Talk:British people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shouldn't Queen Elizabeth or Captain James Cook be Included in the picture box?

Hi, I think the Queen and is huge British figure - for simply being the Queen of 16 states. James Cook should be include in the picture box, because he was the first to map Newfoundland, the first to circumnavigation New Zealand, and he mapped many locations including some Pacific Islands. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, Good. --George2001^hi 12:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the 1606 Union Flag

Why is the flag shown is the 1606 Union Flag. The current flag much more widely known and some of the caption does not match the flag shown. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the flag is appropriate because it was the first flag that could be viewed as representing the idea of being 'British'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin. Either the part of the caption that says "It has become "one of the most potent symbols of Britishness"" should be removed, or the post-1801 flag should be used instead. The citation for that sentence would have (I'm sure) referred to the current (1801) flag, not the 1606 version shown in the image - but, in any case, the CRE no longer exists and the document cited is no longer accessible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point - I had read 'it' in the 'it has become' as referring to the Union flag itself, rather than the post 1801 version. Perhaps all that is required is to change the wording to "The Union Flag has become one of the most potent symbols of Britishness" Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But that quote comes from a source which is now uncitable. I'll be bold and delete that sentence - but, then, there may be a need for further discussion here on whether it would make more sense to show the post-1801 flag, rather than the 1606 version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale for using 1602 flag? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain

