Talk:British people/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

British people → Britons – This article, if it is to follow the conventions of other similar articles, should be placed at “Britons”. The standard appears to be that in cases where there is a common proper noun, such as Germans, Americans or Swedes, the article is at that title. The “X people” formation is usually used in cases where there is no common gender neutral demonym, as in French people rather than “Frenchmen”, or Japanese people rather than “Japanese”. In this case, we have the commonly used and gender-neutral “Britons”. Let’s move it. 138.16.100.45 (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose Britons has a different meaning - and its very odd to go to a poll before discussion ----Snowded TALK 06:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it's normal procedure. This is a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Perhaps the proposer could look at the article that already exists at Britons, and reconsider this proposal. Daicaregos (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It would force together two separate meanings and would probably be confusing. Much better to have to distinct articles.--SabreBD (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Britons" is not, now, the "commonly used and gender-neutral" alternative to the subject matter of this article - it has a more specific meaning, as others have said. "British people" refers to all people in Britain, or descended from them - not those people who historically spoke the British language. The use of the word "Britons" to refer to "British people" is an occasional and inaccurate colloquialism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the purposes of article titles is to avoid confusion. "British people" is a natural, clear, title for the subject of this article. Having two articles entitled "Britons", however they are disambiguated, would inevitably lead to more, not less, confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I honestly do not think that "Briton" is the common gender neutral demonym for what I am. I'd be jolly surprised if you called me one. As pointed out above we have an article which certainly seems to pigeonhole Britons rather differently. As with all UK and Ireland labelling debates it's a messy business but I really think that this particular one is an example of Not Broke, Don't Fix and it should stay perfectly happily at "British people" where are least it's reasonably clear what it means. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I don't support the move, I find the statement that "The use of the word "Britons" to refer to "British people" is an occasional and inaccurate colloquialism" to be bizarre. Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it isn't! It's a perfectly accurate term for the inhabitants of Britain ("A native or inhabitant of Britain, or (now hist.) of the British Empire", to quote the OED). As an Englishman, I describe myself as a Briton and always have done. Any arguments that it's inaccurate or not used are simply incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Can I describe it as "antiquated" then? I can't imagine that anyone under a certain age would now describe themselves as "a Briton", unless they were trying to uphold a particular political agenda. "British", yes, but "a Briton", no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I just don't agree. I think that's just your opinion, I'm afraid, not backed up by any hard evidence. I seem to remember the voting for the 100 Greatest Britons not too long ago! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's "antiquated" either. How else would you describe yourself in the singular, Ghmyrtle? A British person is a Briton, just as a French person is a Frenchman (or -woman), a Spanish person is a Spaniard, a Swedish person a Swede, etc. Nothing inaccurate about it. — Jon C.ॐ 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I know. So am I. Just as Spaniards are Spanish. But you're not "a British". What are you in the singular? — Jon C.ॐ 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a British person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm aware of the ancient Britons. However, they are the ancient Britons. There is no confusion between them and modern Britons. Furthermore, the page you mention has parenthetical disambiguation just for that reason. The page "Britons" does not currently exist outside a redirect. People are confusing the ancient Britons with the modern, for some reason. Britons most certainly does not generally refer to people who spoke the ancient Brythonic languages. It can be used for "ancient Britons" (Brythonic people, or Brythons), as it is, but it is also commonly used for the present day British. The first definition in the Oxford Dictionary states "a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent". For example, look at the BBC series 100 Greatest Britons. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thought it was ‘100 Greatest British People’ -:) Apcbg (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Within Great Britain, the term "Briton" to describe the inhabitants of said island may be quite popular/unpopular/modern/antiquated or whatever. Any vote on the issue should involve proper analysis of that term's usage across the entire anglophone world. In Ireland, the term Briton invariably suggests a Brythonic speaking inhabitant of these isles c.1000 years ago and before. Before any such move, we would need to analyse what term is the preferred term, not just in the UK, but also in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the US, Canada, etc. Please bear in mind that the OED only has very little relevance on the topic at hand, as it is inherently biased (being a publication from Britain itself and therefore reflecting British use, but not necessarily international use). Mac Tíre Cowag 18:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not actually true in the slightest, since under WP:ENGVAR articles about British subjects are written and named using British English! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • According to the American Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Briton is: “1: a member of one of the peoples inhabiting Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions; 2: a native or subject of Great Britain; especially: Englishman.” Apcbg (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough so. I guess WP:COMMONNAME goes out the window then. As far as I knew the terms "Briton" and "British" were interchangeable, both in Britain and elsewhere. I must bow to your knowledge of the usage of "Briton" as being the primary term for an inhabitant of Britain within Britain itself. As such, can you provide us with these sources, seeing as it is you, Necrothesp, who are pushing the agenda for change? Apcbg, dictionaries tend to list definitions according to the most common definition. Even your Merriam-Webster dictionary lists a Briton in the aforementioned proposal only as the second most popular definition. That dictionary also fails to define whether or not Briton is the preferred term, either in the US or in the UK. Mac Tíre Cowag 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Guess you're right about dictionaries, and I didn't claim otherwise. Perhaps ‘Brits’ might be an acceptable compromise :-) Apcbg (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Ha! Certainly a very common name alright :) ! Just to clarify - I'm not against renaming the article as "Britons". I think sources should be employed as to how widespread each term is, and, based on that, decide the correct name for the article. Mac Tíre Cowag 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not pushing the agenda for change. As I said above, I think the article is fine where it is, although I'm not too bothered either way. I was merely disputing the unsupported claims that the term "Briton" did not accurately, correctly or commonly refer to a modern British person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not about the pre-Anglo Saxon Celtic people. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Some sources - Here are examples of sources that use “Britons”. A quick google news search will get you about a billion of similar uses.
    • Sky News [1]
    • The Economist [2]
    • Financial Times [3]
    • Inquirer [4]
    • Daily Express [5]
    • The Independent [6]

