Jump to content

Talk:Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.42.119.12 (talk) at 03:46, 18 September 2008 (→British Isles - incorrect use here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvidae682 (talk • contribs) on 22:44, 21 August 2006

The term "British Isles" has its origins in ancient Rome and the term was applied to all the islands under the control of the Roman Republic (and later Empire), including even Corsica. However, Ireland was never under Roman control (not even close) so Ireland was never one of the British Isles. Also, although Ireland was under British control at times, no part of Ireland was ever part of Britain (but was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). The Irish Government has recently ruled that it is incorrect to refer to Ireland as one of the British Isles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2008

Ah, there's that adorable British sense of humour once again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.148.177 (talk) on 13:04, 24 August 2006

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)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyShakespear (talk • contribs) at 09:04, 4 October 2006

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)[reply]

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but is not part of Great Britain. If Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain then the full name of the United Kingdom would make no sense - how could it be the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revived interest in including all of the British Isles under the umbrella of Britain

Can the editors currently trying to press the word Britain upon all of the British Isles please consult a dictionary and return here if they find a reference to the British Isles and Britain being the same thing. --sony-youthpléigh 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something "British" would be therefore pertaining to Britain... e.g. the British Isles. In a secondary sense, "Britain" may be classified as the United Kingdom under an obscure regime which included the whole of Ireland. In a dictionary sense as you requested, "Britain" is a lexeme and British is something pertaining to Britain. The term Great Britain is of course an obvious reference to the "greater" (larger) isle. In that case there must be a "Lesser" Britain (i.e. the Isle of Man, Ireland, Jersey. There should at least be a mentioning of its reference to the British Isles. I have heard the use of "Britain" several times to refer to the British Isles as a whole.

Celtic Emperor 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's begin with some facts then. Great Britain refers to the larger of the two Britains during the middle ages: the island of Britain and the province of Brittany (see here or here or here or ...). Its not named so because it is the larger island in the group. (Incidentally in Irish, Wales is known as 'Little Britain' for the same reason.)
The "obscure regime" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is already linked from the page, so no trouble there.
I can see you put back in the "For a discussion of the confusion between terms ..." part. Thanks! That had been taken out 'to conform with the manual of style' or some other such reason. I agree that there is confusion between the terms and so its useful to have there. The British Isles are linked to from there, so I don't see the need to have it linked from above.
As for "Something 'British' would be therefore pertaining to Britain ..." - we could use someone like you on the British Isles-related pages!! For some light reading (you've probably seen it before) see British Isles naming dispute. Of course, that British does not mean "pertaining to Britain" in that context (as a unique exception!) is the main argument of the "pro-British Isles" camp in that debate.
I've no problem linking to the British Isles from this page, but saying that "Britain" may refer to the British Isles is simply incorrect (but that people may think it is a good reason to have to the "For a discussion of the confusion between terms ..." part in there). From the Oxford Dictionary: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland and includes the small adjacent islands. The name if broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form si more usual for the political unit."
If you don't mind, I'm going to take it out again, but leaving the "For a discussion ..." part. --sony-youthpléigh 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather unusual that the adjetive came before the noun... I'll take you up on that but in the case of the "obscurse regime", which basically covered the entire British Isles. In this case, they may be considered synonomous (in instances which I have encountered). I think at least they "British Isles" should be linked under the historical contexts if that's OK with you.

Celtic Emperor 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. ^ [1] The Cornish: A Neglected Nation? by Mark Stoyle.
  2. ^ [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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
----------------------------------------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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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-youthtalk 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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):
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-youthtalk 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-youthtalk 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-youthtalk 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. --sony-youthtalk 09:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the (modern) definitions are:

- BRITAIN is a damp, foggy landmass off the northern coast of Europe. - GREAT BRITAIN is a political entity comprising the political entities of England, Scotland and Wales (the combined territory of which covers BRITAIN). Historically 'Great Britain' has been used to differentiate the physical entity from place(s) referred to as Little Britain (Brittany, Ireland, etc. have been called 'Little Britain' by various different groups at different times). - The UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a political entity comprising Great Britain (i.e., England, Scotland, Wales) AND Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.171.177 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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-youthtalk 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Historical States

I added United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain. I think these will be especially important for disambiguating links to this page. --Steven J. Anderson 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but removed other fluff. Entering "Britain" in the search box need to be disambiguated, but the word Britain in no way disambiguates to mean "Britain in the Middle Ages", "Iron Age Britain" etc. etc. They belong on the page called History of Britain (which strangely redirects to History of the British Isles ... but eh!). --sony-youthpléigh 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating Britain

I don't really want to throw any more fuel on the fire, but I think this question is worth asking. When disambiguating links to this page, should we replace "Britain" in the text with United Kingdom? I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor who wrote the article and piping it. --Steven J. Anderson 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in, for example "the United States was allied with Britain during the Second World War":
or
In that case I would keep it Britain as it was the common name during the period, or at least in discussion of the period (I believe). It tough case to call. Personally, I'd do it on a case by case basis. For example, "citizens of Britain" would probably better be "citizens of the United Kingdom." --sony-youthpléigh 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1922 or 1927?

The UK article says that the Republic of Ireland gained its independence in 1922, but the UK didn't change it's name from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1927. Is the dab page right on its dates? --Steven J. Anderson 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waited a few days and changed it. I've found the same information in more than one place. --Steven J. Anderson 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't seen the original post. Gotta say I'd be against the change. Its not exactly informative. The constitutional change was in '22, the name change was just cosmetic. --sony-youthpléigh 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For a discussion of the confusion ..."

Many people, as we all know, are unsure about what exactly "Britain" refers to: whether it means the whole of the British Isles, if is it the same as Great Britain, or is it the UK, or England, or what? Its very like, then, that somebody entering "Britain" in the search box would in fact mean a related thing, but something not quite the same. For that reason, and since the MoS for dab pages allow it, I think its a good case to have an extra sentence pointing to the British Isles (terminology) page. This shouldn't be in the "See also" section as it would not be simply a related topic, but an inherent part of disambiguation what our reader meant by "Britain". --sony-youthpléigh 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional methodology is perfectly adequate in this case, there is absolutely no need to be referred to another article; I disagree with your argument. There are not sufficient for disregarding convention. (Sarah777 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK, so I know your conclusion - could I hear your reasoning? --sony-youthpléigh 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people, as we all know, are unsure about what exactly "Britain" refers to: whether it means is it the same as Great Britain, or is it the UK, or England, or what? Its very like, then, that somebody entering "Britain" in the search box would in fact mean a related thing, but something not quite the same. As could anyone entering a rather more ambiguous terms, such as, for example, "British Isles". For that reason, I think it's a good case to have the British Isles (terminology) in the "See also" section as it is a related topic, not an inherent part of the the disambiguation based on what our (imaginary) reader might have meant by "Britain". OK? Insufficient grounds for exceptionalism in this case. (Sarah777 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

British Empire

Should this page include a link to British Empire? --Steven J. Anderson 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles - incorrect use here

The first line read:

  • the British Isles, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe

Nobody calls the British Isles British unless in error. And why the first line? Is to prove a point, or to make one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone shouts out - if its in historical terms - then put it there (with some explanation), not first in the list. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical. A logical consequence of claiming that the Irish people live in an entity termed the "British Isles" by British nationalists. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [3] The Cornish: A Neglected Nation? by Mark Stoyle.
  2. ^ [4] Perceptions of Cornwall and the Cornish people
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britain&oldid=239184957"