Talk:Britain and Ireland

The term "Britain and Ireland" can't possibly include the Isle of Man, which is neither part of Britain nor part of Ireland. Ditto for the Channel Isles. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 16

I agree there is a problem. In 99% of the uses of "British Isles" the term is used to mean "Britain and Ireland", but there are a few cases where it explicitly is used to mean the general collection of islands off North-Western Europe that historically was politically controlled by Britain. I do not know of an alternate succinct expression for that collection of islands that does not give the misleading impression that Ireland is British. Any suggestions. --Eob

The term "Britain and Ireland" is unclear and best avoided in almost any context. If what is meant is the British Isles, then the correct term is "British Isles" (and the British Isles article should make it clear that this doesn't imply Ireland is British). If what is meant is merely the two largest islands of the British Isles, then "Great Britain and Ireland" is better than "Britain and Ireland". If what is meant is the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, then "United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland" is obviously clearest (although a bit long-winded). --Zundark, 2001 Nov 16

Sorry but if we want to use a NPOV I do not think it is acceptable to use the term "British Isles" except in an historical context. The situation is not simple because political and geographical terminology is mixed, and unfortunately that means that it is hard to come up with a acceptable concise name for the collection of islands off Europe that have historically been controlled by Britain. The use of "British Isles" is similar to the habit of some people to refer to "Britain" as "England", much to the annoyance of the Scots and Welsh.

Referring to Britain as "England" is just wrong, as is claiming that Britain and Ireland includes the Isle of Man. By contrast, the term "British Isles" is the normal term for the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the smaller islands around them. Since "British Isles" is the term that is used, it's the term we should use - this is an encyclopedia, we're not supposed to make up our own terms. NPOV doesn't come into it, since no point of view is being expressed. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 16

Zundar, just because a term has been used in the past does not mean it should be used in the present when its offensiveness to some has become apparent. Other examples of usage that is no longer acceptable are: "girl" to describe a woman in the United States, "Eskimo" to describe the Inuit, "Lapp" to describe the Saami, "oriental" to describe East Asians in the United States. Just because British people were happy to use the term "British Isles" and to foster its use elsewhere does not mean we keep on using the term in this somewhat more enlightened age. How would you feel if that arhipelago was called the "Irish Isles"?

This is a hard issue. I'd say that the neutral point of view does enter into it, simply because a lot of people take umbrage at the use of the term "British Isles." Many Irish people and the Irish diaspora dislike it and would construe its constant use as generating a subtext to the effect that Irish is or ought to be British. Of course, British people think this is ridiculous, and they take umbrage at not using the perfectly precise term "British Isles." There is a somewhat similar dispute in that some people are taken aback by the use of "American" for United States citizen, when some other people think it ought to be used in English to mean The Americas--and when many Americans would be somewhat offended at our not using "Americans" to describe them. What's to be done? In both cases, I'd say, it's not that the potentially offending term shouldn't be used at all, but that we should do our best to be sensitive in various ways to the views of people who partake in the dispute. One very imperfect compromise would be to use the term, and then add disclaimer such as, "This term includes Ireland but of course should not be construed as meaning that Ireland is or ought to be British." Another compromise is to qualify the phrase: "the so-called British Isles, which includes Ireland and Britain." Maybe the best compromise is just to vary the usage, so that sometimes (even within the same article) we sometimes use "Britain and Ireland (and surrounding islands)" and sometimes "British Isles." This is similar to our sometimes using "American" and sometimes "of the United States" or "U.S. citizen." There is no perfect solution, but what's important is that we do our best not to convey a controversial view. We should be firmly wishy-washy on this sort of issue.  :-) --LMS

Thanks Larry. How about this proposal: We use "Britain and Ireland" where we mean just those two islands. We use "British Isles" where we mean the entire archipelago in a geographical context but that we put some sort of qualification such as you suggest. --Eob

I don't see the point of the qualifier - that belongs in the article on the British Isles, not elsewhere. When we mention the Irish Sea, do we have to add a qualifier pointing out that Ireland doesn't own it? Does every mention of the Indian Ocean have to be accompanied by a statement that the ocean doesn't belong to India? --Zundark, 2001 Nov 16

