4 ms·

You linked to the UK. Great Britain is explicitly excluding Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

by mkmk3 4y ago

chrisseaton 4y ago
It's normal, widely-accepted usage, in many contexts, understood by most people, and used by official institutions. For example many people from Northern Ireland have "British" citizenship. Someone from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland can join the "British Army". Someone from Northern Ireland is eligible to be part of the "Great Britain" Olympics team. It's everywhere. It's a little complicated for historical reasons, but it can't seriously be that hard to accept after it's explained to you for the first time?
- mkmk3 4y ago
  I responded directly to the parent post referring to a link. It was wrong.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Great Britain is explicitly excluding Ireland It isn't in this context! I know it's confusing and contradictory. The "British" nationality doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. The "Great Britain" team in the Olympics doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. "Britain" and "Great Britain" are used as short forms for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as well as being something by itself.
    - mkmk3 4y ago
      I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it's not in context. I disagree with using it in a colloquial context that removes the specificity of it though. British may be different, its usage is more prevalent, and I'll view it as a mark of ownership. Great Britain, the team, is shorthand, as in it excludes the rest of the title. The British Olympic Committee makes the distinction on their page. You can find examples where the distinction is not made, I'm not claiming it's absolute. I also disagree with using America as shorthand for the US. You can, I'll just disagree with you if you post a link to the wikipedia for the US as backing that "America" == "US" Maybe my framing in the above post was too absolutist for you. That's fine. The link used as backing was a poor choice, if they made the point as you have, I would have qualified further.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    Did you happen to read the first sentence from the link I posted? Here it is: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain".
- mkmk3 4y ago
  Was that meant to hold a poor tone? I imagine once it's explained, it's understood, it's a simple thing. I can also understand why certain people would think coarse language encompassing the identity/ownership of a state, which was at the centre of a violent conflict in our lifetime, may be worth correcting in an effort to use more precise and up-to-date terms. It's a little complicated for historical reasons, it can't seriously be that hard for you to accept though, now that it's been explained to you?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- triceratops 4y ago
  People from the RoI can join the armed forces of the UK? How? Is it like a foreign legion kind of thing? NI is part of the UK but the RoI is an independent nation, is it not? The were even neutral in WW2, officially.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > People from the RoI can join the armed forces of the UK? How? The UK and the RoI obviously have a lot of complex cultural, social, family interlinks, and there are many exceptions to normal international boundaries between the two. That includes yes RoI nationals, even if that's the only nationality they have, can join the British Army, and I think a couple hundred a year join in practice. The British Army has several regiments which specifically are Irish and recruit from the whole of Ireland, but they can join any part of the Army. > Is it like a foreign legion kind of thing? No it's fully integrated. English people for example can also choose to apply to join a traditionally Irish regiment if they wanted to. > NI is part of the UK but the RoI is an independent nation, is it not? Yes. > The were even neutral in WW2, officially. Yes and that's partly where the tradition of service in the British Army came from.
triceratops 4y ago
Great Britain != Britain. I already responded to another of your comments. Read the first sentence of the Wikipedia United Kingdom article. It says that the UK is also commonly called "Britain".

You linked to the UK. Great Britain is explicitly excluding Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

by mkmk3 4y ago

You linked to the UK. Great Britain is explicitly excluding Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

chrisseaton 4y ago

It's normal, widely-accepted usage, in many contexts, understood by most people, and used by official institutions. For example many people from Northern Ireland have "British" citizenship. Someone from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland can join the "British Army". Someone from Northern Ireland is eligible to be part of the "Great Britain" Olympics team. It's everywhere. It's a little complicated for historical reasons, but it can't seriously be that hard to accept after it's explained to you for the first time?

mkmk3 4y ago
I responded directly to the parent post referring to a link. It was wrong.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Great Britain is explicitly excluding Ireland It isn't in this context! I know it's confusing and contradictory. The "British" nationality doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. The "Great Britain" team in the Olympics doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. "Britain" and "Great Britain" are used as short forms for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as well as being something by itself.
  - mkmk3 4y ago
    I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it's not in context. I disagree with using it in a colloquial context that removes the specificity of it though. British may be different, its usage is more prevalent, and I'll view it as a mark of ownership. Great Britain, the team, is shorthand, as in it excludes the rest of the title. The British Olympic Committee makes the distinction on their page. You can find examples where the distinction is not made, I'm not claiming it's absolute. I also disagree with using America as shorthand for the US. You can, I'll just disagree with you if you post a link to the wikipedia for the US as backing that "America" == "US" Maybe my framing in the above post was too absolutist for you. That's fine. The link used as backing was a poor choice, if they made the point as you have, I would have qualified further.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Did you happen to read the first sentence from the link I posted? Here it is: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain".
mkmk3 4y ago
Was that meant to hold a poor tone? I imagine once it's explained, it's understood, it's a simple thing. I can also understand why certain people would think coarse language encompassing the identity/ownership of a state, which was at the centre of a violent conflict in our lifetime, may be worth correcting in an effort to use more precise and up-to-date terms. It's a little complicated for historical reasons, it can't seriously be that hard for you to accept though, now that it's been explained to you?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
triceratops 4y ago
People from the RoI can join the armed forces of the UK? How? Is it like a foreign legion kind of thing? NI is part of the UK but the RoI is an independent nation, is it not? The were even neutral in WW2, officially.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > People from the RoI can join the armed forces of the UK? How? The UK and the RoI obviously have a lot of complex cultural, social, family interlinks, and there are many exceptions to normal international boundaries between the two. That includes yes RoI nationals, even if that's the only nationality they have, can join the British Army, and I think a couple hundred a year join in practice. The British Army has several regiments which specifically are Irish and recruit from the whole of Ireland, but they can join any part of the Army. > Is it like a foreign legion kind of thing? No it's fully integrated. English people for example can also choose to apply to join a traditionally Irish regiment if they wanted to. > NI is part of the UK but the RoI is an independent nation, is it not? Yes. > The were even neutral in WW2, officially. Yes and that's partly where the tradition of service in the British Army came from.

triceratops 4y ago

Great Britain != Britain. I already responded to another of your comments. Read the first sentence of the Wikipedia United Kingdom article. It says that the UK is also commonly called "Britain".