Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
::::::::Scotland is not an independent state. Since the [[Acts of Union 1707]] it has part been of the [[Unitary state]] of the United Kingdom. The article says, 'The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain"'. You will note on the page that you refer to it says, 'The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force'. The ultimate power in Scotland is held solely by the UK Parliament. Scotland has less right to be reagarded as an independent nation than Texas, which is part of [[Federation]] and less right than [[Cornish independence|Cornwall]] which 'is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation, not merely a county of England, and has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union'.[[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::Scotland is not an independent state. Since the [[Acts of Union 1707]] it has part been of the [[Unitary state]] of the United Kingdom. The article says, 'The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain"'. You will note on the page that you refer to it says, 'The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force'. The ultimate power in Scotland is held solely by the UK Parliament. Scotland has less right to be reagarded as an independent nation than Texas, which is part of [[Federation]] and less right than [[Cornish independence|Cornwall]] which 'is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation, not merely a county of England, and has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union'.[[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] ([[User talk:Martin Hogbin|talk]]) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Nobody said "independent state" except you. And since when does statehood matter to nationality? Nationality - belonging to a nation. You have been told repeatedly that the Texas comparison is not valid, yet persist in expounding it. You conflate states with nations quite deliberately to muddy the waters and make your argument fit... and here's the crux of that entire argument - denigrating Scotland and diminishing it's identity. for all your careful talk about wikipedia, this is nothing more than political soap boxing with a deeply unpleasant agenda. Incidentally, as you and Anonymous IP seem to be answering each other's questions fairly fluently, I should ask - are you sock puppeting? [[User:FDCWint|FDCWint]] ([[User talk:FDCWint|talk]]) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::Nobody said "independent state" except you. And since when does statehood matter to nationality? Nationality - belonging to a nation. You have been told repeatedly that the Texas comparison is not valid, yet persist in expounding it. You conflate states with nations quite deliberately to muddy the waters and make your argument fit... and here's the crux of that entire argument - denigrating Scotland and diminishing it's identity. for all your careful talk about wikipedia, this is nothing more than political soap boxing with a deeply unpleasant agenda. Incidentally, as you and Anonymous IP seem to be answering each other's questions fairly fluently, I should ask - are you sock puppeting? [[User:FDCWint|FDCWint]] ([[User talk:FDCWint|talk]]) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}} |
|||
May I please urge all those who wish to contribute here to take notice of the first item on this talk page. The essay is a distillation of the outcome of previous discussions which can found at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality]]. Martin Hogbin's earlier suggestion that ''"This is the opinion of a few editors looking as if it is some kind of policy'' is completely false and simply demonstrates that he had not bothered to actually study it. It is quite clear that an editor who has no previous connection with an article should not parachute in and change the nationality field based on his or her own non-consensual narrow interpretation of what the term means. There is WP history and practice on this, and there is no excuse for edit warring to attempt to change long established entries on the basis of an individual's PoV. Martin Hogbin's campaign at James Clerk Maxwell is a perfect example of how not to do it. Having failed to gain any kind of consensual support on the article talk page, or on this page, or at the Village Pump, on the infobox template talk page, he just keeps on changing it anyway. That is not acceptable behaviour. [[User:FF-UK|FF-UK]] ([[User talk:FF-UK|talk]]) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==James Laidlaw Maxwell the Missionary- An Illustration== |
==James Laidlaw Maxwell the Missionary- An Illustration== |
Revision as of 15:39, 18 December 2014
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion
Hi, all. Now that the discussion on the matter at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" has concluded, I've prepared this draft of a Wikipedia essay on the matter, incorporating some suggestions by Matt Lewis. Views on how the essay may be improved are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Northern Ireland
The description regarding Northern Ireland is unnecessarily complicated, going through the legal description of entitlement to Irish citizenship. (Under Irish law everyone begins being "entitled" to Irish citizenship, but only legally become one upon doing something that only a citizen can do - e.g. register to vote, apply for a passport - then they become one retroactively from birth. However, even if you don't so anything that only a citizen can do, that doesn't mean that you are not an Irish citizen. Confusing, or what?)
You write:
“ | People from Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, people who are both born on the island of Ireland (including its isles and seas) and have at least one parent who is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen, have a constitutional right to Irish citizenship. | ” |
This is perfectly accurate but, despite all if it's round-about language, there is no difference between entitlements to Irish citizenship between a person from the North and someone from the south. It can be made clearer by brushing over the legal requirement to citizenship as is done when describing entitlement to UK citizenship:
“ | People from Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, people from Northern Ireland are Irish citizens on the same basis as people from the Republic of Ireland. | ” |
--sony-youthpléigh 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Title
Could you also change the title of the essay? Calling it a Manual of Style gives the impression that it is based on consensus rather than a personal view. --sony-youthpléigh 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I wasn't sure about the title. Any suggestions? "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, have renamed the essay. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
Thanks for writing the essay!
I think one of the difficult points is your suggestion:
- "Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country?"
The problem is that someone who was born and resident (for a long time) in, say, England, was also born and resident (for an equal length of time) in Britain. So I would argue that this gives us no more reason to call them "English" than "British". Bluewave (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help to distinguish between the two levels of "nation" and "nationality" in the text of this article. For example, the above guideline could be rephrased:
- "Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's more specific nationality, such as birth and long residence in one of the home nations?"
- As a separate point, I'd suggest that place of death or burial can be another indicator of specific nationality. For example: an Angus-born playwright who spent much of his working life in London, but chose the town of his birth for his final resting place; I'd identify him as Scottish. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help to distinguish between the two levels of "nation" and "nationality" in the text of this article. For example, the above guideline could be rephrased:
- On the point about burial, I don't think this is always a good indication of a person's national affiliation - places of burial are often chosen by relatives and not necessarily by the person themself. Fundamentally, though, my concern is that, whilst the nationality "British" is provable, the use of, say "English" is entirely a matter of personal preference. If I live all my life in England, I may regard myself as "English" or may think I'm "British" and I don't think anyone could infer my preference from where I was born, lived, died or was buried. I suppose I would therefore argue that to use anything other than "British" as a nationality, we should have some evidence that a person considered themself to be, say, "English". Bluewave (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jason, thanks for the suggested rewording. I think that's quite good. As regards the comments on a person's place of burial, I suppose it depends on whether it was one chosen by the deceased or by his relatives. I would also add that a person may choose to be buried in a place that he or she feels particular affinity for, which may not reflect nationality. I'll try to work something about a burial place chosen by the deceased into the guideline.