The point of the qualifier is that otherwise you will cause offensive to some. The comparison with bodies of ocean is not valid because historically countries did not "own" any part of the ocean beyond a very narrow territorial limit, so there was no implication of ownership. However with land there is such an implication: the Greek Islands, French Guiana, the Russian Steppes. Note for example how the "British Commonwealth" was renamed The Commonwealth. The "British" in "British Isles" implies that Ireland is British. Many people around the world are confused on this matter so I do not think we can rely on a qualifier buried in a link to make it clear. --Eob

On a personal note it is rather ironic that I am arguing this point because although I am Irish my politics are pretty anti-nationalistic, and I recognize that Ireland has to thank Britain for its inheritance of democracy and law. However it irks me a little when my Irish identity is obscured in this phrase "British Isles". I think I feel similarly to the Scots and Welsh when their countries are referred to as being part of England. --Eob

Derek's added some text that "British Isles" is misleading not only because of Ireland but also because of the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. I wonder, even though the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles are not technically part of Britain do inhabitants of those islands generally object to being called "British"? In particular do they, like many Irish, object to being considered part of the "British Isles"? I have no idea but I would guess that because of their closer political association with Britain they would object less than the Irish. Anyone know for sure? --Eob

I don't know for sure whether they object or not. If they don't perhaps they should! It just seemed logical that if it was true for Ireland, it would also be true for Man, Jersey, etc. Perhaps I'm being too tidy-minded -- Derek Ross

---

I just added "British Isles" back to the article on "North Atlatic drift" and I wanted to apologize here to anyone who might be offended. However, the original article said "west of the British Isles", and it was changed to "west of Ireland" with the explanation that Ireland is west of Britain. The problem with this is that in the context the phrase "west of" has implications regarding latitude as well as longitude. Since Ireland and Britain do not have the same extent in latitude, the substitution changes the meaning. Unfortunately, the term "British Isles" is the accepted geographic term for the island group, and there really is no suitable alternative. -HWR

---

I agree that British Isles is an unfortunate name, and it is understandable why many Irish dislike it. I also agree that Britain and Ireland aren't suitable because they don't include the Isle of Man, etc. If British Isles is okay, surely Irish Isles is okay as well? The Irish have for so many centuries been subjugated, its time for some revenge! Or more seriously, what about British and Irish Isles. It doesn't imply that Ireland is British, and it also recognizes that there is more to the Isles than Great Britain and Ireland.

I also don't think the Channel Islands should be counted geographically. Certaintly they are part politically, but geographically they belong to France, not the archipelago. On the other hand, maybe the British Isles are British in the sense of being off the coast of Brittany? In which case might the Channel Isles might be British as well? (Are they off the coast of Brittany? My European geography isn't that good.) -- SJK

The Channel Isles are closer to Normandy than to Brittany. In some languages I think they are actually called the Normandy Isles. I added a note to the British Isles article yesterday to make it clear that geographically they don't belong (and someone has since made it more emphatic). One could also argue that the Shetland Isles don't belong, or that if they do then so do the Faroes. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 17

---

Geographical terms are often determined by historical usage and not necessarily geographic logic (e.g. the distinction between Europe and Asia), but I believe that the exclusion of the Faroes might also be justified by the submarine topography. -HWR

What about Dispute over the name of the British Isles ?

There are already Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf and Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan articles. From what I've read here, it seems this geographical naming dispute probably merits it own article as well. Please respond on Talk:British Isles--Pharos 20:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Article title

Surely to be entirely correct it should be Great Britain and Ireland ? There is no island named simply "Britain". siarach 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Five reverts editor

Five reverts is excessive and I would guess this makes tha rticles survival considerably less likely, SqueakBox 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no limit on reverting vandalism - which blanking the article clearly is. (Sarah777 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Correct. Has this former editor/now petty vandal been brought to WP:AN/I? --sony-youth^pléigh 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dab Page

I suggest making this a dab page (and not an article on it's own). "Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous. It could refer to:

• Great Britain and Ireland, the two largest islands of the British Isles
• United Kingdom and Ireland|, the two sovereign states on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland
• British Isles, the archipelago

Is there any particular reason why this is redirecting to "British Isles"? That doesn't seem to be common usage at all and it's fairly rare to use it in this way. --HighKing (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there not references (some now removed) on British Isles that say that this is now the preferred term for that topic in secondary sources? It is analogous to Australia and New Zealand (redirects to Australasia) also.

