Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion

Hi, all. Now that the discussion on the matter at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" has concluded, I've prepared this draft of a Wikipedia essay on the matter, incorporating some suggestions by Matt Lewis. Views on how the essay may be improved are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The description regarding Northern Ireland is unnecessarily complicated, going through the legal description of entitlement to Irish citizenship. (Under Irish law everyone begins being "entitled" to Irish citizenship, but only legally become one upon doing something that only a citizen can do - e.g. register to vote, apply for a passport - then they become one retroactively from birth. However, even if you don't so anything that only a citizen can do, that doesn't mean that you are not an Irish citizen. Confusing, or what?)

You write:


This is perfectly accurate but, despite all if it's round-about language, there is no difference between entitlements to Irish citizenship between a person from the North and someone from the south. It can be made clearer by brushing over the legal requirement to citizenship as is done when describing entitlement to UK citizenship:


--sony-youthpléigh 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will make the change. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

Could you also change the title of the essay? Calling it a Manual of Style gives the impression that it is based on consensus rather than a personal view. --sony-youthpléigh 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure about the title. Any suggestions? "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, have renamed the essay. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Thanks for writing the essay!

I think one of the difficult points is your suggestion:

"Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country?"

The problem is that someone who was born and resident (for a long time) in, say, England, was also born and resident (for an equal length of time) in Britain. So I would argue that this gives us no more reason to call them "English" than "British". Bluewave (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Any suggestions? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to distinguish between the two levels of "nation" and "nationality" in the text of this article. For example, the above guideline could be rephrased:
"Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's more specific nationality, such as birth and long residence in one of the home nations?"
As a separate point, I'd suggest that place of death or burial can be another indicator of specific nationality. For example: an Angus-born playwright who spent much of his working life in London, but chose the town of his birth for his final resting place; I'd identify him as Scottish. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
On the point about burial, I don't think this is always a good indication of a person's national affiliation - places of burial are often chosen by relatives and not necessarily by the person themself. Fundamentally, though, my concern is that, whilst the nationality "British" is provable, the use of, say "English" is entirely a matter of personal preference. If I live all my life in England, I may regard myself as "English" or may think I'm "British" and I don't think anyone could infer my preference from where I was born, lived, died or was buried. I suppose I would therefore argue that to use anything other than "British" as a nationality, we should have some evidence that a person considered themself to be, say, "English". Bluewave (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Jason, thanks for the suggested rewording. I think that's quite good. As regards the comments on a person's place of burial, I suppose it depends on whether it was one chosen by the deceased or by his relatives. I would also add that a person may choose to be buried in a place that he or she feels particular affinity for, which may not reflect nationality. I'll try to work something about a burial place chosen by the deceased into the guideline.
Bluewave, I entirely agree that from an evidential point of view it is more likely that a person's British nationality can be confirmed, compared to the fact that he or she is Scottish, [etc.]. However, I think we have to live with the current reality that there is no consensus on preferring "British" over "Scottish, [etc.]", which is why the guideline needs to be fairly neutral on this issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I accept that I'll never get consensus on this...which is probably why I'm having a whinge on the talk page of a discussion document, rather than continuing to slog it out in the biography guidelines! One point perhaps worth including is that geographical affiliations that are not actually nationalities are sometimes appropriate in articles, as long as they are used in a context where they are not presented as a nationality. It is quite reasonable to describe someone as (say) a Texan or a Parisian, if appropriate. Likewise, in the UK, people are sometimes referred to as being "Yorkshiremen", "Cornish", "Liverpudlian", etc, but these descriptions shouldn't be used in place of a nationality. There are even times when the words "English", "Scots" or "Welsh" might be used in this sense! Bluewave (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, take consolation in the fact that I agree with you on the "British" point. About your other point: do you think should regional appellations be mentioned in this guideline? If so, would you like to try your hand at framing some suitable phraseology? I've got no strong views on the matter – I'm happy with the point either being included or excluded. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

'Presently' is a misleading word.

On first look I can't see too much to object to, but I have seen this (how could I miss it!);

"There presently does not appear to be any consensus on how this guideline should be applied with respect to people from the United Kingdom."

Oh dear - it's the first line!