I don’t know where people are getting the idea that Britons commonly refers to the people who spoke the ancient Brythonic languages. If they read any newspaper, they would see that is used routinely to refer to British people. It is not antiquated. It is not incorrect. It is common usage. 138.16.103.179 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but not as common as British people, where the page is currently. Daicaregos (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Not only is it more common as a noun, rather than the compound construction, but one also has to think of the conventions. Similar articles are placed at Germans, Swedes, Americans, &c. One has a gender neutral, common demonym, and hence one should follow the conventions. This is not like Japanese people where there is no common noun. Hence, it should be at Britons. 138.16.102.51 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's an incorrect use of sources. All those sources suggest is that within the articles referenced the term "Briton" is used. They do not suggest it is more popular, either within Britain or further afield. WP:ENGVAR, as suggested previously, is not relevant unless it can be determined that Briton is the more popular term within Britain. Mac Tíre Cowag 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to show you why those references can not be accepted, here are links to articles within those very same organisations that you referenced using the term "British people" rather than "Briton(s)":
--Mac Tíre Cowag 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a complete non starter. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Jon C.ॐ 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Upon further reflection I have decided to oppose the renaming. Pretty much every dictionary gives two definitions of the term "Briton". The first is typically the definition above of a Brythonic speaking population with the second describing a native inhabitant of Great Britain. However, this article not only describes inhabitants of Great Britain, but also of other parts of the United Kingdom and further afield. Using dictionary definitions a citizen of London may be described as a "British person" and a "Briton". However, a citizen of Belfast may be described as a "British person" but not a "Briton". This article also covers British people from Northern Ireland. Mac Tíre Cowag 21:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is Cambridge Dictionaries reliable? Briton: "a British person" — Jon C.ॐ 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
A three-word definition is hardly sufficient to warrant changing an entire article from its current long-standing version. Also, it doesn't determine prevalence. It simply means that "Briton" may be used as a "synonym" for a British person, but doesn't state which is the preferred term. Mac Tíre Cowag 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The point of the sources I posted were to challenge the idea that "Briton" is archaic or colloquial. Clearly, it is not. I was not trying to propose it as more popular than British people with those sources. I was trying to show that it is common usage, and not some kind of incorrect falsity. Also, in most of the articles you countered with, it referred to "the British people" which is different than the usage at this article. Anyway, yes, someone from Northern Ireland could be a Briton (This is a touchy subject, but all people born in Northern Ireland are Britons under international law, through citizenship, even if they don't identify as British). If you identify as British, you are automatically a Briton. Briton is merely the nounal form of British. It is not separate, as is shown by the sources I listed, which use Briton as a noun form of British. I don't know why you are making this more confusing than it is. All of the problems you are bringing up apply to "British" as well. Many people might say that British is an inappropriate term for citizens of the UK, because the UK is more than Great Britain. Regardless, British is accepted as meaning a citizen of the UK, and hence, so is Briton. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And, furthermore, we must take into account the conventions for these articles. They demand that the article be placed at "Britons". Or should we move Germans to German people? Swedes to Swedish people? Jews to Jewish people? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    We don't have to because these terms are not ambiguous. But we could if we wanted. Examples for such articles where "people" is in the title though not required by ambiguity: Asturian people, Basque people, Breton people, Catalan people, Corsican people, Gibraltarian people, Hungarian people. There is no such demand to omit "people". Hans Adler 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One more comment from me. In most of the article you cited, they referred to "the British people", with the article "the". That is not the same as "British people" as in "Three British people got kidnapped in Sudan". Morel likely, one would see "Three Britons were kidnapped in Sudan". But they might still see that "The British people want justice!". "The British people" is like "The British public". Not like Briton or "British people". The usages are different. For this article, here, to follow the conventions across these articles, it should be at "Britons". 128.148.231.12 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly no consensus for a move. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A move discussion generally lasts seven days. Please don't call things dead before they are. Furthermore, the closing is based on argument, not votes. With people saying a word is archaic when it clearly isn't, I don't think the argument for the opposition has satisfied itself yet. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — The arguments advanced by the nameless editor above seem more convincing to me. Apcbg (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, what's the most common way to refer to British people? Is it "Britons", "Brits" (too colloquial for a title), "British people" or just "British"? We can check this with Google Ngram Viewer, but must make sure that we pick out only the desired meaning. We can do this by comparing "the X are", which still occurs frequently and forces a people context for "British" and a present day context for "Britons". The result: "British" >> "British people" > "Brits" > "Britons". [13]
The current title is the correct one per WP:NATURAL: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Both "Britons" and "British" are ambiguous. The first meaning of "Britons" given by Merriam-Webster online is "a member of one of the peoples inhabiting Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions". [14] Clearly that's not what this article is about. "British" is just an adjective which, when used as a noun, does not have a distinctive plural. Therefore similarly to the case of Dutch people, English people, French people, Irish people, Spanish people and no doubt many others, we are stuck with "British people". Hans Adler 08:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Your Ngrams search is incorrect. It is comparing incomparable terms. “The British” is a common way to refer to Britons in a monolithic manner. “The Britons” is a non-existent usage except when occasionally referencing the ancient Britons. Britons is used as a nounal form to refer to “individuals within a collective”, that is, what this article details (which is why the infobox contains various examples of Britons). To do a search correctly would require you to search “Britons” with “British people”. There cannot be any article. These two terms are comparable, whereas the ones you cited are not. Examples of usage of Britons “Some Britons believe that the monarchy should be abolished”. That is proper usage of the word. One would not say “Some the British believe that the monarchy should be abolished”. They are different types of words. 138.16.103.149 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, the ngrams search is tricky and maybe I got it wrong. But this doesn't change the fact that "Britons" is ambiguous with the first meaning given by Merriam-Webster being the ancient people. Therefore the rest of my argument stands. "Brits" would be another option, though as I said it seems too colloquial to me. The problem is that the most standard term, "the British" without "people" (I don't know how to check this with ngram viewer, but it seems obvious to me), as e.g. in the book title "The Origins of the British", is also not available because it isn't parsed correctly without the definite article. Hans Adler 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
These articles are never titled "The British", "The French" &c. That's because they don't really talk about the cultures as a monolithic entity, which is what such a title implies (definite article). They describe the people themselves, the different sub-groupings, where they've moved to. The article describes "Britons" (People as part of a collective). It doesn't really describe "The British", a monolithic cultural entity that implies ethnicity (which is something "British" definitely isn't). Furthermore, Britons is not any more ambiguous than "British" (which is a whole controversy in and of it self). Ancient Britons are ancient Britons. No one confuses ancient Romans with modern Romans do they? Or ancient Greeks with modern Greeks? Neither does anyone confuse the Ancient Britons with the modern. Most dictionaries, specifically all the British ones, give the modern Britons as the first definition. I already linked Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. If a news headline reads "Six Britons feared dead", like this one from the Daily Telegraph, would it confuse you? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, what would be the gender neutral singular form of “British people”? “British person”? Apcbg (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Our articles on peoples are not titled with the definite article because we don't do definite articles in titles, except when they are part of a name or title of a work. That's why we have the title Germans, not "the Germans", and why the most obvious title "the British" doesn't work. You can't prove that "Britons" is not ambiguous by picking a random context and showing that in that context it's not ambiguous. Even in a newspaper we could have a headline "Britons never spoke a Celtic language, Irish archaeologist says". "Britons" expected to win gold medals are clearly of a different kind from "Britons" who are believed to have spoken an extinct language. The title of an article in an encyclopedia establishes no such context, and that's our problem here.
WP:NATURAL strongly suggests the title we have now, and you have given no valid reason to the contrary or even why you are bothered by the present title. If you were really concerned about consistency between similar articles, the only way to get full consistency would be by naming all such articles in the form "... people", as that's the only method that always works and it's also the most explicit. Hans Adler 09:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support — I think this article is what people who search for "Briton" are looking for and "Briton" is what I would call someone from an unspecified part of the United Kingdom.