The first suggested dab link is pointless in that it merely redirects the pointlessness elsewhere: it's a link to (effectively) another dab that makes as little sense for this term as a dabing this page would. That page is marked for merging into Terminology of the British Isles, which I've responed to. The second suggested dab links doesn't make sense either: why would someone search for "Britain and Ireland" when they mean either "Britain" or "Ireland"? The only link that makes sense is the third, which is why it is a redirect to that topic - and that this it is now a/the preferred for that topic, per the sources in that article. --RA (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Preferred term - true to a point, but it doesn't preclude it's use to also refer to either the islands, or the two sovereign states. Just because all Poodles are Dogs, doesn't mean all Dogs are Poodles. There are oodles of references which point to "Britain and Ireland" being a synonym for "Great Britain and Ireland" - for example, The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland or The Great Castles of Britain and Ireland. Equally there are oodles of references which point to "Britain and Ireland" being a synonym for "United Kingdom and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" such as this publication on United Kingdom asylum law in its European context (page 104) or Twentieth Century British History: A Teaching Resource Book (Chapter 3) or Sports journalism: context and issues (page 162). Which is why the term is highly ambiguous and meaning can only be derived from the context of usage, and why it realistically is best suited being a dab page, or being redirected to an existing dab page. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "and" can be used to join essentially any two or more nouns. That does not mean we have a dab page for "France and Germany", though of course that phrase occurs with great frequency in reliable sources. If a reader searches for Rhythm and blues, we don't ask them if they meant rhythm or blues? The phrase stands on its own, as well as being a conjoining of two separate nouns.

It is the same for "Britain and Ireland". There is only one single reasonable topic the phrase needs disambiguating to. As a stand-alone phrase, "Britain and Ireland" (and "Great Britain and Ireland") is a synonym of the topic described at British Isles. So we redirect there. --RA (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the word "and" can be used to join any two nouns, but not all newly formed terms can have such ambiguous meanings. "Rhythm and Blues" is not ambiguous at all. "France and Germany" doesn't form a potentially new meaning from the two constituent parts. "France and Germany" will always refer to "France" and "Geramny" and is therefore equally unambiguous. But "Britain" and "Ireland" is not so simple. "Britain" on its own is ambiguous. "Ireland" on it's own is ambiguous". "Britain and Ireland" is therefore not clearcut in meaning and depends on context. If it were always to mean "British Isles", then the book titles I've pointed to above would all simply mean "British Isles" - yet they don't. If a user is searching for "Britain and Ireland", it's going to depend on context and we should try to at least point them to the article where they may actually need to read. It could be argued that redirecting this page to "British Isles" will be wrong more often than right. I don't see the problem with a dab page or understand why you don't believe that a dab page is a better approach? Your argument solely appears to be based on your opinion that people won't search for "Britain and Ireland" in any other contexts other than wanting to get to "British Isles", even though I've pointed out several examples above where it is used very differently. --HighKing (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand. The word "Britain" is ambiguous. The word "Ireland" is ambiguous. But no matter how ambiguous the words are they are still just two nouns conjoined by a third word: "and". We don't make dab pages for random words conjoined by "and" - just like France and Germany. What other topic can "Britain and Ireland" mean? Reply with a link to it on this page. --RA (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "'France and Germany' doesn't form a potentially new meaning from the two constituent parts." That is exactly the point. "France and Germany" doesn't mean anything. "Britain and Ireland" does (see sources on the BI page) - so we redirect there. --RA (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to argue that "Britain and Ireland" is a new entity, independent of the constituent parts (unlike "France and Germany"). And you also expect that a reader will inherently know that this is the case? And we're not making dab pages for random words cojoined by "and" since clearly "Britain and Ireland" is widely used, but equally clearly can mean different things. I'm not sure why you're asking for links and ignoring the book titles and other references above I've pointed out above (and it's pretty easy to get more). Clearly, they don't all refer to "British Isles". How is somebody searching for "Britain and Ireland", after reading the title "The Great Castles of Britain and Ireland" supposed to know it's different than that used in the book "The reformation in Britain and Ireland"? So as to "What other topic can "Britain and Ireland" mean, I would say it can mean either BI, GB&I (is this an 'entity'? Hmmmm...), UKoGB&I, or "UK" and "I". --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"... clearly "Britain and Ireland" is widely used, but equally clearly can mean different things." Cool. Right now we re-direct to one of those things. You say there are more. Please post a link on this page an article on another thing that "Britain and Ireland" can reasonably mean. Otherwise this conversation is pointless. (And no, "Britain and Ireland" cannot reasonably mean Ireland or Great Britain etc. no more than "France and Germany" can reasonably mean France or Germany.)