Article I of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 states: "That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;" cf. Article I of the Union with Ireland Act 1800, which states: "... that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Crucially, Article III of the 1706 Act further states: "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain;" whereas Article III of the 1800 Act states: "... that the said United Kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Section 2 of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 later changed the name of the United Kingdom by changing the name of Parliament to "the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Hence, the expression "united Kingdom of Great Britain" is merely descriptive and, I think, confusion arises from a misreading of the extensive eighteenth century use of capital letters. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you quote from the Union with Scotland Act 1706 - the English Act - but you don't quote from the equivalent Scottish Act, or from the Treaty of Union itself. There is no doubt that the name of the state formed in 1707 was to be 'Great Britain' - the only difference is that while the Union Act of the English parliament described Great Britain as 'the Kingdom of' Great Britain, the Treaty of Union and the Union Act of the Scottish parliament describe Great Britain as 'the United Kingdom of' Great Britain. It must be of some significance that the current UK parliament website refers to the creation of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain' in 1707 as shown here [1] Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the Union with England Act 1706 states exactly the same thing: "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain." Chrisieboy (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you also referred to the Union with Scotland Act. I've provided a link here [2] in which article III states 'That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain' - it is interesting that it doesn't refer to a United Parliament of Great Britain but does refer to a United Kingdom of Great Britain, though both were equally 'united' as a result of the Union. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You will see that in Article III of the Union with England Act 1706, which you quote, the word "represented" is capitalised aswell as the word "united". In any case, in addition to Article I, it states that Parliament "be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain". Chrisieboy (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that "represented" is capitalised. I also noticed that Parliament "be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain" and not "Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain". The more significant point, however, as I mentioned above, is that they chose to describe the Parliament as "the Parliament of Great Britain" rather than "the United Parliament of Great Britain" whereas they called the Kingdom "the United Kingdom of Great Britain". Why did they feel the need to add 'United' against Kingdom but not against Parliament? Both Kingdom and Parliament are nouns to which the adjective United could equally have been applied. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, Kingdom of Great Britain is the correct long form, it is the construction United Kingdom of Great Britain that I am disputing as the name of the state. Article I is fairly explicit in this, ergo, elsewhere, despite deceiving capitalisation, it is simply descriptive. The name United Kingdom was not used for the state until the union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is where we disagree: The Treaty of Union makes clear that the name of the state will be 'Great Britain' - no 'long form' was given - but thereafter refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain. (I'm off to bed now - we may continue this discussion at a future point, though it appears we just disagree!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Article I of the Act of Union states: "That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall [...] be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain." The name (we are agreed) is therefore, Great Britain (the long form, by convention, Kingdom of Great Britain —"one Kingdom"— because the form of state was a monarchy; there is, in this sense, no such thing as a United Kingdom, only a Kingdom that is described as being united). For it to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain that would need to be it's whole name (as in "...be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" after 1800). Given Article I, we cannot continue to erroneously refer to the state as the United Kingdom of Great Britain on Wikipedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are now trying to rely on logic and convention to support your position, rather than what the sources say. We may disagree about how the wording of the Treaty of Union and the two Acts of Union should be interpreted, but we can not simply ignore that the current UK parliament website refers to the creation of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain' in 1707 as shown here [3] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was relying on the legislation: the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Union with England Act 1706 and (for comparison) the Union with Ireland Act 1800. In case that is not enough however, how about Life in the United Kingdom: a journey to citizenship (the official publication valid for tests taken from April 2007)? Your source, by the way, (which also erroneously states: "The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707") is archived content. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be that we will not be able to persuade each other. However, I refer you to a couple of sources from organisations that should know what they they are speaking about: Learning and Teaching Scotland says [4] and the Historical Association says [5]. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there was some (perhaps deliberate?) fudging on this by the lawyers who wrote those acts. Perhaps they were trying to meet varied political objectives with the slightly different wordings in Scotland and England. Is there a book discussing this in more depth? Presumably there is. This sort of planned vagueness has always been used in British affairs - it continues today in all sorts of nationality issues. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguing which wording is "correct" seems a little futile, especially when that involves WP editors trying to work out for themselves what the capitalisations involved might mean (see wp:or of course). I'm no expert on the topic or the era, but reviewing a few online sources quickly, it would seem to be the case that both versions - ie with or without the United - are used in authoritative texts. The main WP page - for what it's worth - has both as alternatives. I'm not sure in the end it matter which we use here, or indeed there. Toss a coin for it? N-HH talk/edits 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the change was only made recently and is disputed, I suggest reverting it. I have provided the primary sources and Life in the United Kingdom test above. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons: firstly the name links to an article called 'Kingdom of Great Britain' so the readers can get the benefit of understanding that both names are used: secondly, though the change to this article was recent, it does bring this article into line with other articles which use 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' which is then linked to the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' article. I think that is an acceptable compromise. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have added it to other articles. You seem deeply entrenched in your position, but this change was made without discussion or consensus and has already been reverted by myself and other editors. I would still like to see it reverted and, as you say, the article to which it points is not even called that. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I seek to correct what I believe is error or misleading wherever I find it. Since I teach politics and urge my students to use Wikipedia, I try to ensure that articles do not contain matters that could mislead. My students (in common with most others across Scotland, I assume) are taught that the United Kingdom was born in 1707 and a century later expanded to include Ireland. This is certainly the mainstream view in education, as illustrated by the Learning and Teaching Scotland website: [6] I would also point out that I am not the only editor to make this change. In summary, United Kingdom of Great Britain is supported by the Treaty of Union itself as well as reliable sources today, including the body charged with supporting education in Scotland. I am happy for the Kingdom of Great Britain article to be known by that name since that is what it is often called, though I think we also have a duty to seek to educate readers more fully. I support retaining United Kingdom of Great Britain, supported by appropriate sources. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You may like to see the British Library exhibition Taking Liberties: The struggle for Britain's freedom and rights and Acts of Union, a University of Aberdeen exhibition marking the 300th anniversary of the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1 May 1707 (both excellent resources linked from the Learning and Teaching Scotland source). Also, as the Historical Association "should know what they they are speaking about", please see Key Events 1700 – 2009 Timeline and Rough guide to British history. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I am not surprised that you can find sources that call the state created in 1707 the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' - what surprises me is that you refer me to a source rom the University of Aberdeen that clearly says "...that helped create the new kingdom of Great Britain". Notice that the word 'kingdom' does not have a capital letter - the state is merely referred to by its accurate name of 'Great Britain' and is described as being a 'new kingdom'. Interesting sources. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Further on, in the section entitled Stuart Vision of Union, it appears as "Kingdom of Great Britain". The definitive source however, must be Article I of the Acts of Union and, the fact remains, the "United" prefix was added to this (and other) articles without discussion or consensus. How about removing the capital letter and possibly placing it outside the wikilink as a compromise? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I never got back to you on your proposal. I see that since then you edited the article in the way you proposed, for this to be changed back by someone else. You have today changed it again and I have now returned it to the previous version as what you are proposing is not true to the references. Since the phrase links to the Kingdom of Great Britain article anyway, I don't really see the problem. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The recent web page references relied upon by Fishiehelper are simply wrong. I do not understand his obsession with trying to change the name of Great Britain to "United Kingdom of Great Britain", which it was not called. I shall join Chrisieboy in reverting this change. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker2, please be accurate when you accuse me of something - I am not trying "to change the name of Great Britain to "United Kingdom of Great Britain"" as you suggest. Rather, I have changed the "Kingdom of Great Britain" to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". Everyone agrees that the name of the state was "Great Britain" - the disagreement is whether it should be described as "the Kingdom of.." or "the United Kingdom of.." You may believe that the references I have quoted are "simply wrong" but the issue is not your opinion, or indeed my opinion, on the matter - it is a question of whether the sources are reliable. Do you now intend to delete references which refer to the state created in 1707 as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"? Are you really going to delete references from the UK parliament, the Scottish parliament etc? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a compromise! I assume this meets all concerns while at the same time better informing readers. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2, the web pages you linked do of course show that in the 21st century there are people who refer to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" for the historical reality of Great Britain. So that your text didn't give the impression that that was the name of the country at the time, which it was not, we could if it were necessary say "referred to in later centuries as the United Kingdom of Great Britain", but frankly such information serves no good purpose at that point in this article. I do not mean to be unkind, but it's really only clutter, serving an extraneous purpose. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Law lords?

The article currently says "The House of Lords includes three different types of members: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church of England), the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage), and Law Lords (judges that carry out the House of Lords' judicial responsibilities)"

In light of the creation of the Supreme Court, this may need rewording - anyone know if Law Lords remain members of the House of Lords, and if they do, whether they retain any judicial functions? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The law lords were created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which was repealed in 2009, so that no more can be created. However, the already existing law lords remain as full members of the House of Lords unless they are members of the new Supreme Court, in which case they are disqualified. This article clearly does not need all these details, but I've made the correction needed, which is "(judges who previously carried out the House of Lords' judicial responsibilities)". Moonraker2 (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghandi?

