Talk:South Britain

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anachronism

How can you state "an inhabitant of South Britain may correctly be termed a South Briton"? You must know very well that the term was never widespread and is long obsolete. NO Welsh person would use the term and I very much doubt if an Englishman would (assuming they had even heard of it). And yet you try to give the impression that I, a Welshman, may "correctly be termed a South Briton"! Who says? Your link to a book on Scots language on googlebooks gives nothing and even if it did, so what? This is the POV of a tiny minority and should not be presented in this way. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better deletion that merge - its a nonsense --Snowded TALK 07:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely to have been a geographical term, rather that a description of the inhabitants. The reference given (The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language By Charles Jones (p. 338)) for correctly defining those living in southern Britain as "South Briton" (or "South-Briton" as it is written) doesn't define where "South-Britons" or "North-Britons" are. It also talks of" Scotch gentlemen", "a Scotchman" and "the Scotch accent" on the same page, so the language is obviously archaic/obsolete. However, any use of the word Briton to describe the English is just plain wrong. There is also a Wiki article on North Briton. BTW, the Hutchinson encyclopedia redirects South Briton to England. Can't see any value in this article and recommend it for WP:AFD. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with this. Firstly, nobody has provided any sort of source to verify the term falling into disuse, indeed the article makes no comment on how widespread its use was: only that it was wide enough to be published and to have some currency; I think it's safe to say it didn't gain the importance of the term North Britain or North Briton, but that's armchair speculation.

As for the comment that an Englishman cannot be called a Briton - that is verifiably wrong: the Oxford English Dictionary defines a Briton as either: "1 a British person. 2 a native of southern Britain before and during Roman times.". To suggest otherwise is rather like saying someone from Strathclyde or the Lothians of Scotland cannot be called a Scot.

Enaidmawr: simple statement of verifiable fact cannot be 'POV' as you put it. Wikipedia does not support anything which has been done, it simply provides commentary on it. Your assertions ('NO Welsh person would...') are completely unsupported and unsupportable. I have added another reference using the term 'South Briton'. Hopefully that'll be an end to this. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 'correctly' from 'may be correctly termed' in the article - I will accept it did sail dangerously close to the POV wind. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references provide evidence of some usage in the 17th/18th centuries, but none of any later usage. I've revised the text accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely removing references to 'South Briton' seems a bit off, when that is what is cited. Moreover, the article as it originally stood made no assertions about how widespread usage was, or indeed when usage was popular or ceased. These facts need verification to include. I will not, however, revert (although I'd like to see that argument for removing 'South Briton') - but I feel a 'citation needed' tag may be appropriate for these new claims. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cited references all give examples from the 17th/18th centuries. There are no references which suggest modern or current use which would justify use of the present tense in the article. No tag is necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references which suggest that modern or current usage is somehow improper or has fallen out of fashion. In absence of that, no claims should be made about usage.--Breadandcheese (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. This should be a footnote to the England and Wales article. As I state above and as G. H. Myrtle also notes, the term had linited use in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is at best an historical curio. The way the introduction was originally worded clearly suggested other wise. You say "Your assertions ('NO Welsh person would...') are completely unsupported and unsupportable." Well, I suggest you visit Wales and do a quick vox pop on the street (in any case, that is my opinion expressed here, which I am perfectly entitled to do, and not in the article). Au contraire, it is your original assertion which is "completely unsupported and unsupportable" and it is for you to prove that it is in contemporary use. Granted "NO" was a bit strong as it is theoretically possible you might just chance upon somebody just released from the assylum who would fancy being called a "South Briton": however the term is not in use and to the best of my knowledge never has been used in Wales (and I have a fairly extensive library of antiquarian books published in Wales). "South Britain" should at best be a footnote to the 'England and Wales' and 'North Britain' articles, with the page redirected to 'England and Wales'. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot visit Wales and survey the people - that would be original research and thus prohibited.

As for the question of providing verifications of modern use: I made no claims that it was in modern use - in fact, the original article made no mention of any time periods. What we have now is intervening edits making reference to periods of use without any substantiation of citations of authority. That is unacceptable. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your text stated that it "...is a term which may be used..." That use of the present tense was unverified. The use of the past tense is verified, and should be used if the article remains at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you phrase it to remove all references to time period used? I think I did rather well - 'may be used' does not imply usage at any particular point: even in the present. It most certain 'may be used' even today however: there's nothing inaccurate about it. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless - by that criterion anything "may" be stated about anything else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, as I said it was flawed, but it certainly did not do what you suggest it did, and your version is even more flawed. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect page to the England and Wales page. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I will say the same as I said to the North Britain-Scotland merge. South Britain could be a section of England and Wales, it would be easier to access.--Aberdeen fc (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose England and Scotland take up 3/4 of the Great Britian and Scotland only 1/4, so calling southbritian all of england and wales is incorrect 84.64.14.35 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]