Talk:British people

Union flag

This is a nice article, but the massive Union Flag in the infobox gives me the creeps. I know it's probably just my personal dislike of it, but can we get rid of it? Or at least make it a bit smaller? Anyway it's the flag associated with the UK state, it's not British per se Alun 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I commented out. But what would be really nice would be pictures of "British people" - especially so, not just "English"/"Scottish"/etc. But how to I don't know. --sony-youth^talk 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think you will have a problem, anyone you choose will imediately be claimed as not British, but English, or Scottish or Welsh or Irish. I suppose you need some people who have self identified as British and who you can produce citations for. For example Gordon Brown has recently made a big thing about being British and about British identity recently. Obviously he has political aspirations, and one could claim that he needs to identify as British in order to claim the big prize he was denied in 1994 by Blair. Conversely I have heared it claimed that Brown is a commited British person, and really does identify as Scottish and British.[1] [2] [3] So he's one potential person. Others who you might be on more sure footing with are more mythical/ancient. For example no one would doubt Arthur's Britishness, he's accepted by all as British, but he's not a person we can include a proper picture of. Likewise Boudicca would be an excellent choice, at least we know she was real, and British, and came from a region that is now in England, so she meets all criteria, except that how can we include an image of her? I don't know the rules about including images, but in my experience it seems that articles like this usually include photographs of real people. That seems a shame to me because only people who lived very recently can be included. Other people who might be good candidates are people like Colin Jackson. He was born and raised in Wales, speaks with a Welsh accent, hurdles for Wales in the Commonwealth Games, has a street named after him in Cardiff etc. But he has Scottish and Jamaican ancestry.[4] Then there're some Irish people who might be regarded as British by some people, I don't know how George Bernard Shaw would have identified himself. I do know that I had no idea he was from Ireland untill I was about 16, even though I had obviously heared of him when I was much younger. Same goes for Oscar Wilde. I notice that both of these pages claim their subjects as Irish, but I'd also note that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is claimed as Indian on his page due to the fact that Pakistan was part of India for much of his life. Could these people be claimed as Irish and British? Or is that too controversial? I confess I am not looking for an argument, I just don't know, and want to open up a discussion about who could be included and why. I could suggest Bill Morris or Oona King, but they don't even have photographs in their own articles. Do you have any suggestions yourself? Alun 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just the kind of thing I was thinking of, but would be against including Arthur/Boudicca/etc. because first historically they would be more Brythons than Britons - there is a good 800-1000 year gab between the two, due to the incursion of the Anglo-Saxons and the Gaelic shift in Scotland. Arthur especially because he is more a founding myth of "British" than a 'real' Briton (really the elaborate imagination of a Welsh monk, though he, Geoffrey of Monmouth, could be a good contestant). Boudicca, too, serves in some way as a founding myth of "British" ('rediscovered' and popularised in 16th century just as modern sense of British identity was being defined). I would prefer to keep it Henry VIII onwards (a person I would nominate for picture for inclusion, as with James VI and I, the first king of all the British Isles).

There will of course be a lot of problems here. I can only speak with any authority on Irish people. Personally, with the people you mentioned they should be solid. Generally, pre-1922 there would be lots to pick from so long as they weren't a revolutionary/etc.. Post -1922 its going to be tricky, but there is a case to say both Bono and Bob Geldof are also British and many more. A solid cases for Ruth Dudley Edwards or Conor Cruise O'Brien.

With people like Colin Jackson, I don't know. Do you think its enough just to have multiple national heritage? I would prefer to stick with people who are indisputable, either by words or actions, British. --sony-youth^talk 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Myers, too could be a candidate too. --sony-youth^talk 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If we try to include one person from all four nations and try to make them indisputably British, then I would suggest David Lloyd George from Wales. He meets all criteria for Britishness I think. Who else? Ramsay MacDonald? Isambard Kingdom Brunel? There's three, and their Wiki bios all claim them as British and not English, Welsh or Scottish. How do you feel about these three, sorry but two are politicians, but I suppose they have the great merrit of mainly identifying as British due to political considerations. In the early part of the 20th century Socialism was more international in character anyway and Lloyd George wouldn't have got far espousing Welsh independence. We have free images of them as well due to copyright expiration. Image:David Lloyd George.jpg, Image:IKBrunelChains.jpg and Image:Ramsaymacdonald03.jpg What do you think of these? What about an Irishman? Alun 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We could probably do with women as well, two men, two women is preferential IMHO. So as an alternative English person we could think of Emmeline Pankhurst, though personally I'd quite like to keep Brunel because he was such a cool bloke. We have a free not very good image of Emeline Pankhurst, who is someone else who was an extremely cool person. Image:Emmeline Pankhurst arrested.jpg. Just a thought. Alun 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget Kiwi Brits, such as those mentioned in the article - Don Brash, Keith Holyoake, Edmund Hillary. I'm thinking the royal family post the 1603 union are surely the best option are they not? I don't think "one from each country" really reflects what British is. A British person is surely someone with mixed ancestry, otherwise they are simply one or the other - English, Scottish, Irish etc.A.J.Chesswas 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't cover all regions where people fo British descent live! Besides there is only a GFDL picture of Hillary, so we couldn't include pics of the others anyway. Remember we do actually need photographs that we can use. Due to the way US copyright law works it is sometimes permissable to use copyrighted pictures as Fair use on a person's article page, but not on any other page. I don't have a problem with Edmund Hillary personally though, but we do need to come to a consensus. I don't see the logic in claiming that a person can't be British unless they have ancestry from more than one region of the British Isles, this is not a normal definition of a British person as far as I know. Monarchs are not really a very good suggestion, this is about people not poltics, the ruling elite cannot be claimed as representative of any nation or ethnic group, besides which they have no acheivements that make them interesting, besides being born and generally being a bit thick, all that inbreeeing probably!!! Alun 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Brunel and Pankhurst pics are too hard to see. Portaits of faces would be better. I still think that people of mixed blood would be better representatives rather than a pure Welshman, a pure Scot, an ambiguously English woman and, shock, horror, a Frenchman!! Ancestry must have some bearing on identity, otherwise you could have anyone on here as long as they called themselves British - even if they spoke Greek, dined on sushi, wore a lava lava, took midday siestas, devoted their lives to supporting Robert Mugabe, and were descended from Genghis Khan on at least 10 counts.A.J.Chesswas 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mixed blood"!!!! Mixed with what? Surely it is a contradiction to claim that so called "pure" Welsh people (whatever "pure" is supposed to mean, the word has decidedly unsavory connotations when applied to human populations IMHO) are not British. This is a definition of British that you seem to have invented. Are you claiming that people need to me of "mixed indigenous descent"? Could someone like Paul Boateng or Nasser Hussain be considered in your definition? Can you prove that Edmund Hillary is of "mixed indigenous descent"? (I'm still baffled by this idea!!) His article does not state this, he might be of "pure English descent" as you would put it. Besides which I'd like to know just how one is supposed to prove they are of "pure Welsh" or "pure English" descent? No one has a family history going back over millenia, and the very idea of Welshness or Englishness makes no sense just a few generations ago, if a thousand years is 40 odd generations then the idea of Englishness or Welshness would have meant nothing to our ancestors of 60 odd generations ago, but we all have ancestors that lived in the geographical region that is now the British Isles 14,000 years ago (there were no islands then, Ireland and Great Britain were joined to the continent) or about 560 generations ago. So lets have less of the nationalistic nonsense, lots of Welsh and Scottish and English people identify as British, whether you like it or not. Alun 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Slow down mate, don't throw a wobbly. I'm not saying those people you listed, and the likes of Boateng or Husain, aren't British. But surely it would be fair to say that they are less British than a person whose ancestry is entirely from the Isles. Similarly, if one is entirely of Welsh or Scottish ancestry, they obviously have a much closer connection to those more particular ethnic identities than a person who has a mixture of Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English grandparents. Of course no-one is purely Welsh, or purely Scottish, if you go back far enough. But you can't deny there remain families to this day whose ancestry is so one or the other that they would never call themselves "British".

You appear very hypersensitive to discussions about race and ethnicity, so much that you're missing a simple discussion about the nature of ethnic identity. "the word has decidedly unsavory connotations when applied to human populations IMHO" I don't really know what you mean by this unless the purity of "race" has some sort of importance for you. This is not an article about whether or not race/ancestry/ethnicity matters, it is about whether or not it exists. If you have a better word than pure for me to use flick it my way - I certainly don't mean to offend.A.J.Chesswas 01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• unless the purity of "race" has some sort of importance for you

There's no such thing as "purity of race". And as for me being hypersensitive, I don't think so. Whenever someone uses the term "purity" in connection with race or ethnic issues then an alarm bell should ring with us all. The idea of racial or ethnic purity is not only obnoxious, it is an impossibility from a biological and cultural point of view. Take a long hard look at what you are saying and how people will interpret it before you start to say things like "mixed blood" and "pure Welsh". I accept that you did not mean to cause offence, but these are intrinsically offensive terms. Alun 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not an article about whether or not race/ancestry/ethnicity matters, it is about whether or not it exists.

No it's not. The Race and Ethnic group articles are about these concepts, what they mean and their value as anthropological, sociological or biological terms, ie their existence. This article is about British people. It is irrelevant that some Scots or Welsh or English people do not consider themselves British, that is their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative for some Welsh or Scots or English to consider themselves both Welsh and British or Scots and British or English and British. Ethnicity does not have to be exclusive, one can be Welsh and British, one can be Welsh and not British, one can consider themselves British exclusively. Identity in the British Isles is complex, even more so when the fact that there used to be a British Empire is taken into account and that Britishness is not confined to those who percieve themselves as having an exclusively British Isles ancestry. So no, I don't buy that argument at all. For sure we do not use images of people who clearly identify as not British, we would not use Alex Salmond for example, because he would almost certainly not identify as British, but we could use Gordon Brown for example, equally Scottish, but someone who has specifically identified as British. People cannot be excluded because of some perception that they are exclusively descended from a specific region of the Isles, this would mean that the vast majority of the population of the British Isles could not be considered British, and as we know the vast majority still do consider themselves British. Alun 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The strange thing is, Alun, you've used pictures of people who are strongly Welsh, Scottish, or French. And you seem to have done this deliberately - i.e. "try to include one person from all four nations and try to make them indisputably British". I really do think you should include some who are not strongly one of the four or other nations, because the category British probably means a whole lot more to them. As for the validity of words like "mixed", "blood" and "pure", I would have thought we are all adults here and we don't have to beat around the bush worrying about connotations. I dispute that those terms are intrinsically offensive.

What I do note is you are putting a major emphasis on whether or not a person assigns to themselves the label British, at the expense of the role that fixed and factual geographic ancestry has in determining a person's identity. Ethnicity is neither solely objective or solely subjective. It is a complex interaction between a person's ancestry and environment over which they have little control, and their own sense of innate identity, which they do control. And to be honest, I think that where a person both identifies as British, and has geographically British ancestry, theirs is a better case for representation in Wikipedia. And if they can qualify for English, Welsh, Scottish, French, then let them move over and give room to someone who is too British to be anything else!A.J.Chesswas 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• you've used pictures of people who are strongly Welsh, Scottish, or French.

Eh? Please don't make bald statements without providing an proper explanation. What criteria do you use for defining someone as "strongly Welsh Scottish or French"? By any objective view all of these people are thoroughly British. And where does the "French" come from? This seems like little more than your opinion. As far as I can see you have no reason for drawing these conclusions, none of these people are strongly associated with independence or nationalist movements, they are all strongly British characters. Indeed I have used these people because their Wikipedia biographical articles claim them as British, whereas many people here are claimed as Welsh or Scots or English. For example see Sean Connery:an Academy Award-winning Scottish actor or Simon Jones: a Welsh cricketer or Michael Portillo: an English journalist, broadcaster, and former Conservative politician and Cabinet Minister. (beside which Portillo's father is Spanish person who escaped Franco and his mother is of Scottish origin). If you want to make such claims then I really think you need to provide proper evidence that these people are more associated with the nations that you claim than being British. If you have specific problems with specific individuals then please state what they are, but if you do not then I do not see why we need to meet the strange criteria of "Britishness" that you use, which would mean that no one actually born on any of the Islands that form the archipelago can be deemed British. Alun 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• you are putting a major emphasis on whether or not a person assigns to themselves the label British, at the expense of the role that fixed and factual geographic ancestry has in determining a person's identity

Actually the fixed and factual geographic ancestry of these people is Great Britain. I am claiming that they are British. Hmmm, I don't really see anything strange in that. What is more odd is that you seem to be saying that their fixed and accurate geographic ancestry ie being of British origin, makes them not British. These people are British, but you seem to be saying that people actually born on the island of Great Britain are not actually British, which I think is a daft. Especially considering you chose Edmund Hillary, who most people think of as a New Zealander and not at all British. If anyone there is British only by identity it is him, because all of the others are British by birth and ancestry. But I stil included him because you wanted him there. If you think that identity is not important, then we can remove the non-British born person? Unless you have a more coherent argument I suggest you give it up mate. Alun 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't have made myself clear. Of course a person born in the British Isles is British. I just thought it'd be nice to include someone who has, for example an English father and a Scottish mother, and takes pride in being British. Arthur Wellesley covers that base anyway, given his Irish ancestry, so it's all good. It would be good to include a Brit from one of the colonies, especially New Zealand, given the strength British identity has had in this country, particularly last century. Dick Seddon would be a good choice, I'll se if I can track down a pic of him. I think it's good to recognise, though, that a person born outside Britain can still be ethnically British on account of their ancestry. It is common currency in this country for people to consider themselves Maori, Samoan, Indian, Chinese, after generations of settlement in New Zealand. Obviously the same applies for British people. I'll have a think about who could best represent "Britishness" from this part of the commonwealth.A.J.Chesswas 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're on the same wavelength now. I agree with you, in an ideal world it would be good to get people with diverse origins within the British Isles and also from the "British diaspora" as it were. I don't disagree with your reasoning at all. I got the impression that you wanted to exclude people who did not have a diverse background, and I don't think we should do that either. It would be nice to have all facets of Britishness, but of course Britishness means very different things to different people. We can expand the pictures to include several British people from outside the British Isles. I suggest Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans might be a good start. Mark Shuttleworth might be a good inclusion. Alun 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - and semi-new discussion

I agree to a good extent with A.J.. Maybe it's because of a new and fairly limited idea of Britishness in the UK that we are stuck with pictures of prime ministers - inspired by current revision of "Britishness" as somewhat of a "feel good to be unionist" (in the mainland UK sense) in the UK. For a long time (most of its history?) Britishness was very global in character, this shouldn't be forgotten.