    However, if Ngram &/or our British membership tell us that usage has sailed and that the Britons who do not call themselves English(wo)men, Welsh(wo)men, Irish(wo)men, or Scots say "I'm a British person" rather than "I'm a Briton" (I'm dubious), then we should stay here. — LlywelynII 16:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Usual terminology would be to say "I'm English", "I'm Welsh", "I'm British", etc. Accordingly, we have articles on English people, Welsh people.... and British people. We also have Scottish people, even though you are much more likely to hear someone saying "I'm a Scot", than to hear someone saying "I'm a Briton". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You are confusing usages. One is not likely to say “I’m a Briton”, “I’m a Swede”, or “I’m a German”. That isn’t what the nounal form is for. That’s what the adjective form is for (Swedish, British, I’m German &c.). The nounal form is for referring to people as individuals or as individuals in a collective (the way this page would use the term). “Three Britons were kidnaped”. “Many Britons are in favour of gay marriage, and many are opposed”. “To be a Briton is to be a citizen of the United Kingdom”. I’m going to start a move request at the “Scottish people” page now, which is most certainly at the wrong location, and not in line with the conventions. Briton is very clearly common usage (when one actually looks at the way it is used, instead of making false comparisons to adjectives, or the compound construction “the British people”). To make the page on the speakers of the ancient Brythonic languages simply “Britons” would be utterly wrong, and confusing. 138.16.103.149 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is not using the namespace "Briton" because that's become a less common usage, then we should move Britons (Celtic people) > Britons and fix its hatnote. — LlywelynII 16:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be a more correct Ngrams search: [15]. 138.16.103.149 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Briton, Britons and British people all mean the same thing - people who live in Britain. The celts were the Ancient Britons. Warden (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment — ‘Britons’ seems to be slightly more specific in meaning than ‘British people’ since, according to the dictionary definitions, ‘Britons’ refers to the people of the United Kingdom proper. While those are, so to say, ‘UK-ans’, there are also the distinct British peoples of the UK overseas territories: the Gibraltarians, the Bermudians, the Falkland Islanders, the Saint Helenians, the Caymanians, the Montserratians etc. (and possibly also the Channel Islanders whose Crown Dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey are technically not part of the British Isles). They are all ‘British people’ but arguably not ‘Britons’. Therefore, if the article is on all the British peoples, then it ought to be titled ‘British peoples’; if the article is on the ‘UK-ans’ only, then ‘Britons’ might be more appropriate. Apcbg (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Here is the problem with that…dictionaries often give the definition for British as "of or pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants” and “used especially by natives or inhabitants of Great Britain”. Therefore, according to the “dictionary definition” of British, people of the overseas territories (and even Northern Ireland) are not British. The thing is, outside of the dictionary definition, the term has taken on a life of its own as a term to refer to anything regarding the whole UK and its “territories”, as well as a cultural identity that some in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales accept, but that some don’t. It really is a quagmire if it ever was one. IF we accept British as referring to the “UK”, then by default we must accept Briton as referring to citizens of the UK. Briton is merely the nounal form of British. That’s all it is. Yet, the way we use “British” here doesn’t some dictionaries’ definition. It is, however, commonly accepted the “British” refers to citizens of the UK, and that “Britons” is merely a nounal form of “British”. 138.16.100.37 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This is really rubbish. The noun related to 'British' is 'Britain'. We also have the noun related to 'English' of 'England' - or maybe it should be Englander? I am an English person - end of. I also happen to be a British person - not a Briton. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You are an Englishman/woman and a Briton. The nounal form (for people) is Briton. The original noun from which British and Briton derive is Britain. But the nounal form of the adjective “British" is Briton. Just like the nounal form of French is Frenchman/woman. Or of Swedish, it is Swede. 138.16.100.129 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - this debate has gone on long enough to show that there is no consensus for the proposed change. Next issue.... Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

