Talk:English language/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about English language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Canada Quebec on the world map displaying usage of English

If you go to the page for the French language and view the map they have displayed there; you will see Canada coloured in a light blue its province Quebec coloured in dark blue. We should apply the same to this map. All of Canada should be dark blue with the exception of Quebec. XJeanLuc (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The map on this page indicates countries where English is official and/or predominant, not subdivisions of countries. Quebec is a province of Canada, not a sovereign state. —An gr 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

English is neither official nor predominant in Quebec (see Quebec). It is widely used though. Junglehungry (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with An gr In addition the following: English is official in Canada. Quebec is part of Canada. Thus English IS official in Quebec. Roger (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Quebec is part of Canada, and that English is an official language in most of canada. But English is most definitely not the official language of Quebec. Canada as a whole is officially bilingual (e.g. all federal gov't documents must be issued in at least French and English). In Quebec, all public signs, etc. must be in French. They can also feature English or any other language alongside french.Junglehungry (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Canada, like the US, not have any official languages at the "federal" level? If so, our Canada article is wrong. What I've always heard is that English and French are both official at the national level, which would make this article's map correct. Even if English is only official at the provincial level, Canada is still a country where English is an official language (but the US would be wrong on the map). Quebec and other sub-national entities do not exist on this map. There is only Canada. SDY (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair point(s), and re-reading Angr's first statement (21:30) I can't really find anything to disagree with there. Roger, on the other hand, is plain wrong I'm afraid ;). To come back to XJeanLuc's first post though, my understanding is that the suggestion is to introduce sub-national entities on the map, which (if someone is willing to put in the work) would only improve it in my opinion. I can't off-hand think of any other polity where English is neither predominant nor at least co-official in a sub-national entity, so Canada might be the only one. Junglehungry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think that Quebec should not be coloured; it only gives the false impression that it were English-speaking. Even if Enlgish is an official language at a federal level (be it de jure or de facto), it is not in Quebec, therefore light blue would be better (as in South Africa for instance).--Hooiwind (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

South Africa is a country, Quebec is not. The two are not comparable. —An gr 11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If Quebec is coloured light blue, we abandon the country-based coloring system and then - if we are consistent -the whole EU should be coloured light blue, as English is one of the three working languages. Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also one of the official languages of the U.N., so the entire planet should be colored light blue. —An gr 14:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The UN has no country-like "real" power like Quebec or the EU has, so that comparison is imo not correct. There are estimates that eg. 70% to 80% of all legislation in EU member states is made on (regulations) or originates (directives) from the EU-level. Furthermore, EU law takes precedence over national law and the EU court of justice takes precedence over national courts. BTW: I'm not saying that we should color Quebec light-blue, but IF we give subnaional entities a different colour, we should colour supranational entities with equal or much more far-reaching powers as well.Sijo Ripa (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The comparisons with the EU and the UN are invalid. The UN is a non-governmental organisation, and as I understand it the map shows governmental language policy (as well as language use, to a certain extent). With the EU, although as a citizen living in any EU country you can conduct your business with the EU in English, that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to communicate with your national (or regional, local) government in English. The principle of subsidiarity is at the heart of EU legislation, and this applies to language policy as much as to anything else. If we were dealing with supra-national entities, we would need to show their language policies on a different map.Junglehungry (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point actually proves why we should not colour Quebec. While Canadian federal matters are also in English and thus apply to Quebec~(compared to the EU), local Quebecois governance is completely in French (compared to the local language of EU member states). There's a clear majority of French-speakers in Quebec as well (like there is a clear majority of non-English-speakers in the EU member states). Either we colour both Quebec and the EU in light-blue (for being an official language on a (con)federative level), or both should be uncoloured. Sijo Ripa (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you about Quebec (except you should also mention that Canada is officially bilingual at the federal level), there's a slight flaw in your argument concerning the EU, I'm afraid: Canada is a sovereign state (well, more or less ;), while the EU is a political institution above state level. They are therefore not really comparable on a map (a simplified visual representation of policies in different states). Adding the EU would be (I feel) too complex for this map, hence my suggestion of another map showing supra-national entities. Assuming we want to keep this map showing national entities (states), the argument is whether it would add something informative (and accurate) to the map to show Quebec in light-blue or shaded or some other indication that it is not the same as the rest of Canada. My feeling is that it would. Junglehungry (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Quebec is not a country and I see no reason to give it special status on the map. If someone wanted to go through every country on the map and identify regional English usage, then we could rename the map to "regions of the world where English is widely used" and it would be correct. Otherwise and until Quebec goes Dixie on Canada, it gets lumped in with the rest of Canadians. SDY (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not of your own to decide the laws (read a little bit about Quebec and you'll learn that Quebec, because they are French speakers while in the ROC they speak English, have a law called "Charte de la langue française" that makes French language the only official language in Quebec.). The fact is that French and English languages are official languages in Canada. But in Quebec, the sole official language is French (because of the Charter of the French language [Charte de la langue française]). Because of that special rule, Quebec province should be colored in light blue and the ROC colored in dark blue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must state the facts, and that is a fact. Jimmy^talk 23:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also a fact that Quebec is not a country. Not a country. Not a country. Not a country. Not a country. If Puerto Rico ever becomes a state of the U.S., it will be marked dark blue because it will be part of a country where the dominant language is English, even though the dominant language in P.R. itself is Spanish. —An gr 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Forget the f*cking country, we are talking about languages. Then, if you don't want to change the color of Quebec only because it's not a country, change the statement by: "Regions where English is...." instead of "Countries where...". English language is not official in Quebec, then should not be marked as in the map. That's what they've done on the French Wikipedia (ROC is dark blue, Quebec is light blue) and it is stated "Countries where English is official language are colored in dark blue (see Charte de la langue française for more information about English status in Canadian province of Quebec); countries where English is not official language but is spoken as mother language are colored in light blue." Well, Quebec is not a country, but is not English. "Not English. Not English. Not English." That must be stated on the article as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jimmy^talk 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC-5)

