Talk:British people/Archive 3

What's the total worldwide population of Britons?
In the infobox there's a mandatory field for the total population of the titular group of people. So, what can we determine as the total population of Britons? I assume (at its minimum) it's the combination of the UK's home grown population (about 60 million) coupled with the 5.6 million identified as living outside the UK? So would c. 65.6 million be OK for everyone as a minimum? Is there any advance on this? Do we want to include a maximum threshold, i.e. including those with "British ancestry"? What does source material say? --Jza84 | Talk  23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless a source can be found that says those with British ancestry are British I don't think it should be included. I came across the same thing at Scottish people which stated there were more Scots living in the US than the population of Scotland. Of course, the source never said that, it gave the figure for Americans with Scottish ancestry, two different things. Jack forbes (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. A valid point. The ancestry bit of the infobox should be for that purpose AFAICT. I'll double check my figures, but it looks like it's going to be around 65 million. --Jza84 | Talk  11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that census figures are available for both Australia and the USA (and are quoted in some of the demographics Wikipedia articles, if that helps. --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada
Canada retains Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as the head of the monarchy of Canada. HRH QEII is styled the Queen in Right of Canada, as well as, Ontario and is represented by a Federal Governor General and Provincial Leutenant Governors. Her full royal title is, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (French: Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi). ^ Elizabeth II (11 February 1953), An Act respecting the Royal Style and Titles, 1, Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/fr-rf/titre-eng.cfm#a1, retrieved on 15 May 2009

She is featured on the coinage of Canada, Postage Stamps, Portraits in Public Buildings, she visits Canada and has 7 official residences across the country.

Essentially if its important enough to mention with other countries its important enough to Canada HRH's largest country and second largest by population after the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it you're suggesting? Is there something that you feel needs changing? --Jza84 | Talk  18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've nailed it. New Zealand got a mention, so so should Canada right? Hopefully I've addressed this now. --Jza84 | Talk  18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

EEC comment is biased
Furthermore, the effect of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community in 1973 "was irrevocably and unilaterally to disrupt a concept of Britishness" that defined itself as distinct from continental Europe.[116] As such, since the 1970s "there has been a sense of crisis about what it has meant to be British",[117]

This seems based on one point of view. I'm not sure that membership of the EEC was "designed" to disrupt. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say it was designed to disrupt, it just (verifiably) happened to disrupt Britishness as un-continental. --Jza84 | Talk  16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also take issue with the comment as it is in the article now, it is clearly an opinion, not a fact as it is currently presented. TastyCakes (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? The source is reputable. Have a look through these - another example is "membership of the EU eroded the 'Britishness' of the British" (a more pallettable wording perhaps?). I'm not Anti-EU, but it did change the nature of British national identity, and that is verifiable. --Jza84 | Talk  16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see the need for the comment about the EEC either, even if that was what some people thought it really isnt the true reason for the decline in British identity. The European Union has undermined the need for the United Kingdom but it cant be blamed for a decline in "Britishness".
 * One of the causes is the end of Empire. When you go from having the largest empire in human history to just a dozen tiny islands spread across the globe, pride is obviously going to take a hit. If America lost its place as a super power, i suspect youd see a decline in patriotism there too. Also ofcourse another one is tolerance, we are so damn liberal we now allow separatism and treason, wasnt that long ago people got hanged for that sort of thing. Another big problem is sport, the fact our main national sport is football and we always compete on the world stage as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.. is it any wonder that breeds division rather than unity. (end rant) lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec):A reputable source does not mean that it's giving a fact rather than the author's opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of Brits that consider themselves as distinct from continental Europeans now as they did in 1970.  "National identity" is an abstract concept that can't really be measured, or at least has not been measured (by way of a survey or other hard data) in what is presented in this article.  Wikipedia articles are not meant to present positions on such undefined, subjective, abstract topics, at least not to present them as fact.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this similar comment should be used as it is for similar reasons: "the expression and experience of cultural life in Britain has become fragmented and reshaped by the influences of gender, ethnicity, class and region".  TastyCakes (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, we need to keep the points, but rephrase them to something more neutral/inclusive. Repeatedly the ECC/EU simply is given as a reason for a decline in Britishness - that's not my opinion, that's reality, so we need to report on what the published domain is saying. It's just a matter of how we express that here IMO. --Jza84 | Talk  18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm not really torn up about it, I'll somehow find a way to struggle on whatever the outcome. I just don't think this is established fact, and I think that although it is verifiable, it is only verifiable as someone's opinion.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, much of what WP is built on is someone's opinion (and it's probably especially true for an article about a nation(ality)), but I know what you're saying. I've toned down the ECC bit and added an extra source. Hopefully that's better. --Jza84 | Talk  20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Political balance/Noel Gallagher
It is absolutely appropriate that we include the pictures Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. I also believe it would be equally as just to include the picture of that of Clement Attlee, who is just as notable in the history of British politics, which would also be more acquainted to the policy of neutrality. Clement Attlee being a fundamental figure of British socialism and the Labour party, and some of the most fundamental foundations, organizations and policy of the United Kingdom overall. The same applying to Thatcher and Churchill in the history of British politics and conservatism.