- Bluewave, I entirely agree that from an evidential point of view it is more likely that a person's British nationality can be confirmed, compared to the fact that he or she is Scottish, [etc.]. However, I think we have to live with the current reality that there is no consensus on preferring "British" over "Scottish, [etc.]", which is why the guideline needs to be fairly neutral on this issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I accept that I'll never get consensus on this...which is probably why I'm having a whinge on the talk page of a discussion document, rather than continuing to slog it out in the biography guidelines! One point perhaps worth including is that geographical affiliations that are not actually nationalities are sometimes appropriate in articles, as long as they are used in a context where they are not presented as a nationality. It is quite reasonable to describe someone as (say) a Texan or a Parisian, if appropriate. Likewise, in the UK, people are sometimes referred to as being "Yorkshiremen", "Cornish", "Liverpudlian", etc, but these descriptions shouldn't be used in place of a nationality. There are even times when the words "English", "Scots" or "Welsh" might be used in this sense! Bluewave (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, take consolation in the fact that I agree with you on the "British" point. About your other point: do you think should regional appellations be mentioned in this guideline? If so, would you like to try your hand at framing some suitable phraseology? I've got no strong views on the matter – I'm happy with the point either being included or excluded. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Background facts: Northern Ireland
I've made a minor edit to the changes made by Jnestorius. He rephrased the second paragraph to read "People born in Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom". However, I think it is better to leave it as "People from Northern Ireland" because the article "Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity" suggests that people who are from Northern Ireland may acquire British citizenship by naturalization without actually having been born there. On the other hand, it appears from the same article that only people who are born on the island of Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship, so the second sentence is fine. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
People born in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship of the Irish republic, not Irish citizenship, by default. That does not necessarily result in automatic dual nationality. They may not be Uk citizens, but citizens of another country, and either the UK or that other country may not allow dual citizenship.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
'Presently' is a misleading word.
On first look I can't see too much to object to, but I have seen this (how could I miss it!);
"There presently does not appear to be any consensus on how this guideline should be applied with respect to people from the United Kingdom."
Oh dear - it's the first line!
It must begin something like 'on Wikipedia, there has never been consensus...' I'll change it first right now, as it's, ahem, rather important to get this bit right. It must be your POV breaking through to say 'presently', as it suggests it's a temporary situation. All the evidence clearly points to consensus never being found. It's NOT an ugly hole - its simply our natural state.
As I've said so much before, most people in the UK are happy with the flexibility and absence of consensus - we live with it, and have done throughout our history. It cannot suddenly be implied that it's a temporary thing! It's like saying the French are 'presently' romantic!
The idea of Britishness can certainly be used by politicians and the media to encourage racial distrust (and hence, of course, advance security measures and foreign policy) - but on the whole we simply accept each others differences here. That means flexibility in identifying ourselves. There is no 'presently' about it. That general UK feeling really should be in your head by now, Jack. Oogy-boogy flexibility really is the state of play.
Surely as a foreigner studying in the UK you have felt this? I hope you've not had any bad vibes.
Regarding what identity can mean to some people in this blood-soaked world, you will find me every bit as strong about all this as I have been before - so be prepared if you fancy an argument.
I'll change this now and see if there is anything else I can see. On first look it seems innocuous enough - so a tentative 'well done'.
PS. "There presently does not appear to be any consensus" actually sounds awfully English! (in a sort of "at present I'm rather at a loss over the whereabouts of my pyjamas" kind of way) --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
New 'main line' - please Talk
OK, I almost changed it - then thought it was wisest to remove it completely for the time being, and discuss my possible changes here first:
3. Nationality –
- 3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.•
- 3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
- •Note that no consensus exists on 'Nationality' regarding people from the United Kingdom. There is an essay on people from the United Kingdom that could be used as a guideline for similar collective states, and also for areas that have disputed rights.
The only way I can see this really working is if the essay doesn't singularly focus on the UK. Then the line could offer a general 'surrounding exceptions' essay. Any thoughts?
PS. I think essays need to be introduced as such, and I've no idea how to do asterisks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya, Matt. Personally, I don't think there's much difference between the way I drafted the modification to the guideline and your suggestion of putting the notice about the nationality of people from the UK in a footnote. (There is a way to create footnotes using {{ref}} and {{note}} tags.) Also, while the essay could certainly be expanded to discuss other collective states, I'd rather we just stick to the UK for the moment (somehow it seems to generate the most debate!) and leave the issue of whether the essay should be extended as a battle to be fought another day. But your suggestion of mentioning in the Manual of Style that the essay could be used as a guideline for other collective states is a good one. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent - we have some agreement. I have to move the 'presently' (re section above) - so will do that now, and then we can work on a footnote, yes? Then perhaps we can broaden the essay.
- Just to say - I personally don't think it's right for any kind of 'work in progress' to be up on such an important page - but i've been reverted once after removing it to here, and so am compromising on this issue.
- Also, Melty Girl wants me to put my points in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style biographies - we are clearly going to have to go back there. Despite your notices, I don't think many people have noticed yet that the discussion was moved here! (I didn't immediately, as I didn't picture the unconventionality of it). Obviously, a guaranteed consensus can only occur on the correct Discussion page - so let's carry on there.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Moving Talk back to the original Biographies Talk page
By request, please conduct further content discussion to the link in this heading.
Only very minor points on the essay structure should be discussed here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've created a few sub-headings to get the [{Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29|the original Biographies Talk page]] discussion going again - just in case some confusion with here occurred.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
ALL Talk has moved to the original Biographies Talk page
This Talk is currently moved to the place of the original discussion: the original Biographies Talk page. It might come back here in the future, but it needs to stay in one place! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- NOTICE!
- Moved last few discussions to link above. (apologies for rudeness! It's got to be in one place.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removed new section "== I know it's just an essay but... ==" to other Talk, and made comment... --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Removed new section "== (Removing) Celtic heritage ==" to other Talk, and made comment... (we are currently keeping all Talk together) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Moving ==Republic of Ireland== per above. Frustrating I know, but this Talk must be in one place! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is talk on this essay being moved?
