brings some balance the site is campaigning by nature which I suggest fails the requirement.

Solution

To stop us going round in circles can I suggest this as a plan of action, considering in multiple debates on Wikipedia it has been the conclusion that Cornwall be treated as part of England unless the Court case changes matters.

Add a See Also and remove the section and external link.
Add information to the England article as a short intro and see also it there.
I think it should also go into the History of England article, the whole of which needs citeing anyway.
Then we can work on editing/referencing the Constitutional status of Cornwall to get rid of the cleanup tags.

Regan123 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall respond later. In the meantime, I would welcome your response to the Corineus proposal. -- TGG 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I might of missed what you were getting at. Can you clarify that for me and then I can give it a proper response. Cheers, Regan123 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My previous comment above re Etymology and the proposed amendment to the text (within Etymology section) on 'Brutus' eponymy etc as example text given above. This would complete a mysterious 'etcetera' omission and provide a reference point to 'see also/references'. -- TGG 13:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies for the delay - IT issues). I don't see this as etymology at all. It is one persons opinion of what Britain contained but describes neither the origin or evolution of the term Britain, which is covered in that section. As the article doesn't go into detail on the history of the formation of Britain as such, I'm not sure that it sits properly within this article anyway. Regan123 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Ditto! - matter of priorities) Now back in circulation and will catch-up and respond within the next couple of days. -- TGG 14:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having difficulty finding the time to respond to all points in your previous reply because of time constraints, so feel that better, for now, to concentrate on what you propose as a solution and what I have also put forward as a means of resolving this. If we deal first with the proposed compromises, then further discussion on the other unanswered points might, or might not need to be discussed later

Part of England: This is the main focus of the disputes which arise with regard to how Cornwall is presented on Wikipedia because of an apparent adherence to the retrospective application of modern Anglocentric perceptions of history. The misrepresentation of Cornwall as being in England, because it is treated as an administrative English county, is something that has been well debated, but any consensus to legitimise the misrepresentations has only been arrived at by fixing on the County Councils Act of 1888, and a marginalisation of 'a Cornish' perspective by the use of a preset ‘English’ Infobox template. For that reason, I cannot see how Cornwall’s relationship to Britain (the sole point of this exchange) can be sincerely, or honestly, covered within any of the articles that you suggest - because of that relationship.

Corineus: Are you suggesting that the existing reference to Brutus et al is to be removed? Perhaps, there is a need, instead, to remove this arbitrary ‘etymology’ limitation and combine the articles of Britain and Great Britain under 'Britain' and then, if necessary, put the etymological focus on Great Britain? The reason I say this, is because it is Britain that is, in truth, ‘the place’ (and invariably the default terminology) and ‘Great Britain’ is a final evolution of the name but, contextually, quite irrelevant.

-- TGG 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain is about a country/place. This article is about a word. Consensus on Wikipedia (debated several times over) is that Cornwall is part of England unless/until the forthcoming court case changes thing. The whole section needs to be removed as original research anyway, but this page is a super disambiguation page anyway where this is not appropriate. The articles mentioned are the more appropriate place. Wikipedia is not the place to argue about a "perspective" from one point or another. Cornwall's relationship with England is far more relevant - if it is part of England then it fits under England - again consensus here. As for the County Councils Act if (a big if) it was not part of England (very debatable) then it is now - parliamentary sovereignty etc. As for the quote, as Wales was at that time annexed and therefore considered part of England, what is to say that they were three separate countries. He could have been referring to language or the common misconception of Britain being England and vice versa. Encyclopaedic entries cannot interpret.

