This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi, I think the Queen and is huge British figure - for simply being the Queen of 16 states. James Cook should be include in the picture box, because he was the first to map Newfoundland, the first to circumnavigation New Zealand, and he mapped many locations including some Pacific Islands. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the flag shown is the 1606 Union Flag. The current flag much more widely known and some of the caption does not match the flag shown. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the rationale for using 1602 flag? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Article I of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 states: "That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;" cf. Article I of the Union with Ireland Act 1800, which states: "... that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Crucially, Article III of the 1706 Act further states: "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain;" whereas Article III of the 1800 Act states: "... that the said United Kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Section 2 of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 later changed the name of the United Kingdom by changing the name of Parliament to "the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Hence, the expression "united Kingdom of Great Britain" is merely descriptive and, I think, confusion arises from a misreading of the extensive eighteenth century use of capital letters. Chrisieboy ( talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It may be that we will not be able to persuade each other. However, I refer you to a couple of sources from organisations that should know what they they are speaking about: Learning and Teaching Scotland says [4] and the Historical Association says [5]. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry I never got back to you on your proposal. I see that since then you edited the article in the way you proposed, for this to be changed back by someone else. You have today changed it again and I have now returned it to the previous version as what you are proposing is not true to the references. Since the phrase links to the Kingdom of Great Britain article anyway, I don't really see the problem. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says "The House of Lords includes three different types of members: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church of England), the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage), and Law Lords (judges that carry out the House of Lords' judicial responsibilities)"
In light of the creation of the Supreme Court, this may need rewording - anyone know if Law Lords remain members of the House of Lords, and if they do, whether they retain any judicial functions? Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Really? Ghandi? I don't think Ghandi should be in that picture, I'm just saying.--03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.160.22 ( talk)
"British" is a nationality, not a culture, race or ethnicity. This article not only fails to state that undeniable fact but it proceeds in a de facto racist fashion to ignore the historic and contemporary mix of diverse ethnic, cultural and racial populations within the British Isles.
There is no such thing as "British" culture - by which I mean there is no one, unified, monolithic culture that operates throughout the United Kingdom. On the contrary, what most people think of as "British" from a cultural perspective is actually English. And even then, it's a particular kind of English cultural - usually the English cultural associated with south-central and southeastern England, especially London and its environs.
The west of England, East Anglia, and the Midlands (both east and west) are very different from the south. And once you cross the linguistic-cultural boundary that runs between the Mersey and the Wash, you practically enter a different country just within the boundaries of England - to wit, the historic territorial areas of Yorkshire (broken up in 1974), Lancashire (including what are now Greater Manchester and Merseyside), Northumberland and the northwest - all very distinct, culturally and even ethnically (to a degree) from the south and southeast of England. And, of course, Cornwall, although legally in England is a Celtic country, akin to Wales and Brittany, not a Germanic one like England.
Also for the information of anyone paying attention, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are ***NOT*** part of the United Kingdom. They are dependent upon the UK for foreign affairs, but their their own laws, their own currencies, their own stamps, etc. The Channel Islands in particular are the last remnant of the old Duchy of Normandy over which the Duke of Normandy still reigns. The current Duke of Normandy (and Duke of Lancaster) is Duke Elizabeth II. (And before you say it, she is *not* the Duchess of Normany or Duchess of Lancaster - she is a female 'Duke'; that is her legal title.) The Isle of Man, by comparison, is a Fiefdom. In any case, it is quite wrong to classify citizens of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, and Sark as "British" when those countries are not legally or constitutionally part of the United Kingdom.
I strongly recommend this article be completely rewritten to discuss the concept of "British" as a nationality. It certainly is no ethno-cultural term - except as a synonym for "English" - and the British people, as a national group, do not in any sense comprise a single race or ethno-cultural people.