Well, if you want to update the map to show all regions instead of countries where English is a dominant language, go for it, but the article should not treat Quebec as a "special case." The map, as it is, is correct. Canada, as a whole, is a country where English is a prominent language. SDY (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Yes, it is a special case. By law, and by fact, French language is the sole official language of Quebec, a Canadian province. Well, I'll continue to contribute to French Wikipedia. At least, they state facts instead of their own opinions. Wikipedia cannot change the status of English language in Quebec. Hope English people will change their mind soon. See ya, I have other things to do! Jimmy^talk 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC-5)

I think we're talking past each other, at any rate. I don't see how Quebec is not part of Canada. I acknowledge that the map is at a very blunt "resolution" and only includes national entities. I acknowledge that this could be changed, but don't see a burning need to fix it. The map does not have all of the information it possibly could, but making a special case for Quebec runs into WP:NPOV issues with the separatist movement there. Wikipedia treating Quebec like a separate nation when it is not is inappropriate. If the situation changes, we will change it. If the map changes and becomes like the map on the French Language page with sub-national entities, it can certainly be changed, but India would be a nightmare. SDY (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So would South Texas and South Africa. And I suppose we'd have to put a light blue dot over Kiryas Joel, New York, where English is very much a minority language. Within Canada, if Quebec is light blue, Nunavut would probably have to be light blue too. —An gr 07:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is starting to get ridiculous. Here are some very basic facts:

The map clearly states "Countries where English is a majority language are dark blue; countries where it is an official but not a majority language are light blue."
Québec is not a country, it's a province of a country.
Currently, the map is about countries and not provinces.
Québec is a part of Canada.
In Canada, the majority is English-speaking.

In conclusion, there is simply no case for colouring Québec in light blue, and comparisons that fail to distinguish between independent countries and provinces are missing the point. JdeJ (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

CIA link

Hi, I removed the CIA ref which was cited beside rankings because it did not represent rankings. Anyway, I tried refreshing English language but the link is still on the template there although it has dissapeared here...? Hardly crashing down but is it broke or just takes its time to refresh the cache? ~ R.T.G 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, that edit was to Template:English language. (This talk page also serves that template.) —teb728 t c 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for countries included on the English-speaking map?

Can someone please advise me of the guidelines for the map? The founder (Dr. Helena I.R. Agustien) of my school (Mondial Education, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia) is also the woman who advised the central government on how to revamp the national school curriculum. According to the latest revisions she made, the central government's DepDikNas (National Department of Education) now only sets the standards, and it is up to the local governments to dictate which language is the primary language, and which are required secondary languages. Please keep in mind that some of local governmental departments, including the educational department, are at least semi-autonomous (ie: there is a degree of decentralization here - although not for the police and military).

Example #1: My maid, from the area of Kendal, was taught primarily using Javanese, but she was also required to study English and Indonesian. She is 17 as of 18/12/08, so this is the current situation in her area. This indicates an inconsistency in which language is the primary learning language in this country, even in national schools.