British people in UK Welsh and Scots

Welsh and Scottish people are UK citizens but they are not British as they do not see themselves as such. English people identify mostly as British as they want to include everyone in their national identity. They are inclusive, but the Welsh and Scots do not necessarily want to be included in the British nation. For people in Wales and Scotland, British and English are the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.88.106 (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. That may be true of some people - I suspect it's a minority. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Blair

I' not sure how people are selected to be in the info-box, but Tony Blair is generally viewed negatively by British People as he in often linked with corruption and dishonesty due to how he handled Iraq and his relationship with US Presidents. I would suggest replacing him with someone less, controversial. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion was here. I don't think opinions about his policies or morality are relevant at all; he was included as being a globally well-known figure, with, incidentally, a mixed Scots-English and hence typically British background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

British Identity

Hypothetical situation: I'm categorizing, say, actors and there are British actors, English actors, Actors from Northern Ireland, Scottish actors and Welsh actors. My instinct was to reclassify the "British actors" according to country/nationality. But then, I was wondering if there is some reason to have a separate "British" category. So, I have changed any categories but I came here for answers and I'm still unsure. Any guidance? Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of us generally use the guidance at WP:UKNATIONALS, specifically here. Unless it is clear that the person identifies with one or other of the constituent countries, it is best to use "British". Just because someone like David Lloyd George was born in England doesn't make him English - he was British and, by heritage and upbringing, Welsh. It can be more complicated and contentious, of course..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The word "British" has all kinds of political and emotional baggage which get in the way of using it in a clear scheme of Wikipedia categorization, one making sense to the rest of the world. From outside the UK, many people would see "British" as applying evenly to people or things from the whole of the UK, but undoubtedly it is seen rather differently within. For instance, many, and perhaps even most, Scottish and Welsh actors would self-identify as "Scottish" or "Welsh" rather than "British". Strictly speaking, "British" is the adjective belonging with Great Britain and is quite distinct from "Irish". In Northern Ireland (which is, of course, part of the UK), Nationalists see themselves as Irish, while Unionists insist they are British. The English, on the whole, are happy to be called "British", but they can be surprisingly vague if asked what the word means.
My own view is that it would be better to use the expression "from the United Kingdom" in the name of many categories which now use the word "British". However, when doing that we also need to use another category with "from Great Britain" for the period after the Union of 1707 but before the creation of the United Kingdom in 1801. One drawback of that is that from 1801 until 1922 the whole of Ireland was part of the UK. Moonraker (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also the case that all UK citizens are, whether they like it or not, British citizens. While we don't always know how people self-identify, we do know that, if they are UK citizens, they are "British" in that sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Informally as Brits