"How is somebody searching for 'Britain and Ireland', after reading the title 'The Great Castles of Britain and Ireland' supposed to know it's different than that used in the book 'The reformation in Britain and Ireland'?" How do you know that it is used in a different way? I would have understood both as meaning the thing that we currently redirect to. Or do you think it is just a case of two nouns conjoined by "and" like "France and Germany" as in the books "Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany", "Political Culture in France and Germany", "The economic development of France and Germany 1815-1914", etc.?

Above you posted two other places where you think this page should redirect to. I replied to that post arguing that both were unreasonable (one being just another dab the other being just this phrase pulled apart). If this page is to be a dab it needs to dab somewhere. Where would you like it to dab to? --RA (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage should be re-directed to the Talk:British Isles, unless & until it's given it's own article. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm a little clearer on your point. You're saying that a dab page must point to an article, and not another dab page. Perhaps then that "Britain and Ireland" should be more of an article, and not a dab, to clarify that the term can have multiple meanings. Or perhaps it should simply point to Terminology of the British Isles as a better redirect.

Your primary argument is that someone searching for "Britain and Ireland" would reasonably be looking for "British Isles". My response is that this cannot be true, since "Britain and Ireland" is so ambiguous. Assuming they come across the term and want to look it up, it's going to depend on where they found the term. You say, "...Please post a link on this page an article on another thing that "Britain and Ireland" can reasonably mean. Otherwise this conversation is pointless." At the risk of repeating myself, here's a very small sample from a simple search on Google Books where "Britain and Ireland" has different meanings:

• The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland or The Great Castles of Britain and Ireland refers to the great castles of Great Britain and Ireland, the two largest islands of the British Isles. It does not refer to British Isles.
• The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland also refers to Great Britain and Ireland
• Law and opinion in twentieth-century Britain and Ireland refers to the United Kingdom and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland] and clearly not the British Isles.

I've limited the seach to books with "Britain and Ireland" in the titles, just to illustrate how the phrase can be authoratively used and yet not mean "British Isles". But equally authorative sources use the term also:

• New York Times - AROUND THE WORLD; Britain and Ireland Agree On Ulster, Paper Says refers to the sovereign states of UK and Ireland. It does not refer to the British Isles
• The Times - Britain and Ireland agree to tighten border check refers also to UK and Ireland. It does not refer to British Isles
• An Associated Press article refers to a Saudi ambassador to Britain and Ireland. Obviously referring to the sovereign states of UK and I.
• The National Geographic channel also refer to Prince Turki Al Faisal as the "Saudi Ambassador to Britain and Ireland" - which obviously refers to the "UK" and "I"

In summary, "Britain and Ireland" could dab to:

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
• British Isles

Or why not a small article summarizing that it could mean those things above, or also mean

• United Kingdom and Ireland
• Great Britain and Ireland

or redirect instead to Terminology of the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of the examples you give are either: (a) just two nouns conjoined by the word "and" (a la France and Germany); or (b) an determined reading not to interpret "Britain and Ireland" as another way of saying "British Isles" (contrary to the sources on that page and a la those pedantic arguments that if it doesn't include the Isle of Man then it cannot mean the "British Isles").

WRT your suggestion for a dab page links: UKGBI is about as reasonable as it gets but even when that polity existed "Britain and Ireland" was not a common term for it (a la GB and GBR, not BI or even GBI, for the country code) and it isn't today. In contrast, it is a common name of the topic described at British Isles.

Why not have it as a seperate article on terminology? Because Terminology of the British Isles already exits. Why not redirect to the terminology page? Because the title is an another name for the topic described at British Isles not the one described at Terminology of the British Isles.

Why are you so resistant to it being so when it is supported by secondary sources? Why are you suggesting that it be a dab page, an article of its own, redirected elsewhere ... anything but redirected to British Isles - where even in the lead to that article the phrase is bolded as another term for that topic? --RA (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

The fact is that "Britain and Ireland" is just two nouns cojoined by the word "and". What we're trying to do is help whoever types that into the search box get to where they want to go.