I also believe we should use the picture of John Lennon rather than Noel Gallagher. Also a fundamental figure in the history of the United Kingdom, and British art and music overall. Lennon was of Welsh and Irish descent, and was voted as the 8th greatest Briton of all time in the BBC poll, topping Horatio Nelson and Oliver Cromwell. Jacob Richardson (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that, especially the part about replacing Gallagher. TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009


 * I agree with removing Gallagher, replacing him with John lennon. On Clement Attlee, i wouldnt oppose him being added, but im not sure which person he could replace and we do have plenty of political figures on there already. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I would have thought James Watt would be a better "engineering figure" to include than Isambard Kingdom Brunel... Although I guess having a picture (not portrait) of Isambard is in his favour and it's more recent. TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On further thought I'm a little torn on the issue. While Watt had a great "breakthrough" as an inventor that turned out greatly influential, Brunel was as much an industrialist as inventor and I suspect was much more famous in his own time.  So yes, now I'm not so sure.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only ones on there in my opinion who are not worthy enough are Noel and Keira Knightley. Id like to see Lennon over Noel any day of the week, but the trouble with removing Keira is shes the only actor / actress on there, and we probably need one.  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Please be mindful of the criteria that was used previously. As has been discussed, this image isn't intended to include people's favourites, as well as reflect some regional, chronological and occupational diversity. Editors would have to develop a completely seperate image and publish it at Wikimedia Commons, not overwrite the existing one. --Jza84 | Talk  21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

True. We could possibly add a new row, or even two, altogether. But I absolutely believe that Lennon would be a suitable replacement for Noel. Jacob Richardson (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is good to have some contemporary people shown in the picture IMO. Lennon's advocation and alleged funding for anti-British international terrorist organisations could also make his appearence with the best British people controversial. IMO we should widen the scope and include people from British history in general, if you look at the articles on Italian people, German people, Greek people these include peoples from before the technical foundation date of the modern state. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, but someone once said Paul McCartney would be better - with having watched this page for some time, I'm very conscious of people keep wanting their favourites up there. There are more important issues than the image, surely. Do we have anything about Lennon identifying as British? Do we have a suitable image to use? Another row may be somewhat domineering, and we'd have to find another 6 befitting people too. Anyway, let's see... --Jza84 | Talk  21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im happy for the current image to remain, it would take alot of work to alter the balance as Jza suggests. As for the bit about foundation of the modern state, James VI of Scotland would be well deserving in my opinion. He laid the foundation for the state and "Britishness". But anyway the current image is fine, we dont really need to add more rows, we could go on for ever there are so many great people to choose from. I wouldnt oppose one more row if its easy to find people to fit the previous tough criteria, buts its alot of extra work which really isnt needed.  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree he's fundamental to British identity, but I'm not sure it could be argued he held British nationality. He does get significant mention in the prose mind - which is where it counts. --Jza84 | Talk  21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are people like John Dee and the Tudors too (from a Welsh/English perspective)... and also Boudica. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Section about Ireland
I think this section simplifies the issue by putting it down to Orange/Plantation stock = pro-British, native stock = anti-British. Parties like SF would probably like it to be this way, but IMO it doesn't really reflect the truth of history. For instance Thomas Kelly-Kenny a high ranking General, was obviously both British and Irish. So was the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The Ulster Scots information is very important, but information on Jackeens, Castle Catholics, Southern Irish Neo-Unionism (Reform Movement), West Brits, etc needs to be in there too I feel. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Bretons be mentioned?
In some way in the article? They claim to be the descendents of people from Britain (Britons) who fled to what is today Brittany. That is what their national identity is based on. This could obviously be controversial since it could be deemed irridentist and they're located in France politically, but if Bretons are Britons in some sense, surely it deserves a passing mention in the British people article? - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Britons (historical) covers them, a passing mention here of them i wouldnt have a problem with but we dont want to get bogged down here with the historical "Britons". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

British people in Latin America
I think the numbers of British people in Chile and Argentina are wrong.