Maybe a way to get around the picture issue is to think of icons of Britishness - I can only think of real old-school stuff like Kipling etc. right now, but a look at the 100 Greatest Britons could give us some inspiration: Diana would be a good choice surely, and Churchill has to be there, no (okay another prime minister, what about Monty)? The international dimension, should be represented too - just looking through it I see Freddy Mercury [tongue half pressed firmly in cheek], then J.R.R. Tolkien. Since we have a Kiwi here any suggestions along these lines? --sony-youth^talk 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. I think that there are several reasons for this more limited idea of Britishness. Those of us born and raised ion Great Britain probably have an insular idea of Britishness, this is probably because British is used nearly exclusively as a synonym for the UK or for the State or state run services. British Broadcasting Corporation, British Coal, British Leyland, British Telecom and extends to things like citizenship, I am a British citizen, ven though technically I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. It's not our fault, it's just the way Britishness is portrayed to us, so we have a distorted idea of what it is, we tend to think it is being a citizen of the UK. There are probably other reasons though. Whereas people from Canada, Australia, South Africa Zealand see the similarities in culture between themselves and the British Isles, those of us "left behind" as it were probably see the differences more, Australians and New Zealanders are different and exotic to us, whereas they may be exposed to Britishness a great deal, we are not exposed to the parts of their cultures that are alien to us to anywhere near the same extent, so maybe the differences become magnified. There are differences, and big ones, just by dint of geography, different flora and fauna, different seasons, very different living conditions (most of us have never seen a desert, let alone lived in one). Language is different and exotic to us. Of course the biggest difference is that, while we were all once part of the same political entity, it must also be true that since political independence the various regions have drifted apart as well. The other thing is that we may well not be particularly proud of our colonial past, and so distance ourselves from it subonciously. It's a problem, if we start to make an article here where we include British people who are Australians and New Zealanders and Candians and South Africans it could be seen as a celebration of empire and rather insulting to the indigenous peoples who were displaced, murdered, ethnically cleansed and had genocide wreaked upon them by British colonists. Where are those Tasmanian Aborigines? So I do urge caution before we appear to be celebrating colonialism. Alun 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"if we start to make an article here where we include British people who are Australians and New Zealanders and Candians and South Africans it could be seen as a celebration of empire and rather insulting to the indigenous peoples who were displaced, murdered, ethnically cleansed and had genocide wreaked upon them by British colonists"

Who were those British colonists Alun? True, my forefathers were among them. But a lot of the others moved on, back to the UK, once the work of colonisation was done, and many subsequent generations themselves returned. They and their progeny being counted as Britons to this day. I can think of many of our family for whom this is true.

I think some British families are more individualistic than others, and aren’t as aware of the kinship ties that remain for generations and generations and are still celebrated in the form of peoplehood to this day. I am in regular contact with a 10th cousin, with whom I explore the British origins of our family. Members of our family visit distant cousins in Australia and the USA, the common tie being our British ancestry. And my family are not the only ones who look up distant relatives when it is their turn to make the pilgrimage to Great Britain. The number of Kiwis who make that pilgrimage is phenomenal.

Some Brits might like to disown their colonial cousins. But I thank God that my family admit we are all responsible for the terrors of colonisation, but at the same time celebrate the positive achievements of the British Empire and, dare I say it, the British race. They are more than willing to befriend their disatnt relatives and help them discover the wealth and history and culture that informs our cultural identity.

I would hope that Wikipedia is able to take a similar attitude.

I join with you in expressing regret for the actions of my ancestors, and of your kinsmen and fellow British citizens. We have all participated in that same exploitative market, so we are all guilty to some extent. I am sorry that there would be indigenous groups who feel insulted by an acknowledgement of British identity extends its arms to include her colonies. But what is the alternative? To simply cut off those brave and daring people who gave so much to establish new societies only to be all but abandoned by the mother country they served so well? Is not our cultural identity and peoplehood important as well? A.J.Chesswas 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Its going to be controversial whatever happens. I guess we just have to tread a fine line, but only having politicians doesn't do good either. --sony-youth^talk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not defending the use of politicians, they are there as a stopgap really, and I nevr intended them to be exclusively PMs, it just sor tof came out that way when I was thinking about it. Originally I had Emmeline Pankhurst and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, both excellent candidates I would have thought. Both were exceptional people and were pioneers. But there were just complaints about them, but I thought that both represented the best in Britishness, progressive and reformist. Alun 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why no Britannia?

The concerns about the union flag are accepted, though to me it's rather a mod symbol and Mrs. T is equally contentious, but I'm disappointed about the removal of Britannia, a symbol of Britishness going back almost 2,000 years. Arthur is also very symbolic, but less graphically recognisable. So, I'm fine with the wee row of pictures, but can't we please have Britannia underneath it? .. dave souza, talk 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this too (but am still dodgy about Arthur, as above). And having Britannia in there would also provide us with another woman :) --sony-youth^talk 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have a problem with Britannia, isn't she just Boudicca under a different name? I only tok her out because I couldn't work out how to include the photographs and her at the same time, but I have worked out how to do this. I was just being dense, not making any sort of point. I'll put her back. Alun 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way Dave, I don't like Thatch at all, but she's still the only woman we've got, we can't really count Britannia as a woman, more an anthropomorphic personification, as Pratchet would say. I don't see Thatch as controversial, at least not where being British is concerned. But it seems daft to only have PMs. We do need more women though. I was thinking of Mary Shelley or one of the Brontës, or what about Jane Austin? We have a n Irishman a Welshman and a Scotsman here, so we should be able to think of some non-English British famous women surely? Wales has Catherine Zeta Jones but we have no free pics of her. We also have Charlotte Church and we do have a Creative Commons licence for it, so we are probably able to use it. Oh and there's Bonnie Tyler, creative commons licence but not a good pic, and of course Shirley Bassey, Welsh and a Dame!! But no free pic. Need a bit more of a think. Alun 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for photographs

Here is a list of potential candidates for photographs. Add to it and give reasons for or against. Don't worry if a picture is a portrait or not - that is what Photoshop is for. --sony-youth^talk 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

	Who	From	Why	Why not
	David Lloyd George, former prime minister of UK	Wales		* Was prime minister at Irish succession (possibly also a good thing)
File:Ramsaymacdonald03.jpg	Ramsay MacDonald, first Labour prime minister of UK	Scotland
	1st_Duke_of_Wellington, commander at Battle of Waterloo, prime minister of UK	Ireland
	Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of UK	England		* Possibly controversial
	Gordon Brown, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, probably future PM of UK.	Scotland	* Promoter of current revision of Britishness in UK
	Dick Seddon, prime minister of New Zealand	New Zealand	* Known "as one of the pillars of British imperialism", believed in New Zealand as a "Britain of the South".
	Edmund Hillary, mountaineer	New Zealand	* First of British expedition to reach the summit of Mount Everest.
	Britannia, mythical figure	n/a	* Universal symbol
	Mark_Shuttleworth, entrepreneur	South Africa
	Richard Branson, entrepreneur	England	* Good will, record attempts, example of "Britishness"?
	Orange men, loyal order in Northern Ireland	Northern Ireland	* Very assertively Unionist * Ardently declare themselves "British"	* Far too controversial
	Bernard Law Montgomery, WWII leader	b.England, considered himself Irish	* Good will * A rare 20th century Irish candidate
	Winston Churchill, prime minister of UK	England	* Anglo-American Goodwill * International recognition
File:Robert falcon scott.jpg	Robert Falcon Scott, explorer	England	* Good will * "British spirit"
	Nasser Hussain	England	Anglo-Indian.	* Non controversial cricketer. *First person of mixed descent to captain England Cricket team. * Good representative of modern Britishness.
	Charlotte Church	Wales	Good example of normal working class British person.

I was thinking of Harry Secombe, Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan. I just read Milligan's books about his experiences during the war, funny and moving. In the Goons we have a Welshman, an Irishman (Indian born and England raised) and an Englishman. Unfortunately no free pic for any of them. By the way I'm far too young to have remembered them, more my dad's sort of thing. Alun 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see James VI there. I really think he should be in there as "the first modern Briton"!A.J.Chesswas 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Colin Meads
• Colin Meads

Colin Meads is another good option as far as British Kiwis go. I can't figure out this copyright stuff though - I thought that if they were used for promotion you can use them in Wikipedia pages. Colin Meads, like Don Brash (another Kiwi Brit), doesn't have a pic in Wikipedia yet - if someone else would like to figure out how to get a legit one I'd be grateful. The pic I've linked to above is on a public stamp so surely that makes it public?Otherwise you can go with Edmund Hillary - his grandparents were from Yorkshire and his mother was a Clark. A.J.Chesswas 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Hillary is still good, but the other pics you show are not free use. We do need free images, ie images with no copyright, or a least images with GFDL or Creative Commons licences. In my opinion the best candidate for a Kiwi would be Maurice Wilkins, helped discover the structure of DNA, was a Nobel Laureate for his work on DNA (he shared the prize with Francis Crick and James Watson) and was a thoroughly good egg. Unfortunately we only have a copyright pic of him, OK to use on his article page, but not OK to use here. The Colin Meads article does not have an image, this probably means there is not a free one available. I hate all of this copyright nonsense, I am implacably opposed to the ownership of intellectual and artistic property, but if Wikipedia were to get sued for breach of copyright, then it'll go down the swanny. Like it or not, we have to keep an eye on these things. Alun 05:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How does being "too imperialistic disqualify someone from being considered British? In Seddon's time it would have been what qualified him as British. It is his commitment to British identity that made him clearly British even as the most respected New Zealander in this country, and probably our most popular leader ever. If imperialism is a problem then we would have to remove Lord Wellington!!

Oh, and what the heck is a "normal working class British person"? A.J.Chesswas 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... A normal working class British person is...well a normal working class British person (I don't think there are any difficult technical terms here), as opposed to an unrepresentative upper class person, who got where they were by being born into a life of privilege and who are not representative of British people. We need representative people, not aristocrats, they do/did little except murder and exploit most normal British people, and I see no reason why we should applaud that. Remember that the British aristocracy is not British, but Anglo-Norman. This article is about British people, not about the British Empire or the British establishment or state. It is not a celebration of British imperialism nor do I think we should celebrate people who claim that New Zealand was the "Britain of the south", this is deeply offensive and insulting to the indigenous population, and is certainly not the opinion of British people from Great Britain. Any celebration of the murderous thugs who slaughtered their way through indigenous people in order to create the British Empire will get no truck from this normal working class British person. Let's stop the nationalistic imperialistic tub thumping please. Besides which I am entitled to my opinion and I am entitled to oppose the inclusion of anyone. You opposed the inclusion of both Isambard Kingdom Brunel and of Emmeline Pankhurst, I do not understand your opposition to these eminently British people, who represent very good examples of all that is good in Britishness (unlike aristocratic imperialistic types), but I did accept your opposition as valid. This is called compromise and it is how we achieve consensus. So while you might disagree with my opinion, please respect it, as I respected yours and removed the pictures you did not like. Alun 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do UK Brits focus so much on the negative? There are not a few Maori that are glad we came way the heck down here and brought with us the gospel and the benefits of British civilisation. They certainly have much more respect for the school of William Pitt the Younger than a monkey like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I don't think you can distinguish between "British" and Anglo-Norman, probably the majority of us are descended in some way from William the Conqueror. I really don't think you can demarcate all that easily between the "working class" and the aristocrats, we are all part of the same society and people group - we all have to take responsibility for the ills of the empire AS WELL AS ITS BENEFITS. True, this article is not about celebrating imperialism - but it is not about rejecting it either. Seddon was no murderous thug - actually read something before you make such ugly judgments.

And, let me add, if a fatherless, promiscuous, tobacco-smoking pop star is representative of the modern Briton then I understand why my ancestors emigrated!!

P.s. what do you mean when you ask me to respect your opinion? Shouldn't Wikipedia determine which opinions are closest to truth and which aren't? I would hope that if I present an opinion that is baloney you'd pull me up on it. And I think you have already once or twice - thanks for that!! A.J.Chesswas 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why do UK Brits focus so much on the negative?

