Talk:British people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

59,000 in Cyprus?

I do not understand what's the source for 59,000 British people in Cyprus. Only 28,000 people with British passports (both Cypriots and actual British) lived in Cyprus by the end of 2007.

The source is the BBC study, see List of countries by British immigrants. TastyCakes (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to throw a spear into the heart of liberal/political correctness

OK Ulsterman are Britons by British law.<<Offensive comments deleted --Snowded (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)>>! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.112.95 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge problem throughout wikipedia when it comes to the identity of British citizens. Some get called Scottish, some called English, but then theres many others who are called British. There should be a uniformed way of identifying people and not pick or choosing by some people. All Scots, Welsh, and English citizens are British, which should be stated and then go on to say if they are Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, English or if they have mixed parentage. This really has to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.88.73 (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ulster Protestants" (known for most of their history in Ireland as Irish Protestants, until they redefined themselves as "Ulster" Protestants in 1912 when the partition of Ireland was first proposed), would of course be British Protestants except for the rather germane matter of their not being, well, British. Unless, of course, people born in Italy, China, Algeria and numerous other places can claim to be "British" even when they and their families for generations were, like all Protestants born on the island of Ireland, born outside Britain. As with the Gaels, Vikings, Normans, these "Ulster Protestants" and their fluid identity will also assimilate and become more Irish than the Irish themselves. That is how settlers everywhere, and in all historical periods, become natives. 86.42.120.25 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion in the lead

I had recently changed the lead to read: "English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh, - who share the nation of the United Kingdom." An editor took it upon themselves to remove the reference to the Northern Irish and the United Kingdom, claiming they were reverting a "point of view change". A reference to the Northern Irish in regard to the UK is no more or less "point of view" than references to the English, Scots or Welsh. As such, I will change the article back to reflect (the reality of) all the sub-states of the UK.

Any objections should be discussed here before making further changes. --Setanta 04:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your problem here is the reference, which does not include Northern Ireland. This is one of those ambiguities in that Britain can refer just to Great Britain or it can refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As it stands it would be valid to revert without discussion both in terms of the reference and also as the change from the established position originated with you. However I think there may be another way around this which I will attempt. --Snowded TALK 05:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Setanta, the current version fails to mention Northern Irish in the opening by just saying the "island of Great Britain" which is simply incorrect and actually offensive. The unionists of Northern Ireland are among the most proud to be British in the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you get on your high horse, please read the comments and check the reference. --Snowded TALK 13:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Im sure we can find some better sources to more accurately word that sentence if sourcing is your only problem with it :). Remembering this is meant to be about British people not Britons (historical) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Northern Ireland residents are British Citizens and that is one meaning, but equally Britain normally applies to England/Wales/Scotland. Its not a question of what you think should be the case, or the pride of some sections of a population being proud of a particular citizenship. This is one of those problematic areas around the whole UK/British Isles/Ireland/Country issues and they are never simple. We need to work off facts and relevant citations. --Snowded TALK 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not about British citizenship, but equally it is not about britons (historical). Its about the people of northern ireland being British people. Northern Ireland is mentioned in detail in this article, i dont see why they should be excluded from the lead. If you dont want to list the individual home nations, it could atleast say Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than just "the island of Great Britain". There are plenty of sources describing Northern Irish people as British people. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what we think should be the case. A "people" is not the same thing as citizenship. An article on British Citizenship would require the sort of things you are talking about. An article on British People is different. Its not a clear and when its being looked at before there are contradictory sources, or issues of authority etc. You need to (i) address the page as it is titled and (ii) find citations then open up a discussion here. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Again as i said befere there are many sources calling people from northern Ireland "British people". They are not just British citizens they are British people. This article talks about Britishness of northern Irish people, so i do not see why it shouldnt get included in the opening paragraph. The wording suggested by Setanta seemed more accurate than the current wording and i still support it being changed back and then the correct sources may be added BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ You can say it as often as you want, this is not about what you think. Equating British People with British Citizenship is not self-evident and historically has not been the case - British and Irish were used. Find the authoritative sources that support your position, deal with the sources (already their) which do not include NI, make the case then we can look at amending the article. You'll have to do the work first, not just keep restating the same position. --Snowded TALK 20:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys... wouldn't this be better argued through citation? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think that is what I am suggesting. The current citation supports the current position --Snowded TALK 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures on front page?

I think we should have Margaret Thatcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.149.17 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

To remind people, the reason for this tag are the multiple violations of WP:SYNTH in the infobox. E.g. the population figures are drawn by editors adding up the combined multiple populations, and incidentally doing so in a semi-arbitrary non-transparent way (e.g. it's not up[ to us to decide ancestry as British, and why are Irish not British before the 1920s, why Scots-Irish British but not Irish (Scots-Irish doesn't follow the border), why are English before 1707 British, etc, etc). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then lets deal with that rather than leave a tag on the article for the best part of a year. --Snowded TALK 10:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you get rid of the ancestry crap, the figures for which are not derived from reliable sources (what someone with 16 different great-great-grand parents chooses to write down) and unclassifiable (what is British), and keep it to figures for people born in the UK living in those countries. That's pretty verifiable, isn't as spurious and won't force wiki editors to violate wiki policy by synth-ing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this? We simply say that: There are 60m British people of all thnicity, etc. Some 5.5m British people live overseas (ref to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/) with the following countries having the largest population: (List country table from BBC reference). --Snowded TALK 11:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember, whether British people are an ethnicity is an open topic. So British people, neutrally at least, are only people born in the UK as the UK and/or have citizenship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"British people" are those that have British roots, through one parent or both. This article really should just be an attept to combine the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish articles into one as thats basically what makes "British people". It shouldnt be getting into a debate about if "Britishness" actually exists. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored this article to its previous state before edits took place changing the numbers abroad to 5 million. This is totally inaccurate as it only deals with British citizens, this is about British people so should be basically the total of English, Welsh, Scots and (irish more confusingly) roots around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter does it? I, mean if we only include UK citizens and we say that, then it doesn't matter tht we have excluded people who identify as British who are not UK citizens, as long as we say that. I think Deacon is right, it's impossible to know how people identify, and it's clearly a synthesis to claim that just because someone claims British ancestry, that automatically makes them British. What we need is transparency, in that respect it doesn't matetr if we don't include people who are British but not UK citizens as long as we say that this figure is not easy to estimate from available data. We're not bound to come up with an estimate. The question here is about what's an obvious deduction against what's a synthesis. I must admit I'm mostly in agreement with Deacon. For example can we combine data from censuses from different countries? These countries probably ask different sorts of questions, eliciting different sorts of answers. Can we combine these and say that are compatible? Are the censuses measuring the same population? These issues are always tricky and it may be best to err on the side of caution. Alun (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Holmes as more than just a representative of the UK

Why is this page locked WITH Holmes posted front-and-center as a British person? She competed as a representative of the United Kingdom, not as a representative of the British people (a people who do not just live within the jurisdiction of the UK).

Not only is it absurd to say Holmes deserves to be listed among some of the most-celebrated British people in history and given the nod over, say, Margaret Thatcher, it is also some serious pov pushing for wikipedia to take one side of the ethnicity vs. citizenship debate (being born in a country vs. being of a stock which has long roots to that country) and slap it down as an undisputable fact. So Holmes is British just because of her citizenship? Well what if I were to try and replicate Holmes situation...move to Africa or Asia and father a Gold-medaling athlete in an African or Asian country. Could I expect Wikipedia to post a picture of my child on a webpage about the Chinese, etc? But I digress..

Not posting Holmes as a British person is neutral. Why? Because, after reading about what British people are in the article, the reader can decide whether she is or not. However, if Wikipedia makes so bold a move as to suggest that Holmes IS British, it is taking a side on the debate without so much as a debate..just as a similar situation would exist if Holmes were to be listed on a page called People who are not British, and no explanation were to follow. - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.202.183 (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Holmes was selected via a process of WP:CONSENSUS - the fundamental decision making tool on Wikipedia.

Holmes is British by way of British nationality law, as well as competing for Britain and having British ancestry. Your slim definitions of who is and isn't British is original research and not representative of the dynamics of the situation. If Holmes isn't British, what is she?

Winston Churchill never competed as a representative of the British people.

The United Kingdom has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world - it's more than fair play that that warrents mention. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Holmes is British by way of British nationality law, as well as competing for Britain and having British ancestry."

Your first two points illustrate British as a term regarding citizenship, not ethnicity. Is this article about citizenry in the Commonwealth or is it about something else? If it is about the British folk - people of a common heritage and their Christian-influenced, northern isle categorizations, then the first two points, her nationality and her competing for Britain, are moot.

That leaves the last point, the ethnicity question which I said Wikipedia would be wise to avoid if wants the world to take it seriously and see it as more than the political soapbox. Why else would Holmes be chosen over anyone else who lives in the UK if it weren't to make a statement about what "British" OUGHT TO mean today, as opposed to what it historically meant as an ethnicity?

"The United Kingdom has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world - it's more than fair play that that warrents mention."

This is probably the answer. But does a country's Labor's decision to go full throttle with immigrantion allowances change the way we are supposed to view ethnicity? Sure, those immigrants became citizens of the UK, for sure. But if I can have any sort of background and believe anything, and you call that an ethnicity, then what ethicity is "British" besides every ethnicity in the world? And if every other group in the world has an ethnicity, then what do we call the collective ethnicity of the historically-defined english, scottish and welsh peoples? Is that not Britishness and what forging a nation out of these ethnicities - forging Britishness - was about? With your last statement, about the UK's ethnically diverse population, the point remains that you are arguing in terms of a country and the people residing there - not an ethnicity. The funny thing is you even said Britain is ethnically diverse...how can an ethnicity be ethnically diverse? This leads me to believe this encyclopedia article argues (again, encylopedia's should never "argue"...) that Britishness is merely a title denoting naturalization. If I am right here, then it is my opinion that the tag at the top of the article is well-deserved.- G. Ward, 8 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.66.8 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has huge problems and i agree the warning flag is needed (possibly some others too) but i dont have a problem with Holmes being included on the image. We need to remember she is on there because her mother is English not because she is a British citizen. It would be odd to leave out Winston Churchill but he was part American so if Kelly cant be included, nor can he. To be honest i hate all of these "ethnicity pages" they are open to so much debate and problems. Although i would agree that Margret T deserves to be included on the image, instead of one of that actor perhaps. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be a case of the one-drop rule. Indeed, who is ethnically British? What definition are you (anon) alluding to? Sounds to me awfully 19th century; White British is not the only form of Britishness. If you're denying British identity to Holmes (who has a "British" name too) not for her Blackness, but because she is "half Jamaican" then Churchill ought to be denied for being half American too. All ethnicities are negotiated. But the page is about British people, not a British ethnic group (which itself doesn't have any formal or universally agreed upon definition). --Jza84 |  Talk  18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting jza, because I was thinking the same thing about your parameters for "ethnic british", that there appears to be a one-drop rule allowing inclusion in the traditional scottish/welsh/english joint ethnic-identity, which would be just as absurd as a 99% ethnically british person being turned away as ethnically non-british. That said, the problem isn't Holmes per se...it is what the article seems to be suggesting by making a case of Holmes, and what is in the text; that is, a tearing down of the old British identity and replacing it with a new, statist/multicultural definition while giving the traditional British people no identity at all. Note that the White British article uses the past tense - was - and refers to the title "White British" as a category which appeared on the census, nothing else...in a traditional sense, the British people page would be their page and it would be a page that reflects the culture, etc. of the "white" people rejoined by way of the British english/scottish/welsh...Anglomorate. Now, the people once thought to be the only contemporary Brits there were don't even have a link to the page that features them. - G. Ward--172.163.66.8 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity changes over time. We can not change the fact that British people over the past centuries have had children with non British people. Now from my understanding what matters is that atleast one of the persons parents trace their roots back to Britain to be classed as of "British ethnicity" Kelly Holmes mother was English, and there for British. This would be exactly the same if we were dealing with someone whos mother was english but father was French. An immigrant family that moves here from Bulgaria and both become British citizens would not be classed as "British people" BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Northern Irish then? And I hope by Anglomorate you mean Agglomorate, not a play on Anglocentrism. ;)

I'm afraid I can't agree with your views on this. It just appears to be, with the greatest respect, the anti-black rhetoric that appears on this talk page every quarter by a comparable group of ips. Indeed, "old British identity", "traditionally British people" - cite your sources - what defintitions (other than your own) are you alluding to? What is your scholarly basis? There are fundamental gaps in your arguments in what constitutes a people, an ethnic group and a nation. You're confusing notions of national myths, essentialist primordialism and imagined communities with the realities of society.

Not convinced? Take a look at the published domain. I assure you we're mirroring real world practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate one point - this article does not pretend to be just about ethnically British people, however that might be defined. It is about all "British people", a term that can be defined according to a wide range of definitions, including residence, nationality, origin, etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article not about British people just as there is one about Scottish people Irish people Welsh people and English people? This is not meant to be about British citizens. British is an ethnic group

Right, that is my point exactly. This article tries to do too many things while ignoring the last known definition of "British", before multiculti, and before state and nation apparently lost their connection to one another, almost completely...Jza, what is the purpose of the link? that Holmes, a British national, is ethnically British? It suggests nothing of the sort. As for your other points, I have replied to them on your page since I wanted to discuss your claims, a distraction from the matter at hand.

I also want to point out that no, I did see the slightest bit of respect in what you last wrote, which would have been like me saying "your reply was riddled with generalizations that only brainwashed, school-manufactured liberal puppets use, complete with the obligatory ad hominem substitute for a real argument: you too must be anti-black! (which is completely absurd)" G. Ward --172.162.136.62 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Holmes is a British citizen and her mother was British. I do not see how you can have a problem with her being included on the image.. she clearly fits the criteria required but if you object to those who only have one British parent then we would have to remove WInston Churchill as said before because he was part American. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BW, see: 172.163.66.8 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) it isn't Kelly per se, it is the ambiguity of the article and its lack of focus on Britishness as a conglomeration/compromise/subjugation of Scottish, English and Welsh religious beliefs, values, traditions, national histories, eccentricities, families, industries, etc...the ethno-cultural identity of Britishness. - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.136.62 (talk)

Estimates of large populations elsewhere in the world

I am sorry but i dont understand how this can be just 5 million people? If there are 2 million welsh, 9 million Scots, and 28 million English in the USA how the hell can there only be 5 million British people "elsewhere in the world".. That is just stupid and does not make any sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to the most recent version which showed the break down of "british" people in other countries. I would rather the unpublished synthesis tag remain than this article become totally inaccurate and wrong. This article is about British people NOT British citizens which that change to 5 million talks about. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the comments above and you'd learn why there's an apparent discrepancy. The other thing of course is just because one article is bs doesn't mean others have to be. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about British citizens, or people of British ethnicity. If its the last which i thought it was then the list showing information of those with British roots around the world is the correct information, rather than the figure for British citizens abroad. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this articles info box should be like that of the French people article. Where there is a column for numbers of French citizens and where, but also one for those of french ancestry and where. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

British People

Can someone please explain to me what this article is meant to be about. I was under the impression it was about "British people" as an ethnic group and or nation. Just like there is an Irish people, Welsh people, English people and Scottish people. This article is not meant to be about British citizens otherwise why doesnt that link here? This has nothing to do with the comments above about Kelly Holmes, she is a British citizen but she is also British as her mother is English/British. At the moment the info box is now suggesting that this is just about British citizens. If thats the case then i find it deeply offensive and will be adding a totally disputed tag shortly if this is not cleared up BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

British people = British citizen. Of course I could argue that only us celts really count as the rest of you are saxon and norman immigrants and your inclusion as "British" would deeply offend me. --Snowded TALK 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• In which case to talk like that you'd be ignoring all articles about 'Celts and Saxons' posted on Wikipedia with any academic backing. 203.134.188.226 (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all British people are British citizens. THis article is also not about Britons (historical). If this is meant to be about British citizens, why does the British citizens link to an article on nationality law. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK BW, please define what you mean by a British Person. On history, when does it start? Was William I a British Citizen? Even if not all British people are British Citizens, all British Citizens are British People.