Example #2: My wife, when she studied on Bali, was not required to have a passing score in Balinese, and on Sumatra was not taught a Sumatran language, but on Java was required to receive passing marks in Javanese. (Indonesian was also required, of course.)

Example #3: My school, Mondial Education, Semarang, is private (which is different, I know) and almost all classes are taught in English, although Indonesian is also a required minor subject. In other private schools, such as Singapore School, Permata Bangsa and Stamford (all national plus curriculums), the main language is English. In SS (several branches in different parts of Indonesia) and Stamford, Semarang, Indonesian is a minor subject and Mandarin is a required main subject. In PB, Semarang, Indonesian is a minor required subject. In their secondary levels, Javanese is added as a minor required subject.

Several years ago (at least 1990), DepDikNas decreed that schools had to include "muatan lokal" (subjects that the LOCAL educational department/schools had to offer in addition to the standard curriculum required for ALL schools). To fulfill this requirement, many national schools chose (and still choose) to teach English.

Recently, some (both national and private national) have started converting to English as the main classroom language (Gubug Elementary, Tegal Secondary, Karang Turi, Tri Tunggal, Mondial Education, etc.).

I can confirm that English is required in many Freeport, Papua schools; East Nusa Tenggara schools; Balinese schools and a large number of schools on the island of Java, but it is, again, a decision made by the department of education and/or the schools, and sometimes local governments - NOT the national government. I have personally taught about English (along with Dr. Helena and associates) to teachers on the islands of Sumba, Flores and Timor, East Nusa Tenggara; and Gubug and Tegal, Central Java.

Since the decision is on a school by school basis (unless the local government puts it's foot into it like in Tegal), national documents will not indicate a requirement for English. Therefore, I'm extremely confused about whether this qualifies for the English-usage map. I realize that this falls under the category of original research. I am willing to find documentation to support this IF it will be of use. Can someone please advise?ReveurGAM (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:Anglospeak.svg: Countries of the world where English is an official or de facto official language, or national language are dark blue; countries where it is an official/non-official but not primary language are light blue. Other countries are grey whether English is taught in schools or not). —teb728 t c 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the map. Please can you advise based on the information I have given above? Should this be researched or is it unimportant?ReveurGAM (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

English is not a majority language in Indonesia, right? So Indonesia is not dark blue. English is not an official language of the Indonesian government, right? So Indonesia is not light blue. Other countries are grey whether English is taught in schools or not. So Indonesia is grey. Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of my question revolves around the decentralized decision-making process of including English as a required subject - which is sometimes made by the local government and sometimes by the schools themselves. I am sorry if I was not clear enough.ReveurGAM (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear ReveurGam, you appear to be trolling. You posted the same long personal observations about occasional English usage in Indonesia last year and we explained it in detail to you then. Nothing has changed since then, so I see no purpose in your reposting the same personal thoughts. JdeJ (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in part there could be another category added to the map, which is "countries where English is a mandatory school subject." There are a fair number, though they sometimes educate people who can pass exams but do not retain a useful knowledge of the language. SDY (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone else suggested that last year when I brought up this topic due (if I recall correctly) to other language pages having that category included on their maps. I don't recall if there was an answer. Good luck.ReveurGAM (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, yes I did bring this up last year, but I am not trolling or baiting people. The fact that you suggest that I am trolling after I've waited a year and added new relevant information seems ..... I find that offensive since I'm just trying to contribute. Let's keep this civil, shall we? A bit of patience with a novice user goes a long way.

I only bring this up again because of the new information and, if you were paying attention, I asked about the guidelines because I wanted to know if the new information was relevant or not. See my comment above to TEB728.ReveurGAM (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No intention to offend you, and sorry we were not explicit enough last year. Let me try to state this as clearly as I can.

English is not the majority native language in Indonesia, it's not even the native language of 0.01% of the Indonesian population.
Given this, there is not even a theoretical possibility that English will become the majority native language in Indonesia for the next twenty years. In practice, even that is highly unlikely but we do not need to concern ourselves with that for now.
The Indonesian constitution does not make English an official language of the country.
To sum up. If, and only if, Indonesia changes its constitution to make English an official language in the country will there be a reason to change the map as far as Indonesia is concerned. I hope this removes the confusion you felt.JdeJ (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. The reason for my confusion is the following statement, taken from the map's (File: Anglospeak.svg) page: "English: Countries of the world where English is an official or de facto official language, or national language, in dark blue; countries where it is an official/non-official but not primary language in light blue."