So you are only British when you want to be then? Besides I did not concentrate on the negative, I chose two sterling people, neither of who have negative connotations. One was a renowned engineer and the other a human rights campaigner. I don't call either of these negative. So I reject your accusation of concentrating on the negative. But I am saying is that we need to avoid any people who may be perceived as offensive to certain indigenous peoples. Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• There are not a few Maori that are glad we came way the heck down here and brought with us the gospel and the benefits of British civilisation.

Or in other words: "We sivilsd da nativs"? I'm amazed, shocked and saddened that such attitudes still exist Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• than a monkey like Jean-Jacques Rousseau

You really are a charmer aren't you? Is that the best you can come up with? Do you think this sort of comment has any sort of merit at all? If you don't like the guy, fair enough, but I fail to see his relevance to this discussion at all. Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't think you can demarcate all that easily between the "working class" and the aristocrats

Really? You are clearly not very observant. The aristocrats tend to live in big houses, go to public schools, have lots of money, vote for the tory party and have titles like "Earl" and "Viscount". Working class people tend to live in council houses and live on minimum wage (now that we actually have one), that's if they can get a job. Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• we all have to take responsibility for the ills of the empire AS WELL AS ITS BENEFITS

This does not mean we have to celebrate it here. This is not an argument, besides which I do not have to take much responsibility for it. I was not born and I don't have any ancestors who were responsible, my ancestors could not even be held responsible for the election of the government that perpetrated these crimes, we didn't even get Universal suffrage until 1929, so don't give me that crap. The state committed these crimes and the state is responsible. Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seddon was no murderous thug - actually read something before you make such ugly judgments.

I never said he was. Read my post before you make groundless accusations. Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• And, let me add, if a fatherless, promiscuous, tobacco-smoking pop star is representative of the modern Briton then I understand why my ancestors emigrated!!

So what about Charlotte Church? We're proud of her in Wales, she's one of us not some obscure aristocrat from some bygone imperialistic age, we can identify with her, she lives a normal modern life that ordinary people can identify with. It's the height of nasty Victorian attitudes to "blame" her for not having a father. Well the one thing I do know is that children who do not have fathers are victims and the only people involved who definately cannot be blamed for their predicament, why don't you just call her a bastard? At least she's honest and at least she is where she is on merit, so I respect her she's worked hard and grafted for what she's got, good for her. Don't be so judgmental, who do you think you are? Isn't not being judgmental supposed to be one of the teachings of Christianity? Missed that one did you? Alun 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A.J. and Alun - be calm. This is not what we are here to do. --sony-youth^talk 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alun and Sony for hearing me out on that. It's clear we have different views on British imperialism. That's understandable, if your ancestry is entirely Cymru, although I doubt you haven't in some way willingly benefitted from British imperialism. However, without it my family, my neighbours and my nation wouldn't even exist, so it's obvious I'm going to think imperialism isn't all bad - otherwise I'd be seeking to come home and join you fellows. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't about making a judgment on whether imperialism is a good or a bad thing. It is about facts. And it is a fact that in his time, and even to this day, Seddon is celebrated by countless Britons for the way in which he celebrated our race. He was by no means genocidal, but he wasn't shy about the achievements, the heritage and the destiny of the British people - in a similar mould to Winston Churchill, who incidentally is a very good candidate.

Anyway, I think the collection of pictures you have there are very good, although the ones of Shuttleworth, Boateng and Minogue are unclear. I prefer head-and-shoulders shots otherwise you basically can't see them. It would be good if we could look for close-up pics that don't infringe copyright, or choose other similarly good candidates for whom such a pic exists. A.J.Chesswas 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Minogue regard herself as a Briton ? if not why is her picture here. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. Excuse my deferment to prime ministers, but John Howard and Robert Menzies, both of whom have emphasised their British identity and used it as a platform for policy, are probably better candidates as far as self-identification is concerned. The fact is, politicians are often the clearest candidates when it comes to their position on things like ethnic identity. A.J.Chesswas 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue's mother is from Maesteg (incidentally quite close to where I come from, something I didn't know untill I checked her article for a picture for here) so she is the daughter of an immigrant. I don't know if she considers herself British or not, but she does have residency in London, or at least she did for a long time, so I think it is reasonable to assume that she recognises her British heritage. Whether or not she had UK citizenship is another matter, though this is not about legal or political definitions of statehood. She may well consider herself British and Australian, I imagine many people do. I included her because there was a free picture available, something that is not available for many people and because she is Australian and the daughter of a British immigrant. If there s evidence that she does not identify as British then I agree that we should not include her. Another reason for including her is that I persnally think it is good to have a mix of modern and historical figures, and a mix of different people who are notable for different reasons, and of course she's a woman. I think we need as much diversity of background as we can get. This is my reasoning, if there is a general consensus that anyone should not be there then I would be more than happy to remove any of the pictures, it's gnot easy to identify people who are not contentious in some way or other, as I said to Sony youth earlier, as soon as someone is included a specific group is likely t claim them as exclusively theirs, so we need compromise and understanding. I'll crop the pics of Shuttleworth and Minogue so we can see their faces rather than the full shots, I was going to do it last night but it got past my bedtime. I'm going to remove Boeteng, not because he's not an excellent candidate but because the photograph is very grainy and it would not make a very good portrait. I think I'll include either Mary Seacole or or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. All the best. Alun 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary Seacole and Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, both great suggestions. Mary Seacole brings up that other nurse (and woman), Florence Nightingale. --sony-youth^talk 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also a fair bit dodgey about Kylie - is she not always described as Ozzie? --sony-youth^talk 08:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well she is Ozzie. Isn't that the pont of this article, that people can have multiple thnic identities. I always describe myself as Welsh, but that doesn't mean I'm not British. If we say that she can't be British because she's Australian, then we can't have any Australian or New Zealand, or Even Irish people for that matter. We're talking ethnicity not citizenship here, let's get that straight once and for all. Alun 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very dodgey indeed that Kylie Minogue is included. She is not described anywhere as being a Brit. Her mother is Welsh, Her father was of Irish descent. Kylie was born in Australia, I don't think there are any records of her describing herself as a Brit. I haven't seen one media article ever that said she was anything other than Australian. She is an Australian expatriate. This looks like OR, IMHO Billtheking 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not dodgy. Its bloody ludicrous to have her listed...or anyone else who wasnt born in GREAT BRITAIN (The Island). Of course it's about birth place. If it wasnt, then you'd have to account for the millions of people across the world with British blood in them. You'd also have to discount the UK born Pakistanis and other minorities if it were about blood...which is also ridiculous. Snowbound

"Of course it's about birth place". Snowbound, you are talking about citizenship. We have been talking about ethnicity. This article, as far as I can tell, is about both. Get used to it.A.J.Chesswas 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Get used to what exactly? If its about both then my point is perfectly valid. In fact the general consensus seems to be that ethnicity is the weaker argument for "Britshness". You or Kylie Minogue are not British. Get used to THAT. Snowbound

Does having a British mother automatically make you a Brit? Does she have British citizenship? Has she ever been called British? The BBC calls her Australian, with no mention of her being a Brit. [5] Billtheking 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, as Kylie seems too controversial, to go with a more British person from the Empire, such as JRR Tolkein. I don't think anyone'd dispuute his being British, but he was brought up in Africa. Plus he has German ancestry, allowing for the immigrant factor.

And Snowbound, being born on the island of Great Britain does not immediately make you British, and being born outside of Great Britain does not prevent you from being British. While different people define ethnicity differently, most would say it is defined by a combination of "blood" (descent), language, place of birth and self-identification. Static Sleepstorm 09:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are 1000 better Britons to have than Gordon Brown Rockybiggs (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Accuracy" in the related ethnic groups section

I don't think the changing of New Zealander to British New Zealander or American to Eureopan/White American is any more accurate that before - in fact, even less accurate and misleading. When I see the All Blacks line out, I don't see a mob of white British New Zealand chaps, I see a cattle truck full of Maori's leveling the opposition in a game named after a town in England. Similarly, I don't think that African-Americans are closer to African culture than to European - in fact the other way around!

From the other perspective, we also cannot classify Eureopan/White Americans as being British. The founding faters of the USA spoke a multitude of European languages. English only became the de facto language of the USA by change, it could just as easily (as in no more than a coin toss) have been German. Likewise, while most (is this correct?) of the "white" New Zealand stock may be of British ancestory, New Zealand is quite British in outlook - regardless of whether a New Zealder is Greek, Italian, or the great-great-decendant of an original coloniser off the boat from Amsterdam.

For these reasons, I think its misleading to narrow the related ethnic groups further. Would we reduce "Irish" to solely "Northern Irish", "Anglo-Irish" or "Unionist"? --sony-youth^talk 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been looking for articles like British Canadian (there's a French Canadian article and a Canadian of English descent article) but no such articles exist (we have Anglo-Celtic Australian). It's incorrect to assume that all White North Americans are British, or that all White Australians or New Zealanders are British. Maybe in New Zealand the vast majority of people of European descent are also of British descent, but this does not hold true for everywhere. So I think the original links were more accurate. Alun 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there is such as thing as an official ethnicity. "NZ British" is not recognised by our census, but "NZ European" is. I've been advised, I think accurately, that although "NZ British" might be more linguistically accurate, it is not recognised by our government whereas "NZ European" is, for whatever reason. Now, according to the European American article, that group is officially recognised as White American in the USA census. I haven't been able to find out the "official" term in Australia, but the Anglo-Celtic Australian article advises this is the term in common currency. There is no assumption that all White Americans are British, or that all New Zealand Europeans are British. The table says quite clearly "related" ethnic groups. I'm sure not all Scots or Irish folk would consider themselves British either. RELATED. There's nothing to stop you creating a "Related ethnic groups" box for Germans and putting White American.

When I see the All Blacks line out, I don't see a mob of white British New Zealand chaps, I see a cattle truck full of Maori's leveling the opposition in a game named after a town in England. Sony, are you saying that you believe Maori are related to British? If so, include Maori as a link. Similarly, if you think African-American is sufficiently related then include that as well. However, using the All Blacks as an example in this context is a fallacy - they represent a state, not an ethnic group. Perhaps you are alluding to the existence of New Zealander as an ethnic group. I do not dispute that such a group exists, but a Wikipedia article has not been created for it yet. In the meantime, I do not believe a general article on demographics does not provides the accurate, specific and informative linkage that should be provided in a discussion on ethnicity. The table says "Related ethnic groups", not "Related nations". A.J.Chesswas 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"New Zealander" is exactly what I meant. I wouldn't let the non-existence of an article on Wikipedia constrain us. If it troubles you, then create it. There is similarly no such article about "Americans", but Americans do exist. We are writing an article about the real world, not the world according to what article exist on Wikipedia.

Linking directly to Maori woudl be a stretch, as they would not be so closely related to the British as the whole of New Zealand society generally. Maori culture may have been affected by the British and influenced by them, but are they "related" ethnicities/cultures? The point is that this section is for "related" groups, "related" in some broad way, but that relationship does not need to be specific or exact - and certainly not equivilent. Many New Zealanders ARE British, and so saying that they are "related" to British people is a bit strange. It would be like saying that I am a relative of myself. We only need to mention those who are not quite British, but "related" in general and broadly accepted some way. --sony-youth^talk 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that there is such as thing as an official ethnicity. "NZ British" is not recognised by our census, but "NZ European" is.

What the state of New Zealand recognises or does not recognise is somewhat irrelevant to this article and to Wikipedia. There is no consensual anthropological definition of ethnicity, there is no internationally recognised concept of "NZ European". To be blunt I have absolutely no interest in what ethnic groups and/or "races" are recognised by any particular state, these are not uniform between different political entities. This article is not about what the NZ state thinks are ethnic groups, or what the US federal government thinks are ethnic groups or "races". If you want to claim that the NZ state's definition in paramount for citizens of NZ, then it is apparent that we cannot include any NZ citizens here, because as you point out, none are actually considered "officially British" in NZ. So should we remove them just because of a political decision? This is getting absurd. You use political and legalistic definitions when they support your point of view, but you cannot have it both ways. Either NZ people can be considered British (not "official") or they cannot be considered British, only European (official). Besides you cannot claim that there s an "official" anything, Wikipedia does not belong to any single group, it does not need to comply with the small and petty definitions of political entities like states. Alun 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• currency. There is no assumption that all White Americans are British, or that all New Zealand Europeans are British. The table says quite clearly "related" ethnic groups.

File:White Americans.png

Where White Americans come from, why they are not an ethnic group and why they are not ethnically related to British people

Well there is a problem, because White American is not an ethnic group, it is a racial group. Any European or person from the Middle East can be White, but White people do not form an ethnic group, and it is incorrect to claim that they do. White people do not have any of the markers that constitute ethnicity, they do not have a shared culture, or language or history, there is no sense of a shared descent. This same logic applies to Europeans, european people can be considered a "racial" group, and are considered such by many people. Indeed as I understand it certain organisations recognise Europeans as a "race" that is part of the larger "Caucasian" race. Indeed there is much confusion, sometimes "White" means Caucasian in the USA and sometimes it means European. The US census uses a definition of "White" that does not just include Europeans or Caucasians though, it includes many diverse groups who could not really be considered ethnically related to British people. I am assuming that you are confused between the concepts of race and ethnicity. Alun 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is an ethnic group?

Anyone can visit Ethnicity to read about what constitutes an ethnic group. My question is whether or not "American", "Australian", "Canadian" and "New Zealander" are ethnic groups. Perhaps we need to amend the box that says "Related ethnic groups" to simply read "related groups".