I dont understand what this article is meant to be about which is why im asking for an explanation. "British citizens" are people who hold British citizenship, something that can be applied for and obtained in several years or through birth. "British" as an ethnic group, which would include those who consider themselves White British or Black British etc which means you are of British ancestory. Like there are millions of Scottish-Americans who trace their roots back to Scotland. Or is this article meant to be just a general article on British people / citizens and as a nation/ethnic group. If thats the case, why does British citizens not link to this article and why do we not have a info box like on French people which shows both ancestory and citizens. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Incidentally I really think you should delete your statement "We can not change the fact that British people over the past centuries have breeded with non British people." Its unfortunate to say the least. --Snowded TALK 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for my previous comment it wasnt said in a negative way, it was the cleanest way i could think of at the time to describe the fact that millions of "British people" and or "British citizens" have had children with non "British people" or "British citizens" BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Its still a mistake and could easily be misinterpreted so I suggest you remove it. At the moment you have not justified the tag that you placed on the article . Are you really saying that some British Citizens are not British People? That would be a very dangerous statement. --Snowded TALK 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i changed the comment just to be clear. The point i am trying to make is best shown on French people. That clearly explains that it is about both.. "The legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry. For a legal discussion, see French nationality law." and "People whose ancestors lived in France or the area that later became France.". My problem is if this is about both then it shouldnt just mention British citizens abroad in the info box. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying that some British Citizens are not British People? That would be a very dangerous statement. It can't be all that dangerous when some British nationals support that position themselves...so they can come to the UK and decide whether or not they want to become British and we can't even say if they have become British or not?

Based on the idea that all British Citizens are British people, "anyone with legal status in the UK" is more or less the definition of British identity...ok, this makes sense if "British" is viewed as an identity of residency, but not if it is an ethnic identity! "Anyone with legal status" is not an ethnicity...this dual state of naturalization-made Britishness and ethnic British identity is terribly confusing. Is it possible to have a page for each? The former could discuss every prominent culture in Britain under the sun, while the latter would focus on characteristics and culture of the native population. That might be a good solution. G. Ward --172.162.136.62 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The "native population" would include Kelly Holmes which you were objecting to above because she is of native British blood. Just for the record i am not trying to exclude people like the above poster. My problem is just how since the change today the info box only talks about "British citizens" It is treating "British people" a different way to Welsh people Irish people Scottish people English people, French people etc by not including information about those with British ancestory around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then that is a third category of Britishness - not cultural or that of citizenship, but of origin...to the Isles. G. Ward --172.162.136.62 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on British culture and British citizenship, Britishness and even one on Britons (historical). This article is meant to be about British people which includes citizens but is not JUST about citizens. Thats why i have a problem with the change today which removed information on people of British ancestory around the world. I dont think we need a separate article to divide up British people. In my opinion French people is a very good way of doing it. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it you want to have a style like currently used for Germany. They have German people and Ethnic Germans? I dont know if that would be needed considering we have entire articles on English people, Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people. As i said a moment ago this article is meant to be about British people therefor the info box only containing info about "British citizens abroad" is an incorrect change which is my main problem right now, there are plenty of other problems with the article as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

BW I think you have to come up with a definition of Britishness if you don't want to use citizenship. If you saying born of someone who is a British Citizen then is it one generation back or 15? Are you saying that someone who is the fifth generation child of former British people living in the US then you need to make that clear, and how much dilution of ethnicity is allowed. I don't think you can do it. --Snowded TALK 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the article needs to be about one single definition of "British people", which is inevitably going to be contentious. Clearly, from the debate on this page, people use a multiplicity of definitions, based on residence, citizenship, "ethnicity", etc. (not forgetting the question of which areas are covered by the term "British"). The article can remain under the useful umbrella title "British people", and can (hopefully, not at great length) summarise (and/or link to) all of those definitions, and the overlaps and differences between them. It can then go on to the substance underlying each of them - genetics, nationality law, etc. - recognising that careful explanation will be required in each case of what the parameters are. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle that is should cover all these areas. Snowded the point i am making is English people Scottish people Welsh people Irish people French people German people are not just about citizens. That is why i find it offensive if this article is only going to suggest that being British simply means you are a citizen of the United Kingdom. Those of English, Scottish, Welsh ancestory are also of British ancestory and information on that should be included in the info box as it has been for a year, it gets more complicated when dealing with the Irish though ofcourse. This article was better with the synthesis tag showing that information than the article is without, because it is simply incorrect, inaccurate and deeply offensive to people who consider themselves British and not just British citizens. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Responsible editors here should be concerned with neutrality and keeping the article in line with policy and the interest of readers, not promoting interest of nationalist agendas. Sources compiled in that way violate WP:SYNTH ... it's against policy. The editor has added up other figures in a non transparent, and potentially arbitrary and biased manner, and presented sources to support that don't actually do that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The only validated data I could find is the BBC site which lists citizens over seas. There is no valid source for some abstract concept of Britishness and that data just has to go! I am happy not to have one defintion BW, but just a few would help, more specifically who you would not include. --Snowded TALK 16:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would show the information on people with English, Scottish and welsh ancestory, with a note explaining that Irish ancestory is not included for obvious reasons. I am not strongly supporting the present info box where it just shows total "British ancestory" or "UK ancestory" i would be fine with a break down showing the different British ancestory in each country so we see number of English, Welsh, Scottish and allow people to do the maths themselves if really needed. What i am strongly objecting to is the attempt to turn British people into just "British citizens" which is not the case. European Americans does exactly the same thing but i notice there are no tags on that article claiming its original research because someone added up some figures.

Also if we actually look at the 2000 U.S census - http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf over 1 million Americans described themselves as of British ancestory. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The information on British citizens abroad is also useful, although it should be fully laid out and not just " est 5.5 million elsewhere". But as this article is about both British citizens and British ancestory we should perhaps do something like French people which includes both. Whilst i understand peoples concerns about adding up some figures to come up with the information, it is FAR more POV and offensive to claim that only British citizens are British people and it goes against the articles for all other countries "people" BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ OK so the census data from the US is a statement that can be cited. It doesn't justify a synthesised table. --Snowded TALK 16:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The US census is an example, im sure there are other countries that have recorded people as of "British" ancestry. The point is "British people" should be treated the same way as English people Welsh people and Scottish people, all people who have that ancestry are British. Alex Salmond is not just a British citizen he also of British ancestry even though he may be against the idea of being "British". Like i said before i would like to see the table show English Scottish and Welsh ancestory for each country rather than just a UK total. But just mentioning British citizens abroad in the info box is more inaccurate than the present version which nobody had removed for a year. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I still dont see how we are doing something different to European Americans which basically adds up all the European groups to come up with a total, but i notice no tag on that one. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also an entire article on British American. Its not like someone just made up the idea for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The table is OR. Specific citable material relating to British Origin if they are notable and no undue weight then its OK for them to be there. ~But the table has to go.

The Australian census also includes ancestry - as discussed in Anglo-Celtic Australian --HighKing (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about British people. It is not about UK citizens. UK citizens do not form a subset of British people. By that I mean that some UK citizens will not consider themselves British people, especially insular nationalists (e.g. English, Scottish or Welsh nationalists). On the other hand, often people who do not have UK citizenship may consider themselves British people due to ancestry (having British grandparents for example), or to socio-cultural affiliations. When it comes to individuals I think we can use a general rule of thumb that someone with UK citizenship is British unless there is evidence that they have specifically rejected this identity in the past. ON the other hand, when it comes to individuals who are not UK citizens I think we need to be a bit more careful and take the opposite approach, for non-UK citizens I think we need to use a rule of thumb that says we need evidence that these people actively identify as British people. Alun (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For tables and lists we need to be much more careful. I am somewhat confused by the infobox when it asks for "Regions with significant populations". That's a loaded phase if ever there was one. What's a "significant population"? Wiktionary says significant can mean:

1. Signifying something; carrying meaning.
2. Having a covert or hidden meaning
3. Having a noticeable or major effect; notable

   That was a very significant step in the right direction.

4. Reasonably large in number or amount
5. (statistics) Having a low probability of occurring by chance (for example, having high correlation and thus likely to be related).

I think number four is our best bet here. I would suggest that our rule of thumb could be that a significant population is some arbitrary proportion of the population that claims a British identity or British ethnicity. What would be a good arbitrary proportion? Greater than 5% maybe? That would be one in 19 people? I am deeply sceptical of including census data about ancestry. Ancestry is not the same as identity, just because someone has British ancestry it does not necessarily make them a British person, and where do we stop? One parent? One grandparent? Are we to have a one drop rule for Britishness, where any trace amount of claimed British ancestry makes one British? And why is claimed British ancestry more important than self identity? Why include white people" with a claimed tiny amount of British ancestry, but not black people with an unknown amount of British ancestry? Especially when the black person may well identify as British, but he white person may not. That makes no sense. Even when we know that many people who have UK citizenship and British ancestral residence for centuries do not consider themselves British. I don't think we need to have any hard and fast rules here, that would be trying to fit a square block into a round hole, but I do think we need to justify the inclusion of the data in the infobox. The way to do that sensibly is to justify each conclusion on a case by case basis here on the talk page. For example I cannot be the only one who thinks that 36,000 UK citizens in China is not a particularly significant or notable fact. Alun (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Black

I think the black women of at the top right should be removed. She is not ethnicly british. She is only a citizen

Her mother is British, there for she is British. She isnt just a British citizen. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we to conclude from anon's post that people with UK citizenship are automatically not British? What's the justification for this claim? I'd say that UK citizenship, although not a guarantee that someone identifies as British, is certainly good evidence that someone identifies as British. Obviously many people with UK citizenship will not identify as British, particularly English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, so we must be careful not to claim that all people with UK citizenship are ipso facto British people. But on balance I think it is fair to assume that people with UK citizenship identify as British unless they are on record as rejecting such an identity. Certainly skin colour is irrelevant, this is about British people, in that respect it should be as inclusive as possible, it doesn't say "British people except for people who are not white" as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

to which I ask why people with UK citizenship are automatically British...where is the justification for your claim? Why should we assume that everyone living in the UK with citizenship is British until proven otherwise? Why should it not be the other way around? After all, nobody could argue that these immigrants were British until they came to the Isles in the first place...it is backwards logic to assume that they somehow transformed into something "British" without providing the evidence that they did in the first place. - G. Ward

I don't think I have claimed that "people with UK citizenship are automatically British", so why should I justify it? Indeed I say explicitly above that many people with UK citizenship may well not identify as British, especially insular nationalists such as English, Scottish or Welsh nationalists. I bet Alex Salmond doesn't identify as British. Kelly Holmes isn't an immigrant, she was born in England. Her father was an immigrant, but her mother was not. You seem to be saying that someone born in Britain to an English mother is somehow not British. Furthermore there are a great many people who were born in Britain who have two immigrant parents, those people clearly are not immigrants, one cannot be an immigrant to the country one is born in. Possibly you don't believe that an imigrant can fully integrate into a society, but the children of immigrants don't need to integrate, they are of that society, and so, of course, are British. You want to pretent there are different classes of people born in Britain, "real" British people and "fake" British people. You may believe that, but we don't publish the opinions of editors here. Alun (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says that a black British person can't be ethnically British? The ethnic identity Black British is a well accepted sociological and anthropological group, and this group includes cultural and social influences from Britain, Africa and the Caribbean, furthermore people who identify as belonging to this group include the word British in their ethnonym indicating an acceptance of British identity. Gosh when did Great Britain and Ireland adopt a US style Color-line? Alun (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is beside the point. In fact, those arguing in favor of Holmes claim her special situation makes her something other than "Black British" and that is the reason for her inclusion in the article. The "Black British" have no historic roots to the land or culture and pay homage to a particular, separate ancestry...what do they have in common with the native population, which they are already choosing to distance themselves from by rejecting the stand-alone title of "British"? You said "Black British" is an ethnonym that indicates acceptance...acceptance of what? The state and its sovereignty? Seems to make sense, considering relocation to the Isles is the only reason why people like you argue that they are "British" in the first place. Why do you consider these people "British people" and not "Black british people"?

What "special situation"? I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. I am not going to put up with racist claptrap. If you are going to make statements like "no historic roots to the land or culture and pay homage to a particular, separate ancestry" (homage, what's that supposed to mean?) which appears to be BNP nonsense-speak, then I expect you'll get blocked quite quickly. It also ignores the fact that of course British culture was exported massively during the period of Empire, so nearly all of the people who migrated in the post Second World War period certainly did have deep historic roots to British culture. There are plenty of reliable sources that allow us to include any Black or Asian British person as British in this article. Personally I'd like Nasser Hussain, but maybe he's more English? Do you think he's a so called "special case" as well? Alun (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come now. If your mother gave birth to you as a teenager - after getting knocked up by a Jamaican immigrant handyman - and you went on to win an Olympic medal for the land of your birth, making you a known figure and leaving Wikipedians to argue about your relationship to the British people...you don't think that would be a "special situation"? So where is the line drawn, Alun? What if her situation was just a little bit different? What if her name was foreign (someone actually mentioned that a name like "Holmes" illustrated that she was British); what if her mom's parents were of British and non-British heritage and THEN an immigrant got her pregnant? What if she turned to Islam and became a Muslim and did nothing to obtain particular fame as a representative of the UK? When does she cease to be British in your book, given that you currently see her as British in more than a residential sense regardless of her English-born mother?- G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.61.78 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The line is not "drawn" anywhere. If Holmes were to say, for example, "I have never felt really British", then I would say that, fair enough you have a reiliable source that states that she is not British, and we would have to remove her image.

you just drew a line. Unfortunately, this entertains only one notion of Britishness: identity, not citizenship. For example, it doesn't matter if someone hates America; if they are born in America, until they opt for new citizenship somewhere else, they are American. American is strictly a citizenship classification. Head to Europe, and the opposite becomes true: British is like German in the sense that the state identity says something about the ethnic identity...or at least it used to. What I mean is Holmes, in one sense of Britishness, will be "British" until she is no longer a citizen. In another sense, perhaps it is about choice (self-identity) and in another, which reflects heritage...again, it comes down to an argument about drawing the line and personal opinions: can you be of part Swedish, African, Chinese, Saudi, Mexican ancestry and say that you are Swedish, Nigerian, Chinese, etc.? To tie this all to the article, the problem is the British people article talks about "British people" as one of many categorizations and then lists someone like Holmes as a Briton and "facts" like many Britons are Muslims...without realizing what is actually being said. - G. Ward

As for a "special case". No it's not. She's not the only person to have an immigrant parent and a non-immigrant parent and rise to prominence. There are also many people with two immigrant parents who have risen to prominence who would identify strongly as British. The point is not what you believe. The point is what reliable sources tell us. Holmes is there because she's a prominent British person, and not because of any "special cirumstance". Sure, the fact that she's a British person of colour is important, part of the reason she's there is to show that British people are a heterogeneous group, which includes individuals from many social and racial backgrounds. But I think you are claiming she's not British because of her skin colour and not because she has an immigrant parent. She might have two black parents and neither of those black parents might be immigrants. Do you mean immigrant or do you mean black? What about someone like Rosalind Franklin? Or for that matter her uncle Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel? Are they British? They are from a Jewish family that settled in the Uk in the nineteenth century. What about Peter Ustinov? Is he British because he's white, even though both his parents were immigrants. Is this about "race" or is it about being British? Alun (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get into a case by case analysis, and judging by your latter comment, you too have realized how futile it would be to do this. This is because "British" means several things to different people...and it isn't just because some people make ethnic considerations and others don't, it is because "Britishness" is a term used to talk about several different concepts. The article acknowledges this, but the sidebar, in particular, does not. - G. Ward