You see, in the British chilean article says that there are 700,000 chileans that claim British ancestry. But here says 350,000 - 420,000

The same goes for Argentina. If you check the English argentine, Scottish argentine and Welsh argentine articles you will see that there are 20,000 Argentines that claim Welsh ancestry, 100,000 that claim Scottish ancestry and 300,000 English ancestry. Then, there are 420,000 Argentines with British ancestry, but here says only 100,000.

I think the numbers here should be changed.

Regards Hikusi (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Maria

You are right in there and it's been like 4 months and nobody seems to be interested in correcting this mistake. By the way, I tried to edit exactly what you said but I couldn't since this article is protected. --170.51.177.73 (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I think part of the problem (for Argentina at least) is that I can only find a reference for a number the Welsh article. So it is unclear if this article (and hence the New York Times) is incorrect, or the other ones...  TastyCakes (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added Populations
I have added several more Populations of British people and their descendents around the world and I have corrected and added to several of these. --Billsta1 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

21 Britons pic
Why Noel Gallagher and not John Lennon or Paul McCartney or David Bowie?... Klow (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was extensive debate about who should and should not be included. Im not a big fan on Noel being on there and there are certainly alternatives, but we have a good image with some great British people. Probably best to keep the current version than to try to just change one image, it just opens the debate up on other people too. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but really the ones I mentioned deserve it much more. I like Oasis but overall it's just nonsense to choose them over the Beatles... Sad Lennon didn't make it after this debate. Klow (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The pic does not show anyone's view of "the most important" British people, just a fairly random cross-section of those who are well-known and - importantly - have good images which are available to use here, free of copyright restrictions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Noel was chosen for his relationship to Britishness via Cool Britannia etc as well as being someone living. --Jza84 | Talk  11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you all like the new ImageMap I have made. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good change BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I have restored the original caption though as when printed, converted to PDF, or browsed on wapedia and others, you can't see who the people are. I'd also like to see the alt text restored someway somehow. --Jza84 | Talk  12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it looked nicer without the huge caption, personally. It's easy to navigate to File:21 Britons.png and print that if you want the list of names. Not sure how to do the alt text though ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really neat, thanks a lot. TastyCakes (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton included in the picture? Since this is an article about an ethnic group, shouldn't we be talking about people with full british blood (or at least not people with obviously large amounts of non-british blood)? I wouldn't go to an article about bantu people expecting to see half-german half bantu pictures; or an article about japanese people expecting half-japanese half-amerindian pictures. Anyone have a reasonable explanation to why this is? If not, could someone change it?
 * They are included because this is an article about British people and they are two prominent (and current) examples of British people. TastyCakes (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

British People's nationality dispute
I don't know whether you may have noticed but some people are reffered as English or Scottish where as others British, its time wikipedia stamped down and categorised all these people to British, its not only annoying but its misleading, what are your thoughts?--Tukogbani (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The random use is rather annoying, you may want to read this Nationality of people from the United_Kingdom which is where it lays out the guidelines for describing peoples nationality from the UK. It says theres no right answer, some can be called just Scottish if they are known as Scottish like Sean connery for example, where as others should be described as British.
 * Whilst i dont have a huge problem with Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish being listed, ive always thought it should at the very least also say they are British citizens in their info box or somewhere. Ofcourse that page linked is just an essay, its not compulsary to follow and it is certainly not perfect, some would like to see changes to all of this.  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's long been my view that English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish even Irish/Cornish should be used in the lead section wherever possible, and in the infobox use British (after the appropriate act of union). For me, it is the only NPOV way around this as it presents both. I have never mustered the strength to propose this formally and don't think there is enough collaborative spirit on this issue to get it codified and agreed upon. I concede that presently there is no policy, no formal style guide and that all biographical articles are inconsistent and are at the mercy of who ever edits it with reference to all the terms regularly editted out with no rationale according to personal ideology. --Jza84 | Talk  21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol its one of those areas where the policy is not to have a policy :|, i agree very difficult to get agreement on making any form of change in the current climate. I would be fine with that in the lead sentence (with the exception of Cornish bit), and then citizenship in the infobox always showing British. There doesnt seem to be that many edit wars (not that ive seen) over nationality issues though, it could be far more unstable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MOS:BIO seems to insist that a person's "nationality" is mentioned in a lead, but I would prefer it if we substituted "Joe Bloggs is an English fictional character from Footown" with "Joe Bloggs is a fictional character born in Footown, England", that way we're not forcing an ethnic/national label on someone, but rather just presenting the facts as they are.* However, WP:MOS dictates over my opinion..... unfortunately.... in which case I guess we need to use the adjective approach.