Really? Really? Ghandi? I don't think Ghandi should be in that picture, I'm just saying.--03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.160.22 (talk)

He isn't. And it's spelled Gandhi. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such ethno-cultural group as "British"

"British" is a nationality, not a culture, race or ethnicity. This article not only fails to state that undeniable fact but it proceeds in a de facto racist fashion to ignore the historic and contemporary mix of diverse ethnic, cultural and racial populations within the British Isles.

There is no such thing as "British" culture - by which I mean there is no one, unified, monolithic culture that operates throughout the United Kingdom. On the contrary, what most people think of as "British" from a cultural perspective is actually English. And even then, it's a particular kind of English cultural - usually the English cultural associated with south-central and southeastern England, especially London and its environs.

The west of England, East Anglia, and the Midlands (both east and west) are very different from the south. And once you cross the linguistic-cultural boundary that runs between the Mersey and the Wash, you practically enter a different country just within the boundaries of England - to wit, the historic territorial areas of Yorkshire (broken up in 1974), Lancashire (including what are now Greater Manchester and Merseyside), Northumberland and the northwest - all very distinct, culturally and even ethnically (to a degree) from the south and southeast of England. And, of course, Cornwall, although legally in England is a Celtic country, akin to Wales and Brittany, not a Germanic one like England.

Also for the information of anyone paying attention, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are ***NOT*** part of the United Kingdom. They are dependent upon the UK for foreign affairs, but their their own laws, their own currencies, their own stamps, etc. The Channel Islands in particular are the last remnant of the old Duchy of Normandy over which the Duke of Normandy still reigns. The current Duke of Normandy (and Duke of Lancaster) is Duke Elizabeth II. (And before you say it, she is *not* the Duchess of Normany or Duchess of Lancaster - she is a female 'Duke'; that is her legal title.) The Isle of Man, by comparison, is a Fiefdom. In any case, it is quite wrong to classify citizens of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, and Sark as "British" when those countries are not legally or constitutionally part of the United Kingdom.

I strongly recommend this article be completely rewritten to discuss the concept of "British" as a nationality. It certainly is no ethno-cultural term - except as a synonym for "English" - and the British people, as a national group, do not in any sense comprise a single race or ethno-cultural people.

24.4.56.198 (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not restrict itself to discussing British people as a nationality. It discusses "British people", as the term is used globally, in all senses - including, but not exclusively, those whose legal nationality is of the UK (i.e. "British" in one sense). Residents of IoM, etc., are not "British" in that sense of legally defined nationality, but regard themselves as "British people" in other, looser, senses of the words. Your accusations of "racism" are quite offensive - the article makes several references to the "ethnic" diversity of modern British people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, the people there are British citizens. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I broadly agree with 24.4.56.198's main point, but there is undoubtedly a British identity, a national concept of Britishness, which is notable and deserves to be covered. I was surprised by the statement "It certainly is no ethno-cultural term - except as a synonym for 'English'..." I am not aware of 'British' as a synonym for 'English', except among foreigners who have not grasped that there is a difference. Oddly enough, before the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, "British" was sometimes used as a synonym for "Welsh"! Moonraker2 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As a Welsh (and British) person, I insist there is a British identity. This identity may have taken a long time to construct but that does not mean it is not as legitimate a national identity as that of a country which has existed with the same boundaries for thousands of years; for better or for worse, Britishness has become a common uniting force for many people from England, Scotland and Wales. The great things about Britishness is its own diversity: it is not a contradiction to be Welsh and British, black and British or even a republican and British; Britishness simply refers to the unity felt by the people of Great Britain as one island, regardless of their other ethnic background, other nationality or assorted political beliefs. As much as I deplore the English colonisation of my country and even the undemocratic family ties of my head of State, I would never want to give up my allegience to Britain as an entity. Britishness is rarely a person's only national identity but it is still a legitimate identity held by many millions of people. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is far too big

Whilst an encyclopedia article should be, well, encyclopedic, this article has become HUGE and unwieldy. It takes almost a minute to load, making it look like my browser has crashed. Perhaps it should be broken down/some of the links removed. nagualdesign (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is too long. Perhaps a large chunk of the history section should be trimmed back since much of it is only supposed to be there for background information. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It now takes only 26 seconds to load (was 56 seconds before). I've placed a {{split}} at the top of the article to draw some attention to this issue. For example, much of the article does not directly relate to British people per se, and there are a number of overlapping articles where this text might be better placed. Here are a few suggestions for article names that this might be broken into (they may be/are already articles):

• Famous British people
• Ancient Britons
• British diaspora
• British culture
• Politics of the United Kingdom

It's unfortunate that this article has some kind of editing restriction placed on it, due to it being held up as a good example of layout. Perhaps this is stymying progress. nagualdesign (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than make a radical change, can I suggest that the following should be removed as it all deals with the ancient Britons and is not necessary in this article:

"Throughout classical antiquity the Celts formed a series of tribes, cultures and identities, notably the Picts and Gaels in the north and the Britons in the south. The Roman conquest of Britain introduced Romans to Britain, who upon their arrival recorded that in what is now southern England were people from Gallia Belgica, in west Britain were the Ordovices, the Demetae, the Silures and the Deceangli tribes. A Romano-British culture developed in central and southern Britain, until shortly after the Roman departure from Britain, completed in the early-5th century. The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain occurred thereafter in the 5th to 6th centuries, when the Angles, Jutes and Saxons established petty kingdoms over much of what was to become England, and parts of southern Scotland, pushing the Celtic languages and culture to the northern and western fringes of Great Britain. Archaeological evidence from Heinrich Härke supports that their invasion "added about 250,000 people to a British population of one to two million", an estimate that Oppenheimer "notes is larger than his but considerably less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed by others".