Kelly Holmes's mother is English, but I don't think that's the issue, one is British if one is identified as British by others, and one identifies themselves as British, in that sense Lenny Henry (Caribbean ancestry) is as British as, say, Prince Charles (German, Scottish and Greek ancestry), both identify as British and are identified by others as British. Alun (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is still inherent in the article, which rides the assumption that UK citizenship = Britishness, a definition all are not willing to agree to. Meanwhile, others insist that it is blood that determines inclusion - and make their own claims using a one-drop rule of inclusion. Both are ridiculous assumptions, and dilute British identity to the point where just about everyone can say they are "British", just about any practice can be considered "British" and nobody is happy with the results except those who wanted to make the definition as ambiguous as possible in the first place. - G. Ward

Blood? What like type O+ or something? I'm happy to concede that some right wing racists still have bizarre ideas about biology that are not supported by modern population genetics. If you want to include this racist point of view in the article, then I suggest you go and find a reliable source, include the point of view in the article, and then cite it correctly. Then the article will have both points of view as per our neutrality policy. But you can't just include your personal opinion, that would be original research. And you can't demand that a perfectly well verified point of view should be removed just because you personally disagree with it. Alun (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice. The boy who cried "racist"...twice. First of all, to suggest that Kelly Holmes is British because her mother is English as you said IS to suggest that blood is important, so don't try to paint me with some wide brush of ignoramus based on your seemingly purposeful literal interpretations. I am speaking figuratively. Homage? You described it yourself: "this group includes cultural and social influences from...Africa and the Caribbean" Using phrases like "Racist claptrap" and "BNP nonsense-speak" to try and discredit my observation that these people maintain something that the populations who have been on the Isles for hundreds of years do not, often influencing their self-image and setting them apart...from those I would consider British peoples, not Britain's people, is to throw a scaley, slimey, flapping red herring into the discussion and hope the people are hungry for fish.- G. Ward

OK, I offended you. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. Sometimes we all write things before thinking. I never meant to suggest anyone here was "racist". I meant to say that I wasn't going to put up with comments like "no historic roots to the land or culture" which I do consider a racist comment. You might not find it racist, you might not find it offensive, but I do. I didn't say she was British because her mother was English, I said she was British because there's no evidence that she doesn't identify as British. She was born on the island of Great Britain, in England (people from England are more likely to identify as British than people from Wales and Scotland), she spent her formative years living on that island. There's absolutely no reason to assume that she identifies as anything else. I personally think that you discredit your own observation when you make comments like "no historic roots to the land or culture". I have absolutely no idea why you think that I said she was British because her mother is English, I never said that. Alun (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is not a choice. You cant choose not to be English just as you cant choose not to be British. Alex Salmond is Scottish but he is also British no matter what he thinks about the union. We should not be treating "British" as any different to any other group such as Welsh, French, English, Scottish, German etc. Other nations do handle this in different ways but they note there is a difference between citizenship and actual ethnicity. Anyone can become a British citizen tomorrow morning, but it doesnt mean they are of English or "British ethnicity" or "ancestory" or however you want to word it.

Now Germany has two articles one for Germans but also one for Ethnic Germans, unlike the French who have French people which covers both citizens and "people". Doing something like the French article seems like the safest and most inclusive method in my opinion. And as i said before, Kelly Holmes has a British mother there for she is not just a "British citizen". Ancestory is the thing that splits the two, skin colour should have nothing to do with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not a choice. I'm sure Alex Salmond didn't wake up one day and say "I'm going to choose not to feel British". I'm sure it's got everything to do with his own personal feelings of identity. At heart this is an anthropological question. In fact group affiliation and identity are complex and can't easily be put into neat little boxes as some seem to believe. As I understand it anthropologists tend to define identity as contextually activated. I'll give you a personal example of what this means. I come from South Wales, when I visit North Wales, I feel out of place, the context of being in North Wales makes me feel more South Welsh, I oppose my South Welshness to the (foreign) North Welshness of those around me. Now when I am in England (I lived in England for many years) I feel very Welsh, not South Welsh, but generically Welsh, I oppose my Welsh identity the (foreign) English identity of those around me. Now I live in Finland, I feel British, not particularly Welsh, but definitely British. We always define ourselves in opposition to what is foreign or alien or just plain different about the culture/environment around us. Usually we don't feel like this at all, because most people live in a familiar environment, so mostly we don't 'feel' anything except "normal" for this place where we come from. This doesn't only apply to ethnicity, I'm a biologist, when I worked in a lab with lots of chemists I felt strongly that they didn't understand my discipline at all. So when and how we feel about our identities are not constant. (for more on this see Monaghan and Just (2000) Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction[1] and ethnic group). We cannot divorce politics from identity. Sure Salmond has UK citizenship, and sure there may be a good case to suggest that sometimes he probably does feel British, although we can't "prove" that. He would probably never admit that he ever feels British due to his politics. But if we find a reliable source where he says that he does not consider himself British, then you can't then say here "Salmond is British because I say he is". There is never going to be a "one size fits all" solution to this, and it's futile trying to pretend that there is. The UK is a very heterogeneous place, and I bet there are a million different opinions about what it means to be a "British person". Our job then is not to include what "we believe". Our job is to find the predominant views of experts and authorities, and include those views in the article. In one sense I agree with G. Ward, there is a point of view that people of colour are not British. I don't agree with that point of view. But I accept that if a reliable source can be found that expresses that point of view, then we should include it in the article. On the other hand I think we should include the opposite point of view as well. We're here to write an encyclopaedia and not to express our own opinions. Alun (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The French example is a good one to follow, IMHO. - G. Ward

Religion, the British are not only Christian!

In the information box, under the Religion section, it only says, Christianity, but a lot of British poeple are also Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh, as well as agnostic and atheist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.235.218 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I added Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. Alun (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The above-mentioned peoples are citizens of the UK...it does not mean they are British people. If everyone and everything can be British...then what exactly IS British but nothing at all? Islam and Hinduism is British? Following your logic, every religion to which anyone in Britian subscribes should be listed...unless you are insinuating that the cut off is numerically-based. What percentage of the population has to follow a certain religion before it is deemed "British", according to your definition? Why not include the Scientologists and Odinists while we're at it? - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.227.63 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any "above mentioned peoples", so I don't know who you are referring to when you say "are citizens of the UK". We're talking about religion here and not people. As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as a "British religion" as you seem to be suggesting when you say "religion before it is deemed "British"". I don't think any religion is ever "deemed British". Are Islam, Judaism and Hinduism major world religions? Why yes. Are there a great many people in Britain who follow these religions and also identify as British? why yes. Is any other point relevant? Why no. Alun (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am referencing the first person's comment, about the "British people" who are allegedly also Muslims, Hindus, etc. My point is that these people are citizens of the UK - not British people. Sure, you could also say that they are British citizens, but that is because "British" comes from a state identity which was once fused with and refered to an ethno-religious identity. To list these religions as the religions of the British people suggests that these religions are a part of being British...and again makes absurd proclamations about who and what is British. - G. Ward.

Hi G. Ward,

What I find absurd is your lack of references. The burden of proof is on you if you seek a change, not us. Why not cite some scholarly, academic, neutral, published references? With respect, your opinion is irksome without any evidence that it has real world use.

Also, I might be white, with 100% (for sake of argument) British ancestry (English, Scottish, Welsh), but converted to Islam last month - I'm now a practicing muslim. Does that mean I'm no longer British? ;) Again, there are fundamental gaps in your knowledge and critical thinking here IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof? Cute. Let me remind you what we are dealing with here: the question of what is and who is a British person. This is not about proving that man walked on the moon or that wikipedia is bad for your blood pressure...things that one could attempt to prove...it is about an opinion on attempted classification, which is highly political. How ironic that all this nonsense about sources, proof and neutrality comes after anon suggested that religions x, y and z are practiced within the jurisdiction of the UK and are therefore religions which somehow define the British people. Note that no questions followed, like "where are the sources for your conclusion?", "why are these people to be considered not just citizens of the Uk but also British people?" C'mon, where is the great orchestration and opposition to these changes? "Gaps in my knowledge or critical thinking" - again, you use blanket assumptions to "discredit" me without offering anything discrediting at all. You did this before. This time, all you are doing in the above example is toying with the notion of what is British and what is not, playing devil's advocate in gray territory and taking advantage of the liberal climate to challenge every traditional conception of what is "Britishness" is...this has nothing to do with sources, it is about redefining and challenging traditional conceptions of Britishness vs. standing with them. Lack of sources saying these people may be British citizens, but not British people? Where are the sources that say all those who are British in the sense that they are citizens are also British people? - G. Ward

Yes, the cute but official Burden of Proof.

well what about that claim regarding the notion of "Pakistani Scots", which hinges on a citation in a now-broken link to a 420 pot-culture magazine article? Classic, now there's a reliable source. Again with the double standards. - G. Ward.

Pakistani Scots.[2][3][4][5] Alun (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no sources? I'll ask again: I'm white, with 100% British ancestry, but converted to Islam last month. I'm now a practicing muslim. Am I British? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt: What is the definition of a British person (cite your source please)? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version is correct, Islam etc are major religions in the United Kingdom. As Jza84 has said, being muslim does not stop you from being British, especially considering 1000s do convert to islam. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current version is correct (in a sense), but the article is still in a terrible condition. I imagine the article to be something quite different, but never have the time to take the plunge and be prepared for the political opposition and obligatory trolling. Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation is probably the best book about the British people ever published (I've only skim read it in a library and its a very comprehensive, neutral and, um, thick book). My point being that we need to improve this page more towards its potential. I've confident that even some of G. Ward's inclins could get a mention in the prose about citizenship, migration, and cultural appropriation etc. I've no doubt some of the stuff about North West England's large, segregated Asian communities would provide the material about how Britishness is viewed, appropriated and even rejected. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the article itself needs alot of work, making a distinction between British citizens and those of British ancestry is important and something other "people" articles do alot better. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the French people article be a good model to follow? - at least the intro is clear as to what it is about, and the different definitions. If we agree that it is a good basic structure, the next step would be to try to agree how the existing text here could be remodelled, and if necessary cut or expanded, to fit that structure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The French people article is relevant to French people. I'm not sure that we can take the factors that are used to identify one group of people and fairly transpose it onto another. Reading the French people introduction it is apparent that it includes say French Canadian for example ("People whose ancestors lived in France or the area that later became France"). If we used that definition here it would mean that we automatically include many US citizens, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans etc. Is it right to automatically include these people? I'm not sure it is. As I've said before, I think it is counterproductive to try and strictly "define" what it means to be British, that's because there are probably thousands of different ways to think of being British, it means different things to different people. What we need to do is find reliable source and say what those sources think being British means. For example something like Who Cares About Britishness: A Global View of the National Identity Debate or There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation or British Cultural Identities or A Sense of Belonging: Dilemmas of British Jewish Identity or The British World: Diaspora, Culture and Identity. All of these look like reliable sources to me. What do they say about being British? I really don't think it's up to us as editors to define Britishness. It's up to us as editors to find out how reliable sources define Britishness. Here's a free online article about British Muslims that has something to say about Britishness "British Identity: an open and plural identity" and Google books Contemporary British Identity, Guardian special report Islam, Race and British identity, Prospect Magazine articles about British identity and citizenship, lecture course IMMIGRATION, RACE AND BRITISHNESS IN MODERN BRITAIN. We should be citing reliable sources such as these and including these points of view in the article, obviously there's plenty of material out there. Alun (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Well said. In sum: don't try to define "British people", explore the title and the ways others look at it. Report, don't define. This is the number one change that needs to be done to the article: change the focus, remember the intent. - G. Ward

Well Jza, you would obviously be a UK citizen, and "British" in that sense...but because you would be rearranging your life in a way that makes you function in a way that best mirrors majority populations in other lands...why would you continue to consider yourself British at heart? Because you'd still file your taxes in the UK? Frankly, I don't see why you think conceptions of British identity - as an ethnoclasm - automatically change as the composition of the state changes. How does the presence of other Islam-following UK citizens in the British Isles suddenly alter how we are to perceive Britishness? Still, all this is beside the point; the greatest problem with the article is its title, which is dubious. You can't say the British people are this and that and then just write in an all-encompassing "they believe in Islam" without understanding that this means we are applying this attribute, falsely, to multiple definitions of "British people"...

I think it is interesting what BritishWatcher says:"the current version is correct, Islam etc are major religions in the United Kingdom"...is it the same to say "Islam is a major British religion", "Islam is a major religion of the British people", "Islam is a major religion of British citizens" and "Islam is a major religion in the UK"? Again, this is the problem. This article claims to be about the British people...yet it talks about the British peoples (the people within the UK state).

I read Colley's book - had to. "The Long Eighteenth Century" also talks about the forging of British identity...granted, the considerations of the 18th cent. probably no longer define Britishness the same way that today's descendants from the Isles feel it (i.e. nation-state rivalries, anti-catholicism, the centrality of the sea to everyday life, pride in empire, etc. are non-influential today), but I think to a certain extent, the fact that this heritage exists and the British heroes and other relics from the past continue to be a part of conceived identity...while others have their own heritage, culture and beliefs...still illustrates where one sense of Britishness ends and others, influenced by the effects of the multicultural state, begin. When we talk about the citizenry of the UK, all citizens ought to be included, for sure. But when we talk about those who are influenced by a long history on the Isles and no longer think of themselves in terms of Scottish, Welsh or English...what are they besides British? And if not British, what title do we give them if we wish to talk about them exclusively?- G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.63.148 (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So I deduce from your answer that if I don't feel British at heart, then I'm not British? Is that your definition of British ethnicity then G. Ward? Would I not be a British person? Does that mean Alex Salmond isn't British? There are fundamental inconsistencies in your answers which demonstrate why this is a purely far right rhetoric and sensibility in a way to disclude black and muslim peoples as British, but include WASPs. Furthermore, your ip range is that of the same one that comes to this talk page every so often to remove mentions of BME persons. In this capacity, I won't be supporting your proposals. And until you begin to cite your sources, I will work to the principle of WP:DFTT - Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion, you must use the talk page to present evidence for change and improvement to our encyclopedia, not your personal opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point Jza84. Apparently "feeling" British is important for G.Ward when it comes to "white" people, but if you're not white then however much you "feel" British you can't be. That's a double standard. I suspect your attitude is correct, this is not a forum for any editors oppinion about what constitutes Britishness. I'm sure there are plenty of online forums that do discuss these things is G. Ward wants to ahvea discussion about it. Here we need to discuss the article. Alun (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jza, you are using words like "British" without describing which sense of "British" you are talking about. There are at least three. After that, all I see in your response are more generalizations, more attempts to attack my character and more preaching about providing sources in spite of the lack of even one source claiming all conceivable definitions of British people provide the grounds for including Muslims living in the UK in the mix. Don't bother looking, because you won't find one. Remember, I said ALL CONCEIVABLE DEFINITIONS.

So no, I fail to see what you find so wonderful about Jza's response, Alun...especially the accusation that I come to this site to remove mentions of BMEs (huh? BMEs?) The ip is altered because it is directed through an AOL server, which means there are billions of people "in the same range". I'm really holding back here, you have been nothing BUT disrespectful. Frankly, everything I have said is with the intention of improving the article. Again, I will restate the problem: there are at least three instances of Britishness, and this article covers several of them without saying what characteristics belong to which. When are you going to start answering my questions instead of wasting your time trying to convince others of my alleged "motives"? - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.12.198 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BME = Black and Minority Ethnic persons. There's a question answered. It's a term commonly used in material about the ethnicity of the British people. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is Britishness? Points of view

So I got to look at a paper by Rebecca Langlands (1999) "Britishness or Englishness? The Historical Problem of National Identity in Britain", Nations and Nationalism 5:53-69 doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.1999.00053.x. I was interested because I always thought that Britishness is a modern invention, at least post 1707. She makes some observations that are directly relevant to the discussions on this talk page that we have recently been having.