This is a complete lie. The term 'Briton' is not used any more formally then the term 'Brit'. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "a complete lie", but it is to some extent a matter of opinion. Most British people would never use the term "Briton" to describe themselves - it is outdated and very rarely used outside, perhaps, conservative military circles - but the term "Brit" is a widely accepted colloquialism both in Britain and (particularly) outside Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
What a load of rot. "Briton" is used frequently in the British media and until today, I had no idea that people considered it outdated. "Brit" is more something an American would say and isn't all that widely-used over here. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
If 'Brits' is informal for 'British People' then how isn't 'Britons'? I have also never heard of a Brit be called a British Person, so 'Brit' is the only term used to describe a Brit in singular form. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer is that the word "Brits" is not used in any way other than as an informal term for "British people". The word "Britons" is often, if not usually, associated with "Ancient Britons", rather than with modern British people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it say British people (also referred to informally as Brits, occasionally as Britons or archaically as Britishers)' so that its in order of usage? Also is the term 'Britishers' really necessary in the lead? Regards, Rob (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Infact, I would disagree that 'Briton' is rarely used. Although 'Brit' is used far more, 'Briton' is far from uncommon. I would like to see the lead changed to "British People, commonly known as Brits or Britons" as this suggests that both are less formal then 'British People' without being too specific, and controversial. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to change it to "also known as Brits or Britons" As there is really no need to be so specific. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
My view is simply that the previous wording is preferable and there was no real need to change it, so I'll change it back. But, I would probably not revert a change to: British people (also referred to occasionally as Britons, informally as Brits, or archaically as Britishers). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, 'Britons' is not more formal then 'Brits', and 'Britons' is far from [not] occasional usage, although not common. Also the inclusion of 'Britishers' is completely unnecessary as its use is redundant, and I believe only terms that help readers identify what the article is about should be listed in the lead. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
'Britons' is more formal then 'Brits', and is in occasional usage. 'Britishers' may be redundant to us Brits, but not globally, as its usage has come up here before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox images

The images in the infobox have been discussed several times on this page - most recently it seems here, which I accept is some time ago. We had a collage until it was deleted last year because one of the images used in it failed the copyright requirements. I have no problem with reviewing and changing the image(s) - but can we please have discussion centralised here, on this page, where different editors can contribute, rather than by unilateral changes on the page itself - which almost inevitably lead to edit warring. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

White British

This article is about British as an ethnic group (and nationality), why are British descendants in America, Australia, Canada etc included if it wasn't? So the white British population in the United Kingdom is relevant not just the entire population of the UK. Atotalstranger (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is another article on that, its not necessary here and its very dubious if it is relevant anyway ----Snowded TALK 03:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Saying something is dubious doesn't mean anything you need to explain why, I've explained why it should be included you have stated no reason why it shouldn't. Atotalstranger (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to support Snowed and rebut the statement in your first post. To me Snowded's point is that you were conflating the terms - nationality and ethnicity which is a flawed (or dubious) thesis and a common trap which some people fall into / profess which we regularly see in these articles. This article is about a 'nationality' not an 'ethnic group' and therefore not as you inimated above. British people - a nationality, are present around the world which this article aims to cover. To avoid you remaining in a fog over this, I will spell out here so you are in no doubt and can stop taking up more time of several dedicated editors who have patiently dealt with your random edits and commentary all over the place recently. There is a dedicated article where the ethnic groups in the UK are described - Demography of the United Kingdom and summary data on the ethnic group 'White British' is provided there. There are sister articles for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. There is also an article White British - the ethnic group used for UK demographic purposes, and contains both headline data plus a breakdown for UK countries and regions. I can only hope this helps!Tmol42 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Viedo clip on the origins of the British

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

British/Briton is not an ethnic group. This article is stupid and useless.

The term "British" is used to refer to nationality, a citizen of, or a person living in the United Kingdom. If we're talking about the native ethnic groups, those would be English people, Scots, and Welsh people. Honestly, this is as stupid as someone claiming "American" as an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.63.121 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I regard myself as ethnically British. We've been British for ten thousand years. Why do we have to categorise ourselves into English or Welsh? The United States is an immigrant country with people from all over the world whereas we are an indigenous society whose ancestors are aboriginal, the first people in our island. Your view needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.129.237 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And, many people (like me) do identify as British. Most of my great-great-great-grandparents were Welsh speakers, in Wales. The other great-great-great-grandparents were born in Ireland of originally Scottish stock. Familes moved around. Three of my grandparents were born in England, as was I. I've lived in England for about two-thirds of my life, and Wales for about one-third. What does that make me? A (fairly) typical British person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to nail this old chestnut once again. Etnicity and nationality are two distinct and independant descriptors of people. British is a statement of nationality and also has a legal context. Nationality associated with: Scottish Welsh English etc provides a way for people to express their allegiance or heritage to one of the constituent countries of the UK but does not affect their legal status as British. White British or Black British or Asian British are examples of ethnic groups used in the United Kingdom which are applied via self classification and cannot be legally applied / imposed on a person by the State. The belief that there is such a thing as 'ethnic-English', '-Welsh' '-Scottish' etc is today at best an out-dated concept. At worst wll enough said.....!! Above all its not the artical that is uselessTmol42 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I disagree with any of the reponses to the OP, but the article doesn't claim that "British" is an ethnicity (though it could). So the OP's complaint is tilting at windmills. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox images?

