Talk:Languages of the British Isles

Delete?

Not sure if this article shouldn't be deleted - it is drawn entirely on using Wikipedia as a source and replicates material on other articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have put the following templates up, since WP is not considered a reliable source:

And it probably should be deleted, IMO (unless a real attempt is made to correct the sources)... Doc9871 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is potentially a useful addition to the encyclopedia, although it does need a lot of work on sourcing and style. I added a source from Cambride University Press to the lead, and will look for others. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the idea of this article per se, but all of the WP references have to go per WP:CIRCULAR. This article could actually be nominated for deletion based on the unacceptable sourcing: it's simply not how articles are written here, for very good reason... Doc9871 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be kept, it will take some time to transfer some of the sources over though to stop using wikipedia. If the source issue has not been addressed in a few days, it should be nominated for deletion. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted, speedily. Of course it should be kept, according to one of the most nationalistic British editors on Wikipedia. The very mention of the term "British Isles" gladdens BritishWatcher (note that big Union Jack on his User Page). Dump this article, and its political point asap. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scots?

Are we talking Doric or Lallans or both here? Is it worth mentioning them? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles" jingoism again

So, a new "British Isles" article. Yawn. Once again we have the same British nationalist agenda to assert Ireland as "British", just as they've been doing for centuries. As always with this title, it's an article designed to exclude every historical, cultural and ethnic tradition which is Irish and push it into their politically-motivated "British Isles" worldview. It's all nice and simple, neat and "British". Completely ahistorical, but what has that got to do with the political statement that is the term "British Isles". Wikipedia's Irish-related articles being dominated by these people is a joke. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that said one must also recognize the influences that Ireland has had on the island of Britain and it's islands, both gaidhlig and gaelg being descended from old irish, and the accompanying cultural links and kinship relations that Ireland has had with the Hebrides, the Western Highlands, Galloway, etc. Nonetheless, "Britain and Ireland" may be a better geographical name to avoid domineering nomenclature. Just worth mentioning that including Britain and Ireland in the same article would make sense given the inevitable linguistic/cultural relationships between the two islands. 24.84.7.243 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

This article duplicates the articles Languages of the United Kingdom, and Languages of Ireland. I therefore suggest that any useful material relating to Ireland be transferred to that article, and then that this article be merged with Languages of the United Kingdom. Is this acceptable (see also the discussion above re deleting) Rwood128 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is little, if any, additional information here, to what is already found in the two main articles. Rwood128 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically agree. "British Isles" is not a political unit, and the pattern is to have "Languages of CountryX". (Perhaps this is introducing an extra step illegitimately, but looking at the useful material on crown dependency languages, can I suggest the target article for merge for the UK material be Languages of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies)? OsFish (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that the Languages of the United Kingdom article goes beyond the UK, and includes in addition even to "Dependencies", "Languages of British Overseas Territories". The title can simply be changed, as a correction, which would not be "illegitimate", but that still leaves the anomaly of "Overseas Territories". Rwood128 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also basically agree, HOWEVER, Languages of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies would be a terrible name. "United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies" is hardly a political unit itself. If I were to go for a merger of this page with Languages of the United Kingdom, then "Languages of the British Isles" seems the better name for the merged page. DrArsenal (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we might not stay with Languages of the United Kingdom (as shorthand for what the article covers), so long as the dependencies are mentioned in the lede. Unfortunately the use of the term British Isles is tricky given that it this geographic unit contains the Irish Republic – and for which anyhow there is a good article already.

Material has been copied to Languages of the United Kingdom and merge completed.Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Legal French

The figure of 17,000 speakers is puzzling – does this in fact refer to French, one of Jersey's two official languages? Further it looks like "Jersey Legal French" is now largely a written/ceremonial language, but that's a guess. Rwood128 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clarify this and it seems likely that the figure of 17,000 speakers may refer those on Jersey who speak French, which is apparently very close to Jersey Legal French. Rwood128 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]