The dominant ‘modemisation’ perspective on the nature of nations and national identities characterises these phenomena as purely modem artefacts which function as sociological cement for complex industrial societies. In opposition, Anthony D. Smith has elaborated an ‘ethno-symbolist’ framework which posits the possibility of premodern antecedents to modem national identities....This paper evaluates Smith's ethno-symbolist thesis by applying his work on the relationship between states and ethnic cores to the historical example of Britain. What is Britishness? Is it just a transnational state patriotism, or is it a secondary form of national identity constructed largely in English terms?

She takes these points of view and expands upon then thus:

..is Britishness a political and territorial identity or does it operate on civic and ethnic levels at the same time?.. Interpretations of Britishness from a 'modernisation' perspective on nations and nationalism argue that it is the former. In opposition to earlier essentialist and primordialist characterisations of the nation as a human constant, 'modernists' argue that the nation is an historically recent artefact arising out of specific modern conditions. From this point of view, Britishness is a 'political tradition' that has been selectively generated by state elites in order to counteract the divisive tendencies of modernity and its concomitants: capitalism, industrialisation, impersonal centralised bureaucracies and so forth... While conceding that nations have certain distinctively modem features - a mass educational culture, an integrated economy and common legal rights and duties for all members - Smith argues that modem nations also require pre-modern ethnic foundations in order to mobilise and integrate diverse cultural and social elements (Smith 1988: 11). The unifying myths (of putative origins and descent), symbols and memories of pre-modem ethnic communities (which he calls ethnies) not only provide these foundations, but, more importantly, they shape actors’ perceptions of the antiquity and destiny of their communities (Smith 1986a: 129-52; 1991: 43-70).5 From this perspective, then, nations are ‘ethno-symbolic’ communities shaped by shared myths of origins and a sense of common history and territory (Smith 1986a).6 This suggests that Britishness operates on both a political and a cultural level at the same time.. Because nations embody ethnic as well as civic components, Smith argues that they tend to form around pre-existing 'ethnic cores'. The myths, symbols and cultural practices of these ethnic cores provide both nations and states with a history and a destiny, ‘for it is very often on the basis of such a core that states coalesce to form nations’ (Smith 1991: 39). And even though most nation-states today are polyethnic, many have been formed in the first place around a dominant ethnie, which annexed or attracted other ethnic groups into the state to which it gave a name and a cultural charter (Smith 1991: 39).. by the fifteenth century one can speak of a relatively culturally homogeneous ‘aristocratic’ English ethnie, whose myths of origin and descent formed the core of the English kingdom. During the Tudor period, these myths of ethnic descent were primarily supplied by Geoffrey of Monmouth’s late-twelfth-century chronicle of the ‘Ancient Kings of Britain’. By the mid-seventeenth century, these legends of an island inhabited by an ancient race of independent ‘Britons’ were supplemented by an Anglo-Saxon mythology which traced the origins of the English back to the Germanic tribes and their ancient liberties and ‘free’ institution. As the English dynastic state became more centralised and bureaucratic, it attempted to incorporate the middle classes and outlying ethnic groups through military, fiscal and administrative processes (Smith 1986b: 245-47; 1991: 38-9, 55-7). Still, although these processes of ‘bureaucratic incorporation’ typically involved accommodations between the dominant and peripheral ethnic cultures, it was the myths and culture of the dominant aristocratic core that set its mark on the state (Smith 1991: 55). In other words, the English have given the state its cultural heritage and political traditions, even where it has taken on elements from Wales and Scotland.

Her conclusions are worthy of note as well:

A more fluid or ‘fuzzy’ relationship between Englishness and Britishness exists, in part, because the centre of economic, political and ideological power in Britain is London (and so England). This elasticity does not occur in Scotland and Wales where a sharper distinction with Britain tends to be drawn. In short, ‘Britain’ exists over and above the multinational structures of the state. Conceptualised in these terms the British national community is best conceived as ‘four nations and one’ (Kearney 1991: 4)... In conclusion, this line of approach suggests at least two points. The first is that modern states do not have to conform to the unitary, homogenised model of the ‘nation-state’ in order to be viable. The second is that Britishness should be approached as an allegiance that is held in addition to - rather than instead of - the often intense ethnic loyalties of the state’s inhabitants. This signals that there is not (and never has been) one single variant of Britishness. However, the relations between different varieties of Britishness and the factors that intensify or moderate these dual allegiances await further detailed and comparative study.

Sorry i quoted so much, but I thought a great deal of what she said was relevant to this article and to the discussions going on here. Actually what she says makes perfect sense, when I read it, what she was saying seemed "obvious" to me, but often it takes someone to actually write something down in a lucid way before the "obvious" becomes apparent to us. Alun (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Alun. Yes, "Britishness" is a multi-layered identity...and Smith does a fine job exploring this academically. The problem with the Wikipedia article, which perhaps everyone understands a bit better now, is that it looks at "Britishness" as a composite of popular, self-chosen identies within a state...which it can be, in the sense that "Britishness" indicates only British citizenship and/or parentage...allowing any religion, world view or culture to become a religion, world view or culture of the "British" people. What the Wikipedia article fails to investigate, however, is what lies at the core of "British" as a perceived, group identity...and what led/leads "British" to become an accepted, and widely-adopted term in which people saw/see a reflection of themselves, their culture and their own world view. - G. Ward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.55.53 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages Britain is more like an old word for England than a current term (the "land formerly known as Britain is now known as England"). It is clear from certain insular sources that the very definition is unclear (e.g. Walter Bower says that the river Forth separates "Scotland from Britain"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that more like a product of the Roman occupation? I mean the region that was the Roman province of Brittania certainly didn't include what is now Scotland, but it did include what is now Wales. On the other hand, while there was a Roman province of Brittania, the Romans also called the whole island of Great Britain Brittania. I don't think you can claim that in the Middle Ages Britain meant England, unless you can provide a reliable source that explicitly states that. Having a few primary source that imply this does not really constitute evidence, you need a reliable secondary source that says this. As you say the sources are confused and confusing, we don't actually know what these sources mean when they use these words. But the point is this, it doesn't really matter what Britain meant in medieaval times. The article is about British people and not geographical areas such as Great Britain and England or political entities such as the United Kingdom, which have their own articles. What you need to do, in that case, is find evidence that English people in the middle ages thought of themselves as British and not English. I am sceptical you'll find many because it's clear that the overwhelming academic consensus is that the idea of a British nation (i.e. a people, I use nation in that sense, and not in the sense of state, as it is sometimes used) is the product of the unification of Scotland and England, and was actively promoted for political reasons by the state after that event. The union of England and Wales (which was really an annexation) had obviously occurred some centuries earlier. Alun (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was merely above giving some information about the term in medieval Britain for interest rather than purposefully for wikipedia. The English Saxons and the English kingdom would never have called themselves British as "British" generally meant what we would say was "Welsh", but they understand that before the Adventus Saxonum (the coming of the English) "Britain" (the Roman province at least) was all Welsh. Quite a number of texts from different eras state explicitly that Britain is the old name for England, and that the name changed because of the victories of the Saxons over the Britons; e.g. Wace "The Island once called Britain, is now called England" (l'isle jadis appelé Bretainc, ore Engleterre). Britannia incidentally is also the Latin word for Wales from the 9th century (when Wales roughly came into existence) until the Norman era (when it confused Normans who also used the word for Brittany). The native word for Scotland (Alba) just meant "Britain", and the pre-13th century word for the Scots/Picts in Welsh was "Britons", though later English-speaking historical writers don't know what it meant. There's a big bunch of stuff on what "Britain" means in the Middle Ages. What it almost never is is an alternative word for the English; if anything it was a weapon against the English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a facinating summary of the medieval understanding of the term. Perhaps you could put something together along those lines into the article (History section?)? I presume too that Cornwall and the Cornish had some historical claim to being Britain and British owing to they Brythonic heritage there? I imagine parts of Cumbria were the same, but less so. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Deacon and Jza but I can't agree. This article is not about how people in the middle ages thought of term "Britain". This article is about British people. Unless there are scholarly secondary sources that discuss the concept of "British people" in the middle ages and makes the claim that in the middle ages the term "British people" was used to mean "English people", then I'm opposed. If you want to add material about the meaning of the term Britain as compared to England in the middle ages, than that correctly belongs in the articles England or Britain, but should rely on secondary sources that make this claim. This article is about British people. Furthermore you need to address the problem of using primary sources. If a source from the middle ages claims that England is the name for what used to be called "Britain", we cannot assume that the author thought of these in the same way that we do. What was his knowledge? Where was he writing from? Was he knowledgeable? How reliable was he? After all there are sources from the middle ages that make serious claims that the population of Britain is descended from Brutus, who himself escaped from Troy. Primary sources from the middle ages are thoroughly untrustworthy. On the other hand, in one sense it is correct, the middle ages Kingdom of England is not so different to the Roman province of Britannia (especially to someone writing from the point of view of a continental European). We are discouraged from using primary sources, and we are certainly discouraged from synthesising material from primary sources. I'm deeply sceptical that anyone can make a case that in the middle ages the term Britain was synonymous with the term England, unless there is a published reliable secondary source that makes this specific claim. As for the claim that England was "all Welsh" before the so called "Anglo-Saxon" invasion, there are plenty of sources that dispute this. The overwhelming majority of archaeologists don't think there was a mass invasion at all, but more of an elite takeover (e.g. like the Normans later). Some dispute that Brythonic languages were spoken all over the south of the island prior to this elite takeover, and that Germanic languages might have been spoken in parts of east England well before this elite takeover (e.g. imported by the Germanic troops used by the Romans, or even existing in eastern England prior to the Roman invasion, after all these groups had shared the North Sea coast for millennia, it would be surprising if there were not contacts for centuries prior to the Roman invasion). It is absolutely true that there was no such group as the "Welsh" during the time of the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion. Indeed you contradict yourself. You say that "they understand that before the Adventus Saxonum... "Britain"... was all Welsh" then go on to say "from the 9th century (when Wales roughly came into existence)". If Wales came into existence in the ninth century, how could there have been Welsh people prior to the sixth century? Welsh as a language is generally thought to have come into existence in about the fifth or sixth century, it is derived from Brythonic languages which we do not know. Wales never existed as a single political entity up until very recent times. When Welsh people started to think of themselves as Welsh is not really known, but I can accept the ninth century as as reasonable date. Probably this applied more to the elite (the various Princes of Welsh political units and their courtiers etc.) than to ordinary people though. Ordinary people almost certainly didn't think about their identity during the middle ages, their identities were almost certainly rooted in a very constrained social and geographical area. If we are talking about mass public engagement in shared national identity (which after all is what nationhood (i.e. a people) really is), then I think we need to be thinking in terms of a much more recent phenomenon. Alun (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Jz, there is so much secondary material on this topic that it's a surprise there isn't an article about it yet. @ Alun, I don't quite have time to read such a long post just now, but don't worry I don't intend on adding significant content to this article. I avoid adding significant content to all peoples articles. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is seriously screwed up

Honestly, we don't have a page about people who happen to be citizens of Russia or anywhere else, the apparent collective-denial of the British people's existance as an ethnic group on Wikipedia really annoys me. English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh could be said to be sub-ethnic groups within the British ethnicity, as Prussians or Bavarians could be said to be groups within the German ethnicity, but not nations or ethnic groups all of their own. To be British is more than to have a piece of paper that says you are, you can be a citizen of the United Kingdom, but you can't become a person of British ethnicity. Once the existance of the British is wiped from Wikipedia who is next? The Spanish? The Germans? or the Italians? (Germany and Italy didn't even exist in a political sense when the United Kingdom formed, yet they apparently get to be considered ethnic groups even though their states are younger than ours)-A very annoyed TashkentFox 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.238.194 (talk)

Theres a lot of separatists on the loose across wikipedia and im sure some would be more than happy to degrade and pretend "British people" do not exist. If you can make major improvements to this article please make suggestions or the changes. This article should make a clear distinction between British people and British citizens just like French people talks about both clearly. Germany has two articles German people and Ethnic Germans so both are covered. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The French people article may be a good example, but editors here should note that, while it clearly differentiates between "legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry" and "People whose ancestors lived in France or the area that later became France", it addresses both definitions equally within the one article - both (heavily overlapping) groups are correctly defined as "French people", just as both those with British heritage, and all people living in Britain now, fall into the category "British people" and so should be covered in this article, be pictured in the gallery, and so forth. In my view, the German approach - of two articles - is not the approach that should be adopted here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is best to cover it all in one article like the French one does, but atleast that page in the introduction actually mentions both. At the moment the intro on this article just talks about British people being British "citizens". The only mention of ethnic british people is talking about historical "Britons". However even the German people is talking about both, they just have the second article on Ethnic Germans to go into more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1. This article doesn't say it is "about people who happen to be citizens" of Britain. What it says is that people who are citizens of the UK can be considered British people. Obviously one way to look at the idea of a British people is to think of them as the citizens of the UK. Whether one believes this is an appropriate way to do it is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote the personal opinions of it's editors. If we have reliable sources that say that British people can be a synonymous with "British citizenry", then we cannot simply ignore that source because we don't like it.
2. The article does not deny that British people are an ethnic group. But ethnicity is not biological, it is not about ancestry.
3. If you can find a reliable source that says that English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh ethnicities are "sub" ethnicities of Britishness, then please cite it. I think my quotes above say something similar to this. But it doesn't say they are "sub-ethnicities", it says that Britishness has a "core" of Englishness, but that it has also been strongly influenced by Irish, Scottish and Welsh culture as well.
4. Of course you can "become a person of British ethnicity". Many British people are descended from people who were not British. Are you claiming tha anyone who s descended from the Danish settlement is not British? Are you claiming that the descendants of the Hugenots can't be British? What about Peter Ustinov? Rosalind Franklin? Herbert Samuel? Clearly there was a point in time where British people, as an ethnic identity did not exist at all. There were no British people as an "ethnic group" 1,000 years ago. At some time the idea of British people took shape, granted it was a process and not an event, but it occurred during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Clearly before it started there were no British ethnicity, and afterwards there was. So these people obviously "became people of British ethnicity".
5. Whether one can think of British people as an ethnic group is open to debate. It's probably safer to think of them as a nation rather than an ethnic group. On the other hand, the distinction between a nation and an ethnic group is open to interpretation.
6. Considering oneself a British person is, at least in part political, like it or not. When one says they are "British" it says something political about that person. Indeed every time one professes to belong to any ethnic group it is partly a political statement. Some people may reject the idea that recent immigrants who have British citizenship can be considered part of the British collective national identity. But don't be seduced into thinking that this is the only point of view. And don't be seduced into thinking that it is the "correct" point of view, you may believe this, but others will disagree with you. Remember here on Wikipedia it's verifiability not truth. So what we need are reliable sources that give both points of view.
7. You cite the Germans article, but that clearly states that Germans refers to people who are citizens. Now it's true that there is an article Ethnic Germans, but that needs to be put into the specific context of German history. From the Germans article it states "Historically, in the context of the German Empire (1871-1918), German citizens (Imperial Germans, Reichsdeutsche) were distinguished from ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche)." So actually this is a legalistic distinction, and the articles have reliable sources to support their contention that the Ethnic Germans have historically been seen as different to German citizens. So we actually have three articles, Germans, Ethnic Germans and Federal Germans. The first two claim they are about different ethnic groups. Nevertheless the Germans article clearly says that all Germans represent an ethnic group "in the sense of sharing a common German culture, descent, and speaking the German language as a mother tongue".
8. As for Spanish people, they are in a similar situation to British people, but look at it, the article states "They are often considered an amalgam of different ethnic groups, rather than an ethnic group by itself. They are usually classified as one of the Latin European peoples and have somewhat varied origins, due to the long history of migrations in and out of the Iberian Peninsula." (emphasis added) There are Andalusian people, Aragonese people, Asturian people, Basque people, Canarian people, Cantabrian people, Castilian people, Catalan people, Galician people, Leonese people, Valencian people
9. The French peope article is appropriate to the way French people identify. The British people article cannot use criteria from a different group and pretend it applies. French ethnic identity is informed by French history. British identity is informed by British history. Why do you want to pretend that both are the same? Is it too much trouble to go and find some reliable sources about Britishness and cite them?
10. So no it doesn't work tryng to claim that articles about other peoples are treated differently, they clearly are not. Obviously all nations have different histories and different ways of looking and thinking about their sense of identity. It's not appropriate to claim that a single set of criteria fits all groups. Alun (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to amend the opening sentence