Your assertion that the examples are a determined reading not to interpret "Britain and Ireland" as another way of saying "British Isles" would be a perfectly fine counter argument, if it not for the fact that:

1. I didn't create the examples. I can hardly believe you are suggesting that the authors of the various books and articles were pedantically not using "British Isles" for all of these works.
2. Your argument that some examples are a pedantic argument to not include Iom or CI might work for the "Great Castles", but pointedly (and equally pedantically) ignores the fact that the title accurately describes the contents. All castles listed are from ... Great Britain and Ireland. Your suggestion that the author really means to say "British Isles" is unsupported, and also flies in the face of the recently discussed MoS point that recommends to use the smallest meaningful geographic area.
3. As to the other examples, it simply doesn't stand up when considering the articles on the Saudi ambassador, or the border checks.
4. I never suggested it as another seperate article on terminology. I suggested that describe how this phrase, "Britain and Ireland", can be used and mean different things.

"....Why are you so resistant to it being so when it is supported by secondary sources?" - Eh? Please provide secondary sources and references that state that "Britain and Ireland" is used exclusively (or predominantly, or most often) as a synonym for "British Isles".

"...Why are you suggesting that it be a dab page, an article of its own, redirected elsewhere ... anything but redirected to British Isles - where even in the lead to that article the phrase is bolded as another term for that topic?" As I've stated previously, "A" being a subset of "B" doesn't make "B" a subset of "A" - or put another way - all "poodles" are "dogs" isn't the same as all "dogs" are "poodles". You are saying that "Britain and Ireland" is the preferred term instead of using "British Isles", which is referenced. But that's not the same as what you are now trying to conclude. It doesn't mean or say that "Britain and Ireland" isn't also the preferred term for "Great Britain and Ireland" or any of the other combinations or terms we've mentioned. That's bad logic. And an argument of "being pedantic" is really a deflection, and a subset of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand the examples you gave. For example the Prince Mohammed Bin Nawaf Ibn Abdul Aziz is the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is also the Saudi ambassador to Ireland. Thus he is the ambassador the Saudi ambassador to "Britain" and "Ireland", not the "Britain and Ireland" as a single encyclopedia topic (unless something radical has happened and Ireland has rejoined the UK or all of the UK has joined with the Republic of Ireland). In the same way, Hassan Nazer is the Saudi ambassador the Australia. He is also the Saudi ambassador to New Zealand. Thus he is the Saudi ambassador to "Australia" and "New Zealand", not "Australia and New Zealand" as a single encyclopedia topic. In the same way, Sharyn Minahan is the Australian ambassador to "Denmark" and "Iceland" but we don't have a page called "Denmark and Iceland" - that is just two nouns held together by a third word ("and") and does not form a topic in itself.

Do you understand? We don't create pages for random combinations of nouns held together by "and". Black and white (disambiguation) doesn't dab out to Blank and White. There is no page for France and Germany that dabs between France and Germany (despite those words often appearing in proximity to each other cojoined by "and"). Australia and New Zealand redirects to Australasia (that being another word for that topic). It doesn't dab between Australia and New Zealand. It is the same for Britain and Ireland and British Isles, we don't dab it between "Britain" and "Ireland" just because the words often appear in proximity.

I have no idea what you are talking about poodles and subsets for. We are not talking about subsets. We are arguably talking about sets - but not subsets. And I am not going to participate in this discussion with you any further as it is unproductive. --RA (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That attitude surprises me - it's unlike you. It's late. On the one hand, you say that they're just two nouns linked with "and", and in the same breath you say that "Britain and Ireland" must redirect to "British Isles" because that's what people searching are looking for. You're right. I don't understand. All I'm saying is that this article shouldn't link to "British Isles" because it's at least equally likely that they're not looking to get to the British Isles article, since the term is used for other reasons as I've tried to demonstrate with references where the term "Britain and Ireland" is used in a form that could mean any number of things. If you want to stick to the two nouns linked with "and" argument, then this article shouldn't even exist. But it does. So why pretend that it should therefore always mean "British Isles"? I also don't agree with the changes you made to Great Britain and Ireland for the same reasons, but at least there's less ambiguity about that term, and the dab you've created will satisfy most usage (except when United Kingdom and Ireland is intended). You changing of the original article to a dab, by its very nature, excludes including this usage. Is Wikipedia better off because of it? I don't think so. But I do agree with the idea behind the changes - that there's little point in replicating information already contained in Terminology of the British Isles. Anyway as I've said, it's late. --HighKing (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Terminology of the British Isles is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --HighKing (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)