Matt, why are you moving talk on this essay to the other talk page? Is this normal practice? It seems a little confusing. Bardcom (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is clealy explained above! Have you read the original Talk yet? This discussion on a guideline/essay needs to be kept all in once place. If you read above, Jack, the originator of this essay, agrees that the original page is the best one. Please don't disrupt things! It's far more confusing if it goes on in two places (ie. in here as well)! Only a few people at first noticed it was moved here from the original place - that wasn't exactly fair! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went to the MoS in question, but I can't find where my posting is. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weird - I did do yours (as I noted above), but it's not there - must have not saved it or something. I've just done it again now - sorry about that. There's was only a few until today - I've done the others. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Matt, I'm not taking a shot, take it easy. I have looked at this talk page, but I can't see the reason, and if it was clearly explained above, I wouldn't have asked and other people wouldn't be making the same assumption that I made. I've no doubt there is a reason, but for my benefit, and for the benefit of all the people that follow me that will ask the same question, I thought it best to allow you to clarify it once, here, and be done with it. I guess that you regard the "original place" to be the Manual of Style (Biographies), but for most, it doesn't make sense to go there to talk about this essay. Sure, it was fine when the idea was mooted originally, but now that the essay is in place, it makes more sense to talk about the essay here. (At least to me.) Bardcom (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should have discussion there, but respect the wishes of the community. I've made a note about it in a much clearer header at the top to avoid confusion. --Jza84 | Talk 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good job. It does kinda stand out well. Perhaps this page should be "archived" too, if that's the wishes of the community? Bardcom (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. People seem to be seeing other sections then adding a new section - it's what people are used to I suppose. Perhaps it could be page-archived, like the one on the MOS talk from last year? The new banner is great, but sooner or later someone will fail to spot it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good job. It does kinda stand out well. Perhaps this page should be "archived" too, if that's the wishes of the community? Bardcom (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should have discussion there, but respect the wishes of the community. I've made a note about it in a much clearer header at the top to avoid confusion. --Jza84 | Talk 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add - as far as I'm concerned the essay went into the MOS side-panel too early! It's still basically the original guideline Talk as far as I'm concerned. It's seen many changes since it's been up - far more than any other on the side panel I'm sure. Even the title isn't right yet, imo (but that discussion is on the MOS Talk page here!....) --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Now you can't find the discussion
OK, Where in the Biography talk page is it? That page now automatically archives everything over 60 days old, so the only rational solution is to dedicate an archive of that section for this specific topic. But if you're going to do that, perhaps it might be just as easy to make this page (and its archives) the easier-to-find home for British nationality discussions. Currently, even if they were easy to find, wouldn't any fresh contributions to the discussion get fragmented over multiple archives of the Biography talk? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The discussions have been placed in a separate archive called "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/2007-2008 archive: British nationality", which is now referred to in a footnote in the essay. I agree that it would be easier for further discussions about this essay to take place here, but to increase awareness about and participation in discussions here it may be necessary to put a message at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)" to notify editors active there. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually, I was going by the note at the top of this page. Perhaps there's a way of modifying that to reflect both the 2007-8 MoS/Biog. archive and wherever subsequent (live) discussions can take place. My Wikipedian interest (apart from a personal one) has nothing to do with biographies, but arose first from a discussion at Talk:War of 1812 about how to describe the conflict (U.S.-U.K. vs Anglo-American, etc.) and then from a silly disagreement over how to list cities in New York City#Sister cities.† So the question crops up in many non-biographical contexts, although clearly some additional questions relate rather specifically to how an individual person's nationality should be classified. † [I was born in London, England (actually Middlesex), not "London, U.K.", which (like "London, Canada") seems a completely unnatural formation, regardless of political status]. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- One never knows how things work out in practice, or how something will be interpreted by others, but it looks good to me, giving a specific destination. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Biggest problem of all is not mentioned
I'm amazed to come to this essay and discover that the biggest problem of all is not mentioned. Only near the end does it say "Bear in mind too that non-UK media can make simplistic (and erroneous) assumptions about UK citizens: some use only British or English to describe them" - and as best I know, that's untrue. The essay completely fails to cover the much bigger and insulting practice of calling Scottish people English. Bear in mind that there is no confusing mis-match of categories in this case, the method of address is entirely ignorant (and likely worse). What's the point of this essay if it grants no protection to even the most respectable minorities from cultural imperialism? I hesitate to jump in and edit an essay about the fine-tuning of terms, because I'm sure it's all been carefully written and all of it is important. But none of it can be as important as reminding editors not to engage in accidental or deliberate racism. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't the existing sentence that you quoted cover the situation you have highlighted? If you think the point needs to be more explicitly stated, do you have a proposed rewording in mind? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about the even bigger insulting practice of insulting the English by claiming that calling Scottish people English is insulting? Yes, foreigners call Brits English, in the same way Brits call all citizens of the former USSR Russians.
Seamus Heaney
Seamus Heaney writes in English, not Irish, unless there's something I don't know. At least his poetry is in English, not Irish in the sense here of a branch of Gaelic (Section 1.1. Celtic heritage within Britain and Ireland). Is there an alternative example? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Politicians and Footballers
It seems to me that the present situation is illogical and not sustainable. It seems to be based on "perception", but I'm not sure whose. Hence we are told that Neil Kinnock is Welsh, but Michael Howard (Welsh Jewish) is British, whereas Leo Abse (and his brothers), also Welsh Jewish, are Welsh. Geoffrey Howe, Welsh born and bread, is British. George Thomas, "a royalist" is Welsh but referred to as British. So someone thinks that you can't be a royalist and Welsh: perceptions presumably dictate otherwise.
Now...the English. It seems that English politicians must be called British. But not footballers! They can be called English! Phew, I'm just an Aussie. Help me someone! I imagine that apart from some nationalists, most English, Scottish and Welsh people accept that they're British; but that doesn't make them any less English, Scottish or Welsh.
Surely, as a general rule, we could refer to English, Scots and Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausseagull (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right that it's a muddle. You could make a good case (as you suggest) for referring to people as English, Scots or Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British. The trouble is that you could also make a good case for calling them all British unless the person in question specifically wants to be called English, Scots or Welsh. Either way, you've then got the problem of trying to find out if the person in question does specifically want to be called one or the other. Then you've got the further problem of deciding what is the test of Englishness, Scottishness or Welshness. Bluewave (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at your examples, I don't think I can (or would want to) defend all the ways that nationalities have been quoted, but I think some of the rationale is:
- This is about nationality, so whether someone is Jewish is irrelevant.
- If a footballer is associated with the "England" football team, this provides some evidence that they might consider themselves "English".
- If a politician such as Howard has served in the cabinet of the UK government, has led a UK-wide political party, and has represented the UK in world forums, there is some rationale for calling them a British politician.
- I think this is the kind of compromise "logic" that we have come up with....but I don't disagree with your view that it's illogical! Bluewave (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on..."A politician such as Kinnock....has led a UK political party", but we can't call him British! Ausseagull (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose the idea that as a general rule we should refer to English, Scots and Welsh unless the person in question specifically wants to be called British. The default position must be that people are British (they are British citizens after all, thats their legal nationality). We must then consider the other factors involved. What they are best known as (Sean Connery is known for being Scottish, Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) is not), clearly sports like football English / Scottish is more suitable and if they only consider themselves a nationality other than British. In the case of anyone that sits in the UK parliament, they should be called British unless they are nationalists. Those who sit in the Welsh assembly or Scottish parliament can be called Scottish / Welsh.