Between the 8th and 11th centuries, "three major cultural divisions" had emerged in Britain; the English, Scottish and Welsh. The English had unified under a single nation state in 937 by King Athelstan of Wessex after the Battle of Brunanburh. Before then, the English (known then in Old English as the Anglecynn) were under the governance of independent Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms which gradually coalesced into a Heptarchy of seven powerful states, the most powerful of which were Mercia and Wessex. Scottish historian and archaeologist Neil Oliver said that the Battle of Brunanburh would "define the shape of Britain into the modern era", it was a "showdown for two very different ethnic identities - a Norse Celtic alliance versus Anglo Saxon. It aimed to settle once and for all whether Britain would be controlled by a single imperial power or remain several separate independent kingdoms, a split in perceptions which is still very much with us today". However, historian Simon Schama suggested that it was King Edward I of England who was solely "responsible for provoking the peoples of Britain into an awareness of their nationhood" in the 13th century. Scottish national identity, "a complex amalgam" of Gael, Pict, Norsemen and Anglo-Norman, was not finally forged until the Wars of Scottish Independence against the Kingdom of England in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. After their unification in the 10th century, the English developed as an imperial people driven by their monarchs. The name Welsh is derived from the Germanic word walha meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and was introduced by the Anglo-Saxons to describe the Celtic Britons."

Cheers. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I suggest that you be bold and do just that. Might want to address the editing issue first. See the boiler plate text which appears when editing the whole article. It may also be wise to preserve the text above, including links, by copying/pasting the Wikicode, rather than just the output. :) Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as "objecting", but I'd caution against over-boldness on an article like this. Clearly there is a problem over size, but, rather than editors taking a bit out at a time, which could (!) lead to disagreements, why not set up a mirror article in a sandbox, that editors could play around with until changes are agreed - while retaining the integrity of this "public" article for the time being. The article covers complex issues - for example, the extent to which it treats "British people" as simply an aggregation of all those people who live or lived on the island, as against dealing with "British" people as a specific concept distinct from the "English", etc. For example, the paras cited above - though ancient history, and certainly capable of being shortened - do deal specifically with the formation of a British identity, and it could certainly be said that sections like that are important to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that a more cautious approach would be beneficial here such as that suggested by Ghmyrtle. The scope of the article is quite large, and it clocks in at under 10,000 words which isn't unreasonable. Perhaps some material could be pruned in some places, but if loading time is a significant problem there are ways round this without removing text. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, actually. I have just copied the entire page to here, so that it can be dealt with in a non-destructive manner. Remember, though, that any changes made to the real page ought to be copied over to the WIP page. I've also replaced the plain text above with the actual Wikicode. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that any of the good work that has gone into this page be undone, just that it should be made more accessible by breaking it up into separate articles. And I agree, 10,000 words isn't unreasonable, but the millions of links are bulking-up the processing of the page and the resulting HTML. nagualdesign (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tbhotch, re: "moved British people/Work in progress to User:Nagualdesign/British people (Pages are not copy-pasted, all of you work in a sandbox, if it is ready, then move it to mainspace)"

I'm not sure what you did there. Or why. My guess is that mainspace articles can and will appear on search engines, whereas User namespaces do not(?), something that I hadn't considered when copying the page contents. My apologies if that is the case. Given the unlikelyhood that the above users were already watching my pages, it would have been helpful for you to have left a note here. I suppose this will suffice. Now, where do we all continue this discussion? Wouldn't this have been much simpler if there was a way to add a NOINDEX to the page? Also, do redirects not appear on search engines? ..Oh well. nagualdesign (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Split it in English people, Cornish people, Welsh people, Irish people, Scottish people. There's no such thing as an ethnic group called the "British people". Alphasinus (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be completely unworkable. The term "British people" can be defined in different ways. Many (but declining numbers of) British people by citizenship also self-identify as British by "ethnicity", in many cases because they come from mixed English / Welsh / Scottish / etc. backgrounds and/or have lived in different parts of the UK at different times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle on this point. I think the 'trouble' here may stem from the fact that to us Brits the word "ethnicity" has various connotations. Crudely stated, ethnic means not indigenous. This misunderstanding is easily quashed by simply using Wikipedia's working definition of "ethnic group"...