If anyone's able? we need some images for this article's infobox. It looks rather bare, without one. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree GoodDay (talk) Lets start listing all those British people whose pictures can be included in the collage . Inventors , Leaders , Artists , Scientists , Authors , Musicians , Socialists .Lets select 25 greatest British of all time who can be put in a picture frame as similar to this article I am Starting with Isaac Newton , Agatha Christie , King Arthur , Queen Victoria , Christopher Nolan , Paul Mccartney , Charles Darwin , Michael Faraday ,Tim Berners-Lee , James Watt , Alexander Fleming ,Sean Connery, Alfred Hitchcock, James Clerk Maxwell ,Ian McKellen, William Shakespeare , Florence Nightingale, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Best , Robin Hood, John Lennon, Alan Turing, Ian Botham,Emily Blunt, Boudica, John Logie Baird , Douglas Bader, Emma Watson, Harold Larwood, Virginia Woolf . I don't want Winston Churchill in this list; even if he ranks number one in 100 greatest British as he was responsible for 1943 Bengal famine. --Cosmic  Emperor  09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be great :) GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I will confess to not being a fan of info box portrait images. Anyone who patrols the British Pakistanis and British Indian etc articles will know they quickly become a venue for adding and subtracting IPs favourite celebs. It becomes also tedious when what is added is a non feee images. I am aware WP policy generally advises in favour of a single iconic image rather than an indiscriminate image gallery of miscellaneous pictures. To the list above we could all add another 500. If it was already there bet Jeremy Clarkson would have found his way there by last week. If you have to go this route I will not protest but expect those on favour to then patrol it. But why not make use of the 100 Greatest Britons which at least has some democratic process defining notability going for it.Tmol42 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, let's not do this. It just invites endless arguments, & will have little encyclopedic value. A photo of a British crowd might be better; I've added a nice one as a suggestion. Note from a section a little above that a collage has been added and removed in the past. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I Will select 20/25 people from Greatest 100 Britons list . I know about that list. I will give preference to International fame , international reputation than local reputation. However my choice won't be permanent. If someone feels that someone in that list needs to replaced by anyone who is better than he/she can do it.CosmicEmperor (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod and Tmol42. A collage of thumbnails will have little encyclopedic value and be continually contentious (note for example that CosmicEmperor's list above includes only white British and represents fiction authors with Agatha Christie, or see the exhausting discussion at Talk:British people/Archive 3#Infobox Collage: Representing the British). Take a look at the tiny thumbnails of Scottish people and that article's contribution history, or look at Americans as it now is and as it was a few months ago, before editors agreed to drop the infobox images completely in discussions (Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good and Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Infobox images) which cited this article as a good example of doing fine without such infobox images.NebY (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Why this page has pictures of afro arabs then ? . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Arab .Do We have a restriction against White People . So a Pakistani Women with no international fame will represent thousand years of British culture and History. If any non-white British citizen is equal to the persons I have mentioned (in terms of contribution to society and international reputation) then He/she deserves to be in that list . You can name them who are as great as Shakespeare and Darwin . I am am ignorant of such great non-White British who are greater than Shakespeare and Darwin . And I never said my list is permanent . Editors can change it afterwards .NebY (talk) Don't accuse me of favouring White people as that was never my intention . I am not even White and I always hated British rule in India CosmicEmperor (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@CosmicEmperor: I didn't accuse you of favouring white people. I used the fact that your list only featured white British to illustrate how contentious such a collage would be. I'm sorry that disturbed you. Sadly, we've just demonstrated how discussions about who to include would often become fraught very quickly. I've indented your response a little more per WP:THREAD to make it clear you were responding to my post, not GoodDay's. NebY (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. Infobox image collages are pointless, subjective trivia. Whatever the result of selection, no-one will will happy with it. Lists of British people shows how divisive this will be. Daicaregos (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Daicaregos, Johnbod, Tmol42 and NebY, and am glad that attention has been drawn to the discussions at Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good and Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Infobox images. I favour getting rid of the images in the infobox completely, essentially for many of the reasons set out in those discussions by Secondplanet:
  1. It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space.
  2. Selection of the images inevitably reflects personal bias and leads to an absence of consensus, and conflict
  3. Images of famous British people are barely relevant to the wider topic of British people.
  4. The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers. The images are ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article.
So, I propose that the mosaic be removed not reinstated (oops...). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Er, well we don't have one, it having been removed a while back (see a couple of sections up). A consensus seems to be emerging to keep it that way. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously too much sun has been getting to me. Sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I support the very well-summarised reasons set out by Ghmyrtle for retaining the status quo and tentitively suggest we might aim to promote what I hope is an emerging concensus here by initiating discussions which encompass the 'British diaspora-related' articles which have collages which seem to endlessly evole as a whole bagatelle of preferences and dare I say it prejudices are played out.Tmol42 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no good reason of why a crowd of (all white) British people at an event in Kent adds to anyone's understanding of the article topic. I certainly do not want to have a mosaic reinstated - but I don't want some random photo of people waving flags included either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Daicaregos (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh! Does one need to set out the advantages of illustration in general? I hope not. I'm getting rather tired of this page, but I will just say that a lead image is a good thing, and people ought to propose a new one before removing one that's there. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A wide-ranging (and occasionally contentious) topic like "British people" does not lend itself to a single image. We are not here to make the article look pretty - we are here to provide useful information. A picture of a random crowd doesn't do that, and nor does a selection of "noteworthy" people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that's complete nonsense, but I'll leave you all to it here. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think being overly utilitarian in this may be unproductive. I agree in principle with what I think is Jonbod's underlying point: that a "British" crowd scene has a general (aesthetic) illustrative benefit even though it might fall short of being instructive. I don't think the flag waving scene he chose fulfils that aesthetic requirement though. (Btw, the gallery/montage of "famous" people are always a problem in all the X People articles and should be done away with in general.) I think it could work if a good photo of a "British" crowd scene could be found - which isn't necessarily "representative" but is in some way, in itself, notable. I thought, perhaps, that a photo of the stadium audience at the Olympic opening ceremony could fit the bill - but, surprisingly, I couldn't find anything of suitable quality. But I think something of that nature would potentially benefit the appeal of the article without strictly increasing the readers' "understanding of the topic". DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
With sincere apologies for deflating your balloon but any image of a crowd at the Olympic opening ceremony will certainly be an international one. A GB & NI team image meets the nationality test as would one of British MPs as seen assembling for the Queen's speech but be beware of the 'reluctant British' who appear in such a photo but have self declared themselves to have a preference to be Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or English. Then why not Britannia or the British Royal Family? But Republicans and others may not sign up to them as representative. So perhaps we should look for an image of a 'stiff upper lip' and post it up there on 1st April and at least we can have a good laugh about our confused identity!Tmol42 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, any balloon I once had has long gone floppy. My point is that the "representive" objective never works. Better to go for an aesthetically pleasing crowd scene at a notable "British" event (eg sporting, cultural, even political). Only problem is I just can't find one. DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We've got images for English people, Scottish people & Welsh people (we should have images for People of Northern Ireland aswell), therefore it shouldn't be too difficult to choose pictures from those articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay is absolutely right. Northern Irish needs one. I also agree with CosmicEmperor, a collage is required for British people. As for Daicaregos, Johnbod, Tmol42 and NebY, seen that Britain is a multiethnic territory, certain people believe that there should be few spaces for Asians or Blacks on the collage, but I think that the solely foreigner we can include would be Sake Dean Mahomed.--115ash→(☏) 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Best not to have any images . Last time this page had images they were so small that they were pointless, GA articles of this nature no longer have the kid images. --Moxy (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Case being downplayed until police video leaked (about 3 family members from Britain being knocked out including an elderly lady)