Anyway, as per WP:Verifiability / WP:OR this section has to now be removed. Regan123 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retabbed for easier reading

I am suggesting that wiki has got Britain/Great Britain the wrong way around – for reasons stated!
I am not discussing whether or not Cornwall is a part of England but that it has a historic relationship to Britain before England even came into existence.
The quoted item is hardly original research since it was used in the introduction to a history of England commissioned by the king.
However it may be dressed up or euphemised, the quoted item has no relationship at all to the articles mentioned.
I am not referring to any relationship to ‘England’.
I find it quite bizarre, that academics(?) hide behind dubious State behaviour rather than an objective view of history, which is what, hopefully, we are discussing.
They were undoubtedly separate countries by virtue of language, people, territory and government and other qualify attributes with Cornwall a Royal Duchy. Unlikely to have been the equivalent of the modern misrepresentation and a contrived synonymy between Britain and England when used as an introduction to a history of England. You are, it seems, seeking to interpret with the specific aim of excluding the Cornish reference!
Whilst, I have stated a willingness for the section to be modified, I do not consider that you have given any legitimate reason why the quote should not be included and perhaps, this needs to be taken to some ‘higher authority’?

You seem to be bypassing my queries with regard to Corineus and the passage, in the Etymology section, referring to Brutus et al. My interest in this is that it yet again misrepresents the actual reference by excluding the Corineus (Cornwall) association. Briefly: when Brutus and Corineus, his second in command, came to the island (Albion) he named the island Britain and his companions Britons. Similarly, Corineus, who had precedence over all others, called his chosen share of the island Cornwall and his companions Cornish. The reference to what became Wales, Scotland and England, only occurred after Brutus died when he allocated these places to his sons, Kamber (Wales), Albanactus (Scotland) and Locrinus (Logria, which eventually became England).

Whatever opinion, you may have on this presentation of history, it had a major influence on historical perception and which gave rise to the Galfridian Conceit used to further English supremacy over 'the island'. Even if a literary myth it reflects a particular understanding of Cornwall in the early 12th century, consistent with other contemporaneous knowledge. Therefore, as part of the etymology of Britain, it seems appropriate that the origins of Cornwall and Britain are very closely related. As I see it: include Corineus, my compromise, or delete the complete misleading Brutus reference and retain the Vergil quote! -- TGG 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick note - when an editor removes an article and gives a reason as has been done today, to call it vandalism is to assume bad faith.

Now onto the substantive issues: original research is a good enough reason to remove the whole section. I have not done so as a courtesy, but as another editor has no done so, I will be doing so shortly. This is not vandalism, but editing as per the WP:OR guidelines. It is also not up to someone to justify exclusion, it is up the editor to justify inclusion (WP:V - (The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it). We now have multiple editors removing a section and one adding it.

I have dealt with the quote as being open to interpretation - where are the scholarly sources, the non trivial references as per WP:CITE? None have been provided and this has being going on for nearly a month.

As for Brutus ,if you wish to raise this as a separate point of discussion, please feel free or try and edit your quote in with sources, but the article took a lot of effort from a lot of editors to get the balance, so I would seriously suggest raising it on this talk page first. --Regan123 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the section for the above reasons. The text is reposted here if further disucssions are required:

"the whole Countrie of Britain ...is divided into iiii partes; whereof the one is inhabited of Englishmen, the other of Scottes, the third of Wallshemen, [and] the fowerthe of Cornishe people, which all differ emonge them selves, either in tongue, ...in manners, or ells in lawes and ordinaunces."

It is argued ^[4] that to ignore the Cornish as one of the constituent nations of Britain is to deprive the Cornish people of their history and rights as a national group within the United Kingdom and the greater Europe and deliberately facilitate actions detrimental to the future existence of the Cornish people. While it is also argued that the former kingdom of Cornwall exists historically in the same way as separate Plantagenet kingdoms but is no longer relevant ^{[citation needed]} in modern day England.

Regan123 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I cannot put the amount of time necessary to continue this discussion against the entrenched and retrospective prejudice and historical subjectivity which seems to be the wiki-way with respect to Cornwall, I shall have to leave it there for the moment. I would certainly like to take this to some higher authority for an objective decision and perhaps you might suggest the route to this? It is pointless suggesting an 'agree' - 'disagree' consensus because the Cornish presentation of facts can never win within such an alien and hostile environment.

As a statement of 'fact' the original Vergil quote cannot be argued against and together with its supporting use within the volume "The Making of Industrial Britain" has a meaning not left to interpretation - other than from a POV derived from prejudice (q.v. one edit refers to 'removal of nonsense'). Why should the Cornish as 'one of the distinct peoples' of Britain be excluded on some pretext not applied to the others within that quote?