It must begin something like 'on Wikipedia, there has never been consensus...' I'll change it first right now, as it's, ahem, rather important to get this bit right. It must be your POV breaking through to say 'presently', as it suggests it's a temporary situation. All the evidence clearly points to consensus never being found. It's NOT an ugly hole - its simply our natural state.

As I've said so much before, most people in the UK are happy with the flexibility and absence of consensus - we live with it, and have done throughout our history. It cannot suddenly be implied that it's a temporary thing! It's like saying the French are 'presently' romantic!

The idea of Britishness can certainly be used by politicians and the media to encourage racial distrust (and hence, of course, advance security measures and foreign policy) - but on the whole we simply accept each others differences here. That means flexibility in identifying ourselves. There is no 'presently' about it. That general UK feeling really should be in your head by now, Jack. Oogy-boogy flexibility really is the state of play.

Surely as a foreigner studying in the UK you have felt this? I hope you've not had any bad vibes.

Regarding what identity can mean to some people in this blood-soaked world, you will find me every bit as strong about all this as I have been before - so be prepared if you fancy an argument.

I'll change this now and see if there is anything else I can see. On first look it seems innocuous enough - so a tentative 'well done'.

PS. "There presently does not appear to be any consensus" actually sounds awfully English! (in a sort of "at present I'm rather at a loss over the whereabouts of my pyjamas" kind of way) --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Talk back to the original Biographies Talk page

By request, please conduct further content discussion to the link in this heading.

Only very minor points on the essay structure should be discussed here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created a few sub-headings to get the [{Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29|the original Biographies Talk page]] discussion going again - just in case some confusion with here occurred.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New 'main line' - please Talk

OK, I almost changed it - then thought it was wisest to remove it completely for the time being, and discuss my possible changes here first:

3. Nationality –

3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.•
3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
•Note that no consensus exists on 'Nationality' regarding people from the United Kingdom. There is an essay on people from the United Kingdom that could be used as a guideline for similar collective states, and also for areas that have disputed rights.

The only way I can see this really working is if the essay doesn't singularly focus on the UK. Then the line could offer a general 'surrounding exceptions' essay. Any thoughts?

PS. I think essays need to be introduced as such, and I've no idea how to do asterisks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Matt. Personally, I don't think there's much difference between the way I drafted the modification to the guideline and your suggestion of putting the notice about the nationality of people from the UK in a footnote. (There is a way to create footnotes using {{ref}} and {{note}} tags.) Also, while the essay could certainly be expanded to discuss other collective states, I'd rather we just stick to the UK for the moment (somehow it seems to generate the most debate!) and leave the issue of whether the essay should be extended as a battle to be fought another day. But your suggestion of mentioning in the Manual of Style that the essay could be used as a guideline for other collective states is a good one. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent - we have some agreement. I have to move the 'presently' (re section above) - so will do that now, and then we can work on a footnote, yes? Then perhaps we can broaden the essay.
Just to say - I personally don't think it's right for any kind of 'work in progress' to be up on such an important page - but i've been reverted once after removing it to here, and so am compromising on this issue.
Also, Melty Girl wants me to put my points in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style biographies - we are clearly going to have to go back there. Despite your notices, I don't think many people have noticed yet that the discussion was moved here! (I didn't immediately, as I didn't picture the unconventionality of it). Obviously, a guaranteed consensus can only occur on the correct Discussion page - so let's carry on there.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ALL Talk has moved to the original Biographies Talk page

This Talk is currently moved to the place of the original discussion: the original Biographies Talk page. It might come back here in the future, but it needs to stay in one place! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE!
Moved last few discussions to link above. (apologies for rudeness! It's got to be in one place.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is talk on this essay being moved?