I find it hard to accept that "New Zealander" has more currency than "NZ European". Only 11.1% of NZers identify themselves as the former while 67.6 identify themselves as the latter. It is not about "a political decision", or what the state recognises as religion - I'm talking about what people record themselves as on the census. There is really no absurdity here at all. You have inferred that self-identification is paramount in the matter of ethnicity. Kiwis are well able to record their ethnicity as "New Zealander" or "Other: NZ British" if they wish, although admittedly NZ British are lumped together with the 27,189 who identify themselves as "British nfd".

I would like to see discussion here about what groups count as ethnicity and what don’t, and what are appropriate under “Related ethnic groups”, or whether we should just say “Related groups”. I’d like this discussion to include more than just Sony and Alun. Alun, perhaps you could hold off a little bit and allow others in before launching into another massive spiel. I'm sure there are probably people put off being involved because of the screeds of writing they have to trawl through. Wikipedia is not a blog.

This discussion is pertinent to every ethnicity entry – you will not that “NZ European” has “White British” as a related ethnic group. A.J.Chesswas 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alun, perhaps you could hold off a little bit and allow others in before launching into another massive spiel. I'm sure there are probably people put off being involved because of the screeds of writing they have to trawl through.

I'm not going to be told not to contribute to a discussion I have just as much right to be involved in as you do. You seem to be trying to exclude people who do not comply with your POV. Alun 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is not about "a political decision", or what the state recognises....I'm talking about what people record themselves as on the census.

Isn't this a contradiction? Aren't the "ethnic categories" given in the census stipulated by the state? Alun 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to see discussion here about what groups count as ethnicity and what don’t

So would I, but we have had this conversation over and over again on other ethnic group related articles to do with the UK especially, and there is no consensus. The problem is, as I said earlier, that there is no simple definition of ethnicity. Alun 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need to amend the box that says "Related ethnic groups" to simply read "related groups".

Not a bad idea, bt you still have to show how they are related, and you still have to define what you mean by "group". Alun 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• You have inferred that self-identification is paramount in the matter of ethnicity.

No I haven't. Ethnicity is about a group of people identifying with each other, "on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry". Remember it's presumed, so it doesn't have to be actual. Moreover other definitions stress culture over ancestry:

Some definitions of ethnicity [6]

• A group identified on the basis of religion, color or national origin.
• A group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns.
• (Ethnische Gruppe) is "the human group that nurtures a subjective belief in the commonality of its ancestry because of similarities of habits or customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration." "Ethnic commonality differs from the clan community precisely because it is mere a belief in commonality (Gemeinsamkeit), not a community (Gemeinschaft) as the latter which constitutes real social action." (SC, Ethnicity and Community).
• A group of people who hold in common a set of traditions that distinguish them from others with whom they are in contact. Such traditions typically include a sense of historical continuity, and a common ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs and practices, and language. Ethnic groups in California include Historic Immigrants and Native California Indians. A distinguishing feature of such groups is their identity with ethnic traditions in California....

In this sense it is true that British people can be considered an ethnic group. NZ European may be an ethnic group in NZ, and NZ Brits may identify it as being related to their particular flavour of Britishness, but here's the rub, would a UK British person recognise a NZ Greek person (for example) as being from a related ethnic group? I don't know if they would. This related ethnic groups section is always difficult. I don't have strong feelings about using groups identified as European. For example I can accept NZ European and European American. What I cannot accept is pseudo-racial classifications like "White", because whereas one may be able to make a case for European ethnicities being related to British ethnicity, I don't think we can make this case for a "racial" group. So I'm for European American and NZ European. Can you live with that? Alun 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll find the link is back to Demographics of New Zealand, i.e. "New Zealander", not New Zealand European. I think that's ok, because whether someone identifies themself as New Zealand European or New Zealander (there really should be an article for the latter as an ethnicity), they are related to Briton. Similarly, I suppose, whether a person identifies themselves as White American or European American they are related. Even African American are related, as someone suggested, and so are Maori (they are bound the British language and customs too). So, you're quite right to have the "Demographics of..." link. It might be appropriate to specify the link further to the "Ethnicity" section of those articles.

Nice job cropping the photos by the way, although I do think Kylie's photo leaves a lot to be desired. It would be nice to actually be able to see her face. A.J.Chesswas 06:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about Kylie. The problem is with finding free photos that are of good quality, as I say we are not able to use any photograph we happen to come accross due to copyright considerations. All the best. Alun 06:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that half of all disputes on ethnicity pages are over what belongs in the 'related' box. I say scrap the related box, since it can never be anything other than a crass oversimplification that generates and invites controversy.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh comes on Nydas, Alun and I are actually agreeing here and most of this debate has between he and I. I just dug up archives and found out you have had this debate before. Sorry about that! A.J.Chesswas 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nydas, nearly all disputes are about what constitutes "relatedness" when it comes to ethnicity. I have not been able to find any sort of definition defining "related ethnic groups". It's always subjective, and seems largely to be OR when it comes to Wikipedia. I have never once been able to find a source that categorically says that ethnic group A is "related" to ethnic group B. So if it's not citable it should not really be in the article anyway. Alun 09:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, can can agree definately that the British Isles nations are related, yeah? --sony-youth^talk 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be one of the few things that everyone seems to agree about!!!!! Alun 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about about, the more I doubt that the ethnicity infobox conveys any useful information whatsoever. A lot of work has been done on it, but the article would be better without it. That goes for all the 'X people' articles. There's too much debate for information to be conveyed in list form. Note how hopeless our article on Ethnic groups is. --Nydas^(Talk) 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been of the same opinion for some time. Personally I think that nearly all of the data from ethnic group infoboxes are essentially OR by their very nature. This is particularly true of the "related ethnic groups" section, but is equally applicable to the numbers of people belonging to any ethnic group in any region of the world. Often it is a question of opinion. There is a clear conflict of Wikipedia policies for the ethnic group info boxes. On the one hand it seems to me clear that the data are almost impossible to verify correctly (often the data given are for descent or simply for the population of a region), but even when they can be verified, it is equally impossible to provide more than a single point of view in the infobox. But then the infoboxes seem to be very popular and there is often consensus to retain them. So the problem is how do we keep the infoboxes when we cannot include reliable data in them? I agree the infoboxes are usually misleading, I don't really support their inclusion in ethnic group articles. We need a standard Wikipedia guideline for using these boxes so we can all stick to it. This is the sort of thing that the ethnic groups wikiproject should be addressing isn't it? Alun 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've raised this on Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group. That's a pretty good summary you've written there, though.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

The information in that section is wrong or outdated.

Here you have two links to updated information (from 2006).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

I am not doing it but someone should update that section.65.11.70.197 17:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue is not British!

She is an Australian, and member of the Commonwealth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.228.216 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Can someone justify her appearance in the article? Is it the result of some sort of subtle vandalism? Please explain why she is not Australian EvilFred

Who ever said she is not Australian? Why do you think she cannot be both? Are you one of these people who think that identity is restricted to a single "ethnic group"? Do you think that a person xcannot be Welsh and British? Ethnicity is about identity and not about citizenship, therefore one can have many identitires. Ethnicity is also about cultural, linguistic, social, religious identity. Given all of this can you explain why she should not be considered British? Alun 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the consensus on this talk page also seems to want to remove Minogue's picture from this page, for previously stated reasons Billtheking 12:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus previously was that British people is an ethnic group, and so it is about identity and society and culture, is there any evidence that Australian, New Zealand and South African societies and cultures are not strongly identified with that of the British? Alun 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a reasoning on each persons presence its an arbitrary list of eight people. The fact that Kylie is not British does not seem to be to be as important as the fact that there does not seem to be any reasoning behind these people as opposed to any of the other millions of Brits. Perhaps the whole faces box should go to prevent this?

Take a look at the talk page above before making this sort of claim, there is a long discussion about this subject on this very talk page, with many reasonings and rationals. You may disagree with them, but it is incorrect to claim that they do not exist!! Alun 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at User:Wobble's comments in the history, the box appears to be people of British descent, rather than people who are actually British. This seems very odd and I would say the box, if it stays, should certainly be only British people. Vashti 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was previously a consensus that British ethnicity can apply to those people from commonwealth countries who have a significant amount of British cultural traditions. I think it is fair to say that many people who live in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and to a lesser extent Canada, do maintain many British cultural traditions. In fact it is unfair to imply that it was me who insisted on this, it was in fact User:A.J.Chesswas (a New Zealander) who maintained that many people from Commonwealth countries identify as British. Remember it's about identity. I remember my mother telling me about how it was a British person who first climbed Everest in the same year as the coronation, apparently this was a source of great pride to people at the time. But Edmund Hillary is from New Zealand. Clearly he identified as British, and was so identified by people from Britain. I don't really mind one way or the other, but by including images of people from Commonwealth countries I was trying to address the concerns of individuals from those countries who really do identify as British, I was not promoting a point of view that I particularly hold, nor one that I have any strong feelings about. It is certainly the case that a lot of people from certain commonwealth countries do in fact identify as ethnically British, please try not to confuse citizenship and ethnicity. Ethnicity is about identity remember, not about where a person is born. Indeed I think that you you presume that place of birth is more important than self identity, so you seem more interested in citizenship than ethnicity, correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking. Besides Kylie's mother was born and grew up in Maesteg so when you say descent you are not talking about generations ago, she probably grew up with a strong Welsh identity, with a mother with a strong Welsh accent. Do you think we should remove Monty? Apparently he was born in Ireland. How is it that we can have Irish Americans and French Canadians but we can't have Australians or New Zealanders who are British? I'd like this clarified because it seems like a double standard to me, as in "French (or Irish) ethnic identity good, British ethnic identity bad." I'm certainly not for promoting the past colonial atrocities of our ruling elite, but it seems odd to try to pretend that Australian society and culture is somehow a de novo invention with no connection to British identity whatsoever. Alun 07:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said AlunA.J.Chesswas 12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet out of over 4 million Kiwis, only 27 thousand described themselves as being ethnically British in the last census. We do need to remember WP:Undue weight. I plan to add a section on Irish people, as it would be relevant for similar reasons, but we need to keep a rein our enthusiasm. As it is now in the article, New Zealand is the only part of the Commonwealth section and I don't see anything there that could not be applied to any other "New World" part of the Empire. Also to what extent is this identity relevent only to the "white" Commonwealth and white settlers in the rest of the former Empire? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose JRR Tolkein or Michael Portillo as good examples of British people. Tolkein as he maintains the link with Empire than Minogue has (Tolkein was brought up in South Africa), but maintained stronger ties with the UK and considered himself English. Portillo because he is of mixed Scottish/Spanish descent, but speaks with an English accent.

From the OED: A. n. 1. A native of Britain: a. In History and Ethnology: One of the race who occupied the southern part of the island at the Roman invasion, the ‘ancient Britons’. {dag}b. A Welshman. c. Since the union of England and Scotland: A native of Great Britain, or of the British Empire; much used in the 18th c.; now chiefly in poetic, rhetorical, or melodramatic use, and in phrases dating to the ‘Rule Britannia’ period, as ‘to work like a Briton’, ‘as tough as a Briton’, etc. North Briton: a Scotchman. {dag}2. A Breton or native of Brittany. {dag}B. adj. = BRITISH. Obs.

I don't see any mention there of this supposed "British ethnic group", certainly none that merits sweeping anyone with British ancestry under this heading. Given the numbers User:sony-youth cited, and the fact that many Welsh, Scottish and Irish people reject a British identity, I think we need citations for anyone included who is not of British citizenship, so that we can confirm that they, in fact, identify as British. While there might be an academic usage here, I think the fact that the OED doesn't even *mention* it, and that this usage is so rare as to be unheard of, indicates that weighting this particular article towards it would be undue weight.

What Vashti is picking up on here is the difference between "Briton" and "British". I will expand on this in a new section. A.J.Chesswas 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Focus ?

This article seems to be all over the place, currently it has bit and peices of British Citizenship, Britsh national identity (Britishness) much of this info could be moved into Demography of the United Kingdom and British nationality law the article is trying to pass of Briton as a ethnic group. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Message for anonymous user User:69.157.105.165

I have no intention of participating in an edit war with you, and will leave it to others with regard to your edits, apart from this:

You have changed "Whether someone refers to their nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, it does not necessarily mean that they do not also consider themselves British" (which wiki links to the articles on English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people) to

"Whether someone refers to their nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, it does not necessarily mean that they do not also consider themselves British" wiki linking to the articles on each constituent country of the UK.

It is perfectly relevant and appropriate to use English people and not England, and so on when talking about people identifying themselves as a specific nationality. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a common occurance in the past by anon IPs and (as far as I rememeber) a banned user with similar edit summaries. See example diff. Clearly they should direct to the "XXX people" article. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

British as an ethnic group

The UK government (among may other, see refs in the info box) considers "British" an ethnic group: see here. There are may and specific article about each and every kind of British citizenship (see British nationality law, British Overseas citizen, British subject, British Overseas Territories citizen ...) This article is about "British" ethnicity/identity - which, as the article explains, not all British citizens consider themselves a part of. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

this talks about British residents, inhabitansts, citizens but doesn't know if its bein bout the ethnicity. Nothing says herre its for sure bout da ethnicity. If its bout some created ethnic grouping then say it is, change the numbers in the box (tho the box admits the numbers dont include many which could be included) but removes the nationalities which are in teh related box. The related box doesnt make any sense to me anyway, BYE. 69.157.114.163 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Briton vs. British

In a discussion under “Kylie Minogue is not British!”, Vashti has picked up on the difference between being “British” and being a “Briton”. He has provided a definition for “Briton” which clearly excludes a person born outside of Great Britain.