A recent video shows a family of three being knocked out on a crowded street in a city a country that underpays its police- and justice officers. I have purposely not provided any links to that case. Are any of the reactions to the case notable (perhaps from British officials)? The video, from municipal surveillance cameras, was allegedly leaked from a non-British police force. Is the case notable yet, for an article of its own? Of non-British media, one Danish newspaper also reported about the case and the video. Are there also any notable claims that there was racism involved (against the Britons)? 46.15.248.80 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Now mentioned in this version of about the tourism in that city [16]. 46.15.248.80 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Citizens or subjects?

Should the British really be described as citizens in the introduction? This is quite a republican term in meaning. The British do not declare allegiance to a state or to the people, but to a monarch and his/her progeny, which on paper, holds Great Britain and it's colonies as their personal fiefdom. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, citizens has been the correct terminology since 1983 – see British subject. By the way, it's its colonies. . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
They haven't been 'subjects' in law since the Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic group?

I don't understand why this is in the category "ethnic group". The term British, like American is quite artificial, connected to the state rather than the ethnic groups which make it up. The English or Welsh are ethnic groups, but "British"? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the very concept ethnic group is artificial and rather vague – of course, the word Welsh is sometimes used as a synonym for the ancient Britons (Celtic people), who weren't called "Celtic" until the 17th century, but were originally originally known as (or called themselves) Pretani, Britto or Brythons, or perhaps British, then were called Welsh by the English (or Angles, Jutes and Saxons, as we used to say). Maybe all categories are artificial? . . dave souza, talk 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This entire Article is wrong in respect of the indigenous peoples of the British isle.