...I'd just like to state that although I began this thread, and the content in question now resides on one of my pages, I do not wish to take ownership of this task. In fact, I will be taking a short break from Wikipedia due to health reasons, and will be doing none of the work myself. Hopefully I will be back on form in a couple of weeks, at which point I hope to see my watchlist brimful of progress. :) Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back in the land of the living. Much kudos to Fishiehelper2, Ghmyrtle and others for all their hard work. Unfortunately this only amounts to a reduction of ~4KB, and the page still takes around 50 seconds to load on my computer! :( Might I suggest a more drastic approach; if the scalpel isn't working, try using an axe! Much of the article isn't about British people, but about Britain itself, British history, 'Britishness', British cuisine, etc. which would more properly fall within the scope of an article about Britain, not British people. Also, could somebody help me to delete this page, as it has proved pretty useless. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. I agree its too long and too much on tangentely related topics. Unfortunately I am busy reducing some other articles at the moment, but I will try to help where I can.--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you. :) nagualdesign (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

South Africa

Is it possible we can add for South Africa the 1.7 million Anglo-Africans who are of British ancestry? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I would say that anyone of British ancestry who is not a British citizen does not belong in an article about British people. Otherwise, by that rationale, we are all Romans, or even Africans, and this page would have to be expanded ad nauseum. If there is already a page for Anglo-Africans, better to leave it there methinks. nagualdesign (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Briton

Briton does not belong in the lede, the Britons were a completely seperate and distinct ethnicity and race of people. Sheodred (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See Briton. The term is also applied to the original Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain, but in its modern sense it means a British person. What is the correct term for a citizen of the United Kingdom if not Briton? Britisher? JonC^Talk 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen "Britons" used in a modern sense to mean "British people" (and "Brits"). Most times though, I see "British citizens" or "British [fill in the blank]. Same way for French, German, Irish, American, etc. Not sure what [www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Briton this] is saying - is it official after 1801? --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Brit" is colloquial. Britons is used in an official sense as the correct term for British people, for example here. A Frenchman, a German, an Irishman, an American, a Briton. JonC^Talk 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it wasn't clear but I agree with you. And there's sources to back that up too. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I got that, I was more replying to your question about officiality. I tried to add in a few more examples from the FCO, but got an edit conflict. :) JonC^Talk 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

By that logic would that make Julius Caesar Italian not Roman? I have never seen or heard the term "Briton" being used in a modern context, only as the term for the Celts that lived in Britain before and during the Roman and Germanic invasions.Sheodred (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred, as with many terms, this one has multiple meanings. In one sense (the original), "Briton" refers to the Celtic Britons of the Iron Age and Early Middle Ages. In another sense, it means anyone from the UK or Great Britain. Both are equally correct, so long as the intended meaning is clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) There are multiple official and other reliable sources for the word "Briton" being used to refer to current British people (although I admit that the word is probably less used now than it was, say, 50 years ago). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Its only in relation to the articles on the Celts in Britain that I believe that the term Briton is a more accurate term, since it used in academic and scholarly circles (archaeology, etc) to describe these ancient people rather then British, a reader flicking through the articles that have no idea about the history of the Ireland and Britain will assume it is the same group of people today that the term applies to. Sheodred (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We had better educate them then. The terms "British" and "Briton" both apply equally to the ancient and modern inhabitants of the island. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't get my head around the logic of them being able to equally apply to the ancient inhabitants.....but ok. Sheodred (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? The term "British" is an ancient one, appropriated by the rulers of England of Scotland (James VI and I, I believe) when it became clear that our island was going to end up as one nation. It wasn't invented out of thin air. Similarly, there's Native Americans and modern Americans originally from Europe. Both Americans. JonC^Talk 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred, head over to Google News and search "Britons"; lots of hits for today alone. Actually, the ODNB article on Boudicca uses "Britons", "British" and "Britain", sometimes even in the same sentence! Here are two examples: "... the procurator of Britain, Decianus Catus, chose that moment to call in grants made by Claudius to pro-Roman Britons", and "... while Cassius Dio estimates the British force at 230,000"[7].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizens of the United Kingdom are 'british' - it is incorrect to refer to citizens of the UK as Britons. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not in any way whatsoever "incorrect" - here is one example - though it may be increasingly unusual. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Britons" is fine. Here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says:

1. a. A member of one of the Brittonic-speaking peoples originally inhabiting all of Britain south of the Firth of Forth, and in later times spec. Strathclyde, Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany, before and during the Roman occupation.

b. A native or inhabitant of Wales. Cf. West Briton n. 1. Obs.

2. A native or inhabitant of Britain, or (now hist.) of the British Empire. Not in general use in this sense until the early 18th cent., esp. following the union of England and Scotland; in the 18th and 19th centuries often used with allusion to qualities of bravery and fortitude.

However, the OED does not seem to note a distinction I have noticed, which is that "the Britons" always refers collectively to the ancient Britons. For the people of Britain after the Union, we say "the British", very rarely "Britons" (with no definite article), or else use some other form of words. Moonraker (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't think 'Britons' is helpful as its use can lead to misunderstanding, it can not be said to be incorrect. Even Rule Britannia, written after 1707, makes clear that 'Britons never shall be slaves.' Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I?