Taken with corroborative evidence of:

the Cornish language;
the Royal Duchy of Cornwall, as constitutionally extra-territorial to England, and,
a definitive territorial identity - unmatched by any Anglo-British county,

there is a distinct failure to treat this objectively and within a contemporaneous context, or to acknowledge

a) the relative merit of the quote, as emanating from a Royal Commissioned publication, and
b) a supporting reference, derived from a Royal source.

There is also, I feel, a failure to give proper consideration to my suggested compromise, which must, regrettably, be pursued at another time.

-- TGG 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Germanic culture

Britain has been add to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Name? Merge?

I understand that this has been voted on above, however, is this article not inappropriately named? NOAD defines the following:

'Britain: An island that consists of England, Wales and Scotland and included the small adjacent islands. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit.

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.

I also fail to see the purpose of this article vis-�à-vis the Great Britain article. --sony-youth^talk 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. This page explains usage of the word Britain. It is NOT an article about the island of Great Britain, not about the United Kingdom, although both can be and have been referred to as Britain. See also British Isles (terminology). Malcolm Starkey 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's nice, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (not just a guideline, but official policy). On Wikipedia articles should be about "the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the species of animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." Articles should not be about "the actual words or idioms in their title. [In a dictionary the] article octopus is about the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth."

The last paragraph sums up the article (after discussing etymology and adjectival forms):

“

Geographically, the term can be used in various ways:

To describe someone from the island of Great Britain.
In the term British Isles (see supra), the traditional term for the entire archipelago of islands that lie off the north west coast of France, of which Great Britain and Ireland are the two biggest.
The term has historically been used to describe someone or something from the British Isles. Because of the above mentioned potential for offence, this rarely happens today. For example the British Lions, a rugby team which draws players from the United Kingdom and Ireland, has been renamed the British and Irish Lions.
Sometimes British applies to an area or territory currently or formerly governed by or a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for example the British Virgin Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or British Columbia which is now a province of Canada.

”

This is a dictionary article (discussing its part in speech and usage). Aside from the fact that it confuses the island (Britain, from Pritani via Britannia until the 8th century when it had replaced Albion as the name of the island) with the geopolitical unit (Great Britain, dating from 1604), where is the discussion of Britain? Its flora, its fauna? --sony-youth^talk 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this should be cut right down to form a disambiguation page, reflecting the different uses of the term. But it should not simply be merged with Great Britain because the two are not synonymous, as the section at Modern Usage indicates. Malcolm Starkey 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced. For sure, "Britain" is often used to mean the UK (for example the Economist does it all of the time), but when it is, don't you think that it is being used in a more euphemistic sense? I think it is also a mistake think of Britian and British as having a strict noun-adjective relationship, since one is an identity (and citizenship) as well as the adjective.

I, for one, would always use "Britain" and "Great Britain" synonymously, while at the same time understanding that sometimes it is used to mean the UK. I've attached some dictionary definitions below:

Oxford American:

Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland and includes the small adjacent islands. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit.

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.

Merriam-Webster:

Britain: The island of Great Britain (Second definition: United Kingdom)

Great Britain: Island W Europe comprising England, Scotland, & Wales area 88,150 square miles (228,300 square kilometers), population 57,103,927 (Second definition: United Kingdom)

Encarta:

Britain: Island in the Atlantic Ocean off the northwestern coast of Europe, including England, Scotland, and Wales. See Great Britain.

Great Britain: The largest island of the British Isles in northwestern Europe. It includes England, Scotland, and Wales.

Random House:

Britain: See Great Britain

Great Britain: An island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea: since 1707 the name has applied politically to England, Scotland, and Wales.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Britain: The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871-899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied.

Great Britain: An island off the western coast of Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales. It is separated from the mainland by the English Channel and from Ireland by the Irish Sea. See United Kingdom.

--sony-youth^talk 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Those definitions reflect the traditional definition, though a quite a few of them hint that term can also mean (rightly or wrongly - and that's been discussed ad infinitum by those who want to restrict how people are allowed to use language) United Kingdom.