24.4.56.198 ( talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst an encyclopedia article should be, well, encyclopedic, this article has become HUGE and unwieldy. It takes almost a minute to load, making it look like my browser has crashed. Perhaps it should be broken down/some of the links removed. nagualdesign ( talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It now takes only 26 seconds to load (was 56 seconds before). I've placed a {{
split}}
at the top of the article to draw some attention to this issue. For example, much of the article does not directly relate to British people per se, and there are a number of overlapping articles where this text might be better placed. Here are a few suggestions for article names that this might be broken into (they may be/are already articles):
It's unfortunate that this article has some kind of editing restriction placed on it, due to it being held up as a good example of layout. Perhaps this is stymying progress. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
...I'd just like to state that although I began this thread, and the content in question now resides on one of my pages, I do not wish to take ownership of this task. In fact, I will be taking a short break from Wikipedia due to health reasons, and will be doing none of the work myself. Hopefully I will be back on form in a couple of weeks, at which point I hope to see my watchlist brimful of progress. :) Kind regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible we can add for South Africa the 1.7 million Anglo-Africans who are of British ancestry? Bezuidenhout ( talk) 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Briton does not belong in the lede, the Britons were a completely seperate and distinct ethnicity and race of people. Sheodred ( talk) 17:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred, as with many terms, this one has multiple meanings. In one sense (the original), "Briton" refers to the Celtic Britons of the Iron Age and Early Middle Ages. In another sense, it means anyone from the UK or Great Britain. Both are equally correct, so long as the intended meaning is clear.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Citizens of the United Kingdom are 'british' - it is incorrect to refer to citizens of the UK as Britons. Spiritofstgeorge ( talk) 12:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Queen Elizabeth I"The Virgin Queen" Should be in the line of people. Since she did win the Spanish Armada and she was the best female monarch before Queen Victoria. And is known for her virginity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsingham Inc ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are the British people classified as an ethnic group when the definition of British is by citizenship? Alphasinus ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Britons are Britons Just like Germans are Germans, In Britain you might say im from England just like in Germany you would say im from Bavaria etc. Goldblooded ( talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
How can ancestry be 'common' and at the same time 'intermixed'? What you say about a common DNA is not borne out by research: the genetic make-up is varied, reflecting the various migrations and invasions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles Ceartas ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, being british means inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and sometimes of the British Isles as a whole (even some Irish people refer to themselves as "British") England,Scotland, Wales etc technically dont exist; its just the nationalists/sepratists who proclaim them. Besides if your from the UK your passport for example always states you as British and thats the way it should be, like Americans are Americans , Germans are Germans; ectera. And Anyway its ironic the guy who originally posted was banned for being a sockpuppet. Goldblooded Return Fire 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not equate citizenship with nationality. Both the 'UK' and 'Britishness' are political constructs. The latter term denotes citizenship, rather than nationality. Most British citizens would still define their 'nationality' as 'English', 'Scots', 'Welsh', rather than 'British'. It is not for others to tell them how to perceive their national identity. A passport denotes citizenship and does not determine nationality, or denote cultural homogeneity or common ethnicity. Comparisons between the UK and Germany are invalid, as the latter is not seen by its citizens as a multi-national state. A more valid comparison would be with other multi-national states, such as the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, where the different national groups shared a common citizenship, but not a common nationality. There was never a 'Soviet nationality'. There is, likewise, no 'UK nationality'. Ceartas ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Really angered to read above "some Irish people refer to themselves as "BRITISH". Posted by someone who does NOT know the facts? The Loyalist population in Northern Ireland does NOT ever identify as IRISH, in any way, but as Northern Irish and British. NO IRISH from the Republic, or the minority population in the SIX counties, would EVER identify as BRITISH, even though in theory the minority population in NI is Britsh. Most carry Irish documents and register as Irish citizens. Do not TELL US WHAT WE are. Is as daft as someone who questioned why a UK passport was called a Britsh one, in view of the fact some people in the UK (Northern Ireland) were not British.All citizens of the UK are just that!!!!When people stop calling the UNIONIST population Irish the penny may drop!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.197.204 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