I realized long ago that Indonesia in no way qualifies as dark blue. What I thought it might qualify for is light blue, which is stated as "official/non-official," and is sufficiently vague that many countries could be included in this category. It is of particular concern to me since, based on the info I mentioned previously, it APPEARS that Indonesia (as well as others) qualifies. Perhaps the statement should be reworded to avoid such vagaries?ReveurGAM (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The English language

Is there any difference in definition between "English language" and "The English language". Can any difference be described using this article as an example? ~ R.T.G 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on sentence construction whether the definite article is necessary or not. Examples: There are millions of students of the English language around the world. or There are millions of English language students around the world. Roger (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean Dodger but I am talking about the term as a heading/title not a conjunctive of study or anything else. ~ R.T.G 12:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be a matter for the style rules of the publication. Here on WP the preference is to not use "The". One reason I can think of is that sorting and searching is easier if the main word is the first one. Roger (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You overlook my question there Dodger ~ R.T.G 22:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is there is no difference in meaning. But there is a difference in usage depending on the context of the usage such as the rules of syntax and the style guidelines of the publication. You ask, “Can any difference be described using this article as an example?” Yes, WP:MOS#Article titles says, “A, an, and the are normally avoided as the first word” of an article title. So this article is titled “English language” not “The English language.” Hope this helps. —teb728 t c 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Perhaps I should add that it is called “English language” rather than just “English” for the purpose of disambiguation: Just “English” could refer to other things than language. Esperanto does not need such disambiguation. The first sentence of the article does not need to say “English language” because is immediately defined as a “language.” —teb728 t c 23:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No I did not overlook your question, you just didn't like the answer I gave you. That is not my problem, take it up with the MoS. Roger (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I second what TEB728 says. There's no difference in meaning; it's a syntactic matter. "English language is..." sounds like something a non-native speaker would say. And we don't need to start the article with the words "The English language is" either. English is perfectly clear on its own. garik (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer back to the reference desk on that one, Garik. It's a small point but not non existant. ~ R.T.G 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've referred back and I'm afraid you're wrong on the distinction between "English language" and "the English language". A sentence like "English language is a Germanic language" just isn't normal English. It doesn't mean something different. garik (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The map (again)

How come Malaysia is light blue on the map? According to the article Malaysia, it's official language is Malay. If that's correct, Malaysia should be grey on the map. JdeJ (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Even this article says that English isn't an official language in Malaysia, so it seems the map would have to be changed. JdeJ (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very confusing to have discussion about the map in three different places. Can we focus discussion of the map at commons:File talk:Anglospeak.svg, please? —An gr 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

User:RTG seems insistent on changing the first clause of the article. But his changes are consistently reverted as disimprovements. There are several people reverting him, indicating there is a consensus against such changes. If he has any further proposals for changing the first clause, he should get a consensus on this talk page before trying to insert them into the article.

I notice that several of RTG’s changes involve saying something to the effect that English is called a “Germanic language” because it came from Germany. I am not sure whether he thinks that is literally the reason for the classification or whether it was just an awkward miswording on his part. If that is what he thinks, perhaps that is why he finds the first clause inadequate. And in case that is what he thinks, let me explain the reason for the classification: Although some of the West Germanic languages are spoken in Germany, that is not why they are called Germanic languages. And none of the North Germanic languages was ever spoken in Germany. Rather the Germanic languages are so called because they all belong to the same language family as Standard German.

Although I am opposed to changing the first clause substantially, I do think the lead section can and should be expanded. I propose that the last sentence of the lead (about extensive use) be split off as the topic sentence of a new paragraph and that a history paragraph be added, briefly summarizing the History section of this article. In that history paragraph one sentence might be about Old English, and another sentence might be about Middle English. —teb728 t c 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that English is a well known language, is it/can it be referenced as the most recognised language? What is English? It is the worlds most widespread language. If you were not to know that, I believe it would be the most striking information. Calling it by another name does not inform anything like that.

I believe that the term Germanic is not commonplace and therefore warrants brief explaination (Easily recognised terms of similar appearance such as Italic and Hispanic do not produce a similar meaning.) I dont think of changing the substance but clarifying it. In a low denominator people are likely to check the validity elsewhere.