In light of the discussion above and the need for some clarification to be settled on, can I suggest altering the first sentence of the article, so that it reads (something like):-

"British people, or Britons, can refer to:

• citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, or
• people whose ancestors lived on the island of Great Britain, or
• in a historical context, the ancient Britons, the indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain south of the Forth."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change to something like that, im not sure on the best way of wording it but the important thing is all 3 of those things are mentioned and covered unlike currently. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it already say those things? You are wrong to claim that these don't already exist in the lead. Alun (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the second doesn't. I'd support it but it means the whole lede changing to match --Snowded TALK 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, twice: "British people, or Britons,[19] are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, or a specific group or tribe of peoples who settled the island of Great Britain and their descendants In a historical context, the word is used to refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain south of the Forth. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. Alun (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

the group or tribe links back to the historical Britons article. Theres basically two bits about historical Britons and one bit on citizens but it doesnt cover British ancestory thats not covered under Britons (historical). The whole opening paragraph is in a mess and needs to lay out the different types more clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see a list introduced into the lead. Prose is always more desirable than a list on WP. I would also like to see refs for each point - not as a challenge to the content, but to futureproof it against people who disagree. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of pints though. First let's have some citations.

• For example I'm not sure about "people whose ancestors lived on the island of Great Britain". Lots of people have ancestors who lived on the island of Great Britain who are not British. Lots of Australians, Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans have ancestors who lived and were born on the island. Indeed given the history of slavery in the United States and the amount of European ancestry most African Americans have, it is almost certainly true that a majority of African Americans have ancestors who were born on the Island of Great Britain, let alone simply lived there, are we to consider this group British? I wouldn't, and neither would any African American. And why "lived". If I have ancestors who lived there, but who weren't born there, does that make me a "British person"? How many ancestors do I need to have lived there? How long ago did they have to have lived there? How long did they have to have lived there? For example, say I'm a Pakistani citizen, without UK citizenship, who has never lived in Britain but my parents (i.e. my ancestors) have "lived on the island of Great Britain", say before I was born. So does that make me British, even without citizenship, just because my ancestors lived there? I don't think so. The language is really ambiguous. As I keep saying you need to cite reliable sources. Find a definition of what it means historically to be British from a respected academic journal, read it, understand it, and cite it. What you are engaged in here is original research because you are trying to come up with your own definition of what it means to be a British person.
• Can refer to Citizens of the UK etc. I think that's a given, and can easily be cited from a reliable source, I'd expect. Let's see if we can find one.
• I'm not sure about "the indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain south of the Forth." Where does that come from? What about Roman citizens inhabiting the province of Brittania? Do we have any evidence that any peoples whatsoever considered themselves "British people" before the Romans named their province Brittania? If we do we should include it, but it seems to me that the the classical civilisations were the first to call the peoples of the Island "British", but that it is also highly unlikely that these peoples thought of themselves as British, and certainly they wouldn't have though of themselves as belonging to anything like a single coherent ethnic group.

I think we really need to find reliable sources rather than just guessing. Alun (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Kelly Holmes

Since this is a global website, with people from a variety of nations seeking information, I suggest that we be specific about Britishness. We need people on this page who are ethnically British, descended from the same stock as Britons, and Kelly Holmes simply does not fit into this category. Her ancestry makes her visibly Jamaican, despite her English mother, and Jamaicans are not ethnically British. I will hereby be removing this person from our page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeroAxis (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do it will be reversed. You need to get consensus here first and I for one am not buying into that concept of Britishness --Snowded TALK 14:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor me. Looks like the same user behind this. See also WP:SPADE. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Holmes is British and there for totally intitled to be included in the infobox image. You said yourself "despite her English mother" there for you admit she is British. The colour of someones skin does not determine if they are British or not, if you are worried about improving the article so those from outside Britain can understand about British people more please make suggestions or try to improve the article but the images in the infobox are the least of this articles problems and there are more deserving candidates for removal from the imagebox than Kelly in my opinion. Im stunned we have an actor Keira Knightley but no Charles Darwin :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Holmes is British. Alun (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm mixed race myself, with an English mother and Arab father, and I am British. However, you liberals seeking to represent and help us implictly suggests that we're not good enough to help ourselves. Now, my point was that, although I am British, as is Kelly Holmes, we are not ethnically British and have no place on this page, considering people from all around the world read it. I know this will not pass because you people are in your Ivory towers dictating how ethnic minorities should think of themselves, but it's the right thing that she is removed and someone like Thatcher, Lawrence Olivier, or Darwin, replaces her. Look at the immense opposition you've encountered trying to do it, it's not the right thing. [[User:NeroAxis|NeroAxis]

Perhaps you can enlighten us liberals about what definition of "ethnically British" you are alluding too? Wikipedia does not allow original research. Also, this article is about British people - not about supposed "ethnic" Britons. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nero take note:

1. Stop with the ad hominem arguments, they don't help your cause. Don't attack the person/group you disagree with, make an argument about their point of view and not about them. Complaining about "liberals" (which you seem, for some obscure reason, to believe is an insult) and "you people are in your Ivory towers dictating" is not an argument. See our [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines|talk page guidelines. Comment on content and not users.
2. Don't assume that you understand what motivates people who disagree with you. Who has said that anyone wants to represent you or help you? You're drawing that conclusion without any foundation. Who is "dictating" to anyone? Indeed it seems to me that it is you who want to tell people how they can or can't identify. What you are saying is that you believe that people like Holmes have no right to consider themselves British. What makes you believe that you have the right to deny her British heritage? Furthermore just because you personally don't consider yourself "ethnically British" it does not mean that others agree with you or feel the same. Here on Wikipedia we use criteria such as neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Now it may be true that others think like you do, and it may be a reasonable point of view. But you need to back it up with reliable sources. But, the other point of view also exists, which contradicts what you say. We know that people with UK citizenship can be considered British, and this article is about all British people. We know that many people from ethnic minorities identify themselves as British, and have dual identities. Ethnicity need not be mutually exclusive, one can have multiple identities, indeed we all do to some extent. So let's face it, whatever you believe, you have no right to say that only one point of view exists and that the one you believe is the only legitimate one. I suggest you take a look at the humorous essay WP:The Truth.
3. What do you mean when you say that "I am British, as is Kelly Holmes, we are not ethnically British"? Who says that? What do you think an ethnic group is? Where do you get this idea about ethnicity? I'm asking for sources here. Ethnic groups are social constructs, it's not necessarily got anything to do with ancestry. Usually the claims of shared ancestry that some ethnic groups make are myths. Remember also that every ethnic group will have it's own rules of membership even when that membership is kinship based. I don't think there is any evidence that membership of the British nation has ever been based on a kinship system, it's a political entity that was invented due to the union of Scotland and England in 1707. Now you choose not to think of yourself as "ethnically" British, that is your prerogative, but you still refer to yourself as British. I'm uncertain what this distinction is. To make this distinction you need to provide reliable sources that such a distinction exists, either in the academic field, or in some sort of bureaucratic setting (such as government statistics). By this reckoning you don't belong to any ethnic group at all because you can't be an Arab because of your British ancestry and you can't be a Brit because of your Arab ancestry. But ethnicity is about the socio-cultural group you belong to. Now I don't know, maybe you see yourself, and others see you as an Arab and not British, but even if this is true, don't assume that everyone with mixed ancestry feels the same as you. Furthermore it's pushing it to claim that British people are an ethnic group, British people are better described as a nation than an ethnic group. Nations are usually much larger groups and much more heterogeneous. Nations are also more likely to include members based on political factors such as legal status, but obviously there's a big overlap between an ethnic group and a nation.
4. You seem to be conflating "race" with ethnicity. If I understand you properly you are saying that because you are of mixed "race" then you can't be ethnically British. Race remember is also a social construct, but the supposed "races" are putative biological divisions of humanity. Ethnic groups are not. Furthermore you might like to consider that by most "race" schemata Arab people are part of the same "race" as British people. I don't personally believe that these sorts of classifications have any biological validity, but for those that do, both Arab peoples and European peoples are Caucasian.

Alun (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Kelly Holmes belongs on the list but i am still concerned at the difference some people seem to want to make between "British People" and other groups and i think this is part of the problem and the reason why several people have concerns about this article. Alun you say "Furthermore it's pushing it to claim that British people are an ethnic group, British people are better described as a nation than an ethnic group." If thats the case is it inaccurate to use the term Ethnic group for Irish people or Welsh people? "British people" is just as much a political entity as "Irish people" or "Welsh people".

If we look at the Irish people article it only mentions "citizens" twice, the whole article is focused around people of Irish ancestory. There is a difference between ancestory and citizenship and this article should be about both but its awfully written and the ancestory part is hardly covered. This article is in serious need of some experts and especially some from outside the United Kingdom who have a balanced view on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I say BW, there's a big overlap between ethnic groups and nations. Often nations are ethnic groups and vice versa. I'm not saying that British people can't be thought of as an ethnic group, only that it is probably more accurate to think of them as a nation. Probably the biggest distinction between ethnic groups and nations is the claim to a specific geographic region that nations make. Ethnic groups don't always do this. Ethnic groups also tend to be smaller and more culturally homogeneous. Nations are often more political, being based on a more overtly political group identity, such as some historic claim to statehood (e.g. see romantic nationalism). Peoples such as the Welsh and Scots are more like an ethnic group because they are clearly more culturally homogeneous than the British group as a whole. The British group is clearly more like a nation than an ethnic group because membership is, to a certain extent, based on the legal possession of British nationality (i.e. UK citizenship). The possession of UK citizenship is political, but there is no such thing as Welsh or Scottish or English citizenship. In this context Welsh and Scottish and English identities are differentiated from British identity in an overtly political and legalistic sense. So no, I don't buy the argument that ""British people" is just as much a political entity as "Irish people" or "Welsh people"", one cannot hold a Welsh passport. On the other hand UK politicians from the major parties will universally refer to the UK population as a nation, and will often refer to the UK as a nation state. Alun (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it frustrating that editors on this article keep referring to other ethnic groups' articles as if we should somehow treat all articles about all groups the same. So I'll say it again. One cannot use the argument that "they do it like this in the Irish people article so we should do it the same here". Ethnic identity is not transposable, ethnic groups and nations have different cultural norms and have different ways to identify members. If there is a specific way that Irishness is identified, then we can't then say we must apply that to the British people article. That's like pretending that all ethnic group have exactly the same criteria for membership. But they don't. It's clear that in the context of Irish nationalism, Irish ancestry in important. Many people from North America have deep ties (real or imagined) to Ireland, and refer to themselves as Irish-Americans. This is correctly reflected in the Irish people article. We can't then take what is a specifically Irish phenomenon and claim that we must apply it here. What we must do here is apply the norms of membership of the British identity group, and that has it's roots in the union of England and Scotland (a political union) and the rise of the British Empire. Irish identity has different origins and norms to British identity, so we would expect the article to be different. We need to find and use reliable sources to write this article, if you believe that we should include more information about people of British descent who live in other parts of the world due to the existence of a real British diaspora, which you believe is equivalent to the Irish diaspora, then go and find some sources about this British diaspora and include what these sources say in the article. The key to editing Wikipedia is good research, we're here to say what reliable sources say, and not what we believe. Yes the Irish people article is going to treat it's subject matter differently. They are a different group, just as the French are a different group and the Germans are a different group, people writing these articles have obviously been doing research and found reliable sources to support these points of view. Why is that so hard to understand? Alun (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact, a part of reality that I, and other mixed race people, are not ethnically British and should not be included in that category. The point that Britishwatcher makes is correct, and the same one that I previously made about the Germans; these pages must deal with specific ethnic groups, not people who hold citizenship.

I was merely stating flaws in the work of the person editing the article; that hardly constitues ad hominem, it is more a case of you writing information which is out of touch with how most people feel. I reserve the right to freely express my criticism of this attitude.

The foundation is there, clearly, I understand how the politically correct culture operates in this country. An over-emphasis on inclusiveness, of representation, tends to stem from subconscious condescendence. Also, this is not the page for dealing with 'social constructs': race exists, please, just adhere to the reality that most people adhere to, and stop this over-intellectualisation of material which is supposed to reflect how the majority feels. If you feel that nations, races, and ethnic groups are social constructs - everything in existence can theoretically fall under that category - then you have no reason writing an on an encyclopedia. I understand that your views are firmly held, but please, try to consider the consensus opinion of the common man before adhering to elitist, intellectual ideas on race on a page which is intended to provide a simple overview for everyone to read. [[User:NeroAxis|NeroAxis] —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Yawn. I still see no definition of ethnic Britons NeroAxis. If you want a change the onus is on YOU to provide evidence for change from a reliable source. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn indeed. All we're getting is claims of so called "facts" from Nero, which are obviously not facts at all, but simply one point of view. This point of view may be perfectly acceptable to include in the article (but remains sadly unverified at present), but it's against everything Wikipedia stands for to try and claim that it's the only point of view. It's also completely untrue to claim that "these pages must deal with specific ethnic groups, not people who hold citizenship", who says this? That's absolutely not what my understanding is. Furthermore it doesn't really explain why someone like Kelly Holmes is not ethnically British. Again I'm left with the impression that Nero is hoplessly confused between ethnicity and "race". He also seems to believe in the existence of some sort of one drop rule for British ethnic group membership. I'd love to see the source for this belief, I bet it's a good one (humorous at least), but he simply seems to be incapable of providing sources for his claims. As for "I was merely stating flaws in the work of the person editing the article; that hardly constitues ad hominem," that's simply disingenuous Nero, the ad hominem was when you wrote "you people are in your Ivory towers dictating how ethnic minorities should think of themselves", how is that "merely stating flaws in the work"? No that is a specific attack against other editors and not a comment on any work. As I said comment on content and not on users. Another piece of advice, when one does make a mistake and makes comments about other editors and not about content (and most of us have done it one time or another, usually out of frustration), just admit it and say sorry, don't deny it when it's obviously there for all to see. Alun (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian consensus vs. the real world