3,000,000 in Hong Kong is unlikely because the total population of Hong Kong is 7,061,200 in 2010. A half of population in Hong Kong is British people? According to the Hong Kong census in 2006, White is 46,584 among the total population of 6,708,389 although it is not a nationality census. [8] ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 09:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I was also thinking this. Perhaps this is referring to the number of people in Hong Kong with British Overseas passports? 86.168.56.163 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Born in India, into an ethnic Kashmiri family. Why is he in the picture? Sure he moved to the UK, but hes not actualy British. Rí Lughaid ( talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest Sadiq Khan, shadow Lord Chancellor? He has avoided controversy more nimbly than most. It's very difficult to be a British politician from a Muslim background and not be constantly in hot water. Moonraker ( talk) 18:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a while ago about the Anglo-African numbers in South Africa (which are close to 1.7 million) and I was wondering if anyone would give me a response or start a discussion? Currently in the infobox we only have figures for British born and I was wondering if the current number of Anglo-Africans can be added in some shape or form? Thanks and I hope as a result we can also get a good figure for British people in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Swaziland :) Bezuidenhout ( talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead gives a definition of "British" as a citizen or native of the UK, etc.,..."and their descendants". This is not quite accurate. Many Americans, for example, are "descendants" of Britons, but they are not British themselves by any definition. They are American. Being a British descendant does not make one British. Eastcote ( talk) 01:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Republic of Ireland section needs to be renamed simply as Ireland. The section deals primarily with the Ulster Scots living in Northern Ireland, which as we all know, is not part of Ireland. Any objections to the renaming? Mac Tíre Cowag 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your article states that Britain has predominately BAsque DNA... it sounds on teh surface peretty absurd and the section that is linked seemed to conratdict this with "In 2007, Bryan Sykes produced an analysis of 6000 samples from the OGAP project in his book Blood of the Isles.[3] Later, Stephen Oppenheimer in his 2006 book The Origins of the British used the data from Weale et al. (2002), Capelli et al. (2003) and Rosser et al. (2000) for Europe. In opposition to Neolithic origin theories, which remain strong, Sykes and Oppenheimer argued for significant immigration from Iberia into Britain and Ireland. Much of this argument was based upon Y DNA evidence, however by 2010 several major Y DNA studies presented more complete data, showing that the oldest-surviving male lineages had mostly migrated to Britain from the Balkans, and ultimately from the Middle East, not from Iberia.[4][5][6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
Add to that the substantial work on Scottish DNA that indicates significant Nordic DNA and it makes the broad stroke generalisation of teh article totally misleading.
And if you are going to stick all teh "British" into one big pot, how come more recent Britons from Asia, the Carribean and Poland aren't being mentioned. Is this some kind of silly Nationalist definition of "true British" rather than a seriosu description of the genetic and ethnic conplexity of the population? 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree. I'm no expert on genetics but teh little I do know is that even without the controversy the gentic make up of the British Isles is pretty complex, and yes care ahd to be made that the geentic map has changed a lot over the millenia. 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a clip on the subject by another British expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Throughout the United Kingdom there are strong and distinctive spoken expressions and regional accents of English" This statement is utter nonesense from a linguistics POV accents cannot be objectively strong, they can be divergent and varied, but to be "strong" would be to suggest you could measure them against a norm, which doesn't exist, despite what teh Home Counties might think. So the statement is not only inaccurate but also possibly implies a denigration on non-priveleged accents. 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup! :-) 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 22:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
A strong accent or dialect means that the speaker speaks with an identifiable regional or class accent or dialect, not strong against a hypothetical norm. Sometimes when one hears a fluent foreign speaker of English, it is impossible to tell where they come from or their social economic background (In my experience, they are often Scandinavians). The expression "strong accent" is common (as a Google search of the phrase shows) and contrary to what 92.40.253.179 writes, a home counties accent is also a strong accent, as it is identifiable to the home counties. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The section either needs to have all mention of Northern Ireland removed or it should be retitled to "Northern Ireland" or "Ireland". What drew my attention to it is the section title with an image of an Orange order parade which given the title looks incongruous. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry, I'm an Argentine user from the Spanish Wikipedia. I've seen the section where it says that there are about 100.000 British in Argentina (including their descendants). But there's a mistake because there are about 100.000 English, 100.000 Scottish, and 50.000 Welsh, so together they reach a figure of about 250.000 (not counting with people from Northern Ireland). Delotrooladoo ( talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do you constantly refer to the brits as citizens, They are SUBJECTS not citizens, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.10.181 ( talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about anyone else but I can see any of the people in those small pictures. I think quality or quantity would be better. Time to trim this down and make a pictures that can be useful to our readers. Any thoughts? Moxy ( talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) {{ 32 Britons}}