Vashti goes on to infer that for that reason, this page should not discuss people who identify as British but live abroad.

This would be fair, apart from the fact that “British” redirects to this page. The word “British” is defined more openly than “Briton”. Rather than confining its use to “inhabitants of Great Britain”, its primary adjectival use reads “of or pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants”, and is thus much broader in meaning. A person who lives outside of Britain but identifies as British does so because they have a language, culture, ancestry or ethnicity “of or pertaining to Great Britain.”

One might suggest, then, that a separate article should be created for “British”. However, we must also acknowledge that the term “Briton” has historically been applied to those living abroad, particularly in my country, New Zealand. As is referenced in this article, from settlement right through until the Second World War, and even until the major trading and passport changes of 1973, New Zealanders often considered themselves as “Britons”.

I note that the content on this topic in the New Zealand European article has since been updated. I will transfer that across perhaps it (with its associated footnoted links) will bring more clarity. A.J.Chesswas 20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vashti goes on to infer that for that reason, this page should not discuss people who identify as British but live abroad.

Excuse me, but that is *not* what I said, nor is it what the definition I quoted stated. What I said was that I think we need citations for anyone included who is not of British citizenship, so that we can confirm that they, in fact, identify as British. The first definition provided by the OED is "1. A native of Britain"; further reference defines "a native" as "A person resident in a particular place or locale; a citizen.".

Please deal with the point that I made, and not the one you would like me to have made.

To address your point, this is appearing more and more to be a historical usage - and not one that should be the main focus of the article. Vashti 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to be making two distinct points Vashti: 1) That there is no such thing as a British ethnic group that would include people outside Britain, and 2) That a person should not be included in the collage if there is no citation provided to show they identify as British.

If I was wrong in interpreting you on the first point then I apologise, and I conclude instead you are happy for this article to discuss what it means, both presently and historically, to be British. I agree that historical usage should not be the focus of the article. It is not presently.

I agree with you on the second point. For example, if there is no citation for Kylie Minogue ever having been considered British then she shouldn't be in the collage. I would add, though, that a person need not to have identified themself as British to be British. For example, there may be no record of Edmund Hillary ever having identified himself as British, yet the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time of his ascent inferred as much, and this would carry weight when it comes to a discourse on ethnic identity. A.J.Chesswas 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's ample evidence that Hillary was considered British *at the time*; he was knighted with no controversy, for one thing (compare "Sir" Bob Geldof, who can't technically use his title). However, that doesn't mean to say he's a good example of British people today.

Looking only at the modern quotes in the article section, for instance, they talk about being "ex-British", about "[my] own ancestry [being] all British". These are not the words of someone who considers themself British in the present day.

I would say that in order to be considered encyclopaedically British or "a Briton", you need to be of British citizenship, as a minimum. If you were born in another country and hold its citizenship, in my view that would make you "of British descent". Compare Irish-Americans, who call themselves Irish; people who were born and live in Ireland tend to disagree.

I note that the title of this article is "Briton", not "British ethnic groups abroad". Someone who is "a Briton", in my view, is very definitely only someone who is British by citizenship. Being "of British ethnicity" is a much fuzzier animal. Perhaps a rename of the article is called for? Vashti 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vashti the article is overstreching it needs to be split or renamed. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One final thing: I think it would be a mistake to define "Briton" and "British" as being different concepts. "Briton" is a noun. "British" is an adjective. They're both derivations of "Britain": "Britons" and "British people" are the same set. While "British" may be used in some countries as shorthand for "of British descent", I'm not sure that means we can conflate the two different concepts into being the same thing. Vashti 05:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To Barryob and Vashti, I wonder what you make of the article Anglo-Celtic and how it relates to this Briton article? It's certainly not a term I'd ever heard of until I started editing Wikipedia. It may be a more accurate description of the globally dispersed people descended from the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland due to the former British Empire. I don't know what the best way to express this idea is, I don't know if it can be considered "ethnicity", though I do think Britishness can be thought of an ethnicity, I don't know if it should be applied to this group of people, or only and exclusively to people resident or born in Great Britain (let's leave Ireland out of the discussion for the time being). I do know that it is obvious that these people (Anglo-Celtic Australians, Anglo-Celtic New Zealanders, Anglo-Celtic South Africans and the people of Great Britain and Ireland) do have a close connection, and I do know that it is obvious that they share the majority of their culture and social structure, not the mention the fact that they all speak the same language. I also would like to point out that there was some discussion that Kylie Minogue should be removed from the pictures because she is Australian. Personally I don't really care one way or another, but it was not just Minogue who was removed was it? Mark Shuttleworth was removed as well, and he in actual fact has UK citizenship and currently lies in London. Also Mary Seacole was removed from the section, I wonder if this is because she's Black? If people want to remove Minogue because she is percieved as Australian, and Hillary because he is perceived as a New Zealander, then I can accept that as a reasonable point of view. I don't see why this should have any bearing on Mary Seacole or Mark Shuttleworth who certainly do have claims to be considered British. Alun 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that the article should be about British citizenship strictly - as we know, there are many British citizens who shirk that identity - although (in the UK at least) British is closer to a "civic identity" than an ethnic group as would normally the thought of. The explicit inclusion of any individual person outside of the British Islands (not Isles) post-Empire needs substantiation (the same might even be true for inside the British Islands also), but I think that discussion of the post-Imerial world is valid, informative, and important to "British-ness".

As for Algo-Celtic - see also Anglo-Celtic Isles. Not disucssing Ireland is a when it comes to "Anglo-Celtic" because, my gut feeling, is that that is where the term originated. On the British Isles (or Anglo-Celtic Isles, as may be preferred) article, we came across a ref to a 1914 Ballad mentioning the term:

The United Anglo-Celtic Isles

Will e'er be blessed by Freedoms smiles

No tyrant can our homes subdue

While Britons to the Celts are true.

The false may clamour to betray

The brave will still uphold our sway

The triple-sacred flag as yet

Supreme, its sun shall never set

SOUTHERN UNIONIST BALLAD

(Ennis Unionist, 1914)

The term British (and British Isles) was shirked equally by Irish people of nationalist and unionist persuasion in that day. Anlgo-Celt appears to be a way of avoiding "British" while signifying the same thing. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, there was rather a lot of controversy over the term "Anglo-Celtic Isles", wasn't there? I certainly don't want to dig up that can of worms again; my eyes are still bleeding from last time; but I do think that "British" is the term we should be using here.

I mention British citizenship as a bare minimum definition (since we're having trouble defining what is essentially a meaningless concept). Of course many people (like myself - truly, as far as I can tell, when people say "British" they mean "English") don't consider themselves to be British, but since it still says "British Citizen" in my passport, I think I would have to be taken as one of the group this article deals with.

The title of this article leads me to believe it should be discussing the set of people who live in Great Britain. Do people think the page might be better named as something like "British identity", with "Briton" redirecting there? Vashti 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I had assume that the article dealt with the identity (in which case I would also believe that it does deal with you since that identity - specifically, whether you atopt it or not - affects you). I cannot really imagine what a article solely about people who live on the island of Great Britain would be about. Can you give an example? Or point towards an article similar to what you mean? Neither can I imagine what extra information an article about British citizens would contain that is not already mentioned in one of the (many) article on British citizenship. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Perhaps the problem is that this article is about "British identity" which is a multiracial "ethnic group" and doesn't really fit into "Ethnic groups, a WikiProject". The point about it being used as an ethnic group in other countries seems rather weak, judging by British American. The terms used for this group tend to be "British" or the rather ghastly "Brit", while "Briton" is rather old-fashioned and is commonly used for the "ancient Britons". Here we've used Brython to refer to the Brittonic peoples, who are in the Brythonic language group which is probably an ethnic group, as much as that means anything. However "Brython" as a term seems to be little used, having been coined to describe ancient Britons then having fallen from favour. So, in my opinion this article could usefully move to British identity, and "Brython" could move here to cover Britons as an ethnic group. Must do something to improve that article, my sources all seem to use the term "Briton" rather than "Brython". .. dave souza, talk 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Dave has hit it on the head, I think. While "British" crops up frequently on demographic forms, and there's certainly a British identity (or at least an attempt at defining one), I don't know if it's really an ethnicity per se. Which is weird, because AFAIK ethnicity is all about identity.

I suspect the vagueness is to do with the fact that, unless you're descended from immigrants (and often not even then), virtually all British people belong to one of the constituent countries (English, Welsh, Manx, etc.). That's their ethnicity; "British" is a catch-all. But I'm way over my head and I think in order to write sensibly about this we'd need at least census results. (Sources are desperately needed here; we could trade opinions all day and get nowhere). Vashti 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So strange to listen to people debate about whether or not I exist. A.J.Chesswas 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, an electronic illusion, as we all are. So, coming from an English family with Scots and a dash of Irish on your mother's side, you perceive yourself as a British New Zealander, which oddly enough redirects to New Zealand European, and European seems to be a common ethnic descriptor for populations in former colonies. No mention I've seen of "Briton", so that seems to support the "British" usage, So, "in New Zealand today, the term "British" is still used by some to explain their ethnicity". "British" and "European" seem to be convenient catch-alls outwith Europe, but here we seem to be more conscious of more local distinctions. So, a "British identity" page should mention this usage for an "ethnic" grouping, but the point still seems to stand about "Briton" mainly being used for the Ancient B's. ... dave souza, talk 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I disagree on the Briton/Brython split. For sure "Briton" is used to refer to those people but near universally clarified as "ancient Britons", surely? See scholar.google.com for "Britons" (30,500) vs. "Britons" -"Ancient Britons" (20,700) (the latter giving results solely for the modern identity/people). Granted, though, that "Brython" is generally no longer in scholarly use.

As for "Briton" being an old fashioned term, maybe someone should tell the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Sun, etc. or CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. etc.

Hardly looks like an archaic word, and hardly looks like it refers to an ancient people. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research, it's convincing that "Briton" needs covering as a term for the "British identity" and also as a loose "ethnic" term used technically in the US, and as a less common sub-set of "European" in New Zealand. Presumably usage elsewhere varies, and in Britain itself we seem to be more aware of the various sub-sets. "Brython" is a nice short term for the iron age / language group, a bit awkward given that it's generally no longer in scholarly use, but as good a title as any I know for that article given that "Briton" is taken for this one. Will try to find a way of using "Briton" on that page to avoid using "Brython" when it's not the term used by the sources. .. dave souza, talk 12:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break (added by sony-youth)