Just stumbled across this article, and like other I'm bemused at the characters chosen or not chosen to represent notable Britains. I find it absurd that because a relatively small group of people on Wikipedia reach a consensus, the findings of surveys conducted amongst far larger sample sizes outside of Wikipedia, such as the 30,000 people polled by the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons programme, can be demoted. I think that Wikipedia's consensus process has resulted in an unencyclopedic lack of objectivity. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length in the past - see the archived discussion. The box is not intended to show or suggest "the greatest" Britons, but a representative selection covering the period since "Britain" existed as a political entity and taking into account the free images that are available for use here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons was used as a guide (3 of the top ten appear in the infobox - taking into account 4 of the top ten were born prior to the existance of the Kingdom of Great Britain). In addition to being restricted to using only free-to-use images, the montage takes into account gender balance, fair representation of England, Scotland and Wales, occupation, ethnic minorities and using people from over 300 years of British history..... I feel a Template:FAQ coming on. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What i dont get is why so many people continue to be obsessed with the images in the info box instead of the actual article and others like it which have huge problems :|. However now its been raised again i still can not understand why Charles Darwin is not included and we have that young female actor whos name i never even remember. Charles Darwin was born after Britain became a political entity, there are free images available of him and the man is a legend, whos work is taught in schools around this world. How anyone can think that female actor is more notable than Darwin i do not know. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that she is "more notable" - but she is female, living now, and internationally known, all of which are relevant. Or do we just want to show renowned dead men? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We want British people who have made their mark on history, as wonderful as her performance in some films have been i dont think it justifies taking the space of Charles Darwin. If being alive and a woman is important, wheres Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps if we could have a 3rd line of people like many other people articles have then we could fit in some more who really do deserve to be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we "want British people who have made their mark on history"? I'm sure Thatcher can be classed as British, but there's surely still some doubt as to whether she's a person or a malevolent alien from another planet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol well i said made a mark on history, didnt say it had to be a good one :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra people may be a possibility, but I'd use diligence and caution to say the least! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Would User:Jza84/Sandbox2 be a suitable way forwards? I imagine there are other Q&As we want to explore too. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont get this bit "Born in the United Kingdom (and the island of Great Britain)", surely the Island of Great Britain is covered by the UK. See what would happen if people wanted Ian Paisley added and ofcourse how can we forget Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington who is one of Britains most celebrated generals and was Prime Minister twice. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway im sure mention of Irish or part Irish people complicates matters even further and i dont have a problem with those not being included. However i think Margaret Thatcher, Charles Darwin and perhaps even Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Victoria should all be included and would meet with the criteria laid out. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Loads of people meet the criteria, but the question is one of balance and I support Jza84's approach on this. I don't agree that "historical importance" (or indeed accident of birth) is of overriding importance - another factor is recognisability to the current international WP readership, and as far as I'm concerned Keira Knightley and Kelly Holmes fit the bill fine (although in the latter case a current sports person could be preferable if the M/F and ethnicity balances could also be maintained). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, Charles Darwin and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are all very well known. More people know these three people than Keira Knightley. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the Queen has been frowned upon in the past as a candidate owing to her highly mixed ancestry (probably less British lines in there than Kelly Holmes!), but also by way of her not being a British national (something to do with her not holding a passport on technicality etc). In this capacity she fails an important part of British nationality. I also personally think that we would be doing ourselves no favours in alleviating international stereotypes about British people by having the monarch there, but that's another matter! Thatcher and Darwin are suitable additions IMO, but we do need to be able to draw the line as to what will be an effective montage for readers. Do we have suitable images of these two? Also, a slight concern of mine is that would be two more English people for the montage... --Jza84 |  Talk  20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would they be replacements or additions? I share Jza84's concerns about using Betty Battenberg - every other, more conventional, encyclopaedia would use her, so why should we? No prob with using Darwin, except that he again fits the usual stereotype of dead white males. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when was a meritocracy, gender, nationality, occupationaly, ethnically and historically balanced ? 212.84.105.241 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. When was a meritocracy balanced? Is there a punchline?.... The image isn't about a meritocracy, it's about the demography of the United Kingdom as well as a compromise with historical realities. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to belittle me. It was a valid point given the title "Notable Britons:" 212.84.105.241 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was valid at all - they are all notable Britons - more notable than you or I. I think it was implying the same unconstructive calls to display only dead male English WASPs as British people when that's just not true. At this rate I'm coming round to the point that we may need to remove the picture if the same group of ips keep calling for its change and undermining it; British people will be the only national "people" article without an image, which would be a farse (given everyone else manages it). I assure that other preferences to airbrush out women, minorities and celts will not be a viable alternative, and would not represent what contitutes British people. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was me posting from IP 212.84.105.241. You comment about the same group of ips reveals an unacceptable level of prejudice imo. Notable Britains are not a gender, nationality, occupationaly, ethnically or historically balanced group. If Wikipedia chooses to portray them as such, then that is against it's own policy on point of view editing. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

--And your suggestion would be?.... ten Englishmen, some of whom never heard of the United Kingdom. I'm not saying the current image is perfect, but your suggestion is weak(er) to say the least. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there has to be balance and i think we have enough talent to choose from since the United Kingdom was created which makes more sense. Daytona, what are your main objections to the current images chosen for the info box (rather than the process used to decide them). Is your main problem the fact some are included, or that because they are included others who are more notable are left out? How would you feel if more people were added to it? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand how people want this to be balanced which of course it is important, however this problem highlights the problems going on in the country today and its part of the reason we have a rise in the disgusting far right BNP. We have to accept the fact that until the 20th century this country was overwhelmingly white, and run and influenced by white men and it just so happens that 80% of the population of Britain is English. Jza84 you mention other people articles manage to have pictures in their info box, ive just looked at a few European ones and i think they are less politically correct on this matter. A quick look at the French one which has 27 people, the vast majority are white males and i only saw one black person although i didnt look in detail and France has a larger minority community.

Personally i think we would move on from this argument if we provided a much wider range of "British people" in the images, rather than just 8 like at the moment which results in many good candidates being discriminated against because they happen to be white and male. We could have a couple of all the different minorities, including 1 homosexual because we shouldnt leave anyone out. The image on French people seems so much better than our own, even though they i think they should of included more women and minorities. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For example we could then have Amir Khan, Dev Patel, Elton John as well as adding Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher and some others. Although i accept the point about Queen Elizabeth II complicating matters so best not to include her, but she is British and entitled to call her self that just as much as any other person currently in the images can. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh i just wanted to add a couple of others. Sir Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the world wide web is certainly worthy of an image and a great Scots Sir Alex Ferguson and Chris Hoy. There are so many great British people that could be added to this list, by limiting us to just 8 images it does result in many being excluded because they are white males, which leads to these IPs popping up moaning every few weeks. I really think we should redo the image include as many as we can fit in such a small space then simply ignore anyone that comes on moaning about black or asians being shown as British. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do they all have high quality free to use images? Do they all identify as British? Do we even need to change the image? I'm willing to help facilitate the changes if we really need to. And regarding political correctness, the earlier image (I helped put together) had Paula Radcliffe instead of Kelly Holmes, but repeated calls for a BME person meant it had to be changed. I'm skeptical of any changes being proposed because I've not seen any stronger solution to the current situation. If we really want to have additions, then I think you suggest good ones however.

Also, coming back to the Queen, you say she is entitled to call herself British, but on what basis? As I understand it, she is head of state of 16 realms, and so is technically Canadian, Jamaican, Australian etc etc and when on visits, describes herself as such. In this capacity it does complicate things considerably. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly on the Queen i agree it would complicate matters however she has British roots, her website is the British Monarchy, Britain is her main realm but i accept she could class her self as other things. If its only the monarch that doesnt have a passport id be interested to know what Charles or Williams passport/passports say. Being British doesnt exclude you from being other things aswell, just like you can be Welsh and British or Irish American etc. But anyway lets leave aside the Queen because it does cause more problems.

Each of the people i said have images, dont know if they are free ones but id presume most if not all are. I think we do need a change because this issue keeps getting raised, i accept some are by people who are racists who simply dont want non whites included in the image, but there are some valid concerns which including more people would address. I totally agree the image MUST be balanced and show minorities and a fair number of Women, Scots and Welsh, the trouble is because we are doing that we are excluding white men which really are far more notable than some of these people, Id hate to be a bully and pick on that poor woman movie star again but i dont have a problem with her being classed as notable, its the fact she is taking up spots by some who really do deserve it so allowing more people on it would do away with that problem. A smaller image of loads of British people might also stop some of the racists that come on here moaning "why is Kelly Holmes there". At the moment she stands out because shes surrounded and the image of each person is so large. If we had smaller images and some other minorities she wouldnt be getting singled out like the way she is.

Finally about if they identify as British, i think this is part of the problem i have with the whole article that fact that people have to of been proven to call themselves British to be one, being British is fact. People dont opt out of being welsh or Irish, i see no difference with British people which does get treated in a different way to all these other groups. Now i wouldnt support including those who hate being British, so separatists such as Alex Salmond and Sean Connery would certainly not belong in the image box, but they are British how ever much they hate that fact. As for the people i said, Alex Ferguson is a strong supporter of the union and being "British". Chris Hoy certainly is, Amir Khan certainly considers himself British and Mrs T as a British Prime Minister clearly fits the bill. Sir Tim Berners-Lee won greatest Briton in 2004 and said he was proud to be British. Dev Patel, Elton John, Charles Darwin are English and i would have to do digging to see if they considered themselves British. But this goes back to the point i was making, these people are English there for they are British unless they publically declare themselves separatists or haters of "Britishness". But the Best Briton awards and things done by the BBC have no problem calling anyone British if they are English and the Queen was included in those competitions and did quite well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely - I believe one unique aspect of British nationality law (when compared against other nationalities), means that one can't stop being British. And I personally agree with you - despite disliking the label of "British" (usually because it implies Englishness) doesn't mean you aren't British. It's like being Black but disliking the label, for want of a better example (perhaps European...!). However, that said, ethnic groups are either labels of choice or categories of convenience - when I helped put together the current image an important criterion was that each person identifies as British to avoid future disputes.

I think additional people to the image may be useful now. I personally wouldn't like to see the Irish people or French people approach (I think it's too busy to be an effective illustration of national society), but whatever... so long as this is put to rest. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Europe is a good example yes, as much as most people here hate accepting it we are Europeans and a European country. I agree that its safer to only include people in the info box who consider themselves British, just to avoid future conflict even if they havnt declared themselves against it.

I did a quick google search about Darwin and found an independent article from a few days ago saying.. "Darwin was immensely proud of his origins: "To hoist the British flag seems to draw with it as a certain consequence, wealth, prosperity, and civilisation". So he qualifies which is the main person i want to see added.

As for the best type, i dont like the Irish one but i really do like the French one. I agree its probably too many but i would say 21 instead of 27 or 20 with 5 on each row, we could easily fill it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) OK, so going forwards, who do we want adding to this picture? I'm happy with Chris Hoy, Darwin and Thatcher- I'd like to see another Welshman in there too mind. Amir Khan might be appropriate as would be Alex Ferguson, but what do you folks think? Ricky Hatton identifies as British, but I'm not keen on his photo, persoanlly. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ewww i see what you meant about Hatton, a bit too thugish i think even for a boxer. Id leave him out, as for a welsh person what about Tom Jones (singer). Would have to do some checking to see how he feels about being British though. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thing with Tom Jones is he is something of a "Welsh icon", and not a sound representation of Britishness in my humble opinion. Sure we could have if there's consensus, but I would be thinking he is more befitting for heading the Welsh people page than Brits. Agree about Hatton! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well it would highlight the wide range of people and cultures that make up being British but perhaps it would be safer to use Aneurin Bevan responsible for the creation of the National Health Service. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've fired up Adobe Photoshop and I'm putting a broader montage together. Looking at things, I think a 21-person montage (3 rows of 7 people) will work very well. Hoy, Thatcher and Darwin are all added. We need 7 more people to add (each with a free to use good quality image, and alive post 1707, and preferably identifying as British, and notable). I'll try Aneurin Bevan. Ferguson might be good, but that's quite a few Scots in there (but then again, does he identify as British???). --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. How about Elgar? His entry says he's English, but the man's music was about Britain rather than England. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Elgars a good one, as for Ferguson hes a life long labour support and against the break up of the United Kingdom, dont know if he talks about himself as being British ever though so leave him for the moment. Amir Khan should also be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've put something together here! It's not finished, and still has two slots free. What do we think? I can't find a free-to-use image of Amir Khan (these are the best :(). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, no, not a Gallagher... there must be a better/more famous musician with a suitable image somewhere. Anyone else would do.... (Sorry, I'm non-neutral on that!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That version certainly looks better than the current one with just 8 people. How about Lewis Hamilton which has a good image already on wiki and is copyright compliant. I hate the restrictions for these images, consider millions illegally download films every day, seems crazy so much care must be taken over an image :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how we doing on the balance issue but what about Richard Branson? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ive just thought of a woman that definetly deserves a spot, J K Rowling. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Florence Nightingale ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point all 3 of those deserve a spot too. Id of also liked either Ian McKellen or Stephen Fry, Stephens definetly proud to be British hes talked about it for the government. Sadly we dont have enough for them and so many more. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

File:21 Britons.png

How's this?

Sorry guys. As you were making suggestions I was uploading the image and working out the licencing at Commons. Will this work? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As an image it works fine, but in my view at least two of the men (and I'd support a higher number) should be replaced by women. Given that the image was, as I understand it, never intended to show "the most notable" Britons at all, however that term is defined, a more representative display of British people should include a better gender balance than now. Good try though, and thanks for all the work you've put in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes we need a shuffle i think, how about removing Noel Gallagher, and ferguson. Replacing them with Diana and Florence Nightingale. (or Elizabeth Garrett Anderson although i admit id never heard that name before lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was meant to be 21 Britons (I named the image that!), but I cropped the image incorrectly so it is 6x3 rather than 7x3 (meaning its 18 Britons). I could add another column of 3 more people, and mix in the women? And no need to thank me for the image - I really must thank you guys for being so patient and constructive, really. So thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh glad theres a few more spaces, yes add the women. Di and Florence for sure, Id prefer J.K Rowling than Elizabeth G Anderson but which do others want? Thanks for making the new image, is certainly alot better than the current one. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm playing around now, and have added 3 new slots, in which Princess Diana takes one slot. I was partial to Miss Nightingale, but she wasn't born in Britain, meaning that it may not be sustainable to include her. Also, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson's image is very poor quality, and low res... however.... I've tested the image with Emmeline Pankhurst. How would you guys feel about using her? She seems to be on par with the other two ladies. If you're OK with that (and do feel free to say if not), we have one slot left. I really don't mind, but what do you guys think about who takes the slot? This will mean each row has two females too btw. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok we dont want added complications so Emmeline Pankhurst and J K Rowling would be ok for me. Is Noel Gallagher there because hes got Irish parents or doesnt that matter, coz i still think Richard Branson would be a good choice. At the moment almost all of the modern Brits are sporting celebs or entertainment, would be nice to have one modern billionaire and businessman. If not maybe remove one of the English engineers, although hard to choose between the two :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add Diana, Pankhurst and J K Rowling then. That works well for me too. Re Gallagher, I added him so as to mix in a modern musician. I was actually looking for a shot of him with his Union Jack guitar if I'm honest (!), as I felt that would make a point. However I suppose on reflection he's also good as he's northern, working class and a fine example for notions of Brit Pop/Cool Britannia. His Irish ancestry was irrelevant really, but he is shown on the Irish migration to Great Britain article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but he's a crap musician... I suggested Nightingale deliberately knowing that she wasn't born in Britain, as I think it makes the point that the term "British people" can be and is defined in ways that don't require Britain to be their place of birth - qv also Cliff Richard, Freddie Mercury, etc etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a proper "21-person" image. Putting personal tastes in music aside for one moment, how's that? Better? (You may have to refresh your browser or purge your cache). --Jza84 |  Talk  23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good (well, setting aside a few of the individuals... :)) Go for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Loooks soo much better than the current one, and just goes to show what talent we were missing out on by having just 8 considering we struggling to limit it to 21. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been bold an uploaded it. Shall we give it 24 hours before there are ips saying there aren't enough English males? Only joking, I think this is a far superior image and much more futureproof. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes loooks so much better, its even better than the French one i think they do try to include slightly too many. Will be interesting to see if the IPs pop up as often moaning about Kelly Holmes now and what John thinks about the new picture. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already moaned about Gallagher, but am happy to start further moans about Thatcher, Ferguson..... Seriously, good work, team, and special thanks to Jza84. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep great job Jza84, nobody can say the change isnt a huge improvement. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, and thank you both again for your kind and diligent input. I'm confident that we can revisit the image in say 3-9 months and see if some of our other preferences (Amir Khan for example) have suitable images we could use as alternatives. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Next time perhaps we could use this instead of Gallagher. Just to overcome any lingering suspicions of a Mancunian bias, you understand... ;) (But seriously, he is much better known internationally.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox picture selection criteria breached Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy

I've now raised this as a POV dispute. Further to the other discussions, I believe that making the picture infobox of 'Notable Britains' gender, nationality, occupationaly, ethnically and historically balanced when notable Britains are not gender, nationality, occupationaly, ethnically and historically balanced, gives a false impression and hence fails Wikipedias neutral point of view policy.