- That is how the introduction should describe them. I still think its best for us to put more than one nationality in the infobox if someone is both Scottish and British. The problem at the moment, someone like Gordon Brown is rightly called British and Alex Salmond is called Scottish, but that ignores the fact Brown is just as much Scottish as Alex Salmond. They infobox should display both next to nationality or put Scottish in the ethnicity field.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although looking back at it the infobox on salmonds article it no longer states nationality to put an end to the dispute about what he should be described as. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If they're born in Great Britain after 1707, they're British. If they're born in Northern Ireland, they're British. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly agree if they are born in Great Britain after 1707, they are British. Britain is still considered a nationality and is legally and politically a nation-state. Foreign diplomats around the world refer to 'British nationals' when speaking of those born in Scotland/England/Northern Ireland/Wales. Wikipedia is simply falling victim to the political, historical and legal ignorant motivated by personal bias. Erzan (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (GMT)
It is the role of Wikipedia to actually step in and apply some consistency. It must apply the same rules for nationality descriptions across every country. Is it on the list of UN-recognised nations? No? Then sorry, you can't have it. There simply is no Scottish nationality, or independent England. If there were, why on earth are the SNP campaigning for Scottish independence? It's because they're part of the UK - not a federal, flag of convenience UK made of 'countries', but an actual centralised nation state formed over 500 years. I can't believe I am having to make the point, but it is partly because Wikipedia allows wishy-washy fantasism and 'rewriting of reality' for any aspirational inferiority-complexed dreamer that comes along, which then sloshes around in the common conscience of the uneducated as if it were true.
Boxing article infoboxes
Why does using "British" have to be prevented? We use nationalities of other sovereign states, yet not the United Kingdom, why? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with boxing as such, but isn't it the case that sportspeople from Britain often do not compete under "United Kingdom" but its constituent countries? Football seems to be a good example of this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I had noticed inconsistancy among the British boxers, a few days ago. Some went by British, while others went by Irish, Scottish, English & Welsh. Along with that, would it not seem strange to have boxer listed as "Albertans", "Californians" etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is odd, but perhaps it is not so much whether it looks strange but the actual national entity that the boxer in question is competing for. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alberta and California are states within a federal republic, England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are constituent Countries of the United Kingdom, different things all together.--NorthernCounties (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- So I should change British to English, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish, Welsh? GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is odd, but perhaps it is not so much whether it looks strange but the actual national entity that the boxer in question is competing for. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I had noticed inconsistancy among the British boxers, a few days ago. Some went by British, while others went by Irish, Scottish, English & Welsh. Along with that, would it not seem strange to have boxer listed as "Albertans", "Californians" etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Coincidentally i've recently came across this issue as well and have started a discussion at IE:COLL in regards to Northern Irish boxers.
Though this is an essay and not a Wikipedia policy. What enforcement does it have at all then?
Just for the record, Alberta and California i'd say have more legislative independance than the constituent parts of the UK and more right to having terms such as Albertan and Californians than Wales for Welsh or Scotland for Scottish etc. yet we simply use American. Ooh the confused mess than is UK nationality.... or should that actually be citizenship? Point 3.1 clearly shows that this essay makes a complete mockery of actual Wikipedia policy - why are cultural nationalities being given prominence over citizenship nationality which is what is meant to be referred too? If 3.1 was put into proper practice, then that means according to UK nationality law, there is only one option to be used for most people in the UK. Yet i think it'd be an extremely hard battle to get it properly enforced. Mabuska (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is an essay and is not policy, so editors may choose to follow it or not to do so. However, it exists to record that there is currently no consensus as to how the nationality of people from the United Kingdom should be indicated in articles. I agree with you that it seems to make sense to use the term "British" to refer to people from the United Kingdom, but I stress again that there is no consensus on the issue. There are many editors of the view that the subjects of some articles identify more closely with constituent countries in the UK, so it is more appropriate to use the appellations "English", "Scottish", and so on. You are, of course, welcome to initiate a fresh debate on the issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would love some input from people on this talk page re describing C. S. Lewis. Born in Ireland while it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1898), but resided in Oxford from 1930 and became notable in England. The clear majority of book sources (nearly 2.5 to 1) describe him as "British". Currently there is a concerted effort to change this to "Irish". As of now, all nationalities have been removed from the article lead and infobox. I personally support using "British" in the lead, clearly the overarching citizenship, then describing his birthplace and ethnic self-identfication in the second sentence. In infobox, use citizenship=British and ethnicity=Irish. That seems most consistent with the sources. Yworo (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
British Empire
There is nothing in the article about how to describe British subjects before the various nationality laws of 1947-48 established British and other citizenship, Do we for example use British as the nationality for American colonials? TFD (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinion masquerading as policy?
This is the opinion of a few editors looking as if it is some kind of policy. There is no useful advice to speak of it basically says that despite the fact that there (currently) is only one legal nationality involved, we should make things up as we go along.
Note that I am not referring to national descriptions (British scientist, English politician etc) but to statements of actual nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not policy, it's an essay. It was prepared several years ago after a prolonged debate on the issue to note down the fact that there is currently no consensus, and to provide some suggestions to editors on how to deal with the matter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to be being treated as policy in some quarters. I think we do need better guidance than this so I suggest an RfC. I also suggest that we move the article to a more general title such as 'Statements of nationality in articles'. There is no reason that the UK should be treated any differently from many other countries with distinct reagions with separtate cultures and with a degreee of autonomy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed a section that in my opinion is too extreme. This whole essay is based on a very limited discussion and written by a small number of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- My change has been reverted based on an alleged consensus. I really see no real consensus for this essay. We need to broaden the discusssion considerably. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This essay seems very sensible to me, including the bit you removed. "No consensus for this essay" is probably not true and even if it were it wouldn't be useful. This essay describes an area in which people have failed to reach consensus in the past and gives enough information to let people make sensible decisions. Trying to replace this essay with a more uniform approach is just an recipe for drama.
- I say "probably not true" because this essay has survived a long time. That is a good indication that it reflects consensus.
- Yaris678 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what prompted this essay. The nationality of people from the UK is 'British'. No essay required. I personally don't mind whether a British national is described in the main text as British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, or Gibraltarian, but if we are specifically talking about sovereign nationality under the heading of nationality, then there is only one right answer. That right answer is 'British' and that's what should be stated under the heading of nationality in any introductory info box. British is the widely understood term on the international stage, and it's what people from outside the UK are interested in. People ask 'was he a British or a German scientist?' The English or Welsh bit is additional information for those who want to read more. You cannot usurp the sovereign nationality with a subordinate regional nationality in the main info box, because we need to assume international readership. If I primarily want to know whether Orville and Wilbur Wright were Americans or British, I don't expect to see them described as having Midwestern nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- My advice to MH & yourself, is to walk away from this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not apprpriate advice for Wikipedia, the encycl;opedia that anyone can edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation"
- The United Kingdom consist of several nations, including England, Wales and Scotland, and also Northern Ireland. Taking Scotland as an example, because it is relevant to what has reopened this discussion, we have official confirmation that Scotland is a nation from a number of sources. One is the Court of Lord Lyon (a court of law and a department of the government), when referring to the saltire, the Lord Lyon King of Arms states: "this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality." (See http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/236.html). Another recent source is a speech from former Prime minister, Gordon Brown. In his pre-referendum speech in defence of the union he stated: "The vote tomorrow is not about whether Scotland is a nation; we are, yesterday, today, and tomorrow."