Expanding, I would suggest mentioning the UN and the surviving Frisian language as a sign of importance and a point of comparison. ~ R.T.G 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of your reply I would only add (to to what I said above) that I presume readers who don't what the West Germanic languages are will click on the link; so this article doesn't need to explain it. —teb728 t c 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you allude to the MOS, let me add this: WP:LEAD says that the first sentence should tell what the subject is and why it is notable. The rest of the lead, it says, is a brief summary of the article. For a long article like this it suggests the lead should be three of four paragraphs.

So, what is English? It is a language, specifically a West Germanic language. (If you look at other language articles, I think you will find that except for language isolates the first sentence identifies a language family. So French is a Romance language; Russian a Slavic language; Turkish a Turkic language; etc.) Why is English notable? To begin with, it is the first language of the several countries. And that’s what the first sentence says. There are more reasons for notability than that—more than would fit in a well-written sentence, and the rest of the first paragraph mentions some of them.

I think the first sentence is well written, but as a summary the lead section leaves something to be desired. Part of the problem is that some topics (like phonology and grammar) are not amenable to summary. But certainly the history could be summarized. —teb728 t c 09:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you find with some surprise that almost all language articles except European and several others do not use the first sentence as a classification (I only looked now to see this, through around fifteen or more of my own random choice). Russian is "the most geographically widespread language of Eurasia, the most widely spoken of the Slavic languages, and the largest native language in Europe." Turkish "is a language spoken by over 63 million people worldwide,[3] making it the most commonly spoken of the Turkic languages." These two include the classing and some other stuff but they are unique in that Turkeys is an obvious Turkish group and Russians is not particularly obvious at all. I reckon English has some uniqueness as well.

Something important to this article. Any article considered a basic step in learning could lead by attempting describe all terminology without removing, cluttering or oversimplifying. I think the use of "term" may be as the value of a name from a term (period in time) which is today most or only valid when linked to that period in time. Not in-valid but has baggage. (I might try that basic learning idea with the crazy train on style)

I think the UN using English is the highest mark of importance, does any government openly discredit the UN? ~ R.T.G 11:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead already mentions that English is an official language of many international organizations. I'm not opposed to mentioning the UN, but I think its use of English as one of six official languages may be less significant than its use by other organizations where it is the only official language.

I took a crack at a history paragraph in the lead section. (I had held off on adding it, hoping someone better at writing than I would do it.) —teb728 t c 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say "of the late 5th century" and mention that the settlers were invaders as all the other nationalities are referred to as invaders or conquest(ors?). According to Frisian the sailors of England and Friesland are able to understand each other and there are many old childrens rhymes about English and Frisian.

It does say many international organisations and many organisations are respectable but is the UN the most noble?

Use of the word "extensively" in the first paragraph is an understatement and of course my own POV is that the first sentence is only long as a list of countries. Merry Christmas. ~ R.T.G 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Second or Third language

What exactly is the difference in qualitative terms between a Second and a Third language as it is used here in the population stats? To my way of understanding it a "second language" is any language one can speak other than one's first or native language. I happen to know quite a few people who speak four or more languages but they wouldn't actually rank them first to fourth. Roger (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a little confused by that. Two possibilities spring to mind (apart from just ranking languages according to when they were acquired, or how well they were acquired): first, that "second language" here refers to a language spoken widely in one's own country (like English in India), and "third (etc.) language" to one that isn't (like Welsh in India); second, that it's to do with the languages of one's parents (so a third language is a language neither of your parents speaks). But none of these explanations that's entirely satisfactory! Anyone else? garik (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OR

Despite English not being an official language of Malaysia, the map still claims so. I've discussed the topic both here and at commons, and while nobody disagrees, the map has not been fixed. Unfortunately I'm not able to fix the map myself. Claiming that English is an official language of Malaysia, as this article currently does through the map, is simply wrong.JdeJ (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've recolored the map to show Malaysia in gray, but it may be a few days before it correctly appears as such. —An gr 13:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

General British?

I've never, ever heard RP called "General British" - and why does it redirect to some video game? ðarkun coll 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. I was about to delete the term "General British" (having already un-wikilinked it), and found you'd got there first! Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup - it's a nonsense term. siarach (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rest of you. I don't know what English is meant by General British, but since my English is the Hiberno-English of County Cork, and it's in the British Isles where obviously there is a General British English, I can only assume that General British English is Cork English ;)JdeJ (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just encountered "General British" in the real world: according to John C. Wells's phonetic blog, someone called Jack Windsor Lewis (whom I have never heard of) prefers the term "General British" to "RP". (That doesn't mean we should restore it, of course, it only means whoever added it here didn't make it up himself - unless of course it was Lewis himself who added it.) —An gr 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)