You may add Freddie mercury Perumalism Chat 11:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The link map for the ibx image is off – the right-hand column is missing from the links, as if the map was prepared for a 28-part image, not a 32-part one. 159.92.9.7 ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just restored two long established sections relating to British settlers in Chile, Hong Kong etc which were recently deleted as they lacted citations. I have added 'improve tags' to each. If anyone has access to the appropriate ciations please could they edit an sections and add these. Thnaks. Tmol42 ( talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppenheimer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sax1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SnowCelt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi, I think the Queen and is huge British figure - for simply being the Queen of 16 states. James Cook should be include in the picture box, because he was the first to map Newfoundland, the first to circumnavigation New Zealand, and he mapped many locations including some Pacific Islands. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the flag shown is the 1606 Union Flag. The current flag much more widely known and some of the caption does not match the flag shown. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the rationale for using 1602 flag? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Article I of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 states: "That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;" cf. Article I of the Union with Ireland Act 1800, which states: "... that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Crucially, Article III of the 1706 Act further states: "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain;" whereas Article III of the 1800 Act states: "... that the said United Kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Section 2 of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 later changed the name of the United Kingdom by changing the name of Parliament to "the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Hence, the expression "united Kingdom of Great Britain" is merely descriptive and, I think, confusion arises from a misreading of the extensive eighteenth century use of capital letters. Chrisieboy ( talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It may be that we will not be able to persuade each other. However, I refer you to a couple of sources from organisations that should know what they they are speaking about: Learning and Teaching Scotland says [4] and the Historical Association says [5]. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry I never got back to you on your proposal. I see that since then you edited the article in the way you proposed, for this to be changed back by someone else. You have today changed it again and I have now returned it to the previous version as what you are proposing is not true to the references. Since the phrase links to the Kingdom of Great Britain article anyway, I don't really see the problem. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says "The House of Lords includes three different types of members: the Lords Spiritual (the senior bishops of the Church of England), the Lords Temporal (members of the Peerage), and Law Lords (judges that carry out the House of Lords' judicial responsibilities)"
In light of the creation of the Supreme Court, this may need rewording - anyone know if Law Lords remain members of the House of Lords, and if they do, whether they retain any judicial functions? Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Really? Ghandi? I don't think Ghandi should be in that picture, I'm just saying.--03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.160.22 ( talk)
"British" is a nationality, not a culture, race or ethnicity. This article not only fails to state that undeniable fact but it proceeds in a de facto racist fashion to ignore the historic and contemporary mix of diverse ethnic, cultural and racial populations within the British Isles.
There is no such thing as "British" culture - by which I mean there is no one, unified, monolithic culture that operates throughout the United Kingdom. On the contrary, what most people think of as "British" from a cultural perspective is actually English. And even then, it's a particular kind of English cultural - usually the English cultural associated with south-central and southeastern England, especially London and its environs.
The west of England, East Anglia, and the Midlands (both east and west) are very different from the south. And once you cross the linguistic-cultural boundary that runs between the Mersey and the Wash, you practically enter a different country just within the boundaries of England - to wit, the historic territorial areas of Yorkshire (broken up in 1974), Lancashire (including what are now Greater Manchester and Merseyside), Northumberland and the northwest - all very distinct, culturally and even ethnically (to a degree) from the south and southeast of England. And, of course, Cornwall, although legally in England is a Celtic country, akin to Wales and Brittany, not a Germanic one like England.
Also for the information of anyone paying attention, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are ***NOT*** part of the United Kingdom. They are dependent upon the UK for foreign affairs, but their their own laws, their own currencies, their own stamps, etc. The Channel Islands in particular are the last remnant of the old Duchy of Normandy over which the Duke of Normandy still reigns. The current Duke of Normandy (and Duke of Lancaster) is Duke Elizabeth II. (And before you say it, she is *not* the Duchess of Normany or Duchess of Lancaster - she is a female 'Duke'; that is her legal title.) The Isle of Man, by comparison, is a Fiefdom. In any case, it is quite wrong to classify citizens of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, and Sark as "British" when those countries are not legally or constitutionally part of the United Kingdom.
I strongly recommend this article be completely rewritten to discuss the concept of "British" as a nationality. It certainly is no ethno-cultural term - except as a synonym for "English" - and the British people, as a national group, do not in any sense comprise a single race or ethno-cultural people.