- No one should doubt that the constituent nations of the UK are anything other than nations, they are most certainly not regions! People who belong to those nations must, by definition, have the nationality of that nation. Claiming anything else is illogical nonsense. This is not to say that do not also have UK nationality, and that is what is shown in a passport, but only a minority of people regard themselves as having British or UK nationality as their main identity.
- Since this essay was first published a very significant event has taken place. For the first time the 2011 census asked respondents to state what national identity they regarded themselves as being: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British (as well as non-UK identities). Multiple identities were permitted. The three UK censuses of 2011 are for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. In the Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales 2011[1] it is recorded that only 29.1% identified as British with only 19.1% choosing it as their sole identity, by comparison, 67.1 identified as English, with 57.7% as their sole identity. The figures for Welsh were 4.3% and 3.7% respectively. In Scotland's census 2011[2], it is recorded that 62% identified as Scottish only, a further 18% as Scottish and British, and 8% as British only. The Northern Ireland Census 2011 Key Statistics Summary Report [3] states that 39.9% identified as British only (with a further 8.3% as British and some form of Irish). 25.3% identified as Irish only, and 20.9% as Northern Irish only.
- It is quite clear that in all parts of the UK the majority of people identify as having a single identity which is not British. This is a fact which cannot be countered. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- UK nationality belongs not only to people in the UK, but people in dependent territories as well, because they have the "status of belonging to a particular nation", even if it does not happen to be the nation they were born and live in. That basically included the entire British Empire until after the Great War. But we describe Billy Bishop as a "Canadian", not "UK national", "First World War flying ace". TFD (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- You overlook the important fact that Canada has become independent of the UK since the first world war, whereas Scotland is still part of the UK, so your analogy with Canada does not hold water. Canadian citizenship came into existence in 1947 as an internationally recognized sovereign citizenship for immigration, passport, and overseas consular purposes. Scotland has no equivalent. Have you ever worked with a group of British people? Once you've got passed the Glasgow accent, how does a Scot differ in any respect from a Geordie, a Cockney, or a Scouser? Do we not see the same diversity of character traits spread equally over each of the regional groupings of the UK? Can you think of a single distinct character trait that sets the Scots apart? Those census questions tell us nothing, because they were asked within a British context. Somebody is trying very hard to argue that British people aren't British. Well they're certainly not French either. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP 109.152.249.9, please stick to the facts, your opinions on whether there are differences between the people of the various nations of the UK are unreferenced and have no relevance. The simple fact is that in all parts of the UK it is only a minority of people who regard themselves as British, as proven by the sources provided. FF-UK (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The facts are that British people are British nationals. I am sticking to the facts. You are citing opinion polls about self identity within an internal UK context. When in trouble with the law abroad, British people will declare themselves as British and they will seek the British consul, and they will be described as British on the news. Foreigners will see them as British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The UK Census, conducted by the relevant authorities in the various nations of the UK, is NOT an "opinion poll" (which is normally a small sample of population), it is an official gathering of information from every household in the UK and published as such. You may not like the facts that it reveals, but you cannot dismiss them. FF-UK (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure that you are right but the purpose of WP is not publish editors' private research into public opinion but to state facts, supported by reliable sources. The 'nationality' field is not the place to deal with the complex isssues of national identity. These are much better described factually in the text, for example, 'He was born in Wales to French and Irish parents, grew up in Scotland, did most of his work in London and always considered himself Englsh'. Facts like that cannot be condensed onto a single field and it is not our job as WP editors to form our own opinions on the subject and then state them as fact. To our readers, a statement of nationality shoul be the legal and diplomatic nationality as recognised from an international perspective, not an attampt to condense the subjects life history into a single word, or to claim ownership ofthe subject for a specific group of people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Citing public sources relating to the only official research which has been done on the national identity claimed by ALL inhabitants of the United Kingdom cannot possibly be dismissed as "editors' private research into public opinion". The numbers provided are precisely "facts, supported by reliable sources". Please stay honest. FF-UK (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do any of your sources refer to any Nationality other than 'British'. I have no problem with giving the facts about subjects' national identity where we have good sourcing, I am objecting to trying to claim ownership of a person by misusing the term nationality. If we had a source saying that, throughout his life, Maxwell regarded himself as a Scot through and through I would have no problem in saying that but it would not change his Nationality.