 * WP:MOSFLAG, specifically this bit seems to have appeared without a wide and encompassing debate, but it does sumarize the present situation well I guess, despite its weaknesses in giving guidance on neutrality and consistency (which would avoid disputes).


 * It still remains one of my wiki-ambitions to propose something along the lines of the above one day and get it passed (I think it would be a massive achievement), but like I say, I'm not confident it would win preference, dispite it being a much clearer, neutral, helpful, collaborative and encyclopedic approach. --Jza84 | Talk  22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC) * Really, by this logic we could say "Winston Churchill is a White/White British/English/Anglo-American/British-American/White English/European politician" and with some degree of truth and accuracy if we persist on using ethnic/sub-state descriptions, albiet I think this would not gain consensus!
 * I prefer British be used for all those biographies-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First off thankyou for your replies. Another possible solution could be as followed: Steven Gerrard is a BRITISH footballer born in Liverpool, England Andy Murray is a BRITISH tennis player born in Glasgow, Scotland Or maybe this Joe Calzaghe is a former BRITISH WELSH boxer born in London, England --Tukogbani (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Using British is way too vague considering cultural differences in the UK. As others have said, using English, Scottish, Welsh & (Northern)/Irish ALREADY suggests British. Within the UK, within sport etc etc such country/nationalities are already recognised. I suggest that if the person grew up in England then unless they themselves have stated otherwise, they should be said as English. There is of course confusion when it comes to British Indians etc - but I suggest then that terms such as British Indian are used (or English Indian?)... :S. The "where they're born" thing makes no sence: if I were born in Scotland I still would consider myself English, even if I am about quarter Scottish and quarter Irish: I'm and Englishman--Kurtle (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over recent text
I've removed the following:

and the reference:

I have concerns about this material. Firstly this edit summary is not appropriate in the slightest (a side issue - but worth mentioning). Secondly the reference is not formatted properly (another side issue). Thirdly (and as a disclaimer I only had the opportunity to skim read this book in a Waterstones), I don't remember seeing anything to this effect in the book, which troubles me; It's a pretty radical assertion, and in all my research I've not seen it in any book or article; I believe it is precluded by WP:REDFLAG. Fourthly, it says "the English" - who are the English? Anglo-Saxons? -- because that's not NPOV. I am certain Oppenheimer does not use the English.

I don't have any stake or objections to the text as such, but I would not like this restored without a consensus and putting my concerns to rest, please. --Jza84 | Talk  23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No JZA, it is worth mentioning because the traditional view of the English language is that it was brought over with the Anglo-Saxons. The English language is, of course, inextricably tied to the English cultural and ethnic identity.

And it seems like you have some form of bias as Oppenheimer clearly postulates that the English language is descended from a group that existed in the area before the coming of the Anglo-Saxon (who are THE English, by the way, as they refered to themselves as such; Englisc) and I gave you the page references (quite a lot of page references!). I apologise if you have no bias, however, you have not read Oppenheimer whereas I have and had actually given page numbers to you. Oppenheimer's theory is, admittedly, nonsense, but it is, afterall, Oppenheimer's theory and should be represented as such. Oppenheimer believes that the ethnic division between the Britonic area of Britain and the Germanic area has been there since the last glacial maximum.