I think Queen Elizabeth I"The Virgin Queen" Should be in the line of people. Since she did win the Spanish Armada and she was the best female monarch before Queen Victoria. And is known for her virginity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsingham Inc (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to this article makes clear that "The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits or Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, or of any of the British overseas territories, and their descendants." Queen Elizabeth I lived prior to the creation of the United Kingdom. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that being "known for their virginity" was considered a bonus point.--Mais oui! (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

British people as an ethnic group

Why are the British people classified as an ethnic group when the definition of British is by citizenship?Alphasinus (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason it can't be both? To me, saying someone is "German" or "French" can be meant in either the context of a modern citizen, or that they are ethnically German or French, that is their ancestors come from there. I don't see why British is different. TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But why merge them like this? It's like merging Native Americans in the United States with American citizens...Alphasinus (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think America is the best comparison since the majority of people there are not ethnically "American" or "Native American". Better comparisons, I think, would be Germans and French people, both of which seem quite similar to this one in that they treat their subjects both as ethnic groups and modern citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

France and Germany are nation states while the United Kingdom is a confederation of several nations like.One can be a citizen of the European union, a confederation of nations, but there are no such thing as the European ethnic group just as there are no such thing as the British ethnic group.Alphasinus (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "ethnic group". Our article suggests "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." Using that definition, it's quite reasonable to use the term "ethnic group" to cover the inhabitants of Great Britain. The article explains the various meanings of the term "British people" - "ethnicity" is simply one of those meanings (and not necessarily the most important one). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, according this article the British people identify with eachother through a common nationality. According to wikipedia, an ethnic group identifies with eachother through:" a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy,".Alphasinus (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that British people, when referred to as an ethnicity, do share many of those things: common language, religion, culture, geography and heavily intertwined histories. Of course there are gray areas, subgroups and so on just as there are with many other ethnic groups.

I don't see how semantic differences between how France, Germany and the UK define constituent parts plays into this at all. "British" is no less an ethnicity than "German" even if it includes Welsh and Scottish people regardless of autonomy of Wales and Scotland. Prussians, Hessians etc were all considered Germans despite being from different sovereign states, never mind "countries within countries". TastyCakes (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Britons are Britons Just like Germans are Germans, In Britain you might say im from England just like in Germany you would say im from Bavaria etc. Goldblooded (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is just plain wrong. Britons are Britons just like Scandanavians are Scandanavians - the terms covers a collection of peoples who happen to share a geographical entity. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Alphasinus and Spiritofstgeorge. The people of Britain do share a very common and intermixing ancestry, proven by archaeological and DNA research. Britain shares a common language (English), religion (Christianity), culture (beer and football), geography (being an island) and heavily intertwined histories even before the 300 years of union. Before the Union Britain shared the same religion, for example Celtic mythology. British institutions have been founded by people from all parts of the British island, for example the Bank of England was founded by a man from Scotland. British people are more and no less British than a German is German or an American is American. People need to argue from the facts and proper indicators, before they use personal bias. Wikipedia should be a source for facts and knowledge. Erzan (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2011 (GMT)

How can ancestry be 'common' and at the same time 'intermixed'? What you say about a common DNA is not borne out by research: the genetic make-up is varied, reflecting the various migrations and invasions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles Ceartas (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, being british means inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and sometimes of the British Isles as a whole (even some Irish people refer to themselves as "British") England,Scotland, Wales etc technically dont exist; its just the nationalists/sepratists who proclaim them. Besides if your from the UK your passport for example always states you as British and thats the way it should be, like Americans are Americans , Germans are Germans; ectera. And Anyway its ironic the guy who originally posted was banned for being a sockpuppet. Goldblooded^{Return Fire} 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not equate citizenship with nationality. Both the 'UK' and 'Britishness' are political constructs. The latter term denotes citizenship, rather than nationality. Most British citizens would still define their 'nationality' as 'English', 'Scots', 'Welsh', rather than 'British'. It is not for others to tell them how to perceive their national identity. A passport denotes citizenship and does not determine nationality, or denote cultural homogeneity or common ethnicity. Comparisons between the UK and Germany are invalid, as the latter is not seen by its citizens as a multi-national state. A more valid comparison would be with other multi-national states, such as the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, where the different national groups shared a common citizenship, but not a common nationality. There was never a 'Soviet nationality'. There is, likewise, no 'UK nationality'.Ceartas (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Really angered to read above "some Irish people refer to themselves as "BRITISH". Posted by someone who does NOT know the facts? The Loyalist population in Northern Ireland does NOT ever identify as IRISH, in any way, but as Northern Irish and British. NO IRISH from the Republic, or the minority population in the SIX counties, would EVER identify as BRITISH, even though in theory the minority population in NI is Britsh. Most carry Irish documents and register as Irish citizens. Do not TELL US WHAT WE are. Is as daft as someone who questioned why a UK passport was called a Britsh one, in view of the fact some people in the UK (Northern Ireland) were not British.All citizens of the UK are just that!!!!When people stop calling the UNIONIST population Irish the penny may drop!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.197.204 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Population in Hong Kong

3,000,000 in Hong Kong is unlikely because the total population of Hong Kong is 7,061,200 in 2010. A half of population in Hong Kong is British people? According to the Hong Kong census in 2006, White is 46,584 among the total population of 6,708,389 although it is not a nationality census.[8] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I was also thinking this. Perhaps this is referring to the number of people in Hong Kong with British Overseas passports? 86.168.56.163 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie?