24.4.56.198 ( talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst an encyclopedia article should be, well, encyclopedic, this article has become HUGE and unwieldy. It takes almost a minute to load, making it look like my browser has crashed. Perhaps it should be broken down/some of the links removed. nagualdesign ( talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It now takes only 26 seconds to load (was 56 seconds before). I've placed a {{
split}}
at the top of the article to draw some attention to this issue. For example, much of the article does not directly relate to British people per se, and there are a number of overlapping articles where this text might be better placed. Here are a few suggestions for article names that this might be broken into (they may be/are already articles):
It's unfortunate that this article has some kind of editing restriction placed on it, due to it being held up as a good example of layout. Perhaps this is stymying progress. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
...I'd just like to state that although I began this thread, and the content in question now resides on one of my pages, I do not wish to take ownership of this task. In fact, I will be taking a short break from Wikipedia due to health reasons, and will be doing none of the work myself. Hopefully I will be back on form in a couple of weeks, at which point I hope to see my watchlist brimful of progress. :) Kind regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible we can add for South Africa the 1.7 million Anglo-Africans who are of British ancestry? Bezuidenhout ( talk) 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Briton does not belong in the lede, the Britons were a completely seperate and distinct ethnicity and race of people. Sheodred ( talk) 17:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred, as with many terms, this one has multiple meanings. In one sense (the original), "Briton" refers to the Celtic Britons of the Iron Age and Early Middle Ages. In another sense, it means anyone from the UK or Great Britain. Both are equally correct, so long as the intended meaning is clear.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Citizens of the United Kingdom are 'british' - it is incorrect to refer to citizens of the UK as Britons. Spiritofstgeorge ( talk) 12:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Queen Elizabeth I"The Virgin Queen" Should be in the line of people. Since she did win the Spanish Armada and she was the best female monarch before Queen Victoria. And is known for her virginity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsingham Inc ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are the British people classified as an ethnic group when the definition of British is by citizenship? Alphasinus ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Britons are Britons Just like Germans are Germans, In Britain you might say im from England just like in Germany you would say im from Bavaria etc. Goldblooded ( talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
How can ancestry be 'common' and at the same time 'intermixed'? What you say about a common DNA is not borne out by research: the genetic make-up is varied, reflecting the various migrations and invasions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles Ceartas ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, being british means inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and sometimes of the British Isles as a whole (even some Irish people refer to themselves as "British") England,Scotland, Wales etc technically dont exist; its just the nationalists/sepratists who proclaim them. Besides if your from the UK your passport for example always states you as British and thats the way it should be, like Americans are Americans , Germans are Germans; ectera. And Anyway its ironic the guy who originally posted was banned for being a sockpuppet. Goldblooded Return Fire 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not equate citizenship with nationality. Both the 'UK' and 'Britishness' are political constructs. The latter term denotes citizenship, rather than nationality. Most British citizens would still define their 'nationality' as 'English', 'Scots', 'Welsh', rather than 'British'. It is not for others to tell them how to perceive their national identity. A passport denotes citizenship and does not determine nationality, or denote cultural homogeneity or common ethnicity. Comparisons between the UK and Germany are invalid, as the latter is not seen by its citizens as a multi-national state. A more valid comparison would be with other multi-national states, such as the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, where the different national groups shared a common citizenship, but not a common nationality. There was never a 'Soviet nationality'. There is, likewise, no 'UK nationality'. Ceartas ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Really angered to read above "some Irish people refer to themselves as "BRITISH". Posted by someone who does NOT know the facts? The Loyalist population in Northern Ireland does NOT ever identify as IRISH, in any way, but as Northern Irish and British. NO IRISH from the Republic, or the minority population in the SIX counties, would EVER identify as BRITISH, even though in theory the minority population in NI is Britsh. Most carry Irish documents and register as Irish citizens. Do not TELL US WHAT WE are. Is as daft as someone who questioned why a UK passport was called a Britsh one, in view of the fact some people in the UK (Northern Ireland) were not British.All citizens of the UK are just that!!!!When people stop calling the UNIONIST population Irish the penny may drop!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.197.204 ( talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
