Talk:Great Britain

Area of Britain

The area on the right hand side doesn't match the area inside the text (nor other pages in Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.11.61 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of British

Do we actually need this at all in the current article; "The term British refers to all citizens of the United Kingdom — including Welsh, Scottish, English, and Northern Irish. Within Northern Ireland, it is mainly Unionists who choose to refer to themselves as British, whilst Nationalists tend to refer to themselves as Irish.[citation needed] People from Northern Ireland can choose to be Irish, British or both; this had been the position under the respective nationality laws of the two states, but was formalised by treaty in the Good Friday Agreement."? It's not as if the article is about things British. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is another article specifically about British people. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We also have British nationality law. I agree that those sentences are inappropriate for this article, which is about GB rather than Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed by Spirtofstgeorge. I assume this discussion is now closed. Thanks. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering weather anyone knows what the term British ment in 1914. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.60.193 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

8th Largest Island

The page, Great Britain is wrong. Great Britain should be the 8th largest island, not 9th. Check islands area order and Victoria Island. 60.242.189.200 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You changed List of islands by area to make it incorrect. I've corrected it back. Victoria Island is larger than Great Britain, so this article is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cornish Ethnicity?

From the article; "Ethnic groups: British (Cornish, English, Scottish & Welsh)". Surely Cornish should be amalgamated with English? Otherwise why not also include Northumbrian or Kentish? SaintDaveUK (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't already know, it's a contentious issue - see Cornish people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about national sub-groups that relate to the individual constituent countries, we should indeed surely only note English, Scottish and Welsh within British; if we're talking about all ethnic groups on the island, there are plenty of others to include, and it seems odd to privilege Cornish and give that equal status to the other three. Only one of those two options is logical and consistent. Also, not that it's a clincher, but the source being cited for this mini-list makes no mention of Cornish, or indeed any other ethnic group.

Having said all that, I'm not sure it adds much to the infobox anyway - if the infox already says that the island is made up of "England, Wales and Scotland", why add another mini-list later on that simply says its people are "English, Welsh and Scottish" [and maybe Cornish]? Also of course, on the wider point, yes the situation is different to other English counties, but it's just as contentious to assert/assume that Cornish people are not English as it is to assert/assume that they are. If we're doing maths, as far as I know, most people who might say they are "Cornish" - ethnically or otherwise - would not do so to the exclusion of being "English" as well; many would, but I don't think they are a majority; or, indeed, necessarily more authentically Cornish. N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things about Cornwall "seem odd", in some ways. Trying to draw rigid lines in relation to "ethnicity" is impossible, and very wasteful of time and effort. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree about drawing lines, it's just that like I say (and the OP suggests) separating English and Cornish in the way we have here is drawing a line as much as anything else is, and a line that is not actually recognised by a majority either of those "involved" or of those not involved. I guess my general indifference to apparent obsessions with ethnicity is what makes me somewhat obsessed with Wikipedia's frequent and undue obsession with it, which is often out of all proportion to its relevance to most people in the real world in 2011. If that makes sense. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - my indifference led to me not reverting the addition of "Cornish" when it appeared, just as I won't revert anyone changing it back again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

N-HH's arguments make sense, I'd agree with removal or addition of all others. Preferably removal for concision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't see why it wouldn't be included - the Cornish have their own well-known flag, and a recognised minority language. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"If we're talking about all ethnic groups on the island, there are plenty of others to include, and it seems odd to privilege Cornish and give that equal status to the other three" — I don't see what's odd about it. Cornish, Welsh, English and Scottish ar ethnicities that ar nativ to Great Britain. Yes ther ar plenty of other ethnic groups living in Great Britain but they'r not in the infobox becauz they'r not nativ to the island. ~Asarlaí 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am struggling to find much on Wikipedia which suggests it is indeed an ethnicity to the same extent as English, Welsh or Scottish. Furthermore, most sources only declare the ethnic groups to be the government-defined White British and so-on. Also, the United Kingdom article uses the "White, South Asian, Black" and so-on for that Ethnicity info, so perhaps it would be better to adopt a similar system for continuity? SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Native ethnic groups" only? Erm, OK, I guess there's a kind of logic to that, even if it's not currently labelled as such and also seems to be drifting into slightly dodgy areas. But where do you draw the line? If we're focusing - as all this, including the separate inclusion of "Cornish", would suggest we are - on "English" meaning a distinct group of Anglo-Saxon (but not Celtic) genetic and cultural heritage, as opposed to meaning simply, er, people from England, then surely "English" shouldn't be there at all? That lot of Danes and Germans are latecomers to the party after all. And don't get me started on the bloody Vikings.