Born in India, into an ethnic Kashmiri family. Why is he in the picture? Sure he moved to the UK, but hes not actualy British. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He is a British citizen. There are different definitions of "British people", as the article makes clear, but he certainly meets at least one definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if he is a British citizen, it seems to be questionabe to put such a controversial/hated figure, when he doesn't even belong to one of the native British ethnic groups. If Wikipedia has to be PC and include people who aren't really Brits, perhaps Freddie Mercury would be a less controversial Indian representative. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand - British people are not an ethnic group. British people are people are who are citizens of the United Kingdom. You can be born anywhere, of any race or creed, and then gain citizenship of the UK: that makes you a British person. Whether you think the definition of British people should be based on racial or ethnic origin is immaterial.Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Questionabe political dogma. A piece of paper doesn't make somebody belong to a people, "citizen"? Perhaps. "People"? LOL. Real Brits are ethnic English, Scots and Welsh people. However, the key issue here, is if Rushdie, a very controversial person (essentially a polemicist and trouble maker who earned a fatwa and the hatred of most of the Muslim world) should be represented on a definitive article about British people, when he has just showed up there. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is about Rushdie specifically, I think there may be a case for replacing him with an image of someone of a similar ethnic background (to retain the existing balance) but whose inclusion would be seen as less provocative. See The Satanic Verses controversy, which clearly remains unresolved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a world of difference between arguing that someone is not British enough, though he has British citizenship, and arguing that someone is not a good representative of British people due to some really controversial aspects in his life. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest Sadiq Khan, shadow Lord Chancellor? He has avoided controversy more nimbly than most. It's very difficult to be a British politician from a Muslim background and not be constantly in hot water. Moonraker (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. If it is to be changed, someone needs to take some action to change this image on Commons. The editor who put together the image last time, in 2009 after this discussion, seems to be no longer active. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have begun the amendment. Moonraker (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the file at Commons, and also the 32 Britons template, but the new version is not displaying on the page here yet. When it does, the name should be changed in the infobox. Moonraker (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Now done - thanks for making the change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

South Africa (again)

Hi, I posted a while ago about the Anglo-African numbers in South Africa (which are close to 1.7 million) and I was wondering if anyone would give me a response or start a discussion? Currently in the infobox we only have figures for British born and I was wondering if the current number of Anglo-Africans can be added in some shape or form? Thanks and I hope as a result we can also get a good figure for British people in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Swaziland :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"...and their descendents"?

The lead gives a definition of "British" as a citizen or native of the UK, etc.,..."and their descendants". This is not quite accurate. Many Americans, for example, are "descendants" of Britons, but they are not British themselves by any definition. They are American. Being a British descendant does not make one British. Eastcote (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland section

I believe the Republic of Ireland section needs to be renamed simply as Ireland. The section deals primarily with the Ulster Scots living in Northern Ireland, which as we all know, is not part of Ireland. Any objections to the renaming? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA contracdicts artcle RE: Iberia

Your article states that Britain has predominately BAsque DNA... it sounds on teh surface peretty absurd and the section that is linked seemed to conratdict this with "In 2007, Bryan Sykes produced an analysis of 6000 samples from the OGAP project in his book Blood of the Isles.[3] Later, Stephen Oppenheimer in his 2006 book The Origins of the British used the data from Weale et al. (2002), Capelli et al. (2003) and Rosser et al. (2000) for Europe. In opposition to Neolithic origin theories, which remain strong, Sykes and Oppenheimer argued for significant immigration from Iberia into Britain and Ireland. Much of this argument was based upon Y DNA evidence, however by 2010 several major Y DNA studies presented more complete data, showing that the oldest-surviving male lineages had mostly migrated to Britain from the Balkans, and ultimately from the Middle East, not from Iberia.[4][5][6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

Add to that the substantial work on Scottish DNA that indicates significant Nordic DNA and it makes the broad stroke generalisation of teh article totally misleading.

And if you are going to stick all teh "British" into one big pot, how come more recent Britons from Asia, the Carribean and Poland aren't being mentioned. Is this some kind of silly Nationalist definition of "true British" rather than a seriosu description of the genetic and ethnic conplexity of the population? 92.40.253.179 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The first four paragraphs of the "Ancestral roots" section probably do need to be revised and updated, on the basis of the most recent and reliable academic sources. But, this is still a contentious area of academic debate, and it would be good to have expert opinions involved in drafting the text, rather than relying on one or two cherry-picked sources. That section as a whole relates to the established "indigenous" British population - the article as a whole, including the introduction and the section on the "Modern period", makes the point that the modern definition of British people includes those from a very wide range of other genetic and cultural backgrounds such as the Caribbean, Asia and Europe. Reliably sourced improvements to the text of the article are always welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. I'm no expert on genetics but teh little I do know is that even without the controversy the gentic make up of the British Isles is pretty complex, and yes care ahd to be made that the geentic map has changed a lot over the millenia. 92.40.253.179 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a clip on the subject by another British expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Language: "strong accents"

