Talk:Historical immigration to Great Britain

message: :See Talk:immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day)
Much of this content has been moved from the page Immigration to the United Kingdom which was split into pre and post 1922 sections. It may be helpful to look at the talk page on that page. Andeggs 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: I remember reading that the UK has the oldest Chinese community in Europe, dating back from the 1750s. Anyone know anything about that? Matchrthom 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  liverpool Chinatown 

message: The first sentence is:
:Immigration to the United Kingdom concerns the inward movement of people, cultural and ethnic groups into the nation state entity that is today known as the United Kingdom.
and in the article the section "Scots" says: 
:During the 5th century, the Dál Riatan Scots started raiding north-western Britain from their base in north-east Ireland. After the Roman withdrawal, this developed from piracy to full-scale invasion, and,within a hundred years, they had established a kingdom in Argyll.
But north east Ireland is in the UK so they were not immigrating from outside the UK. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The political entity which is the United Kingdom did not exist in the 5th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: North east Ireland

message: "This article deals with immigration to the political entity now known as the United Kingdom until its full creation in 1922." This is not a good title. The term "United Kingdom" describes several iterations of the same state (see United Kingdom (disambiguation)). One can argue that the 1801 version was "its full creation".
I think that this article should be renamed in line with Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland, either as historical immigration to Great Britain and Ireland or historical immigration to Great Britain and then either "main article" a section on post 1922 or define it in the introduction as covering only up to 1922. One could drop the word historical from the title if there was to be a section on prehistoric settlement with a "main article" to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland --Philip Baird Shearer 08:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "historical" is false.  A very lot of what is written, especially denoted by section headings, suggests something broader than written accounts of immigration, touching on archaeology and speculation instead.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest as a better name? Or should we remove the prehistoric sections. --PBS (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A more comprehensive name is desirable.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why in include the prehistoric section when there is already an article that covers that? Settlement of the British Isles which was called Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland → but was moved to Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. It seems to me better if that article is moved back to the Prehistoric settlement which would cover the period up to the Romans arriving and that this article should cover the period from the Romans (historic) immigration. --PBS (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is to be human geography, then there is little to recommend dividing the Irish from the "British", unless of course, the Scottish and English also have separate articles about settlement.  But to the point, there is little to be gained from dividing less well known periods into different articles, from more historically attested settlements.  It all should be amassed together, really.  Why not do as the "Settlement of the British Isles" has done and merely call it, "Settlement of Great Britain", if you wish to combine that of the Scottish and English together, even in the error of the Irish having their own article.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of Scotland and England are nations that developed centuries after the history of the Islands started. But the Roman historians made a distinction Between the two Islands. Your logic would lead to us incorporating the Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922 (this article was split out of that one) into the same article as "Settlement of Great Britain" which would be wrong because the UK is a state that encompass Norther Ireland. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I would ideally have it be all BI people, "big" or "small" and not these artificially divided, politically decided articles.  Regardless of politics or religion, there are not as many differences between all of these parallel origins, unless we went to the ethnography of Tacitus, which stated that the English were French, Scottish were German and the Welsh were Spanish.  Although the first two are clearly understood, I am confused as to whether Welsh would include Irish, examining their claims of Mil Espaine.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What polarity between Albion and Erin did the Romans discuss?  I am only aware of general descriptive differences, including commentaries on other smaller islands, such as Angelsey, Wight and Mann.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page 

message: Irish immigrants have been the largest proportion of total immigrants to Britain. This is shown by the fact that 25% of all people in the United Kingdom - discounting Northern Ireland - have Irish roots. That is a total of fourteen million people. Yet, despite this, there is no Ireland/Irish section. We should include one as soon as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very belatedly, someone (me) has got round to adding a paragraph.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Immigration 

message: A passage in the recent edit by  reads "However, after Britannia ceased to be a functional Roman province, many of the urban areas collapsed and the overall population may have declined by as much as two million. This seems to me dubious, although it is not possible to check as no page number is supplied. I cannot find any reference in the source stating that many urban areas collapsed, and according to all I have read, all urban areas collapsed. The source says p. 8 that the population in  the  later  Germanic  settlement  areas  declined from around 2 million to 1 million, not by 2 million. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Dudley Miles, I wrote that on the basis of the 3 million figure in the previous sentence, but if you want to change it to "declined to around 1 million" or something like that, go ahead. CelticBrain (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Wiki should not use statistics from a migration sceptical think tank as primary source for its overview paragraph. Migration watch UK is not an unbiased source. Refering to footnote 1 Leendert123 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration watch UK is a biased source