- Citing public sources relating to the only official research which has been done on the national identity claimed by ALL inhabitants of the United Kingdom cannot possibly be dismissed as "editors' private research into public opinion". The numbers provided are precisely "facts, supported by reliable sources". Please stay honest. FF-UK (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure that you are right but the purpose of WP is not publish editors' private research into public opinion but to state facts, supported by reliable sources. The 'nationality' field is not the place to deal with the complex isssues of national identity. These are much better described factually in the text, for example, 'He was born in Wales to French and Irish parents, grew up in Scotland, did most of his work in London and always considered himself Englsh'. Facts like that cannot be condensed onto a single field and it is not our job as WP editors to form our own opinions on the subject and then state them as fact. To our readers, a statement of nationality shoul be the legal and diplomatic nationality as recognised from an international perspective, not an attampt to condense the subjects life history into a single word, or to claim ownership ofthe subject for a specific group of people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The UK Census, conducted by the relevant authorities in the various nations of the UK, is NOT an "opinion poll" (which is normally a small sample of population), it is an official gathering of information from every household in the UK and published as such. You may not like the facts that it reveals, but you cannot dismiss them. FF-UK (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- The facts are that British people are British nationals. I am sticking to the facts. You are citing opinion polls about self identity within an internal UK context. When in trouble with the law abroad, British people will declare themselves as British and they will seek the British consul, and they will be described as British on the news. Foreigners will see them as British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP 109.152.249.9, please stick to the facts, your opinions on whether there are differences between the people of the various nations of the UK are unreferenced and have no relevance. The simple fact is that in all parts of the UK it is only a minority of people who regard themselves as British, as proven by the sources provided. FF-UK (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As stated above, definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation", I know of no sources to say that Maxwell was not Scottish. FF-UK (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- FF-UK, Nobody is saying that he wasn't Scottish. Don't side track the issue. The problem here is that you are trying to usurp his British nationality, which was his sovereign nationality, with a subordinate regional nationality. You have no evidence that Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality. Scottish nationalism was virtually non-existent in the 19th century. Scottish nationalism is a new thing which began with North Sea oil, continued with Braveheart, and culminated in a recent wave of hysteria. But not even the 62% of "Scottish only's" that you mention above showed up on the day of the referendum. The score was 44.7% with the nationalists having been given every conceivable advantage. They even lowered the voting age to 16 to accommodate the nationalists. Maxwell was a British national. He was not a British citizen as the article states, because British citizenship only came about in 1983. If the article is left in its current state, it will be plain wrong. You cannot describe him as a British citizen. It must be British national. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me just add that it would make no difference if Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality, it would still be British. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is not about Maxwell. This discussion is not about Scottish Nationalism, that has nothing to do with the nationality of people living in the United Kingdom. Please let us stick to the facts, nowhere in any part of the United Kingdom do a majority of the population consider themselves to be British, either alone or in combination with any other identity. The referenced census report states that "The highest percentage of the population with a British identity (on its own or combined with other identities) was found in London at 38.3 per cent, an ethnically diverse area." Just because "British" is what appears on a passport, it is not a valid indicator of the perceived nationality of UK citizens, the majority do not see themselves that way. And while on the subject of citizens, the Oxford dictionary definition is "A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized" so please let's not waste time with any nonsensical claims that subjects are not citizens. FF-UK (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me just add that it would make no difference if Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality, it would still be British. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- FF-UK, Nobody is saying that he wasn't Scottish. Don't side track the issue. The problem here is that you are trying to usurp his British nationality, which was his sovereign nationality, with a subordinate regional nationality. You have no evidence that Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality. Scottish nationalism was virtually non-existent in the 19th century. Scottish nationalism is a new thing which began with North Sea oil, continued with Braveheart, and culminated in a recent wave of hysteria. But not even the 62% of "Scottish only's" that you mention above showed up on the day of the referendum. The score was 44.7% with the nationalists having been given every conceivable advantage. They even lowered the voting age to 16 to accommodate the nationalists. Maxwell was a British national. He was not a British citizen as the article states, because British citizenship only came about in 1983. If the article is left in its current state, it will be plain wrong. You cannot describe him as a British citizen. It must be British national. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I think I see what is going on here. Editor FF-UK appears to be on a crusade to bury British nationality. He's produced what he thinks amounts to conclusive evidence that the majority of British people don't see themselves as British anymore, and so he seems to have taken it upon himself to ban the term 'British nationality' altogether. He's pushing a political cause. That's worse than POV pushing, and this essay written by some editor who is calling the concept of British nationality into question, seems to have been written with the same cause in mind. While wikipedia normally forbids editors from using it as a medium to promote personal opinions, it seems that they have made an exception for this topic, and that the opinions of the author of this essay are being upheld as some kind of legal authority. The abuse of the system therefore goes much deeper that I had at first realized. The RFC would seem to be the only remaining solution. It would be a simple question along the lines of 'should the nationality field in a biographical info box refer to the sovereign nationality, or to a regional subordinate nationality? If it's true that most British people don't consider themselves to be British, and I don't think it is true, then until such times as the British government changes its nationality laws, an encyclopaedia still has to describe British people as British nationals until a new internationally recognized identity is established in law. That hasn't happened yet, and I doubt if it will happen.
I looked at the sources which FF-UK has provided. They fall well short of proving the point which he is trying to make. There is no evidence at all that the 57% in England who only ticked the 'English' identity box on the census form, have actually rejected their British identity. Such widespread rejection cannot be ascertained from a question like that. The census form would need to ask a more specific question such as 'do you reject your British identity?' before any inferences of the kind that FF-UK has been making could be inferred. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP, you are making two inconsistent arguments: one is that the people of the UK are the same people, the other is that they are legally all nationals of the UK. But the first argument justifies using terms such as Scottish and English, while the second would include - particularly historically, when a quarter of the world were legally nationals of the UK - people who were clearly distinct from English people. And no I do not think a single character trait sets the Scots apart. Neither do I believe that a single character trait sets citizens or nationals of the UK apart from anyone else in the world. TFD (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The two arguments look quite consistent to me? I don't get your point. As regards ex-British territories, just use the post independence appellation unless the historical subject was very closely connected with the UK such as by birth. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Would you have said, "Once you've got passed the German language, how does a Hanoverian differ in any respect from a Zulu, a Chinese in Hong Kong, or a Maori? Do we not see the same diversity of character traits spread equally over each of the regional groupings of the quarter of the world that is pink on the map?" All of them were after all "nationals of the UK." TFD (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The two arguments look quite consistent to me? I don't get your point. As regards ex-British territories, just use the post independence appellation unless the historical subject was very closely connected with the UK such as by birth. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This argument seems to be moving in the direction that nationality is determined by character, ethnicity or or self-identification; it is not, it is determined by the nationality laws of the relevant states. The people who ticked the 'English' identity box on the census form may or may not have rejected their British identity, we have no way of telling, but whatever they did or thought it makes no difference; all these people have British nationality, whether they like it or not. We must base what we write in WP on facts not guesses of what people are thinking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Martin Hogbin has a consistent habit of redefining what others are saying, and then arguing against his own redefinition as opposed to what was actually said by other editors, this is not a helpful way of progressing this discussion. Introducing the concept of 'rejection' of a particular identity is attempting to synthesize something from the census which is not explicit, and therefore cannot be legitimately used in WP. What the English census questionnaire actually asked is "How would you describe your national identity?". The Welsh questionnaire and Northern Irish questionnaire used the same question. The Scottish questionnaire asked "What do you feel is your national identity?". What we do know, beyond doubt, is the national identity or identities chosen by all UK citizens, and that clearly shows that only a minority identify as British. FF-UK (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- We've yet to see a source that prooves these people are not British. We've yet to see a source that prooves that England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are not within the United Kingdom. A human can declare him/herself to not be human, but does that make them 'not human'? GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- If we use nationality law to determine how to describe nationality, then we would have lots of anomalies. Dutch during the reign of William III, Germans during the reign of the Hanoverians and anyone born in the British Empire or Crown dependencies were all nationals of the United Kingdom. Calvin's Case (1608) determined that Scots born after the ascension to the the throne of James I were English subjects. So any Scot born after 1603 and deceased before 1701 was an English national. TFD (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Some objective and factual indicators of nationality
- A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state is subject to all laws passed by the UK parliament. (Parliament may delegate some legislation to local govenment but ultimately its laws take precedence.) This includes laws to which a foreign national would not be subject, such as conscription.