Further conversations for reference -

• Talk:British_people#Wikipedian consensus vs. the real world
• Talk:British_people/Archive_1

Taking it one step at a time, once this has been resolved we can discuss any modifications. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that in the time that I wrote this User:Jza84 has removed the template on the article in breach of the instruction "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". I will undo the remove. Please observe the POV dispute process procedures. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Go on then... discuss... you have the grievance, so what is it? What's your suggestion? What would be neutral (in your point of view). Otherwise we may as well ignore this. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The selection criteria used did not conform to WP:NPOV. I'm interested to hear what the NPOV dispute people have to say, as they are likely to be more experienced and objective than those involved in the selection process. Like I said, taking it one step at a time, once this issue has been resolved we can discuss any modifications.-- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the subtitle "Notable Britons" with this diff. Perhaps we can move on... I believe your interpretation of the policy and the preferences you have raised are a red herring. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a major distraction and in no way will help resolve the image in the infobox. It is in no way a violation of wikipedia policy. Consensus has to be reached on everything on wikipedia which includes text and images. Theres no rule saying how we can and cant decide who is included on the image as long as its not clearly inaccurate i dont see the problem.

You have yet to say what your exact problem with the image is and how you would resolve it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

John, can you please state what you want fixed and how you would go about it? Otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. "Notable Britons" has been removed from the infobox and the image used is now considerably different, meaning your gripe is redundant AFAICT. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The other tags

As far as I am aware, the other two tags on the page, on synthesis (April 2008) and the earlier infobox POV tag (Feb 2009, added by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim as part of a "What is Britishness?" debate), are not now under active discussion. Would it therefore be appropriate to remove them now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think so. I once got my wrist slapped for "drive-by tagging". If there's still no clear greivance or obvious complaint then I believe the two should go.... (or else all three given John has not returned!) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think hes waiting for the NPOV Squad to come round and tell us all off :). As for the other tags, i think the reason the infobox and syn tag was added due to the fact those who declared they were of English, Welsh and Scottish ancestory were added up to make the figures. Whilst the US census did allow people to choose British, the vast majority identified themselves as ENglish etc. I think long term it would be nice to see a break down of the English/Welsh/Scottish with a total of those from British ancestory but that would take along time to go through and look presentable.

So as no more comments have been made on this matter for some time, id say remove the Infobox warning tag but it might be helpful to add a note above the numbers of people saying how the figures were calculated just so its not misleading anyone. I also note theres no tag on the European Americans for example which does exactly the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

i still have concerns about this article in general. Im not an expert of British history or nationality so i cant really make suggestions, but i just dont like how the entire article comes across. Ive still got my doubts about the opening paragraph too. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably content with the introduction, but agree that the rest of the article is a bit of a mess. I think any attempts to quantify "British people" are doomed to fail because of the range of (overlapping) definitions. Re the tags, I think we should hold off for a day or so to see if there are other comments, but then delete the tags that have been resolved, and perhaps replace them by one more general one...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on waiting awhile to see if theres further comments before removing those tags. Id say the general clean up and possibly one on an expert needed. The intro just doesnt seem as clear as it could be, so many ors and ofs but i dont know how it could be improved, just something about it that doesnt sit right with me, although i have problems with all of the people articles. I think a mention of "British people" belongs on the English, Scottish and Welsh people articles but i wouldnt want to try arguing for that until this article is cleaned up. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm the intro seems much clearer to me now, i like the change that was made removing the repeat info on ancient Britons thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I would like to see the introduction changed, or rather expanded if I'm honest. The opening is very strong, and I like the 1st paragraph. Per WP:LEAD I believe we need 3/4 paragraphs. For example, the first can remain, the second could be about the emergence of British civic identity after 1707 and developments in British nationality law, the third could be about certain statistics, stereotypes, achievements/world standing and characteristics, the fourth could be about controversies and sensitivities (Britishness implying Englishness, home nations, "ethnic" Britons and Northern Ireland). The lead section should reflect the whole article really, so does need some kind of expansion regardless of if this approach was to be used or not).

Regarding British national identity, Linda Colley's book Britons is the most authoritative publication around as far as I'm aware. Google Books might throw up some ideas too. I also think that File:Britishers.jpg and File:Britishers, enlist today.png are worth showing.... I believe I read once read that "Britishness" gains ground during periods of war and struggle, I think the quote was "war is a unifying factor for Britons", but I've no idea where this was from. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion about styling the introduction paragraphs in that way sounds like a very good one and i would support such a change. The intro is clearer now but its certainly missing alot of information. lol @ the "Britishers" id never heard of that phrase before and unity through war is common yes, its no wonder the table down the page shows that more people in Northern Ireland consider themselves British than the rest of the UK, theyve had to fight to keep that identity something most in the Great Britain havnt for some time. Thats why i still have a problem with that second short paragraph. "The British people are today regarded by some as a single nation, and by others as a collection of separate nations - who share the island of Great Britain." it excludes those from Northern Ireland even if that is what the source says which is offensive to alot of people. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is very weak - it's an obvious example of WP:WEASEL to supplant the British as a nation. It's a nationalist point of course, but its not a strong way of making it, and isn't well worded. Of course sensitivities and controversies need a mention, but a radically different approach is needed in my view. Also, the sources used for that paragraph do not really say what is being stated here.

Regarding what I envisage for the lead, I believe we need something that actually tells us about the British people, i.e. something like how this or this does. Something about reserved nature, attitudes to certain issues, complex regional identities and accents, social class etc. There is a source somewhere online (or at least there used to be) that succinctly summarised these things, talking about how on a train British people were uninterested in small talk and found it intrusive, and tended to wear dark coloured clothing (greys, navy blues, blacks). All that kind of national character is totally absent at present, and source material does exist out there.

What do you guys think? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for the introduction to be expanded to provide a better summary of the information that is in the full article (which I think is what WP:LEAD intends), but I'm not too happy about WP perpetuating stereotypes or international "images" of British people, which is what your links suggest - unless, of course, they are backed up with hard info or clearly described as stereotypes. I think the article (and, hence, the lead/lede) should focus on the differences (and overlaps) between the different definitions of "British people" - ethnicity, citizenship, identity, etc. - and provide factual information on those, rather than delving too deeply into questions of supposed British "traits" or "character" which are going to be, to some degree, unverifiable and also, I suspect, highly contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph is weak and should be expanded, but its not a nationalist perspective per se, as it presents both unionist and nationalist views. Like Ghmyrtle I really don't like the stereotypes especially as they are not universally true. Conversations on the train for example vary by region and context. The consequences of Empire and a class system, the impact of the Channel are all suitable subjects on the other hand. --Snowded (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that is certainly something thats missing right now, describing sterotypes or trends that identify people as British, although i agree i think we should avoid them in the introduction, but i think there should be a section in the article covering culture.

I think as you said keeping the first paragraph as it is, the second covering when todays "British identity" was formed and nationality laws mentioning how everyone in the empire were British subjects etc. The third mentioning number of Brits, and also how former parts of the empire like Australia still have millions who identify having British roots etc. Then the 4th dealing with northern ireland, but also saying many identify themselves as Scottish, Welsh and English but not British and the fact the confusion with English/British often leads to offense. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or switching the 3rd and 4th paragraphs around so the problems with identity come after the paragraph on forming of that identity.. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, but I wouldn't want to overemphasise the NI issue, esp not in the lead - it's obviously highly complex and contentious. For instance, surveys of the extent to which people in GB view those people in NI who may self-identify as "British" as "truly British", have given interesting results. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed not too much detail just one sentence on NI mentioning some strongly identify with being British whilst others are deeply offended and only consider themselves Irish. But i think that would be better than what we have currently where the introduction just tries to ignore northern ireland all together. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because the difficulties of getting consensus in relation to NI are ..hmm.. challenging ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well something simple like "British identity in Northern Ireland is controversial, whilst some identify themselves as both Irish and British, others are strongly opposed to it". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate any use of "some say this, others say that", and it's always picked up on at GA and FA level as bad practice. A more proper way of getting that latter point across would be to say "owing to complex and longstanding ethno-sectarian divisions, British identity in Northern Ireland is controversial", or something along those lines.

Going back to Snowded's point, I don't accept that's so. It's not about views, British people are a nation by defintion. Period. That some newspapers and perfectly reputable sources say Scots are also a nation doesn't mean Britons are 3 distinct nations and not themselves a single nation. English has conflict with Cornish identity, as do Scots with the Orcadians in a simillar way, whilst focussing on regional varieties and preferences doesn't do justice to those who have just migrated to Britain and don't feel part of the nation, and say 3rd/4th generation British Asian muslims who feel aggrieved by the West. I'm not saying airbrush the point out, but I am saying its very poor choice of words and approach. I'd say something like:

"Within the United Kingdom, British people hold a variety of different regional accents, expressions, and identities. British society is a complex, mulit-cultral agglomeration, meaning national characteristics are XYZ. Following the 1707 Acts of Union, it became common for the people of the Kingdom of Great Britain to have a "layered" identity - to think of themselves as simultaneously British and also Scottish, English, and/or Welsh. Today however, attitudes to British identity provide a range of responses, making a precise definition of Britishness elusive." --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to recognise that, over many centuries (and not just since 1707) many people in these islands have both intermarried and moved freely between different parts of the islands, for a whole variety of reasons. "British" has come to be, for many in GB at least, a catch-all term, which includes, in my case for example, genetic heritage from both Wales and Ulster Scots, a birthplace in England, and current residence in Wales. I'm personally more comfortable being described as "British" than anything else (although I might well have a different perception if I lived in Ireland) and my position, or a similar one, is commonplace. Hopefully the article can clarify rather than further confuse - or over-simplify - the complications and various definitions of "British identity". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. It drives me bonkers when people think you're genetically a different race from another for having say a Scottish accent, when you may have "100%" (forgive me) English heritage. But I'd best not ramble! The point you make is one I share; that being British is a catch-all term. In my locale, it is common for the local South Asian community to consider themselves British, but not English - English meaning the White community. I'm confident that could be verified somehow, and if so, that would mean that British isn't just Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen (and Northern Irishmen!).

Could we agree upon how an expanded lead might look? I forgot to mention above that lead actually has no mention of English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, if you read it. They are merely implied. That serves nobody. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its crazy that English, Scottish, Welsh are not mentioned on their own and that Northern Irish are totally ignored and disqualified by the current introduction. As for the structure of the lead i think the points you mentioned in your original suggestion covered everything thats needed.

• Keep the first paragraph (although a couple of points could be removed if covered elsewhere in intro)
• One paragraph on forming of British identity (clearly mentioning Welsh, English, Scottish people and that millions of us are mongrels as weve mixed overtime)
• One paragraph on trouble with identity in Northern Ireland, some in Britain not seeing themselves as British, and perhaps general misunderstandings when it comes to English/British leading to offense.
• One paragraph on how many British people there are, nationality law and a mention of British ancestory around the world because of Empire and then recent immigration expanding British identity and culture.

Not sure in which order the last two points would belong and if different parts belong in different paragraphs but i think that covers everything needed in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Going forwards...

I've put User:Jza84/Sandbox4 together. I'm not saying this is perfect, but it is very tightly referenced, and better reflects how the rest of the (reputable) published world tackles British people as well as more closely meets WP:LEAD.

What do we think about it? Please ignore everything below the lead - it's just there for my personal reference. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good job with the exception of one sentence "Internationally the British are "famed for their manners" and "stiff upper lip" and are regarded as "reserved"" which is am English stereotype. --Snowded (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The references I've looked at all assert otherwise - it is sourced. Although possibly/probably English, and probably from upper-class colonialist Gentlemen, Brits persist to be known internationally for these traits. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the English=British confusion to me. Next you will want all Welshmen to sing songs in terrace houses with faces stained by coal dust and have sexual congress with sheep, while the scots refuse to pay for the entertainment, paint themselves blue and look down on drunken irish footpads. Can I suggest that we find something which avoids stereotypes? (Oh and it always rains in Manchester) --Snowded (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want that? I don't think that's helpful at all Snowded. I'm merely reporting on publish works. It would be quite improper of me or anyone to change what they have said with regards to British/English. Do a Google search for what the British are known for and I assure you that "manners", "reserve" and "stiff upper lip" dominates all the reputable sources. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep a sense of humour Jza. You can find a source for more or less any stereotype you care to mention. I don't see any value in including them, particularly when the one you choose is an English Public School one. There are much better things to talk about which are shared between the nations. The tradition of democracy going back to the chartists, welcoming different cultures, the educational tradition. --Snowded (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Snowded. How did you know what I did last weekend? Have you been stalking me or just Scots in general? :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was in Edinburgh last weekend Jack, wearing a red shirt and celebrating. JZA, you might like to have a look at references liken this --Snowded (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's all unsourced pie in the sky though, and again, I'm merely reporting on the commonalities found when one researches about British people. Infact I wanted to find something about distingushed contribution to the arts and sciences, but instead all I found was politeness and queuing up. These are real world perceptions, and I imagine our readers, our international readers, would be most perplexed were we not to have passing mention of it, no matter how outdated or cringe worthy we think of this. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a source! I did several google searches and found nothing on stiff upper lips (one is reminded of Blackadder and the slug). I fond a lot on humour, satire, irony, fair play etc. etc. Reserve yes, not complaining yes, but stiff upper lip! --Snowded (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with your source. But your source is something of a sensationalist series - they appear to be intended to shock, and find unusual, less-well known aspects of certain national cultures.

Re stiff upper lip, that was actually another user's suggestion. It wasn't in the stuff I'd borrowed from the library admittedly. That all said, I've received some suggestions on a re-word, so please give me some time to get back to you on this one! I would be very grateful. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Happy to leave it with you, aside from that one sentence it all looked to be a considerable improvement. I will go back to Armcom, Ayn rand and other forms of nastiness. --Snowded (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello guys. I'm the one who came up with stiff upper lip. The only reference I could find was this one. I don't know if this would be good enough to retain it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) OK guys, the discussion has quietened on my sandbox talk page, and there have been some really good insights, suggestions and tweaks. I intend to archive that discussion into this talk page for reference (so there are no accusations of back room discussions in the future). How do we feel about the sandbox version now? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me now. I am not 100% sure on the Napoleonic point as the concept of Britain was developed by Dee and others in the time of Elizabethan times (which is when we see the incorporation of Arthur into the mythology of what was then a proto-empire. But its good enough to go and a considerable improvement. --Snowded (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and citations

Breifly moving away from the lead for a moment, and in preparation of the forthcoming upgrade of the opening, I'm slighly concerned about the infobox and the lack of Template:Citation. Is anybody else willing to help tidy these up? Also this tool shows that some of our online sources are outdated and/or broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the article is being improved and the introduction is going to be clearer ive changed my opinion on the info in the infobox. Before some suggested just using that to detail British residents abroad, rather than a few of those figures (just 6) including the number of those with British ancestory which is the reason why we have those tags. Id now support removing the figures on ancestory from there and it just being about British citizens abroad which we have a great source by the BBC on. The information on ancestory can then just be left to go into more detail on in the actual article. Dont know how others feel about it? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy about this. Deacon made a good case about this above about anachronism. Would you want to make the changes in my sandbox or hang back for the "upgrade" to happen first? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the upgrade first i think to see how others feel but it would then certainly justify the removal of all the tags. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done the "upgrade" and removed the tags. If you have ideas for the infobox, I'd encourage you to go for it! The page looks radically improved since just a few days ago! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the introduction summarise the article?