I completely disagree with Oppenheimer's absurd theory but misrepresenting it is against the rules of the site and is, of course, highly unencyclopaedic. The misinterpretation of Oppenheimer's theory has already spread from this site (and an incorrect Prospect magazine title that Oppenheimer himself disagreed with) onto the net and thus it should be quelled. Oppenheimer neither says that the English were Britonic nor Basque-speaking, he merely states that they are descended from Basques, different Basques to the ones that the Welsh trace their descent from.

As for this:

"Oppenheimer further postulates that a Germanic language was spoken in the area of what is now England before the coming of the English"

That was somewhat sloppy writer (although I personally agree with it) and I should have said before the coming of the Anglo-Saxons. It is certainly relevant to the article as stated above.

The Mummy (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to assume good faith The Mummy. I'm not very happy with your edit summaries or accusations of bias. It's unfounded, not conductive to communal authorship and is a blockable offense.


 * I'm actually completely indifferent to the material added, I neither think it's true or untrue or likely or unlikely, but what I am concerned about is that it is quite an obscure and pretty radical assertion to make. Furthermore, as you say yourself, it was a rather "sloppy" additon (first you used blogs - a definate no-no - then a toning down and formatting was required to eliminate unclear statements). It was neither formatted correctly, and it had grave errors in it ("before the coming of the English"). Again in your text above, you say that "the English were ... descended from Basques", but I'm quite sure he talks about the British people with regards to this - can you clarify? All these things don't strike me with confidence that we're representing WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc etc. That's not to say you're here to cause trouble, but I'm just justifying my own actions.


 * I seem to remember that there are primary Roman sources that document Frisians, Gauls and Belgicans already in "southern England" at the time of their conquest, or something to that effect. That would suggest to me that some form of Germanic language was in England pre Saxondom, so, again, I don't "hate the fact" of the material, but I do have concerns about where this material has come from, what its context is, if it is worth reporting here, if there is mutually supporting material. Going forwards I'd like to get the exact prose from the book for absolute clarity, or else find more supporting evidence. Presently the article doen't contradict anything in the published domain as it's left blank and open, so nothing is being misrepresented. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets too heated - it's already spread over a number of pages - can I suggest that there be a centralised discussion, perhaps at Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles, and, until there is some agreement there on the best way forward, that editors refrain from making edits on the subject which may be contentious. Can I also suggest that all editors remind themselves of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and try to avoid words like "nonsense" and "absurd". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense JZA, but you do seem to have a bias. You keep removing a valid source (with dozens of page references; I need not quote the book and I cannot as I don't own the rubbish but I have read it) rather than just rewording it if you feel that it is sloppy. Oppenheimer does not say that the people of England (pre-Anglo-Saxon) spoke a Basque langauge in England, he says they spoke a Germanic language and were genetically and culturally different to the Welsh. If you have no bias why are you trying to make the text conform to a theory that does not belong to the author? I can not be accused of that because this very is in my mind absurdist and so far from my own theory on this matter. Oppenheimer's theory is ridiculous but it is still his thory and should be respected as such. Claiming that Oppenheimer believes and pushes forward a theory that is not his own is against the rules of wikipedia. The Mummy (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to quote it as you have interpretted it wrong and used wrong wording yourself in the article. Then you used a blog. This you have admitted. Your additions failed verification meaning it is not a valid source and cannot be accepted blindly. Think what you will about bias, but without the support of others it is not possible to add the material - you need to acheieve a consensus. If you can supply the passage, or even another third party reliable resource that upholds the claim, then by all means share it and we'll add it. There's nothing being hidden, it's just critical thinking. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Polite and reserved"
Reverting the material back in without any explanation while adding another citation doesn't really deal with the problem here, as explained in my previous edit summary. The text is little more than a silly generalisation presented as definitive fact, as well as being incredibly self-serving and selective. As pointed out, it's easy to source pretty much anything you want for this sort of thing, however biased, subjective or contradictory any of it might be. How about I now add ".. and are also perceived as arrogant and unfriendly", or "as a nation of binge-drinkers" whose imperial leaders were "arrogant .. and bloody-minded". That's all cited too, the first one with reference to an actual proper survey and everything. --Nickhh (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two rights don't make a wrong. If you wish to add other well-documented characteristics of the British people then please do so.  Removing well-cited characteristics is not productive.  If your position is that the British people have no special chararactistics then this seems an extraordinary claim and so requires especially good sourcing.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to, that was kind of my point. Just because something is citeable or cited, that does not mean it needs to be included in a serious encyclopedia article, and removing weak, trivial or pointlessly subjective content, whether "sourced" or not, is of course perfectly productive in terms of improving the page as a whole. British people, like everyone else, have plenty of purported characteristics, some positive and some negative, many of which are sometimes observed and commented on - I'm not sure though that any of them need to be listed here in the form of sweeping generalisations, let alone all of them. What next, "French people are commonly observed to be sophisticated and cultured" and/or "arrogant and nationalistic"? "American people are usually seen as open and friendly" and/or "uncultured and inward-looking"? Come off it. And the suggestion that the British people do have special characteristics that are unknown in other human beings seems to me to be a far more extraordinary claim, since you mentioned it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind my saying this, ladies and gentlemen, but I agree with Nickhh. Sorry to butt in...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. It's hardly "trivial or pointlessly subjective content", it's a persistant and fundamental theme in published materials. Our encyclopedia doesn't say if it is true or not. Articles are required to be thorough in their coverage.