As the above post says, in the context of modern Britain, ethnicity - aside from the minority flag-waving of obscure identity politics and the narcissism of small differences - usually refers to those broader categories. Nor are we talking about a situation such as Kosovo, where it might be instructive to highlight the clear and significant distinction between ethnic Serbs and Albanians, and others. Overall, especially as this is primarily a geography article focused on the island, I can't see the benefit of having this box at all tbh, whatever ends up being listed in it. N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion guys. On balance, I have removed Cornish from the ethnicity section of the infobar for the reasons stated in the posts above. If anybody has further issue with this, or feels that different step must be taken (such as removal of ethnicity altogether) then please continue the discussion here.SaintDaveUK (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we remove Cornish then we should remove English, Scottish, Welsh and British too. ~Asarlaí 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Translations of 'Great Britain'

To be perfectly honest, while I understand the rationale behind giving the name of the country in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Cornish at the top of the article, the simple fact is that giving it in those languages serves no purpose in light of this discussion. Welsh is certainly well-used enough to warrant a translation, as the second-most spoken language in Great Britain, but to only give the Scottish Gaelic and not the Lowland Scots is a bizarre (and potentially sectarian) decision, given that they both have roughly the same number of speakers (and further that Lowland Scots is understood and used by ~80% of people in Scotland to some degree, as well as a significant number of people in the North of England and the rest of the UK).

That of course is before we get to the so-called "immigrant languages" - Scots Gaelic, of course, is an immigrant language, as, essentially, is English, and if we go back far enough, so is every language spoken in the British Isles. While I understand the position of those who see the newer languages as "foreign", the fact remains they are spoken by millions of people - Punjabi alone is spoken by over half a million people, is recognised (along with many other "non-native" languages) on official documents, not least of which being the Census, and so on. It outnumbers the Welsh-speaking figure outside of Wales itself several times over. Bengali and Sylheti speakers (two strongly related languages) in the UK together rival the Welsh-speakers to become either the joint second or third most spoken language.

Ignoring these simple facts in favour of the historically-used languages may seem appropriate; however, when one considers that Latin, in various forms, was spoken alongside these languages - or favoured over them, for a long time, as with Norman French - and that unlike Norman French, Anglo-Norman or the various archaic forms of English itself, Latin is still understood in written and spoken form by large sections of the population who, to my knowledge, are not even given opportunity to note their understanding of it on the official census, it seems curious in the extreme that we are currently using three Gaelic-language translations - including Cornish, spoken by only a few thousand with any fluency - over and above both the historical lingua franca and those of the present day. Of course it would be ridiculous to include such immigrant languages as French, Dutch and so on, who have historically at different times settled in large numbers in various parts of the country, because these populations have already, centuries since, assimilated and their descendants chosen to speak English (or possibly some form of Gaelic or other "native" tongue). Likewise there is little case for including the languages of economic migrants of the present day, as they are not considered permanent residents and do not hold, in most cases, full citizenship; however some languages, such as Polish, which have been spoken among immigrant communities over the last half century or so because their speakers were granted the right to remain in the UK and became citizens, probably should be included (though the numbers are the devil to find).

Once again, I understand the position that some languages are "non-native", but I find it ridiculous, jingoistic (and therefore out of line with NPOV) and out of touch with the reality of the situation. Three to four million people, depending on whether one includes the Gaelic languages and Lowland Scots or not, speak languages other than English, which is to say, they identify themselves as native speakers of those languages, either primarily or on a bilingual basis. Between one in twenty to one in fifteen people. We should either indulge them all by majority (which would be my preferred method, and for which I would suggest the use of an infobox), by majority of officially recognised languages - in which case there is room for Lowland Scots, which despite not enjoying the same legal recognition as Scottish Gaelic has a far wider dissemination among the so-called "native" population - by which standard there is room for debate on the inclusion of all languages in which official documents are made available (and have indeed been made available at the local and national levels of government for decades now), or, failing to reach agreement on which minority languages should be included as translations of 'Great Britain' in the opening paragraph, we should simply stick to English, as the overall majority language.

While I appreciate that this seems a small matter, the article as it stands currently smacks of the 'Little Englander' and regional variations thereof, and more to the point, is contrary to the facts unless one goes by a particularly tenuous reasoning to include the officially recognised minority language of Cornish over the apparently unofficially officially recognised minority languages of Punjabi, Bengali etc, in which, I once again remind the patient reader, all official forms and documents can be provided. Though it is of course the prerogative of any British Citizen to consider themselves more British than all the rest for whatever reason it gives them the most pleasure to claim, it is not a matter of objective fact worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia without commentary or disclaimer.

I sincerely hope that this matter can be settled by reasonable debate without devolving into unanswerable questions of cultural and linguistic impact; it is simply a question of population numbers, and currently the article looks very foolish. Whether its foolishness mirrors an official position of the British legal system, I cannot ultimately say and do not particularly care, though if that is to be the ultimate cause of retaining the article as is, it should be duly noted within the article itself. 92.13.248.168 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And your proposal is....  ??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While it may be true that Britain has more Bengali speakers than Welsh speakers, Bengali isn't nativ to Britain. Nor is Punjabi, Hindi-Urdu, Cantonese, Polish, a.s.f. For a language to be nativ to Britain it has to hav originated in Britain. English, Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish Gaelic all originated in Britain. Their older forms may hav been brought to Britain by immigrants, but it was in Britain that they evolved into their modern forms. This is why they belong in the lede/infobox and the others don't. ~Asarlaí 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Scotlands

if you would of heard on the news Scotland may be breaking and become its own nation, the goverment are letting them vote so it hasn't happened yet so be aware just incase, thanks 82.0.94.223 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.94.223 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)