"Throughout the United Kingdom there are strong and distinctive spoken expressions and regional accents of English" This statement is utter nonesense from a linguistics POV accents cannot be objectively strong, they can be divergent and varied, but to be "strong" would be to suggest you could measure them against a norm, which doesn't exist, despite what teh Home Counties might think. So the statement is not only inaccurate but also possibly implies a denigration on non-priveleged accents. 92.40.253.179 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So, remove the words "strong and..."  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup! :-) 92.40.253.179 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A strong accent or dialect means that the speaker speaks with an identifiable regional or class accent or dialect, not strong against a hypothetical norm. Sometimes when one hears a fluent foreign speaker of English, it is impossible to tell where they come from or their social economic background (In my experience, they are often Scandinavians). The expression "strong accent" is common (as a Google search of the phrase shows) and contrary to what 92.40.253.179 writes, a home counties accent is also a strong accent, as it is identifiable to the home counties. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

The section either needs to have all mention of Northern Ireland removed or it should be retitled to "Northern Ireland" or "Ireland". What drew my attention to it is the section title with an image of an Orange order parade which given the title looks incongruous. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. I've changed the heading to Ireland - don't know why it was changed, but if there is a need for discussion it can come back here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

British people in Argentina

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry, I'm an Argentine user from the Spanish Wikipedia. I've seen the section where it says that there are about 100.000 British in Argentina (including their descendants). But there's a mistake because there are about 100.000 English, 100.000 Scottish, and 50.000 Welsh, so together they reach a figure of about 250.000 (not counting with people from Northern Ireland). Delotrooladoo (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Delotrooladoo, Thanks for the info. Do you have a helpful reliable source for this? Tmol42 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Subjects

Why do you constantly refer to the brits as citizens, They are SUBJECTS not citizens, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.10.181 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad lead image

Not sure about anyone else but I can see any of the people in those small pictures. I think quality or quantity would be better. Time to trim this down and make a pictures that can be useful to our readers. Any thoughts?Moxy (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) {{32 Britons}}

See Talk:British people/Archive 3#Infobox Collage: Representing the British for the last time this was discussed. If you want to reopen the debate, please be prepared for a lengthy process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am reopening the talk - the image we have now is not the one that was talked about before ..this one has 32 pics. I would have said 24 was to many ..now there is 32 mini pictures. So again I ask can anyone else see the small images in the pic?Moxy (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The current image was discussed here, from 20 October 2010. I'm not against a 24-image version, but am a little weary of revisiting all the old arguments over content and balance, which are almost inevitable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:21-Britons.png

Draft infobox collage (19 October 2010)

I agree with Moxy. As for the 2010 discussion, it involved very few participants (I was one of them, proposing the 21-image shown on the right). In my opinion, 32 persons is too much, and balanced the present image is certainly not; none of those 32 hails from the British overseas territories that constitute an important dimension of the British people. The issue probably deserves a more comprehensive discussion, now or at some other time. Apcbg (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The main objections to that were that there is no Welsh person, and the inclusion of an obscure Gibraltarian politician is highly WP:POINTy. But, if those changes are made, I'd have no objection to reducing the number. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, very much like you did in 2010. I do not object to the inclusion of Welsh persons — far from it, neither do I insist on that particular BOT person; what I disagree with however, is the non-inclusion of anyone from the British Overseas Territories in the present 32-image. Apcbg (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The basic issue is that the BOTs are not of sufficient size or importance to justify special consideration to be given to ensuring that they are represented - particularly when it seems to be difficult to find a suitable image of any reasonably well-known BOT person. These are the sort of arguments that make it very difficult to agree any change on what is, ultimately, a trivial issue. It is the content of the article that is important, not the decorative value of the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about both the size (surface and EEZ area) and importance (geostrategic, economic, environmental, cultural etc.) of the BOTs; HMG would seem to think otherwise too, see this white paper. Apcbg (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. To clarify: the number of people living in the BOTs is not sufficient to justify special consideration in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is no number count, but surely you are entitled to your POV which I do not share. Apcbg (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to main problem - Dont care who is in the image...Would just like to actually see the images - not just a small blurry blob. Why is the image trying to cram in so many people over readers accessibility? Moxy (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The image board is really confusing. I don't see the point of attempting to include every single sub-group that constitutes british people. There should really be only 9 or maybe 12 people truly influential people. My own selection would be A third politicians / monarchs (Queen Victoria, Churchill, Bevan) a third scientists (Newton, Darwin, Turing), and a third others. Elraja1988 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Montage image addition

You may add Freddie mercury Perumalism Chat 11:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ibx image map

The link map for the ibx image is off – the right-hand column is missing from the links, as if the map was prepared for a 28-part image, not a 32-part one. 159.92.9.7 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Retored recently deleted sections

I've just restored two long established sections relating to British settlers in Chile, Hong Kong etc which were recently deleted as they lacted citations. I have added 'improve tags' to each. If anyone has access to the appropriate ciations please could they edit an sections and add these. Thnaks.Tmol42 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to remove these shortly per the tag! Unsourced material may be removed at any time. The burden of referencing lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material!

Although I've been away for some time, I remember spending eons of time bringing this particular article to WP:GA standard and removing unsourced opinions from this on daily/weekly basis. Wikipedians should have only been adding referenced material! Tags are not indicative of a Good Article! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)