 * If it is trivial/subjective, then cite your sources. An editor's opinion does not trump 3 well sourced references. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  20:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nickhh. Jza, I would agree with you if it were being presented as a commonly held opinion rather than fact, but that's not how it reads to me. Further I don't think the sources are particularly good. The first is a book which I can't read so have no comment on. Apparently noone that has read the book finds it worthy of comment either as seen at Amazon, where you can get it new for $11.28 and there are no customer or professional reviews listed. Perhaps a more well known opinion book on the British people would be better suited, perhaps even Winston Churchill's famous piece, but of course I don't think Churchill bought into the "polite and reserved" stereotype all that much. The second is a piece about the sinking of the Titanic, in 1912, which I think it is safe to say is a little out of date. The third "Understanding Global Cultures" does say British people are polite conversationalists, and in the next breath says things that I completely disagree with, like British newspapers avoiding concrete facts. It seems to be an opinion work - it should not be included here as though the author of this has demonstrated this conclusively. What's more, Nickhh is completely correct, it is a set of glaringly positive opinions on British people, ignoring the negative ones that can be provided with similar ease - arrogance, hooliganism, imperialistic ethnocentrism and so on. In truth none of these "soft science" stereotypes belong in this article, just as they shouldn't be in any other article about national groups, or of any group of people. There have been scientific studies showing national stereotypes are mostly wrong, such as this one and this one, and there have been plenty of more anecdotal observations that the idea is silly and unscientific, such as here and here and here. In short I strongly agree with Nickhh as well - I think we should remove this line of one sided opinion from what is meant to be a subjective article on British people. TastyCakes (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jza84, we are surely allowed to argue the toss about whether something is trivial or worth including or not without being called on to cite tertiary sources that might somehow "prove" the point either way. We could end up going in circles otherwise, with someone else finding a fourth order source that says that the source that says the information is trivial is itself insufficiently probatory etc etc. And in my first comment I did of course provide three references that demonstrate the existence of very different perceptions, which would appear to at least contradict the current wording, and therefore highlight the subjective nature of the material, if not its triviality (the latter all my own judgment, yes, although we now have sources that, as requested, appear to hint at it). I'm not clear either what this has to do with "censorship". At some point we just have to apply some common sense and make a judgment as to how to write a serious, credible page on a topic, that is accurate as to facts and also covers significant opinions and points of view. Otherwise every piece of data, information or random comment that can be cited is going to be chucked at every Wikipedia page, simply on the basis that "it is sourced, end of debate, unless you find a source that says it is not worth including in a Wikipedia article". There's arguably a case for including - outside of the lead - a broadly sourced section on perceptions, written explicitly as being about perceptions not reality. However, were that to be comprehensive, it would probably include a reference to pretty much every human characteristic, and I'm not sure what value it would provide to anyone. Anyway, at least we're proving that British people can be argumentative. While remaining polite of course. --Nickhh (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's glossing over the truth to say British people are 'polite and reserved' - I think it's more true for English people, but Scottish people have a reputation of being far more aggressive with their 'glasgow kisses' and all that! 86.157.203.68 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, of course. The typical English (or possibly British) football fan is not "polite and reserved". Neither are the drunks who mill around British cities on a Saturday night. Or are they somehow less "British" than demure middle class people in owner-occupied homes?Ausseagull (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been pleased to learn that I have been persuaded by these arguments; I think it should be removed from the lead. However, I do think the information has value (but does not have validity), and ought to be included at some point in the article. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Notice
could I add the following ***************************************************************************************** * ** This article uses a layout recommended at ** * * *** Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template *** * * * * ** Changes to this page affect a huge population of people ** * * ** Please discuss bold changes first ** * * Do not forget to visit the welcome page. * * ** Thank you ** * * * ***************************************************************************************** to the page notice and remove it from the main article? Venustas 12 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Excellent idea. I support. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Immigration from 'Ireland' to 'Britain'
Should 'Ireland' here link to the Republic of Ireland article and not the article dealing with the island of Ireland?