3,000,000 in Hong Kong is unlikely because the total population of Hong Kong is 7,061,200 in 2010. A half of population in Hong Kong is British people? According to the Hong Kong census in 2006, White is 46,584 among the total population of 6,708,389 although it is not a nationality census. [8] ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 09:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I was also thinking this. Perhaps this is referring to the number of people in Hong Kong with British Overseas passports? 86.168.56.163 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Born in India, into an ethnic Kashmiri family. Why is he in the picture? Sure he moved to the UK, but hes not actualy British. Rí Lughaid ( talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest Sadiq Khan, shadow Lord Chancellor? He has avoided controversy more nimbly than most. It's very difficult to be a British politician from a Muslim background and not be constantly in hot water. Moonraker ( talk) 18:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a while ago about the Anglo-African numbers in South Africa (which are close to 1.7 million) and I was wondering if anyone would give me a response or start a discussion? Currently in the infobox we only have figures for British born and I was wondering if the current number of Anglo-Africans can be added in some shape or form? Thanks and I hope as a result we can also get a good figure for British people in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Swaziland :) Bezuidenhout ( talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead gives a definition of "British" as a citizen or native of the UK, etc.,..."and their descendants". This is not quite accurate. Many Americans, for example, are "descendants" of Britons, but they are not British themselves by any definition. They are American. Being a British descendant does not make one British. Eastcote ( talk) 01:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Republic of Ireland section needs to be renamed simply as Ireland. The section deals primarily with the Ulster Scots living in Northern Ireland, which as we all know, is not part of Ireland. Any objections to the renaming? Mac Tíre Cowag 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your article states that Britain has predominately BAsque DNA... it sounds on teh surface peretty absurd and the section that is linked seemed to conratdict this with "In 2007, Bryan Sykes produced an analysis of 6000 samples from the OGAP project in his book Blood of the Isles.[3] Later, Stephen Oppenheimer in his 2006 book The Origins of the British used the data from Weale et al. (2002), Capelli et al. (2003) and Rosser et al. (2000) for Europe. In opposition to Neolithic origin theories, which remain strong, Sykes and Oppenheimer argued for significant immigration from Iberia into Britain and Ireland. Much of this argument was based upon Y DNA evidence, however by 2010 several major Y DNA studies presented more complete data, showing that the oldest-surviving male lineages had mostly migrated to Britain from the Balkans, and ultimately from the Middle East, not from Iberia.[4][5][6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
Add to that the substantial work on Scottish DNA that indicates significant Nordic DNA and it makes the broad stroke generalisation of teh article totally misleading.
And if you are going to stick all teh "British" into one big pot, how come more recent Britons from Asia, the Carribean and Poland aren't being mentioned. Is this some kind of silly Nationalist definition of "true British" rather than a seriosu description of the genetic and ethnic conplexity of the population? 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree. I'm no expert on genetics but teh little I do know is that even without the controversy the gentic make up of the British Isles is pretty complex, and yes care ahd to be made that the geentic map has changed a lot over the millenia. 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a clip on the subject by another British expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 ( talk) 22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Throughout the United Kingdom there are strong and distinctive spoken expressions and regional accents of English" This statement is utter nonesense from a linguistics POV accents cannot be objectively strong, they can be divergent and varied, but to be "strong" would be to suggest you could measure them against a norm, which doesn't exist, despite what teh Home Counties might think. So the statement is not only inaccurate but also possibly implies a denigration on non-priveleged accents. 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup! :-) 92.40.253.179 ( talk) 22:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
A strong accent or dialect means that the speaker speaks with an identifiable regional or class accent or dialect, not strong against a hypothetical norm. Sometimes when one hears a fluent foreign speaker of English, it is impossible to tell where they come from or their social economic background (In my experience, they are often Scandinavians). The expression "strong accent" is common (as a Google search of the phrase shows) and contrary to what 92.40.253.179 writes, a home counties accent is also a strong accent, as it is identifiable to the home counties. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The section either needs to have all mention of Northern Ireland removed or it should be retitled to "Northern Ireland" or "Ireland". What drew my attention to it is the section title with an image of an Orange order parade which given the title looks incongruous. -- PBS ( talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry, I'm an Argentine user from the Spanish Wikipedia. I've seen the section where it says that there are about 100.000 British in Argentina (including their descendants). But there's a mistake because there are about 100.000 English, 100.000 Scottish, and 50.000 Welsh, so together they reach a figure of about 250.000 (not counting with people from Northern Ireland). Delotrooladoo ( talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do you constantly refer to the brits as citizens, They are SUBJECTS not citizens, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.10.181 ( talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about anyone else but I can see any of the people in those small pictures. I think quality or quantity would be better. Time to trim this down and make a pictures that can be useful to our readers. Any thoughts? Moxy ( talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) {{ 32 Britons}}
You may add Freddie mercury Perumalism Chat 11:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The link map for the ibx image is off – the right-hand column is missing from the links, as if the map was prepared for a 28-part image, not a 32-part one. 159.92.9.7 ( talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just restored two long established sections relating to British settlers in Chile, Hong Kong etc which were recently deleted as they lacted citations. I have added 'improve tags' to each. If anyone has access to the appropriate ciations please could they edit an sections and add these. Thnaks. Tmol42 ( talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppenheimer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sax1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SnowCelt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)