A quick comment here. In my opinion we are only dealing with parochial nationalisms here. Much of the content on Wikipedia regarding the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland seems to have been co-opted by nationalists, such that any mention of "Britishness" is perceived as somehow "British nationalist". I personally find this extremely hypocritical and noxious, particularly because I see no reason why "Britishness" is any more nationalistic or racist than any other form of nationalism (indeed I find Britishness significantly less racist in the modern world than certain forms of "celtic" nationalism). I'd like to know, for example why Welsh nationalism, which extoles the virtues of hatred of English people, is considered "benign" by it's proponents, but "British nationalism" is equated with racism by the proponents of Welsh nationalism, even though in fact being British and Welsh is inclusive, whereas being only Welsh is exclusive, and by definition xenophobic. Who in Wales has never heard those sad pathetic anti-English racists define a whole nation (English people) based on the actions of a few non representative aristocrats 800 years ago? Personally I find it pathetic that we are supposed to hate a whole group of innocent people (the English nation) because a few despotic inbred aristos (the Anglo-Norman/Anglo-Scottish aristocracy) who had little or no relation to the actual people or nation of England (we get hatred of "the British" from Irish nationalists, as if the whole people (or nation) of Britain supported the oppression of Irish people. But in actual fact it was the state, run by an elite (the aristocracy), who comprised of unelected aristocratic morons. For example why is it apparently bad to be British but good to be Welsh? Why are Welsh people who also identify as British treated as if they are somehow "traitors"? We need people here on this article who have some sort of knowledge of the history of Great Britain and Ireland, rather than people who just want to promote their personal idea that "English=British=Bad". The truth about the whole of the history of Great Britain and Ireland is that, all people have been exploited by all aristocrats from all parts of the islands. If anyone really thinks that Scots aristocrats treated their Scots subjects any better than the UK treated it's Scots subjects, then they know bugger all about the Highland Clearances, and even less about the Acts of Union 1707. Indeed the informed historian knows that the English people have little to thank the English aristocracy for, just as the Scottish people have little to thank the Scottish aristocracy for. The Highland Clearances were only the Scots equivalent of the English Enclosures. All peoples of Great Britain and Ireland have always been mightily and forcibly rogered up the arse by their respective aristocracies, anyone who buys the lies of nationalist parties that "Britishness" is "racist" is fooling themselves. The history of Britain and Ireland has always been about oppressors and oppressed, but it's about aristocrats and not about the "English nation" oppressing any other nation. Most people belonging to all of the nations of Great Britain and Ireland have lived in bondage to their respective aristocracies for the vast majority of time. Indeed Britishness has been one of the main emancipatory forces in Great Britain and Ireland (and I am certainly not one to support the crimes of the moronic public school boys who murdered their way into forming the Empire, but they were far from exclusively English ethnic cleansers). Believe your revisionist nonsense all you like, but please all read your history. We all have ancestors that were slaves to the aristocracy of our native lands. Alun 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For a very long quick comment, that was a very good comment!♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alun, you certainly don't have a gong to bang here. Thanks for dragging me into the discussion; I'll be unwatching this page now. Vashti 00:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I never even mentioned you Vashti, and I have a great deal of respect for your contributions. I am proud to be Welsh, I just don't see why this is supposed to mean that I am somehow bound to despise a whole nation of people who have done me no harm, is this some sort of "test" of my Welshness? Well I'm not playing. Alun 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"[Being] Welsh is exclusive, and by definition xenophobic." - Thanks for that. I look forward to your blog. As one of those spiteful Irish, I feel suitably chastised for not seeing 400 years (still on-going) of sectarianism and violence for the emancipation that it is. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony I have found you to be generally a good bloke who has made some excellent contributions, but misquoting me does not make for a coherent argument. Nowhere did I say that "Being Welsh is exclusive", I said "being only Welsh is exclusive". If you feel the need to distort what I say to make a point that is at best irrelevant to my comment, then I don't see why you have bothered to reply at all. I do not like nationalism of any kind, I see little or no difference between nationalism and racism. The sectarianism and violence in Ireland is to be deplored, but I do not see what it has to do with my comment. I don't understand this comment "I feel suitably chastised for not seeing 400 years (still on-going) of sectarianism and violence for the emancipation that it is." I don't understand it because I can't make out what you are saying? Are you saying that the violence is emancipatory or that it is not emancipatory? In fact you seem to be saying the same thing as I am. Indeed the violence in Ireland is the result of the invasion of that island by an aristocratic military-elite (a point I was making strongly) and not by a group acting according to the consensus of any given nation or people, so why should anyone "blame" the whole nation for the crimes of their aristocracy? But let's not pretend that the people of Ireland were either free or that they were united as a group prior to this invasion. Your comment seems to be saying that you do not think that the Irish War of Independence emancipated the Irish, this is an interesting point of view, I would say that given the crimes perpetrated by the UK state in the form of the Black and Tans I would have to disagree with you. All peoples have the right to resist against occupiers. I do not see why this resistance has to be expressed as a hatred for a whole nation (hate the state and it's oppression and not the ordinary people who comprise the population) and I do not see why we should necessarily equate resistance with violence, they don't need to be the same thing? Of course I freely admit that I have an unusual political point of view, I do not think that the nation-state is any better than any other form of state, I do not think that my fellow countrymen are necessarily any better than people from any other part of the world, this is why I do not support nationalism. If I am supposed to feel ashamed for not thinking that other Welsh people are somehow superior or better than people who are not Welsh, well I don't and I'm not sorry for it, there's good and bad everywhere and I see no reason to stigmatise or eulogise any particular group. Alun 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page as this is not the venue for these kind of ramblings. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't put it better myself Alun. That was very insightful. Why is this discussion relegated to the world of wikipedia, it should be going on at a much more public and high profile level. A.J.Chesswas 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"being only Welsh is exclusive, and by definition xenophobic" - as somebody who identifies as Welsh but not as British I find these comments highly offensive. Whether or not you are a xenophobe does not depend on which group you choose to identify with, but on how you regard those who are not members of that group. You seem to think I must either consider myself part of the same ethnic group as the English or I must hate every single one of them. I calculate that I have lived in or visited something over sixty countries on every continent except Antarctica (not bad for a xenophobe, no?), and people are in fact much the same everywhere - some nice, some not. I don't regard any particular group as being superior or inferior to any other group. Incidentally of all those countries, I have only been subjected to abuse because of where I come from in one; guess which? You have no right to brand people who do not share your particular views on their own identity with dirty names. Cantiorix 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I must either consider myself part of the same ethnic group as the English or I must hate every single one of them.

Eh? Who said this? You can consider yourself anything you like and I have not stated that you cannot. It's weird that you seem to take personal offence to a statement I made, but when you expand upon why it has caused offence it appears to bear little resemblance to the comment I actually made. Changing what someone said in order to manufacture a case for offence is a bit rich. Where does anyone claim that Welsh people have to consider themselves the same ethnic group as the English? If you want to deny that there is any cultural or social link whatsoever between Welsh people and other people from the island of Great Britain that is your prerogative. From my point of view this is a somewhat blinkered and nationalistic stance, it deliberately ignores large areas of overlap between the peoples and cultures of the island. The only reason I can think of for maintaining this stance is xenophobia, this is my conclusion, you are entitled to disagree but I see no reason for you to be personally offended by it. Besides who ever claimed that one has to be xenophobic about all different groups? For example a Welsh person could dislike the English and love the Irish, does this make his dislike of the English not xenophobia? I don't think so. If my comment causes offence to you personally then I am sorry, but I don't see why it should, it is not directed at you, nor is it directed at anyone personally. I can only assume I have struck some sort of nerve. I personally do not think there is such a thing as "good" nationalism, I am ashamed when I hear my fellow Welsh people behave as if Welsh nationalism is somehow more acceptable than other forms of nationalism. I wonder how we can justify the sort of rhetoric spouted by certain Plaid politicians that is essentially support for ethnic cleansing of English people from Wales, is this sort of thing acceptable? [7] How is it "good" nationalism? Besides this is an encyclopaedia article, it should at least express all points of view, including the point of view that many people do feel both Welsh and British. Alun 09:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"I wonder how we can justify the sort of rhetoric spouted by certain Plaid politicians that is essentially support for ethnic cleansing of English people from Wales" - perhaps you would be so kind as to point our where exactly I justified it? I am not Seimon Glyn and I am not responsible for his views - what's the relevance?Cantiorix 09:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I accused you of this, but I was rambling. Sorry. Alun 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

@Alun: Could you at least please stop posting this stuff here. It does not address any issues with the article. Start a blog, if you feel the need to get it off your chest. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. On my part, I realize I've been "feeding the troll" and won't do it again. Cantiorix 11:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to both of you, I got very much off topic. I shall try to keep my bias out of it in future. All the best. Alun 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ireland

I have changed ireland to northern ireland Ireland(ROI) is the legal name of the the ROI there is no need to state the line that few citizens of the Ireland(ROI)consider themselves british, consider has nothing to do with it, they simply are not, they are "citizens of ireland" unless they also have a foreign british passport due to one parent being british or some such other reason northern ireland should be dealt with in isolationCaomhan27 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're deleting info covering all parts of the island, unjustifiably. The article should represent both viewpoints per WP:NPOV. .. dave souza, talk 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

there is not two viewpoints in Ireland(ROI) FACT, in northern ireland yes, that is exactly why it should be simply about northern ireland Its not unjustifiable the article states "few consider" themselves british when discussing Ireland(ROI) i deal in facts not POV british identity is not a source of division in ireland(ROI) thats completly false information

In fact the discussion of ireland(ROI)citizens has no place when discussing the current term britonCaomhan27 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your viewpoint, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. The article refers to the situation before 1922 as well as after secession, and notes the current views of those in the Republic as well as those in Northern Ireland. If you do want to add or change information, a verifiable reliable source must be cited, and your opinions do not meet the policy of no original research. See WP:A for a useful summary of these requirements. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

its not a viewpoint? or original research there is no multiple point of view in ireland(ROI)today

where are you getting this information?

show me evidence of this conflicted view outside of northern ireland "it does not exist"

Caomhan27 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

in parts its talking about ireland prior to 1922 it should say most "irish" did not consider themselves british this can be easily backed up with all the wars fought for independence through out irelands ugly occupation by britainCaomhan27 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are noted, but are contradicted by statements by other Wikipedians who are from Ireland, both the ROI and NI, and without reliable sources can't be reflected in the article. Please read WP:NPOV and note that it's not just your viewpoint that should be shown. Edit warring isn't the way to get consensus for a change to the article, and I hope that you'll spend a day finding out about the requirements of Wikipedia policies rather than having another go and getting blocked. . .. dave souza, talk 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the factless and groundless claims of division in ireland(ROI)around their nationality is totally wrong either show some evidence/sources in the atricle itself for this false claim or remove itCaomhan27 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I (a proud son of Ireland) added the section. The point I had in mind was to show the situation prior to 1922, which many might have thought to be quite plainly, or at least in a crudely factual sense sense, "British" (in a legal sense I believe "British subject" is a post-WWII label of citizenship?). Post-1922, as we know, many people (not only in Britain but also elsewhere) "group" the Irish with the British, so far as to necessitate language aids for non-native English speakers that warn exchange students not to apply the term to the Republic. British people often include the Irish under the label "British" too. Because of that I think its not only a justified section but also necessary to explain the facts about "Britishness" and Ireland both historical and in the present day. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

thats all well and good but the piece clearly implies that there is division in ireland(ROI) that is a false implication and simply it needs to be removed In mordern day ireland(ROI) there is no division regarding our nationality, any suggestion to the contrary is a falsehood, your own answer even provides evidence in that "exchange students coming to ireland are warned not to apply the term" in Ireland, Millions of educated people in the EU and around the world around the world know ireland for the reality i.e. that ireland is a sovereign country were its people are simply "irish citizens" nothing else, because some uneducated people in britain which im sure is a very small minority are unaware of certain realities regarding ireland does not warrent irelands inclusion in the article in the present day the inclusion of ireland in the artilce can only be justified in a past context and im not sure what relevance that has to a briton anyway, as most historic information about ireland prior to 1922 would simply show ireland's people continued fight for freedom from britain and its cruelty and the dare i say it the hatred it engendered in the irish for the british and their role in irelandCaomhan27 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

here are some other quotes

"The famine hardened Irish hatred for Britain whose mercantilist policies"

To break the connexion with England the never failing source of all our political evils, and to assist the independence of my country, these are my objectives. Theobald Wolfe Tone

It is not those who can inflict the most, but those that can suffer the most who will conquer. Terence MacSwiney

You can not put a rope around the neck of an idea; you can not put an idea up against the barrack-square wall and riddle it with bullets; you can not confine it in the strongest prison cell your slaves could ever build. Sean O'Casey

If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst! James Connolly

I would walk from here to Drogheda and back to see the man who is blockhead enough to expect anything except injustice from an English Parliament. Daniel O'Connell

You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not been sufficient to win freedom, then our children will win it by a better deed. Pádraig Pearse

The British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland. James Connolly

if any "irish citizen" was having a crisis of national identity the last one he would most likely choose would be britishCaomhan27 05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Slow down there, boy-o. It think in your haste to assume the worst, you've misread the text. In fact, what it says is that, "British identity is a source of division in Ireland, especially in Northern Ireland." Now, clearly the "Ireland" of that sentence is the island, otherwise it would make no sense. For south of the border, post-1922, it plainly says that, "Today, few in the Republic of Ireland identify as British." Maybe the first sentence should be re-written, or the section re-organised so as to emphasise the difference between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island. But as it is, if you read it, you'll agree surely 1) that no-where does it say that "British" is appropriate for the 26 counties, 2) that in the 6 counties it is heavily disputed, 3) even then, in the 6 counties, the recent trend for one section of the community to identify as "British" is very new, 4) pre-partition (and in fact not until the most recent troubles), that, through-out the whole island, it was never welcome as a description. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ok but the wording is misleading

british identity is a source of division in ireland especially in northern ireland the use of especially means one more than another, Ireland (the island)is composed of Ireland and northern ireland so the other can obviously only refer to Ireland (ROI) which is not true. British identity division is only applicable to northern ireland as only it is part of the UK and as we know many people in NI consider themselves not to be british this is the only division on the island there is no need to state that few in Ireland (ROI) consider themselves british its an oxymoron Caomhan27 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't follow your logic with "especially" ("in particular" or "to a great extent; very much"). British identity is divisive on the island as a whole - is it not partitioned? But "in particular" (or "to a great extent" or "very much") so in Northern Ireland - have you been hiding under a rock for the last 30 years?

I'm sure "this dave souza editor" can read my mind regarding your edit. You erased everything south of the border. Do you not think that Irish attitudes to Britishness while part of the union is notable? Or is it simply that you don't want it mentioned? That's not acceptable. We do not WP:CENSOR information on Wikipedia just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

the use of especially means - "to a distinctly greater extent or degree" [8] the wording used by the piece means that british identity is a cause of division in ireland(the island) (this part is true) but especially (to a distinctly greater extent or degree) in northern ireland now this can only mean in the context of the island of ireland that british identity is also a cause of division but to a lesser extent in Ireland(ROI) this is not true (partition made sure of that). you could say that "partition" is an issue in Ireland(ROI)but not identity Caomhan27 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i have no issue with a fair piece about ireland's people attitudes to britians occupation of ireland prior to 1922(if most people think its relevant?, are indians attitudes to "britsh india" relevant to the article on britons aswell). I would say that its not really relevant, but if included i think it should reflect the reality of the feelings that most irish people felt,fought and died for throughout it,which was that they were "Gaels not Brython's" i.e Irish not British so it seems pointless, its just a reflection of reality.Caomhan27 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "especially" - ah, I get you now. Fair enough. That should be emphasised. re: pre-1922, and even now, I think its a relevent thing to mention, even if just to beat the point home. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a much better lead in now and gives good overview well done sony(you condensed a lot a years pretty well into a few lines)Caomhan27 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't read anyone's mind, I can read their words and the words of relevant policies. The information in question doesn't support my own preferences, but is properly referenced and should not be arbitrarily censored – if I want to contest it, an equally valid reference showing alternative viewpoints is needed. The information has now been restored, with an anon's slight rewording incorporated and the introductory sentence changed to "British identity has long been problematic in Ireland, and is a source of division in Northern Ireland." Hope that overcomes the problems with "especially". .. dave souza, talk 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

yes i now think it is much more factual with sonys reworking of it and the new introduction go raibh maith agatCaomhan27 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Move?