- A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state will be able to get a Britsh passport, but not one of any other nationality.
- A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state would have to go to the British embassy to get assistance in a foreign country.
Where did it all go wrong?
Having now studied this issue for the last few days, I can see exactly where the problem lies. The problem lies with this essay itself. No essay was needed. The guidelines were already perfectly clear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph but some editor decided to fudge the issue for the special case of the United Kingdom. Burying the concept of British nationality is a political movement and it is contrary to wikipedia policy to support such political cause pushing. Wikipedia is supposed to stick to the facts. British nationality is a fact. We hear the term 'British' every day on the news. It is not for wikipedia to decide that the term is no longer in use. It is in use. The fact that some people wish that it would go away is not a reason to have an essay like this. I'm sure if you asked Texans do they consider themselves to be Texans, many would say 'yes'. That doesn't mean that we bury American nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP 109.152.249.9, you are making the same errors as Martin Hogbin, a consistent habit of redefining what others are saying, and then arguing against that redefinition as opposed to what was actually said by other editors. You absolutely cannot describe the official UK censuses as "a political movement" which is "burying the concept of British nationality". Also, you really do need to understand that whereas England and Scotland are constituent countries of the UK, Texas is not a constituent country of anywhere, it is a very silly comparison. FF-UK (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Can I just say that the discussions that have taken place over the last few days show precisely why consensus on the issue could not be reached in the past? On one side were editors who believed honestly and passionately that all people with a sufficiently close relation to the UK should be referred to as "British" in their Wikipedia articles, and on the other side were equally honest and passionate editors who felt that they should be referred to as "English", "Northern Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh". The essay was put together to simply record the fact that consensus could not be reached on the issue, and so editors are advised not take unilateral steps like changing a whole bunch of articles to state "British" without discussing the matter on each article's talk page. Of course anyone is free to reopen the discussion and even take it to RfC if it is thought appropriate, but prepared for a heated and prolonged debate that may not get very far. Good luck. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's too bad, that a consensus can't be reached to use both in the infobox :( GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, Editor FF-UK is engaging in original research and political cause pushing. He is using his own interpretation of census data in order to push the political cause that British nationality does not exist. I'm very disappointed that others haven't noticed what he is up to. British nationality does exist and it's the sovereign nationality for the UK. We hear it mentioned regularly on the news. In particular we often hear it used in connection with ethnic minorities who seem to embrace it with particular enthusiasm. Editor FF-UK has recently been trying to promote the concept of 'Scottish Nationality'. He is not content to simply use Scottish in the main body of the text. He insists on a lot more than that. He specifically wants to usurp the British nationality that should be in the info box, with the concept of Scottish nationality. He is not interested in any compromise. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yet again, more dishonest nonsense from IP 109.152.249.9. Citing official sources does NOT constitute original research. I have not claimed that British nationality does not exist, and cannot, therefore, be accused of pushing a non-existent political cause. I fully accept what is written in this essay, and have provided additional sources to back this up. I have pointed out that the census data, which was not available when the essay was written, strengthens the logic embodied in the essay. What I am against is precisely what the essay is discouraging: "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained." FF-UK (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think that the reasons for anyone's opinion are that important. What is important is the advice given in the MoS and the facts. This essay is superfluous. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yet again, more dishonest nonsense from IP 109.152.249.9. Citing official sources does NOT constitute original research. I have not claimed that British nationality does not exist, and cannot, therefore, be accused of pushing a non-existent political cause. I fully accept what is written in this essay, and have provided additional sources to back this up. I have pointed out that the census data, which was not available when the essay was written, strengthens the logic embodied in the essay. What I am against is precisely what the essay is discouraging: "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained." FF-UK (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Jack, this discusssion has nothing to do with editors who believed honestly and passionately that all people with a sufficiently close relation to the UK should be referred to as "British". It is not a matter of editors making judgements about relative closeness it is a simple matter of fact. The nationality of people who live in the UK is British, they have no choice in this matter. They will have British passports and be subject to British law. It would be just as silly to be discussing whether we should allow 'Texan' as a nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why, Oh why, Oh why, do we have to have this repetitious nonsense about Texas. Texas is not a nation, England and Scotland are. FF-UK (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- England and Scotland are subordinate nations. They are part of the UK. The UK is a sovereign nation. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that as being the case. It then follows that English and Scottish would be subordinate nationalities, but a subordinate nationality is none the less a nationality. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- What criteria would you use for deciding what could be used as a nationality?
- Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that as being the case. It then follows that English and Scottish would be subordinate nationalities, but a subordinate nationality is none the less a nationality. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have proposed a single clear, easily understood, and internationally logical criterion, that 'nationality' must refer only to an independent state (for current states recognised by the UN).
- How would you decide? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have an observation to make on the use of the term "subordinate regional nationality". As far as I can tell, this term does not exist anywhere outside this particular discussion, it returns no results on any search which I have conducted. This is not surprising because it has no discernible meaning, nationality relates to a nation or country, not a region. There can therefore not be any such thing as a "subordinate regional nationality". It may seem by some to be a convenient tactic to invent a term and then repeatedly use it in a misguided attempt to make a point, but if the term itself is meaningless, then the arguments employing it are also meaningless. The term appears to have been invented by the editor using IP 86.145.98.85, see diff of the Maxwell article [1] who then uses it again here [2] and here [3]. The use of IP 86.145.98.85 commenced at 16.25 on 1st December 2014 with a message of support for Martin Hogbin, and continued until an edit made at 15.44 on 4th December. All edits related to the same subject. Several hours after the last IP 86.145.98.85 edit, at 20.47, another editor using a new IP address, 109.152.249.9, appeared on the scene with an edit of this page which used the same erroneous "subordinate regional nationality" term, see diff [4] and used the term again, also in on this page, at 21.09 on 6th December [5]. IP 109.152.249.9 is still in use at the time of writing, and as with IP 86.145.98.85 is being used exclusively for editing on pages associated with this subject. Both IP 86.145.98.85 and IP 109.152.249.9 are BT Public Internet Service WiFi hotspots in the Greater London area. The use of these two IPs for edits which are exclusively associated with InfoBox nationality, in consecutive periods, and with edits from both repeatedly using the erroneous "subordinate regional nationality" term, suggests the possibility that they are both being used by the same editor. This must be considered when applying any judgement on whether a consensus exists or not. FF-UK (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The reason that the term does not generally exist is that there is no general need for it because most nationalities given in WP are real ones; the independent state to whose laws the person is subject (for example US, Portugese, British) . It is only when editors try to create nationalities for internal divisions of independent states (for example Texan, Azorean, Scottish) that the need for the term arises. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, the reason the term "subordinate regional nationality" does not exist is that it is entirely meaningless and conveys nothing. And stop comparing the nation of Scotland with places such as Texas which are not nations. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please do read Unitary state and Federation. You will see that Texas more reason to claim independent statehood than Scotland. You resolutely refused to address these issues on the Maxwell page, perhaps you could do so here.