Per WP:LEAD, the Introduction is supposed to summarise the full article. In seeking to improve the Introduction, have we collectively forgotten the need to improve the article as a whole, and the need to summarise what is in the article itself? If there are key elements within the revised introduction which are not adequately covered in the article, I suggest that text be added to the article, rather than being deleted from the lede/lead. What do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. I think this would be best for everyone. I hope a good lead, with a more sustainable infobox would encourage development of the article.

We seem to have a good team of sound and enthusiastic editors around this page at the moment, so, how do we envisage this article to look in an ideal world? Is there a layout we would like to agree upon and adopt? I'm willing to stick around with this page to try and get it to B-class, maybe GA. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just been reading through the page. We seem to be missing a/the section between "Development of Britishness" (which I would expect to cover things between 1707 and 1801) and then "Britishness today". I think we need to restructure things so that we have a section covering the period from 1801 to World War II - effectively the period of the British Empire. How would that sound? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I think I made a similar point some time ago (or maybe on another page). This is getting further and further away from areas in which I can claim much knowledge, and I also have very little time in the next couple of weeks, so I look forward to seeing others' contributions, if not a finished product! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing a bit of research and it seems WP:ETHNICGROUPS recommended a standardised layout, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. Tamil people is a featured article which has adopted this layout. Of course British people are rather unique in a great many ways, particularly with respect to notions of ethnicity and nationality, but I think we can broadly utilize that layout and make small ammendments to taylor our needs. Would that be OK? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that WP:ETHNICGROUPS is irrelevant, as Britishness is a political concept, and has nothing to do with ethnicity. Only in Northern Ireland do a majority of the population identify as British - that implies a rather odd ethnic group, no? 86.133.205.241 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I can understand that argument, I very much doubt whether most people who self-identify as "British" or of "British" heritage (at least, those living outside Ireland and, perhaps, Scotland) see themselves as located within a "political concept" - in many cases it covers those who come from mixed English/Scottish/Welsh etc. etc. genetic background. And, reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, it is apparent that the project takes a wide and inclusive remit, which in my view would certainly cover the subjects of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see earlier discussions...

I'd like to say I'm a bit disappointed in the choice of figures for the photos in the infobox. A disproportionately large amount are from the twentieth century and I would question the worthiness of some of those included. Urpunkt (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Please see earlier discussions... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(original quotation)

request for edit

((350 billion British in chile?)) If theres 350 billion (thats 350,000,000,000) british living in chile, that would mean the entire population of the world, all british and all living in chile. This figure is wrong. I looked at the reference and translated it via google search (assuming spanish). The figure quoted here is 350 thousand (at the bottom paragraphs), but its not really a stat for "british people", the document is unclear as to whether it refers to only british people or to both british people and those of british decent. It gives a figure for the number of americans living in chile, and a figure for all people of british decent, but not a figure for actual "british people". Perhaps something has been lost in the google translation.

However 350 billion is definitely wrong, but I wont vouch for the figure as quoted at 350 thousand. I would replace it but firstly: Due to my lack of (spanish?) fluency; and secondly and probably most importantly: the page is locked!!!

So unlock the page and change it if you have a log in or leave a comment if you have a better translation than what google translate can provide.

(original quotation) "En tiempos actuales Chile sigue recibiendo contingente britanico en su mayoría ingleses e irlandeses además de un importante grupo de norteamericanos alrededor de 30 mil instalados en Chile , la colonia britanica en Chile esta integrada por alrededor de 350 a 420 mil descendientes siendo una de las más numerosas de Latinoamérica luego de las de Brasil y Argentina."

(english translation of "spanish"(?) quotation (via google search) "In Chile today continued to receive British contingent in most English and Irish in addition to a large group of about 30 thousand Americans installed in Chile, the British colony in Chile is composed of about 350 to 420 thousand is a descendant of the most numerous Latin America after Brazil and Argentina from."

Thanks in advance. NB some IP address somewhere :o) (but not chile :oP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.148 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009

I have clarified the article text, to read 350,000-420,000. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Still wrong and the anon IP editor is correct. Based on the text above, the numbers 350K - 420K is not supported as it talks about "descendants" and not about people born in Britain. There's also the fact that Irish also appear to be included... --HighKing (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar?

I wouldn't do this normally but I hate to see Wikipedia having grammar issues and I am not a registered user so I will simply make this a request for someone to change. "Britishness came to be "superimposed on to much older identities", and the English, Scottish and Welsh "remain in many ways distinct peoples in cultural terms", giving rise to resistance to British identity". As far as I am concerned "to much" is incorrect and should be "too much." OED claims the following, "II. 2. In excess; more than enough; overmuch, superfluously, superabundantly. (Preceding and qualifying an adj. or adv.) a. gen. In excess of what ought to be; more than is right or fitting." Along with about three more definitions using "too much" as an example. If anyone would like to defend for some odd reason why this is currently correct, I'm thrilled to hear what could possibly said. If not change this please :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.38.104 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2009

No - it means "..on to identities that were much older." Not the best worded sentence in the world, but it's OK as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a rather confusing sentence and im not sure that its a neutral one but it is "to" not "too". Perhaps we should just remove the word "much" which would make it clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from a book, in speech marks. I would be uncomfortable changing a quote from its original, intended meaning. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irish and Britishness 1800 - 1922??

Resolved.

OK, I've been doing some pretty radical expansion to this page (as I promised I would for probably a couple of years now!), and I really hope my careful and incredibly time-consuming referencing is helping to produce an account of Britishness and the British people that is helpful for our purposes of an encyclopedic article (!!!!).

I have to stress though it's work in progress, and hope to get round to tackling modern Britishness and resistance to it (including the Northern Ireland issue) very soon - it's an important part of who the British have become.

That all said, I've come to a point under the British_people#Development_of_Britishness heading (near the end) where I'm addressing how the Irish people fit into notions of Britishness. I want to be able to verify that after the union with Britain, Ireland was a) mismanaged b) somewhat neglected by the British government (tying in the Great Famine) and c) this gave rise to resistance to Britishness, conflict with Britain and eventual secession of the Irish Free State. It's not a full account of Anglo-Irish relations that's needed, just a bit of background and explanation in a breif paragraph why Britishness was not adopted (and even abhored) after the union.

Does anybody have a really strong, encompassing, but succinct reference that we could use here? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tentatively marked this as resolved. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a danger of perpetuating a Catholic v Protestant stereotype. Several of the early leaders of the Irish Independence Movement (and support for the Irish Language) were Protestant. You can see this in the Young Irish Movement. Great job by the way of getting the article into shape so consider this a fine tuning comment! --Snowded ^TALK 03:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still alot to do, even in the sections that look quite mature. I've no doubt some parts need additional quotations and explanations, but hopefully the bones and some of the meat is there.

Do you have a source for some of the Irish protestants that were perhaps anti-British? Something like "although Irish nationalism was not sectarian in nature" would help give balance in that section. I haven't come across anything, but I'm with you - I expect that that might reflect the authors and sources I've looked at. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I thought I would have look around google book search to see what I could come up with. I came across this book which may shed some light on it. Hope that helps. Ps, I'm sure Snowded will come up with a better reference from his private library. :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Indeed, there is something about Charles Stewart Parnell around pages 207/208. I'll try see if he ever made a statement in the same way O'Connell did. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm locked into a deadline on a Home Office project at the moment - I should be able to hunt something down at the weekend --Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Hopefully I should've nailed this by the evening. I'm on to something at this book which should complement the source provided by Jack and elaborate more so on historical Irish sensibilities with regards to protestantism (or not....). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neilson and Hyde were both Protestants and early proponents of the Gaelic league. O'Connell was pro English interestingly. A very similar divide to Wales between the socialist, internationalist English speaking south and the rural welsh speaking conservative (small c) west and north. Its not until the middle of the last century really that things change. --Snowded ^TALK 15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of this book seems to suggest that Irish nationalism was broadly sectarian. However, if you read the paragraph....

Ireland 1801–1922 was marked by a succession of economic and political mismanagement and neglect, which marginalised the Irish, and advanced Irish nationalism. In the forty years that followed the union, successive British governments grappled with the problems of governing a country which had, as Benjamin Disraeli put it in 1844, "a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and in addition the weakest executive in the world". Although the vast majority of Unionists in Ireland proclaimed themselves "simultaneously Irish and British", even for them there was a strain upon the adoption of Britishness after the Great Famine.

...one sees that sectarianism isn't really mentioned. I was thinking of adding...

Indeed, Charles Stewart Parnell, an Anglo-Irish Protestant landowner in Ireland with a distant relationship with the British Royal Family, became a prominent orator and politician advocating the repeal of the Act of Union (1800).

... to the end of the paragraph, but really, I think that implies more about sectarianism than we had originally. What do you guys think? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I remember my history sectarianism starts to come into play after the collapse of the Young Ireland movement (although its not major) and most protestants and catholics alike would call themselves Irish (although the largely absentee elete would have called themselves English not British). The heavy sectarian differences start to emerge around the time of the Home Rule Bill and the move up a notch or two after the Easter Rising. --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sport

Would mentioning that fishing is reckoned to be the most participated sport in the UK be worth a mention? [6]. Jack forbes (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. A reputable source I have says "Angling is one of the most popular sports, with an estimated 3 million anglers in the UK". The section is still a little thin, and work in progress, but sure I think this is worth a mention (although it's new to me - probably because I live on a hill!).

Hope the work I'm doing is well received. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your doing a grand job Jz. Good to see you back. Jack forbes (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and nice to see you back also. :) I'll try to put something in about fishing/angling asap, as well as some bits about boxing, golf, rugby, etc that I have to hand. I was beginning to think nobody was interested in this page anymore!

I think the really thorny bits are going to come soon though. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template which is used for the matured/acclaimed articles on the Armenians and Tamil people, we're going to need some bits on classification (so we'll have to find out how reputable geneticists and anthopologists define the British (as a whole) - probably White European or Anglo-Celtic or something....????), as well as some notes about British nationalism and the British far right. I'm no fan of this, but think and can produce a reasonable, encyclopedic account.

There are still a couple of other outstanding issues too; Irish rejection of Britishness is still under-represented, as is the assimilation of migrations (so the Black British for example).

What I'm hoping is that the sourcing will be repected and that editors won't confuse and supplant this page with Scottish, Welsh and English identities. I suppose I'm saying that "European people" would talk about pan-European culture and institutions and not French, German, Italian football teams etc. Although it needs mentioning, AFAICT, this article needs to be a space for pan-Britishness. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cracking on...

Resolved

OK, the article is looking much more healthy than it did say a few weeks back. Hope it's ok for everyone.

I think I've set my hearts on taking this article through WP:GAC asap, as I've really enjoyed expanding this page. However, I've identified the six following areas that are still thin/weak/underdeveloped:

• Ancestral roots section: I've added a few breif (but very well sourced) statements about the English, Scottish and Welsh national identities in there; I don't think we need to go overboard here, but a little bit more sourcing, verification and elaboration would be helpful for context AFAICT.
• United States section: this is just a couple of sentences at the moment. I'm confident we could make a thicker, more encyclopedic account of British settlement, influence and institutions that have contributed to the states.
• Development of Britishness section: this still has a few weak statements, particularly about Irishness (as noted a couple of sections above).
• Institutions and politics section: I'm hoping we can expand this; the British political system was adopted throughout the world. Also, I think this would be a good section to elaborate on the social structure and class system of Britain, and how it affects politics (I read during my research that the working classes have historically supported Labour, the middle and upper classes Conservative - but lost the article sadly).
• Nationalism and the far right section: the Ethnic Groups Wikiproject says we ought to mention nationalist movements applicable to the titular nation/ethnic group/cultural identity/nationality, so I've tried to write about this. Something about Oswold Mosley and how the far right has traditionally viewed "indigenous Britons" (as well as opposition to it) would be helpful in contributing to a full(er) account of the British people, I imagine. Not sure about the (militant?) British unionist tradition of Northern Ireland (i.e. loyalism) here though either????
• Immgrants and cultural assimilation/appropriation: I've tried to mention this in the Modern period section, but elaborate more so in the Classification section. This type of material is still thin and under-represented.

Hopefully these changes would bring about a full(er) account of the British people, and something ready for GA. Once we've hit these I'll as WP:ETHNIC to take a look and then submit a GAC. Feel free to strike the above if anyone tackles these before me. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry there's a seventh point:

• Infobox: some of the sourcing here is substandard/deadlinked, and the ones that aren't need to use the Template:citation if anybody is willing an able????

Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved with this sig. Most of these have been addressed. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and the far-right

What is the justification for this sub-section of the article being so lengthy? It takes up about half of the section on Institutions and politics, which is wholly disproportionate in the overall context of British political affairs. To the worldwide reader, it gives a completely false impression of the importance of this phenomenon in modern Britain. I propose it be severely reduced in size, or even deleted, on the grounds of undue weight. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing really, on reflection, when I saw the section. Really we just need two short paragraphs IMHO. I was trying to mention something about British nationalism as per WP:ETHNIC, but I'm not sure it works well (in the way I've done it).... Although the section I've put together is probably better than the far right in the United Kingdom article as a whole!!! The Instituions and politics needs expanding more, and the nationalism trimmed to the basics. Feel free to go for it on my account. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jza84, only read your earlier post after writing my last comment - my point still stands though. Personally, I really, really don't want to take on any more writing at the moment... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree it should be shortened. If there is a section on nationalism should there be a mention of the different nationalist causes within Britain? Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've removed it with this diff. On reflection this wasn't doing any favours for anyone and was a bit silly of me.

The nationlist movements and interpretations and rejections of British identity are mentioned in the Modern period and the Classification sections with very good neutral sources. I suppose we need to refocuss this back on to British people rather than British politics. British people doesn't get a mention in at Scottish people however.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

As this article is being prepared for GA/FA I've got a comment to make. I think that there's a bit of a problem with the way some of the quotations are being used, as in "In the United Kingdom, 'more people attend live music performances than football matches'". The result of quoting rather than paraphrasing in examples like this one is, in my view anyway, to produce a rather stilted and fragmentary writing style. Just an observation, feel free to ignore it. Probably wouldn't be a problem for GA anyway, but I certainly think it would be an impediment at FAC --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit this is my doing. It's not my usual style of editting, but I know that this article needs alot of ultra-sustainable editting and futureproofing if it isn't to be substantially altered away from the source material and supplanted with various nationalist, political, neo-nazi, anti-British, pro-British, abusive or whatever kind of POV weaselly statements - which I would expect, the topic is a minefield, an obvious target, and there's alot of national pride stake for many. I think your example is one of the/my worse offenders though, and should be paraphrased.

Alot of the content is going to be constructed from quoted perspectives of authors and sources AFAICT, with little room for conjecture or hard fact eitherway. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would expect nothing less.:-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Once everything's in place I'll try to go through and eliminate all unnecessary direct quotes, and use prose which is paraphrased. It's a valid point you make. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)