I think this page should move to British people in line with other such articles. Besides that, I - and it may be my idiosyncrasy as a medieval historian - associate the word "Briton" with what on wikipedia is called Brython (almost entirely unused neologism, "Briton" or "Britons" are almost always used).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change my opinion about this recently, see what I wrote above towards the end of "Briton vs. British". "British people" (whatever about Briton vs Brython) would be more in line with other articles. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion moving this article to "British people" would not only be in line with other articles, but would be a clearer term as the options "Briton" and "Brit" are both in use with slightly different implications. Moving Brython to Briton would then make that article much easier to write and reference, as for example Snyder's The Britons consistently uses the term for the pre-medieval peoples, so citing it to refer to "Brythons" would be inaccurate. Snyder shows the term Brython in use in the Armes Prydein Vawr of 935-940, in Welsh writings, but notes that the earliest writings from British hands are in Latin. .. dave souza, talk 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite all my years doing medieval history, I've never once come across the term "Brython" to refer to the Britons. Complete Wiki-ism or at the very least obscure neologism. It's always Britons, or "Native Britons" or "Welsh". BTW, I see this page can't be moved without an administrator. So I'm guessing a formal move request will be needed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Brythons" - Wiki-ism? Neologism? Come off it! That's not true. If anything, it's the other way around. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting search. Gotta rush now, but most of the first couple of pages of hits seem to be dated 1890-1920. That ties in well with it being an "oldologism" coined at the same time as the "Celtic" revival and Lluyd's naming of "Brythonic" languages. It apparently coexisted with "Ancient Britons", more recently dropped in favour of Briton, if my understanding is right. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All true - but an "oldologism" spanning the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries and one that serves the useful purpose of not being confusable with the subject of this article. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I need not provide the multple news articles that (rightly or wrongly) define British people (interchangably) as Britons, but we do have 100 Greatest Britons as an article - these are not 100 Greatest Ancient Britons (!) which would be something very different. Like the word "ethnicity", "Briton" suffers from both technical and common usage (though I always thought that the Ancient Britons were defined as such). I'd have to therefore insist we maintain the current structure. Jza84 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Irish as Britons?

The article doesn't really clarify if the Irish should be included as Britons, ofcourse ther arn't 'British' in it political entity, but this page isn't about that. Gazh 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1 million Americans?

I call serious BS there. 100 million would be more like it and even that would be too low IMO.--145.116.1.1 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox images

Could we consider putting some images into the infobox at the top right hand side of the article? Pretty much every one of these "(name) people" articles have images of their people in the infobox (eg. Scottish people, English people, French people etc).

Keeping this as civil as possible (lets put internal UK nationalism aside for a moment), could we come up with six suggested people?? I think they should meet the following criteria:

• Be born (or lived?) post-Acts of Union 1707.
• Be native to Great Britain (rather than Northern Ireland and crown dependancies, as we should seek to satisfy all the various definitions of the term).
• Self-identify as "British" (so no Sean Connery's) - verified by source material.

I think Gordon Brown is a must for this, but are there any other suggestions? From the top of my head I think Brunel, Churchill, Thatcher, and/or Nelson may be suitable, and possibly others from the 100 Greatest Britons list. Jza84 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that hasn't provoked much of a response, so I'll be bold and try a different tactic. How about we have a montage of the following six people:

• Gordon Brown - A champion of Britishness
• Horatio Nelson - A British military hero
• Adam Smith - An ardent Unionist, self described as a North Briton and first Scottish born person on Bank of England banknote.
• Steve Redgrave - Great Britain's most successful Olympian
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel - Iconic British engineer
• David Lloyd George - Invariably described as one of Britain's strongest PM's.

Alternatives (or additions) could include:

• Margaret Thatcher
• Winston Churchill

Any thoughts or objections? If not, I'll put something together. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement for all of these people bar Gordon Brown. Although he is the current PM i think he is to controversial among the British people to be but on a list of British People. I think Winston Churchill posibly thr most internationally famous British person should be added in his replacement. I say Churchill and not Thatcher as she like Brown is to controversial. (Electrobe (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briton#In_Ireland

Lord above, this section is utterly anti-British and must be rewritten. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the people of Southern Eire are not Britons. Who penned this awful drivel? The Irish belong to the British Isles, as do the Welsh, Scots & English. We are all Britons in the UK, even those in little Southern Eire. 86.43.209.94 03:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added references for the disputed parts. Thanks for your contribution. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very poor article, particularly as "British" is redirected to it. "British" and "Briton" are entirely different. I contrast the with the article "British Isles" which is of far higher quality and directly contradicts this article which appears to have been drafted by editors who wish to impose a political POV upon a geographical entity.

British does no only refer to nationality.

As with many words the word British has different meanings in different contexts. I offer 3 or the main ones:- 1) Associated with the "British Isles" a geographical archipelago that is unchanging and predates contempory political boundaries. 2) An abbreviation of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" e.g. as used by the Olympics 3) A misunderstanding prevalent amongst Americans, in particular those from the USA that Great Britain, British and English all mean the same thing. Rolo Tamasi (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Info box image - all English

We're back to a situation where we only have English people as representatives of Britons in the info box. We've had lots of suggestions and debate about this before. Can it be fixed? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that one section above this one a debate on new persons to the infobox has been started. (Electrobe (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

That "debate" was asking for images to be put in. Images were put in. (Actually for the second time.) That was two months ago. However they were all of English people. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions in an above section (which includes "English", "Welsh" and "Scottish" persons). I was intending to go ahead and include them per WP:BOLD, but my image software is currently unavaliable. I'm not sure if they would've solved this for you? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A mix of men and women too, would be good. England, Scotland and Wales is fine by me, but maybe some though to the "colonies" too (Freddy Mercury was nominated before!)? For Irish people, Monty would be fine if you thought it was be wise (no objections here). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of Kelly Holmes but thought that the inclusion "ethnic minorities" may not satisfy every-and-all defintions of the term "Briton". I was thinking that the slimmest and simplist options might be best here to futureproof its inclusion. Any advice? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that an image has been put in. Shakespere was born, lived and died in the Kingdom of England - not sure he's technically British.... hopefully I'll have image software by the end of the week to change the images per the discussion here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

The New Infobox picture is a great improvement on the old one however i still believe there are issues to be sorted out. 1. Why is Adam Smith in there he was born before the 1801 Act of Union and so as to stop the inevitabel argument about his position it probably would just be best to remove him now. 2. Paula Radcliffe has never struck me as being particulary British and in recent years has been a bit controversial i think Kelly Holmes would be a good replacement. 3. Gordon Brown is very controversial and has never struck me as being a particualry pro-british person. Please consider these revisions howerver overall it is a great improvement on the lsat set of pictures. (Electrobe (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Adam Smith was born after the 1707 Act of Union. In addition to his economic studies, he was the first Scottish born person on a Bank of England note. He was also a raging unionist, and insisted on being known as a North Briton, not a Scot. I can't think of anyone more suitable than that!

Gordon Brown controversial? How? What source do you have?... Not pro-British?... Can I suggest you read something like this to get upto speed!?

Paula Radcliffe is British. She represents Great Britain in her sport. She's got a Union Flag drapped round her in the image. Kelly Holmes would be great, but there is no free to use image of her (which is the main problem) to use and she can also claim Jamaican nationality. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Gordon Brown may come across as controversial due to his die hard support of Britishness appearing just as he was about to become Prime minister i.e. the WLQ. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He is British though - that is very much verifiable. He's a notable pro-Brit at that. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want just any British person then there are 60million people in the world today who are eligable to be pictured i meen just because Gordon Brown is British doesn't automatically give him a place in the infobox. I understand why we can't have Kelly Holmes now. We can't have Adam Smith because if we are trying to show Britishness we need people from the modern states. Adam Smith was a citizen of the Kingdom of Great Britian not the United Kingdom there is an importatn difference. (Electrobe (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

The changes you propose would remove the two only Scots and put us back to having English-only representations of the British people - which isn't on - and against the whole point of introducing a new image in the first place! Furthermore, about Smith, the people of the Kingdom of Great Britain were British (per reference 4 of the article). The term British also applied/applies to inhabitants of the island of Great Britain anyway. This coupled with the rationale I've provided (that he too identified as British) means he satisfies every aspect of the term. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If this page is about Britons then i shouldn't matter where they come from. I'm not against having Scottish people on the picture its just that i dont think that the two Scottish people chosen were very suitable. Anyway it shouldn't be about location it should be about proffesion. Winston Churchill is a much better person than Gordon Brown to have a picture of, and were are the people from Ireland. I no its differcult to choose people from island because of the differculty of being British and a Briton but there is know one from Northern Ireland. I'm an in agreement that we shouldn't just have peole from the english region however i think that there are some better coices than those which are currently there. On another matter telling me to keep up with times and then giving me an article almost 2 years old is slightly ironic. (Electrobe (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Yes, the irony was intentional. Winston Churchill is already in the montage; we can't have two Winston Churchills (!)... I'm afraid that just saying those two are not suitable isn't good enough a reason to remove them outright - we need some kind of scholarly rationale from you, not personal opinion. Can you provide a policy or source stating why these are not suitable? Inclusions of "Irish people" only satisfy some definitions of the term - not all, hense why I outlined they should be avoided in the image (though certainly permissable in the text). It's exactly this kind of bickering that I was hoping would be avoided if I'm frank; ultimately these are all notable Britons, and there is no element of policy breach at all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they are breach of policy im merely saying there are those who are better suited. It seems that i missed Winston Churhcill out the first time however i thought has just occured to me where is the Queen. She is deffinetly not in the images so far and would definetly make a good replacement for Gordon Brown. I have suggested that irish people from Northern Ireland be included because they do deffinetly identify themselves as being British and Britons. (Electrobe (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I hate to tell you this, but Northern Irish people can hold Irish nationality if they so desire. Simillarly, Gerry Adams is from Northern Ireland, and certainly does not identify as being British and a Briton. To make things more complicated, some Northern Irish (who may indeed be Unionists) consider themselves Irish, not British, but sympathetic to the UK. As has been stated, British Northern Irish people don't satisfy every definition of the term Briton, and I'd recommend leaving these people out of the image to futureproof the article.

The Queen too is an awkward one; she holds no passport, and is head of state in 16 sovereign states... so, is she Canadian? Australian? Jamaican? She also has an ancestry which includes German, French, Russian etc etc. Yes she's a Briton to me, and probably most of thre rest of us, but if I was to put her up, the article would be torn to shreds within a matter of hours as to if she is British or not! -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The House of windsor offically disinherited all of there foreign roots by changing there surnimane at the start of either WWI or WWII i cant remeber which. offically her family are british all of her realitives from the Windsor side have British passports which meens that if she wasn't Queen she would have one too. Even though she is queen of other countries they are all former British territarys. (Electrobe (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Can you please cite your source for this? - All material should be attributable to a reliable source. Your last point looks like it is original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Try wikipedia's own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Of_Windsor (Electrobe (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

You can't verify an assertion in Wikipedia, with Wikipedia. However, there is nothing about "disinheriting her foreign roots" or all her family being British and having British passports - this is all flowery, non-academic conjecture. This discussion is breaking down and going off point. Unless you can provide a reliable source, or cite a policy as to why your views (which don't appear very tight on the matter) are the best way forwards, I see no point in continuing. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You might not but this discussion isnt just for the two of us to debate on others may share either of are views or have their own. By the way why cant i prove my point with wikipedia pages? (Electrobe (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Because Wikipedia is an open-tertiary source. It doesn't meet our reliable sources guideline. Please visit the Welcome page or take a moment to read through about attributing sources for statements, and what Wikipedia is NOT. These are fundamental principals for Wikipedia and its users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't even trust the websire you are editing why are you even bothering to look at this page. (Electrobe (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

This is very silly and totally unhelpful. This is not about trusting the website, or bothering to look at pages. It seems you've misunderstood alot of the core values of Wikipedia - we don't remove images of people because "they are a bit controvertial", nor do we write text according to user's personal views and unverified statements. Wikipedia is built on reporting what exists in the published domain. Forgive me if you reply again with simillar contributions but Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion, or a place to blog. You've not provided a just, scholarly, policy-supported rationale for the last few hours now, and thus there is no scope to facilitate the changes you propose. I'm out. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Browns pro Britishness is irrelevant for his inclusion in the infobox it is his position of being prime minister warrants him that position. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but he can call a general election anytime he wants and then he wouldn't be would he. (Electrobe (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No but it is an encyclopedia. (Electrobe (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Ethnic group part of article

• I agree that "Briton" or "British people(s)" is clearly an ethnic classification. In some respects the ethnic identity is distinct from the British as a nationality, citizenship or inhabitants of the UK, so why is this not mentioned as such in the opening paragraph ? Maybe a new article referring specifically to the British peoples as an ethnic group should be created instead ? I just thought this needed mention. Epf (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia

I'm very surprised that Australia doesn't feature in the list under "Britons/British People" at the top right of the article. But I've put a bit in about Australia in the article. The 7.5 million figure is obviously an understatement, since 85% of the Australian population are estimated to be of "Anglo-Celtic" origin (this figure of course includes Irish as well as British). The situation is getting confused because, as elsewhere, many less well educated Australians think that England and Britain are the same. Millbanks (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

British people

Resolved

Have we considered moving "Briton" (which for some reason is singular!), to "British people"? Of course Brits are sometimes called Britons in a modern context, but Britons can also mean the "Brythons" which is causing some confusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Done today. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

I think something needs to be said in the lead about the term British and its relationship with English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish etc, clarifying why "Britishness" is sometimes refered to as a collection of nations. We might also want to explain (with appropriate restraint/context) that it can be a politically loaded term, particulary in NI, but also objectionable as being too Anglocentric. The lead (and the article it seems) also omits British nationality law and Britain's sizable ethnic-minority presence and contribution. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Those suggestions seem sensible to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together, though I'm a geographer by nature! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in agreement. An editor banned me from his page (without warning) for using the term Belfast, United Kingdom. So yeah, there's certainley sensativities about the term 'British'. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The less I say about that one the better probably!... Though WP:V pops into my head. Anyway I didn't think the suggestions would be contentious, I just don't have much source material to hand (I'm a bookman rather than an internetman wherever possible). Nations, identities and ethnicities (though I've written two papers on the latter pair) are touchy subjects and not an exact science. Any statements would have to be ultra neutral and from ultra reliable sources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion sounds spot on. I was of a similar mind but don't know how to phrase it neutrally. Saying that it is politically loaded (or at least viewed as such) is unfortunate, but necessary. Incidentally, speaking of politically loaded terms, Belfast was in Ireland last time I checked WP:V ;o) --sony-youth^pléigh 09:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Geographically it's on the 'Island of Ireland'. Politically, it's in the 'United Kingdom'. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I say Northern Ireland! I've already thought of Ulster, Europe and Earth too, so don't try it guys! :D -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a spat with Sony, honest. Just explaining to him, why I use Belfast, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

7.5 million British Isles origin persons in Australia???

According to the 2006 census, an estimated 10 million persons have British Isles origins [9]. 85,000 Australians are Welsh origins (not shown in Stats). Also, an important thing to notice also is that 7.3 million Australians described themself as "Australian" which means that millions more could have British Isles ancestry! Dont worry, I will fix this! Galati (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Galati

Infobox image (2)

I'm troubled by the situation that, of the 8 people currently shown, only 2 are women, and none show anything other than pure white skin tones (which, if we're talking about the British as a culture rather than a supposed "ethnic group", should be changed in my view). Discounting Lloyd George (born in Manchester), there's also no-one of Welsh origin. Could we have more faces? The Irish people box shows 18 people - too many in my view, but 12 would work well. How about Elizabeth I (or Victoria), Kelly Holmes, Amy Winehouse, and Tommy Cooper (who was born in Wales)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If we keep 8 photos, I would suggest 2 each representing English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh - with one male and one female for each. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be too simplistic an approach in my view - we can recognise that England has much the biggest share of population, and even that, as a matter of historical fact, more men than women have become "notable", but at the same time we should take account of justified sensitivities. (Florence Nightingale or Shirley Bassey, anyone?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was involved with producing the current infobox image and I tried to be as inclusive as possible. The problem we had last time however was the lack of suitably licenced photographs (e.g. Shirley Bassey/Kelly Holmes are both excellent candidates, but lack free-to-use images). Simillarly, Elizabeth I of England was born, lived and died in the Kingdom of England, rather than the United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter if someone was born before the United Kingdom was formed? The article describes a Briton as someone from Great Britain - I don't see anything wrong as having Elizabeth I under that definition. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fishiehelper2 - the article deals with the pre-UK as well as the post-UK "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been mentioned before as an objection and it is also stated in the WP:UKNATIONALS essay. I doubt Elizabeth would've identified with being British herself, and I'd be reluctant to impose (for want of a better word) that on to her anchronistically. What my concern was, and still is, is that we should seek to satisfy all the definitions of British at all times to avoid endless conflict on the talk page. Thus, those depicted should be from Great Britain, born post 1707 and, where possible, self identify as British.--Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I hadn't realised there was a separate set for "English people". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

However, there's been some good suggestions. I like the Holmes/Bassey idea and do think the article needs to elaborate more on Britain's sizable ethnic minority "communities". Perhaps the first thing to do however, is to find some free-to-use images. I presume we're still OK with the existing image, but want to extend the number of images for another row/column? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's Mary Seacole too. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box at top right - 'white british'

I've just noticed that a figure for 'white british' is given under the UK whereas 'british born' is used under other countries. I find this concerning as it implies that only 'white british' can be british, but of course british applies to people of any ethnic origin who were born in Great Britain (or in the UK). Anyone else share my concerns? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. That was well spotted. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen all the other ethnic groups of people like Italians, Spanish people, Scottish people etc.. this is about people of 'BRITISH DESCENT/ANCESTRY' "diaspora" and needs to be clear about this at the beginning, thats why people of british origin only represent 50.3 million not 60 of the UK. There are definatly more people of British(English,Scots,Scots-irish,welsh) ancestry in the United States, ancestry.com says 60 Million people, which is very small considering only 200 years ago in 1790, people of British ancestry represented about 80% of the US population.81.159.181.168 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the "indiginous" British ethnic origins and elaborates on diaspora. I'm not sure what you want changed. The "British" as a single ethnic group with defined origins/characteristics is, and always has been, a difficult claim to verify. Do you have a reference? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "British people" has multiple and in some circumstances conflicting definitions - e.g. "native inhabitants" - native at what point, pre-Anglo-Saxon invasions or later? ; the British population from which settlers to US, Australia etc. claim origin (that is, the overwhelmingly "white" inhabitants at some point between the 16th and 20th centuries) ; or the current inhabitants of Britain, who include a wider range of geographical / "ethnic" origin. I'm not convinced that these (and no doubt other) alternative definitions are sufficiently teased out in the article as it stands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this. Certainly there is a need for greater research into source material here, on the part of us as the contributors. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that this may need a reference to help this, but i dont really think its any different to the other articles such as English people, scottish people, and welsh people, yes the article can mention immigrants that are of British nationality, but to all those who have british natioanlity many dont identify with this. There are even articles on people such as Black British, British Asian, these people may feel british inside but this is about people of "British ethnic origin". To say how far do yo go to say who is british, well its the same as i presviously said..do you trace you roots and Surname to Britain?, i think most people know what the term indigenous means to any country, even with seperate regional identity or not eg celtic, Anglo etc..we all know what makes up the original people of the Isles..81.159.30.176 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all good wholesome stuff, but without citation we have little chance of expanding the article in this direction. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

merger

i think this article should be merged into english people article being irish,scotish and welsh people never ever consider themselfs british and there is no british counrty in the u.k there is england though ,where is the british soccer team there is none there is an english soccer team and also i think most people me included who have some ancestry from that region never refer to themselves as british in decent but english in decent also where is the british language there is none but there is an english one--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

eh..no! But it may be worth considering merging into the britishness article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

so none of my points are valid, also there was outrage in the u.k when there was not a tick box for english so people can identify with there english heritage and now in the next census there will be an english tick box--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your assertions of absolutes are unsupported by reality. Many people have dual or multiple national identities, while others hold to only one. And there's mair to life than fitba. .. dave souza, talk 07:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Starkey

I've removed a quote from the lead with this edit for a number of reasons:

• Starkey isn't an authority on nationality and/or identity
• His commentary is so recent and so pointed, it takes alot of value away from the article.
• He was discussing "Britishness" being taught in schools.
• There are several hundred sources that the "British people are a nation" ([10]), thus his commentary seems rather odd.

I understand he's a notable historian, and it's sourced, but for these reasons I don't think it's suitable for the lead. Perhaps elsewhere though? Something more about the "sensitivity" around the term might be more eligable for the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the issue here. I actually don't much like Starkey as a historian, but the paragraph in question is discussing whether the british people are a nation and his quote is a good example of the views of those who do not accept the idea that 'the british are a nation'. I do not accept that 'being a recent comment' takes value away from the article. Why? His comment shows current thinking of 'some' - what is wrong with that? Having said that, I take your view about it being in the lead - how about moving it somewhere below? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Starkey (I much prefer Simon Schama!). My concern is that we could have a much greater quote in the lead than that. His view seems rather one-sided and sweeping; the reality is it is much more complex an issue.

It's a useful quote though for elsewhere I think. Certainly under the ""Britishness" today" section somewhere. I'd still like to see something more about why it's a disputed/sensitive/complex term (I suspect it's due to it being seen as synonymous with "Englishness" and too Anglocentric an identity, but I'm struggling to source that). How's that sound? On the flipside, I think it's a good quote for the lead of Britishness. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine - but I think you raise another issue - why is there a need for both a 'british people' article and a 'britishness' article when they have so much overlap? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of this article is a massive violation of WP:SYN (e.g. compiling stats on "British" populations abroad by adding together component nations). The remainder would be best going into the Britishness and Demographics of the United Kingdom articles, though it'll never happen as these people articles are the pets of too many ubernationalists. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Just a note. Hilariously, I've had to tag a dab template because Epf —well known for his obsession for and POV-pushing on these peoples articles — has decided to revert war in order to place a controversial statement in it. "This article is about the ethnic definition and modern nation" may very well be how some people might regard the article, but as the article's more balanced text reveals, this is only one view, so cannot be stated matter of factly. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Change from "people" to "peoples"

Can anyone show me where the controversial move of this article from the elegant and meaningful British people to the clumsy British peoples was discussed and agreed to? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally share this concern - the change was not agreed so far as I know, and is extremely unhelpful. Obviously many people in Britain do see themselves as "English", "Scottish, "Welsh" etc. - but, by the same token, many do not, and describe themselves as "British". The article should be "British people". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a solution to this. 'British peoples' implies that there are several 'peoples' that constitute british; 'British people' implies that the british are a single people. Both titles promote a point of view and therefore I would like a more neutral title. Unfortunately, I can't think of one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.55.138 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

People in Britain? (Only half joking...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If pushed, I think my preferred title would be 'Peoples of the United Kingdom' - yes it is plural rather than singular, which may offend some, but it is more inclusive as it could include 'Irish' within its scope whereas 'British' as a term can seem exclusive of Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.55.138 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. How would "British people" fit that? (Personal note: I was born in England to parents of variously English, Welsh and Ulster Scots heritage, and now live in Wales. I'm British, and so are many others.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. "United Kingdom" does not include "Irish"! Don't go there... More generally, I prefer the simplicity of "British preople" to anything else. Maybe it implies a homogeneity that is not there in reality, but it is also (arguably!) a simple neutral phrase meaning "the people of Britain", whereas "British peoples" begs more questions and suggests a stronger POV (and is clumsy). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You've touched on the point exactly! A lot of people in Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom, but would regard themselves as Irish. It is not an answer to the issue to simply say 'don't go there'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.55.138 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about people in Britain - only in that sense should it "not go there", if "there" is Ireland, north and/or south. Yes, there is an issue, but this is not the article to solve it in. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, but this article is not just 'about people in Britain' as you say. The lead sentence says "The British peoples, sometimes referred to as Britons, are the native inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom." People from Northern Ireland are also citizens of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.55.138 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "British" is used for both. And from the text you'll see that Norn Iron (ironically it may seem) is the only "constituent country" in the UK where a majority of people self-identify as "British". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest from Northern Ireland will be those who identify themselves as Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.55.138 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be of interest that the article European ethnic groups does not include 'British' as an ethnic group. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups can be self-defined. One can choose to be ethnically Mancunian if they so desire, and would, technically, be right to do so if they could assert a common kinship, heritage and homeland. Just throwing that one in there.

Have to say I object to British peoples.... there are multiple "peoples" in Britain just like there are Celtic peoples, Scottish peoples etc. Its a change that takes value away from the article, not add. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused

This article defines British people as "the native inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories." However, the table on the right gives an estimated world population of 'British' as 150 Million. It appears that this 150 Million can only be achieved by including those of british descent - but the definition in this article does not include those of 'British ancestry' as British.

Should the definition not be widened to include those of British ancestry? If not, I suspect the estimate of 150 Million is misleading. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Population??

It says 60million british born people in the U.K... there are only 60.5mil people in U.K soo does that mean there are only 500,000 immigrants and non British born people in the U.K? I dont understand what it means by British born of any race, how is that relivent when the articles on an ethnic group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.156.162 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about an ethnic group, as the lead makes clear: "...are the inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories". Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

White British

The 46 million 'White British' in the UK is wrong. There are far more. It is at least 50 million, perhaps more. The BBC website stated recently that the UK was 90% White, 85% of would be ethnically British. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.194.88 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

basque as related group

We can do the oppenheimer links easy, 2 mins on google, do you think they are worthy as a 'related group' ? 81.97.8.242 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links are genetic, not ethnic. Ethnicity has to do more with language and culture. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, search the word 'ethnic' on here and it will telly ou otherwise. I'm adding it then. 92.40.14.50 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed here, and the consensus was that, since it says related ethnic groups, not related genetic groups, it constitutes groups with related language and culture, not genetics. So Basques don't belong in the infobox.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes "Ethnic group" as An ethnic group (also called a people or an ethnicity) is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. 81.97.8.242 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)