Professor Stephen Oppenhiemer has produced an extemnsive studdy of the distributio, evolution and orogins of the major haplogroups across europe. The English, Scots, welsh adn irish, along with somne northern european popualtions carry unique dna, speciafically Haplogroupsd R1B1 and vvarious, speciufic subclades ar eUnbique to them. jis peer reviewed science showsa that a) the peoples of the British Islands are a unique and indigenous population, that they have orogins in three waves of immigration at 13,000 , 8000 and 3000 years ago, that subsequent immigration waves after these have had little effect on the DNA pool, and the main haplogroup common to the people orginates in Southern Spain, and not northern Europe. As to various lefty claim thatthe first peope lhere were black, this is arranrt nonsenbse with no scientific basis.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.php

This research has been backed up by further reseach by David Miles.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tribes-Britain-David-Miles/dp/0753817993

This article is biassed, inaccurate and an insult to my nation, my nationality and my culture.

2A02:C7F:DA68:2600:A8DE:417F:CCA6:4641 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, okay... – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What is Pretannike

quote -

"and the peoples of what are today England, Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man of Prettanike."

The term Prettanike, in italics, pops um at the end of the first paragraph of the first section - but is not explained anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4247:2100:95CE:27CC:F566:4A35 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Size of Diaspora

An editor has today inflated the size of the British diaspora to 178 million, without updating sources. I would simply revert this, but checking the sources, I am not convinced about the number it should be reverted to. The figure is found in the infobox with one source and in the main with a second source. Neither source checks out. The infobox source leads to the book, Britannia's Children: Emigration from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland Since 1600 (no page number). This source says:

"Twenty-five million emigrants left the British Isles in the four hundred years after 1600, mainly travelling to America or to parts of the British Empire around the world."

Yet that does not support a 25 million figure for diaspora, because many of those have died, and perhaps we should include also their descendants, at least when those descendants were deemed British citizens, and perhaps more loosely. A failure to define terms makes an exact figure tricky, but in any case, I find no such figure in the source.

The source in the main is to:Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Again no page numbers are given, but I find a long discussion of numbers, summed up in this conclusion on page 55:

At the end of the 1980s about 3,200,000 British people resided overseas compared with almost 60 million in the United Kingdom. [...] This is the main extent of the remaining British disapora, defined narrowly in terms of first-generation emigrants. A more generous and encompassing definition of the diaspora would, of course, gather in all the descendents of the emigrants who, over four centuries, claimed antecedents in the British Isles.

So, what number should we put here? The unsourced ones cannot stand. If the editor who added 178 million has a source, please can they put it here for discussion. Failing that, the options are to change the number to 3 million per the second source, or else to delete it altogether. The text in the main could be expanded to give a narrative rather than a figure. Thoughts, please? -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Britons in Argentina (300.000)

The number of Britons in Argentina is 300.000, more than 250.000; there are about 300.000 people of British descent in Argentina. --190.183.247.43 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a reliable source with the figure? If so we can update the figures. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

US Brits

The 2nd citation beside the US says 67 million people of British origin in the US (as of the year 2000). The number in the list is only 678,000, which is the number of British citizens, not of British origin. Needs to be changed, me thinks. Masterhatch (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously?

" a British diaspora of around 140 million concentrated in the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, with smaller concentrations in the Republic of Ireland, Chile, South Africa, and parts of the Caribbean."

Who wrote this? An Irishman?

Do you seriously expect people to believe that the number of British in Ireland is on par with Chile? What a coincidence that in every English-speaking country where a large Irish diaspora exists, there we find a large British diaspora - except in Ireland itself.

Bullshit. Ireland is the most British country in the world outside of the UK - which it was a part of for over a century. The free movement of people and goods between the ROI and UK guarantees that there's a large British diaspora in Ireland.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"The free movement of people" Open borders do not always guarantee that individuals choose to settle in a different country. I am not certain how many British immigrants are drawn to Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Large number probably refers to British descended combined with actual Britons. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RE: British people in Ireland (26 Counties)

There were 103,113 UK nationals usually resident in the State of Ireland in April 2016, not 291,000 as stated on the article! The number of UK nationals living in Ireland decreased by 8 per cent between 2011 and 2016. This was the greatest percentage decrease in population size among the top ten nationalities profiled. ( Reference: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpnin/cpnin/uk/#:~:text=UK%20Nationals%3A%20103%2C113,the%20top%20ten%20nationalities%20profiled._ Ériugena (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Britons

Most dictionaries distinguish between Briton And British.

The National Geographic Style Manual is clear:

British, Briton, English, England Do not use England or English when Great Britain, United Kingdom, or British is intended.

Great Britain, or Britain, since 1707 has comprised England, Scotland, and Wales.

The United Kingdom, formed in 1801, comprises Great Britain plus Northern Ireland; the present Republic of Ireland was included until 1922.

The British Isles comprise the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the adjacent islands, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

English refers only to England and its people; thus the present queen is the British queen.

British refers in particular to the United Kingdom but historically to the entire Commonwealth and its people.

A Briton is a native of the island of Great Britain. 86.148.37.137 (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_people/Archive_5&oldid=1165594352"