- Regarding Texas, I suggest that you read the decision of the Supreme Court on that matter. "In the Constitution, the term "state" most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A "state," in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country." As has been amply demonstrated, the United kingdom consists of several different nations in union. The fact that the UK government and the Scottish government recently agreed to the holding of an independence referendum, which outcome could have (but thankfully did not) result in the ending of the Union, is a more than ample demonstration of how the two situations differ. FF-UK (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could also give your reasons for wanting to allow 'Scottish' as a nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please do read Unitary state and Federation. You will see that Texas more reason to claim independent statehood than Scotland. You resolutely refused to address these issues on the Maxwell page, perhaps you could do so here.
- No, the reason the term "subordinate regional nationality" does not exist is that it is entirely meaningless and conveys nothing. And stop comparing the nation of Scotland with places such as Texas which are not nations. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- FF-UK, Your problem is that you are being willfully blind to the British nationality which is supreme over any Scottish nationality. You either state the senior nationality, or you state both. My own view is that you only state the senior nationality under the nationality heading in the info box, and that you can describe him using his junior nationality in the main body of the text. You do not state the junior nationality at the expense of the senior nationality. Scotland is not an independent sovereign nation. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- And Anonymous IP, your problem is that you are hell bent on redefining Scottish nationality and identity out of existence! There is no notion of "senior" nationality and "junior" nationality within the acts of union, the founding articles of the United Kingdom. Scotland and England are nations. Wales is a principality. Ireland is a nation, divided in two, one part of which remains in the UK. Despite your claims, Scotland is a Sovereign Nation. It is also, however, part of the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Joint Acts of Union - one passed in the Scottish Parliament (which was suspended until reconvened in 1999), and one in the English Parliament. [6]. You have an agenda, which is driving this entire discussion. FDCWint (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Scotland is not an independent state. Since the Acts of Union 1707 it has part been of the Unitary state of the United Kingdom. The article says, 'The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain"'. You will note on the page that you refer to it says, 'The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force'. The ultimate power in Scotland is held solely by the UK Parliament. Scotland has less right to be reagarded as an independent nation than Texas, which is part of Federation and less right than Cornwall which 'is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation, not merely a county of England, and has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody said "independent state" except you. And since when does statehood matter to nationality? Nationality - belonging to a nation. You have been told repeatedly that the Texas comparison is not valid, yet persist in expounding it. You conflate states with nations quite deliberately to muddy the waters and make your argument fit... and here's the crux of that entire argument - denigrating Scotland and diminishing it's identity. for all your careful talk about wikipedia, this is nothing more than political soap boxing with a deeply unpleasant agenda. Incidentally, as you and Anonymous IP seem to be answering each other's questions fairly fluently, I should ask - are you sock puppeting? FDCWint (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Scotland is not an independent state. Since the Acts of Union 1707 it has part been of the Unitary state of the United Kingdom. The article says, 'The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain"'. You will note on the page that you refer to it says, 'The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force'. The ultimate power in Scotland is held solely by the UK Parliament. Scotland has less right to be reagarded as an independent nation than Texas, which is part of Federation and less right than Cornwall which 'is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation, not merely a county of England, and has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- And Anonymous IP, your problem is that you are hell bent on redefining Scottish nationality and identity out of existence! There is no notion of "senior" nationality and "junior" nationality within the acts of union, the founding articles of the United Kingdom. Scotland and England are nations. Wales is a principality. Ireland is a nation, divided in two, one part of which remains in the UK. Despite your claims, Scotland is a Sovereign Nation. It is also, however, part of the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Joint Acts of Union - one passed in the Scottish Parliament (which was suspended until reconvened in 1999), and one in the English Parliament. [6]. You have an agenda, which is driving this entire discussion. FDCWint (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- FF-UK, Your problem is that you are being willfully blind to the British nationality which is supreme over any Scottish nationality. You either state the senior nationality, or you state both. My own view is that you only state the senior nationality under the nationality heading in the info box, and that you can describe him using his junior nationality in the main body of the text. You do not state the junior nationality at the expense of the senior nationality. Scotland is not an independent sovereign nation. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
May I please urge all those who wish to contribute here to take notice of the first item on this talk page. The essay is a distillation of the outcome of previous discussions which can found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality. Martin Hogbin's earlier suggestion that "This is the opinion of a few editors looking as if it is some kind of policy is completely false and simply demonstrates that he had not bothered to actually study it. It is quite clear that an editor who has no previous connection with an article should not parachute in and change the nationality field based on his or her own non-consensual narrow interpretation of what the term means. There is WP history and practice on this, and there is no excuse for edit warring to attempt to change long established entries on the basis of an individual's PoV. Martin Hogbin's campaign at James Clerk Maxwell is a perfect example of how not to do it. Having failed to gain any kind of consensual support on the article talk page, or on this page, or at the Village Pump, on the infobox template talk page, he just keeps on changing it anyway. That is not acceptable behaviour. FF-UK (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
James Laidlaw Maxwell the Missionary- An Illustration
Let's illustrate the point using the example of the missionary James Laidlaw Maxwell. First of all, as a side issue, I don't see any reason why we need to write his name in Chinese in the lead, but apart from that, would we describe this man as Scottish? Or would he be more accurately described as British? You can read the Wikipedia article about him here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Laidlaw_Maxwell 109.152.249.9 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that this discussion is not about how we would describe someone. That is a very complex subject and would epend on may things. The disagreement is about how to state a person's nationality. That should be the simple matter-of-fact statement of the independent state to whose laws the subject is subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's easy to get side tracked when discussing this topic. The issue is as you say, not so much about how to describe somebody as it is about what to write beside their nationality in an info box. Certainly in the case of James Laidlaw Maxwell, the answer would be 'British nationality'. He was a missionary to China and his nationality was British. The born in Scotland and lived in England bit can be covered in the text. Just as a side issue though, why the need to have his name written in Chinese? He was a British missionary to China. Surely his British name should suffice in English Wikipedia. Next they'll be arguing about whether to write his name in Mandarin or Taiwanese, or in Wade-Giles or Pinyin. I say, always keep it simple. Name: James Laidlaw Maxwell, Nationality: British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- ^ "Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales 2011" (PDF). Office for National Statistics (ONS). Retrieved 5 December 2014.
- ^ "Scotland's census 2011, Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion". National Records of Scotland. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
- ^ "Northern Ireland Census 2011 Key Statistics Summary Report" (PDF). Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). Retrieved 5 December 2014.