More importantly, we need to recognise that the vast majority of incoming links to this page want to go to United Kingdom. A merger/redirect to Great Britain would cause so much confusion...

On the other hand, it has developed from the disambiguation page that it was into a dictionary definition (albeit a well developed one). I propose that we:

Move the content from here into the Wiktionary article on Britain. It would be a shame to lose it all.
Reduce this page to a disambiguation cosisting basically of the first paragraph of the page as it is now, looking vaguely like:

The word Britain is an informal term used when referring to;

Look up Britain in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

the island of Great Britain
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the "United Kingdom" or the "UK"), a sovereign state
the Roman province called "Britain" or "Britannia".

For a discussion of the confusion between terms such as Britain, United Kindom and England, see British Isles (terminology).

==See Also==

Thoughts? Robdurbar 11:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd broadly agree with Robdurbar's suggestion of moving most of the content to the Wiktionary entry. I think perhaps the beginning of the article as it stands would work fine as a disambiguation page (we need, for example, to make it clear that the spelling Brittain is a surname).

I'd also be interested to see what the Chambers, the Collins or the NODE have to say about the word "Britain", since all of Sony Youth's examples are American dictionaries and may possibly reflect a subtle usage difference. Certainly, "Britain" is used to mean the UK by the Economist; it is also used by the BBC and other broadcasters, all British newspapers and the government itself. For example, the Guardian style guide says, under British: "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." Please note: the official short form. It is NOT incorrect.

This has all been discussed at length above. By all means move the info to the Wiktionary, but please do not assume that the Britain page should automatically redirect to Great Britain. Malcolm Starkey 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay to me too. Would prefer a merge with Great Britain and a disambiguation link to United Kingdom on top of there - but Rob's suggestion looks fair enough. --sony-youth^talk 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; someone else will have to put the old content into Wiktionary because my unviresity's ip has been blocked (As it seems to have been from all Wikimedia sites except for Wikipedia) from wiktionary as an open proxy. --Robdurbar 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --sony-youth^talk 09:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary vs Encyclopedia

Ha, here's a laugh. You just moved a whole lot of information about the history of the usage of the term Britain to Wictionary, on the grounds that it was "about the word", and of course words go in dictionaries. Within half an hour, one of the regular Wictionary writers put a clean-up notice on the page, and asked in his edit summary, "Where did all this encyclopedic information come from?" He is right - just look at the neat tabular lay-out of Wictionary and it should be obvious to you that this kind of discussion does NOT belong there. The rule about not having dictionary entries in Wikipedia is meant to avoid us having articles which are just dictionary definitions. But when we get into complex matters of word usage, the history of the signifier is inextricably bound up with our understanding of the significant, and when Wikipedia is discussing a difficult concept like Britain, the history and variation of linguistic usage in relation to that concept is encyclopedic. I have not worked on this page for over a year, so I'm not going to argue for a simple revert, but do think about this again. The set of Wikipedia articls on Britain are impoverished if we have a sacred cow stopping us from telling the reader how GB came to be called GB. And if as I suspect the Wictionary people just delete this information as out of place, then some very interesting background to Britishness has been lost to the project. That would be a shame. --Doric Loon 13:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So add it to the Britishness article, or better still improve the Great Britain etymology section with it. I've added relevent parts to Briton, maybe explain in United Kingdom why the government there is called British and papers like the Economist and the Guardian call the UK, "Britain", for short. Or if you really must start a new article called Historical names for Great Britain. But do you really think that all the articles linking to Britain expect to be met with an etymology and usage guide? --sony-youth^talk 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely not - the muddle of Britain/UK-articles needs your terrible swift sword, and I'm not wanting to stop you. I hadn't noticed there is an article on Britishness. You may be right - this linguistic information has a lot to do with Britain as an identity, so maybe it belongs there. Good idea. But I feel bad about butting in after you have been debating this without me, so I'm not going to do it. I've alerted you to a danger, but those of you working on this need to find the solutions. --Doric Loon 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritain_18f9.html"

Category: Discussion pages which may contain trolling