Matt, why are you moving talk on this essay to the other talk page? Is this normal practice? It seems a little confusing. Bardcom (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clealy explained above! Have you read the original Talk yet? This discussion on a guideline/essay needs to be kept all in once place. If you read above, Jack, the originator of this essay, agrees that the original page is the best one. Please don't disrupt things! It's far more confusing if it goes on in two places (ie. in here as well)! Only a few people at first noticed it was moved here from the original place - that wasn't exactly fair! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to the MoS in question, but I can't find where my posting is. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird - I did do yours (as I noted above), but it's not there - must have not saved it or something. I've just done it again now - sorry about that. There's was only a few until today - I've done the others. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Matt, I'm not taking a shot, take it easy. I have looked at this talk page, but I can't see the reason, and if it was clearly explained above, I wouldn't have asked and other people wouldn't be making the same assumption that I made. I've no doubt there is a reason, but for my benefit, and for the benefit of all the people that follow me that will ask the same question, I thought it best to allow you to clarify it once, here, and be done with it. I guess that you regard the "original place" to be the Manual of Style (Biographies), but for most, it doesn't make sense to go there to talk about this essay. Sure, it was fine when the idea was mooted originally, but now that the essay is in place, it makes more sense to talk about the essay here. (At least to me.) Bardcom (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should have discussion there, but respect the wishes of the community. I've made a note about it in a much clearer header at the top to avoid confusion. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job. It does kinda stand out well. Perhaps this page should be "archived" too, if that's the wishes of the community? Bardcom (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. People seem to be seeing other sections then adding a new section - it's what people are used to I suppose. Perhaps it could be page-archived, like the one on the MOS talk from last year? The new banner is great, but sooner or later someone will fail to spot it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to add - as far as I'm concerned the essay went into the MOS side-panel too early! It's still basically the original guideline Talk as far as I'm concerned. It's seen many changes since it's been up - far more than any other on the side panel I'm sure. Even the title isn't right yet, imo (but that discussion is on the MOS Talk page here!....) --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you can't find the discussion

OK, Where in the Biography talk page is it? That page now automatically archives everything over 60 days old, so the only rational solution is to dedicate an archive of that section for this specific topic. But if you're going to do that, perhaps it might be just as easy to make this page (and its archives) the easier-to-find home for British nationality discussions. Currently, even if they were easy to find, wouldn't any fresh contributions to the discussion get fragmented over multiple archives of the Biography talk? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussions have been placed in a separate archive called "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/2007-2008 archive: British nationality", which is now referred to in a footnote in the essay. I agree that it would be easier for further discussions about this essay to take place here, but to increase awareness about and participation in discussions here it may be necessary to put a message at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)" to notify editors active there. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, I was going by the note at the top of this page. Perhaps there's a way of modifying that to reflect both the 2007-8 MoS/Biog. archive and wherever subsequent (live) discussions can take place. My Wikipedian interest (apart from a personal one) has nothing to do with biographies, but arose first from a discussion at Talk:War of 1812 about how to describe the conflict (U.S.-U.K. vs Anglo-American, etc.) and then from a silly disagreement over how to list cities in New York City#Sister cities.† So the question crops up in many non-biographical contexts, although clearly some additional questions relate rather specifically to how an individual person's nationality should be classified. † [I was born in London, England (actually Middlesex), not "London, U.K.", which (like "London, Canada") seems a completely unnatural formation, regardless of political status]. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, how's this? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
One never knows how things work out in practice, or how something will be interpreted by others, but it looks good to me, giving a specific destination. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Biggest problem of all is not mentioned

I'm amazed to come to this essay and discover that the biggest problem of all is not mentioned. Only near the end does it say "Bear in mind too that non-UK media can make simplistic (and erroneous) assumptions about UK citizens: some use only British or English to describe them" - and as best I know, that's untrue. The essay completely fails to cover the much bigger and insulting practice of calling Scottish people English. Bear in mind that there is no confusing mis-match of categories in this case, the method of address is entirely ignorant (and likely worse). What's the point of this essay if it grants no protection to even the most respectable minorities from cultural imperialism? I hesitate to jump in and edit an essay about the fine-tuning of terms, because I'm sure it's all been carefully written and all of it is important. But none of it can be as important as reminding editors not to engage in accidental or deliberate racism. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the existing sentence that you quoted cover the situation you have highlighted? If you think the point needs to be more explicitly stated, do you have a proposed rewording in mind? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
How about "Bear in mind too that some writers, especially outside the UKk, can make simplistic (and erroneous) assumptions about UK citizens, such as describing all of them as 'English'".? Alarics (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What about the even bigger insulting practice of insulting the English by claiming that calling Scottish people English is insulting? Yes, foreigners call Brits English, in the same way Brits call all citizens of the former USSR Russians.

