What does the NYT Style Guide say about "UK" vs. "England"

June 12, 2008 5:02 AM

Can someone with a copy of the New York Times Style Guide tell me what it says about the preferred nomenclature for the country that calls itself "The United Kingdom"? They seem to use "England" as a synonym for the UK (e.g.), which most Britons consider incorrect. I'm interested to learn if this usage is justified in the Style Guide or is it just following standard usage in the US, which is rather casual about the distinction. Bonus points if you can tell me what the AP Style Guide (or any other American usage guide) says.

p.s. I'm not looking for a fight about which is right. Just quotes from style guides and relevant comments on these.

posted by caek to Media & Arts (17 answers total)

You are assuming they're the same thing. They're not.

England is country in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom contains England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Great Britain is the island containing England, Wales and Scotland.

The full name of the UK is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'

Which name you use is not a matter of style but of what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the nation as a whole, 'UK" is correct.
posted by unSane at 5:13 AM on June 12, 2008 [2 favorites]

From an online version (.pdf) of the 2005 AP stylebook:

"United Kingdom: It consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or Britain) consists of England, Scotland and Wales. Ireland is independent of the United Kingdom."
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:18 AM on June 12, 2008

unSane: The questioner didn't ask what the accurate nomenclature is, he asked what the NYT style guide has to say about it. The questioner seems quite aware of the distinction to my reading.
posted by biffa at 5:22 AM on June 12, 2008

Response by poster: unSane: I'm very aware of the distinction between the UK and England and, if you read my question, I'm certainly not assuming they are the same thing. But thanks anyway. It's posts like yours that make the rest of the world love the UK.
posted by caek at 5:30 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm very aware of the distinction between the UK and England

Clearly not, when you make comments like:

the country that calls itself "The United Kingdom"

There is no country that calls itself "The United Kingdom". The United Kingdom is not a country, it is a union of 4 countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales)

which most Britons consider incorrect

We don't just consider it to be incorrect, it is incorrect.
posted by missmagenta at 5:40 AM on June 12, 2008

It may be be incorrect. In the cited article, it says there are laws in England that ban hate speech, which is true. That there are also laws in the rest of the UK doesn't make the statement false.

In general, it looks like the NYT use England as a location and for the football team.
posted by smackfu at 5:44 AM on June 12, 2008

Response by poster: missmagenta: Thanks for the Fisking. If my casual misuse of "country" as distinct from "nation" or "union" bothers you then I apologise. However, for most practical purposes, the rest of the world, including Wikipedia and the United Nations, is happy to refer to the UK as a country, as am I.

Also, I'm British. I realise it is incorrect — according to us. But US English is their language and the New York Times is their newspaper and there's no doubt "England" and the "UK" are understood to be synonyms by a significant fraction, if not majority, of Americans.

And as I tried to point out, this question is not about whether they are correct.
posted by caek at 6:01 AM on June 12, 2008

From the article you've given I would suggest the usage is correct because devolved state governments pass relevant laws in their relevant countries within the UK. It is ok to say that England has laws against hate crimes as this is factually correct. In Scotland, we have the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament is responsible for passing laws on sectarianism, racism and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The UK is responsible for issues such as defence. It would be wrong to say the English government's policy on nuclear weapons as it is the British government that would have jurisdiction here.

I hate the synecdoche 'England' to mean the UK but I don't think that this was the author's intention in this case. S/he was probably referring to England on it's own. I would imagine an organisation like the NYT would have clear distinctions between the two.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 6:04 AM on June 12, 2008

The line 'Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech' is problematic, though, not least because 'England' as a sub-nation-state entity can't generally be a signatory to international conventions, and the relevant act of Parliament is not limited to England (or, as would be more likely, England and Wales). It'd be like saying 'Quebec' in that sentence. Sarah Lyall wouldn't have written it, and it wouldn't have got past a better subeditor.
posted by holgate at 6:05 AM on June 12, 2008

Or I could just actually check the text of the act, and see that it is England-and-Wales only. So, put some mental crossouts for that bit.
posted by holgate at 6:08 AM on June 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hmm, it looks like you already know that caek. Apologies for the derail.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 6:09 AM on June 12, 2008

The football team is for England, so it is entirely correct to talk in those terms. It's a bone of contention for some. Each country (England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland) has a team and plays independently in international competitions. There is no (not yet) a UK football team.
posted by idb at 7:10 AM on June 12, 2008

Best answer: The 1999 edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says:

Britain (not Great Britain). But when a locating word is required after the name of a city or a town (in a dateline or article), use England, Scotland, Wales or Nothern Ireland. Also see DATELINES.

England. Use this name, not BRITAIN, after the names of cities and towns when a locating term is needed. Also see UNITED KINGDOM.

Great Britain. Shorten it to BRITAIN in ordinary news copy.

United Kingdom. This formal name, a shortened version of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not ordinarily used except in quotations or in contexts requiring emphasis on Northern Ireland's status. Otherwise use BRITAIN.

Wales and Scotland don't have entries. Spelling mistakes are my own.
posted by jwells at 8:06 AM on June 12, 2008

Oops, I meant "Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have entries."
posted by jwells at 8:07 AM on June 12, 2008

Previously, dear fellow.
posted by Happy Dave at 12:57 PM on June 13, 2008

Just out of interest, the broader use of the word England (in England) was apparently quite common before about WWI. In reference to 'The Oxford History of England', AJP Taylor wrote:

'England' was still an all-embracing word. It mean indiscriminately England and Wales; Great Britain; the United Kingdom; and even the British Empire. (Volume XV: English History, 1914-1945, page v)

(From wiki, and via QI :-)
posted by wilko at 3:31 AM on June 15, 2008

Response by poster: Yes, I have that book! I love the vaguely patronising discussion of Scotland on that page too!
posted by caek at 6:47 AM on June 15, 2008