Seamus Heaney

Seamus Heaney writes in English, not Irish, unless there's something I don't know. At least his poetry is in English, not Irish in the sense here of a branch of Gaelic (Section 1.1. Celtic heritage within Britain and Ireland). Is there an alternative example? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Politicians and Footballers

It seems to me that the present situation is illogical and not sustainable. It seems to be based on "perception", but I'm not sure whose. Hence we are told that Neil Kinnock is Welsh, but Michael Howard (Welsh Jewish) is British, whereas Leo Abse (and his brothers), also Welsh Jewish, are Welsh. Geoffrey Howe, Welsh born and bread, is British. George Thomas, "a royalist" is Welsh but referred to as British. So someone thinks that you can't be a royalist and Welsh: perceptions presumably dictate otherwise.

Now...the English. It seems that English politicians must be called British. But not footballers! They can be called English! Phew, I'm just an Aussie. Help me someone! I imagine that apart from some nationalists, most English, Scottish and Welsh people accept that they're British; but that doesn't make them any less English, Scottish or Welsh.

Surely, as a general rule, we could refer to English, Scots and Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausseagull (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it's a muddle. You could make a good case (as you suggest) for referring to people as English, Scots or Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British. The trouble is that you could also make a good case for calling them all British unless the person in question specifically wants to be called English, Scots or Welsh. Either way, you've then got the problem of trying to find out if the person in question does specifically want to be called one or the other. Then you've got the further problem of deciding what is the test of Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness. Bluewave (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at your examples, I don't think I can (or would want to) defend all the ways that nationalities have been quoted, but I think some of the rationale is:
  • This is about nationality, so whether someone is Jewish is irrelevant.
  • If a footballer is associated with the "England" football team, this provides some evidence that they might consider themselves "English".
  • If a politician such as Howard has served in the cabinet of the UK government, has led a UK-wide political party, and has represented the UK in world forums, there is some rationale for calling them a British politician.
I think this is the kind of compromise "logic" that we have come up with....but I don't disagree with your view that it's illogical! Bluewave (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hold on..."A politician such as Kinnock....has led a UK political party", but we can't call him British! Ausseagull (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the idea that as a general rule we should refer to English, Scots and Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British. The default position must be that people are British (they are British citizens after all, thats their legal nationality). We must then consider the other factors involved. What they are best known as (Sean Connery is known for being Scottish, Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) is not), clearly sports like football English / Scottish is more suitable and if they only consider themselves a nationality other than British. In the case of anyone that sits in the UK parliament, they should be called British unless they are nationalists. Those who sit in the Welsh assembly or Scottish parliament can be called Scottish / Welsh.
That is how the introduction should describe them. I still think its best for us to put more than one nationality in the infobox if someone is both Scottish and British. The problem at the moment, someone like Gordon Brown is rightly called British and Alex Salmond is called Scottish, but that ignores the fact Brown is just as much Scottish as Alex Salmond. They infobox should display both next to nationality or put Scottish in the ethnicity field.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Although looking back at it the infobox on salmonds article it no longer states nationality to put an end to the dispute about what he should be described as. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're born in Great Britain after 1707, they're British. If they're born in Northern Ireland, they're British. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree if they are born in Great Britain after 1707, they are British. Britain is still considered a nationality and is legally and politically a nation-state. Foreign diplomats around the world refer to 'British nationals' when speaking of those born in Scotland/England/Northern Ireland/Wales. Wikipedia is simply falling victim to the political, historical and legal ignorant motivated by personal bias. Erzan (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (GMT)

It is the role of Wikipedia to actually step in and apply some consistency. It must apply the same rules for nationality descriptions across every country. Is it on the list of UN-recognised nations? No? Then sorry, you can't have it. There simply is no Scottish nationality, or independent England. If there were, why on earth are the SNP campaigning for Scottish independence? It's because they're part of the UK - not a federal, flag of convenience UK made of 'countries', but an actual centralised nation state formed over 500 years. I can't believe I am having to make the point, but it is partly because Wikipedia allows wishy-washy fantasism and 'rewriting of reality' for any aspirational inferiority-complexed dreamer that comes along, which then sloshes around in the common conscience of the uneducated as if it were true.

Boxing article infoboxes

Why does using "British" have to be prevented? We use nationalities of other sovereign states, yet not the United Kingdom, why? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with boxing as such, but isn't it the case that sportspeople from Britain often do not compete under "United Kingdom" but its constituent countries? Football seems to be a good example of this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I had noticed inconsistancy among the British boxers, a few days ago. Some went by British, while others went by Irish, Scottish, English & Welsh. Along with that, would it not seem strange to have boxer listed as "Albertans", "Californians" etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is odd, but perhaps it is not so much whether it looks strange but the actual national entity that the boxer in question is competing for. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Alberta and California are states within a federal republic, England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are constituent Countries of the United Kingdom, different things all together.--NorthernCounties (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
On that part England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland are each non-sovereign, like Alberta & California. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So I should change British to English, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish, Welsh? GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear convention on nationality (and you are fully aware of it GoodDay). The nationality depends on self-identification or how they were commonly known. You should revert your edits unless you have some reason to say they identified as British --Snowded TALK 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
My edits were already reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally i've recently came across this issue as well and have started a discussion at IE:COLL in regards to Northern Irish boxers.

Though this is an essay and not a Wikipedia policy. What enforcement does it have at all then?

Just for the record, Alberta and California i'd say have more legislative independance than the constituent parts of the UK and more right to having terms such as Albertan and Californians than Wales for Welsh or Scotland for Scottish etc. yet we simply use American. Ooh the confused mess than is UK nationality.... or should that actually be citizenship? Point 3.1 clearly shows that this essay makes a complete mockery of actual Wikipedia policy - why are cultural nationalities being given prominence over citizenship nationality which is what is meant to be referred too? If 3.1 was put into proper practice, then that means according to UK nationality law, there is only one option to be used for most people in the UK. Yet i think it'd be an extremely hard battle to get it properly enforced. Mabuska (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an essay and is not policy, so editors may choose to follow it or not to do so. However, it exists to record that there is currently no consensus as to how the nationality of people from the United Kingdom should be indicated in articles. I agree with you that it seems to make sense to use the term "British" to refer to people from the United Kingdom, but I stress again that there is no consensus on the issue. There are many editors of the view that the subjects of some articles identify more closely with constituent countries in the UK, so it is more appropriate to use the appellations "English", "Scottish", and so on. You are, of course, welcome to initiate a fresh debate on the issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis

Would love some input from people on this talk page re describing C. S. Lewis. Born in Ireland while it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1898), but resided in Oxford from 1930 and became notable in England. The clear majority of book sources (nearly 2.5 to 1) describe him as "British". Currently there is a concerted effort to change this to "Irish". As of now, all nationalities have been removed from the article lead and infobox. I personally support using "British" in the lead, clearly the overarching citizenship, then describing his birthplace and ethnic self-identfication in the second sentence. In infobox, use citizenship=British and ethnicity=Irish. That seems most consistent with the sources. Yworo (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Background facts: Northern Ireland

I've made a minor edit to the changes made by Jnestorius. He rephrased the second paragraph to read "People born in Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom". However, I think it is better to leave it as "People from Northern Ireland" because the article "Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity" suggests that people who are from Northern Ireland may acquire British citizenship by naturalization without actually having been born there. On the other hand, it appears from the same article that only people who are born on the island of Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship, so the second sentence is fine. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


People born in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship of the Irish republic, not Irish citizenship, by default. That does not necessarily result in automatic dual nationality. They may not be Uk citizens, but citizens of another country, and either the UK or that other country may not allow dual citizenship.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

British Empire

There is nothing in the article about how to describe British subjects before the various nationality laws of 1947-48 established British and other citizenship, Do we for example use British as the nationality for American colonials? TFD (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between the Scots Language and the Scottish Gaelic Language

The Scots Language is an Anglo-Saxon dialect spoken in the Lowlands. It came over from Northern Germany. Scottish Gaelic is a Celtic language which was introduced to the Highlands and Islands from Ireland. So why do editors here insist on mixing the two up? They are not remotely related to each other, yet in a box about the Celtic languages, there is a paragraph about Scots in the box for Scottish Gaelic. It shouldn't be there. By all means write about it in a different box about Anglo-Saxon dialects, but not in the Celtic box. And how are these matters related to British nationality law anyway? 86.180.33.60 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you're not a language scholar. How's the weather in Belfast? --John (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, This link here should give you an introduction http://www.scotslanguage.com/What_is_Scots%3F_uid2/What_is_Scots_%3F 86.180.33.60 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1162394981"