To say that people emigrated from the island of Ireland since the mid-20th century is nonsensical as Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. Jonchapple (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the British people, not the people of the United Kingdom -- Snowded TALK  21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First line of this article: "The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits, or archaically Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, and their descendants."


 * In a modern context, the British people are the people of the United Kingdom. And even if you'll argue that they're not, that's irrelevant; re-read the quote: "there has been immigration to the United Kingdom by people from Ireland". It doesn't make sense unless Ireland instead links to the Republic of Ireland. People from the country occupying the north of the island of Ireland can't emigrate to the United Kingdom because they already live there. Jonchapple (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point - it is a valid one that you make. However, it is a little difficult in link-terms as the sentence crosses the time-boundaries of several Irish states/entities. I believe we cannot say/link the Republic of Ireland on technicality, because the sentence refers to the 19th century (thus predating the Irish republic etc). The only other alternative would be to change "United Kingdom" for the more ambiguous "Britain", but I think it's an issue of pedantry. I don't think it's a major issue, and I think the point made in the lead is a pretty fair, representative and understood one. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's pedantry - I think there is a wider issue that the lede confuses (perhaps deliberately) the issue of whether "British" in this article refers to the island of GB or the sovereign state of the UK. (I know that it can mean either.)  It seems to me that the important point being made in the text is that there was, historically, considerable migration between the islands of GB and Ireland (much if not most of which took place at a time when all of Ireland was within the UK}.  So, it's a complicated issue, but it would be easier to see the best way forward in terms of wording if it could be decided whether this article relates to the island or the country - without that clarity, there will continue to be confusion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a degree of pedantry is not called for here.  While people in Northern Ireland have British Citizenship, Britain correctly used applies to England, Scotland and Wales.  It was used in the Olympics (and controversially) to reference the UK but its still incorrect.  If anything we should change to lede to reflect correct usage.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Britain verifiably refers to the United Kingdom though (I trust we don't need the sources). Is this all really necessary? The sentence in question spans both 19th and 20th centuries and political and geographic boundaries. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  15:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

.
 * Everyone here is probably more or less right, that's the problem really. However, I would make the observation that when, in respect of 20th century immigration, the page says there has been immigration from the [island of Ireland] to the [modern, post-1922] UK, that is an accurate statement. It just so happens that none of it in recent times has strictly come from the north, since the people there are already in the UK (and, incidentally, some of them already consider themselves British of course). --Nickhh (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ps: and yes, "Britain" is strictly different from "UK", but is often used interchangeably and in any event the adjective "British" does surely carry the wider meaning, in both formal and informal usage?
 * (ec)I'm not proposing making changes so I am happy to leave it as it is. However, for the record, the use of Britain for UK is like the use of England for Britain.  Its verifiable that it is used, but its still wrong. -- Snowded  TALK  15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. I think you're confusing Britain with Great Britain (and thankfully have references to base this on, for example this, but there are others). "Wrong" is just your interpretation of what should and shouldn't be. But, no doubt you'll disagree; it's not worth persuing on my part though.


 * I agree with Nickhh's summary though; that was my interpretation of the situation too. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't leave it this way because it's nonsensical, it's like having Wales or Scotland in there instead. For the entirety of the 19th century the whole island was a part of the UK (and this article is about the UK and not just the island of GB) and since 1922 at least part of it has remained so. I guess we need some kind of a vote here. Jonchapple (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The page currently says that "Since the 19th century ... there has been immigration to [what is now] the UK from [the island of] Ireland, the Commonwealth .. etc". I agree it's not perfect, but I'm not sure there is a formulation that would be, and the current statement is verifiable and correct. The sentence does not claim that everyone who came here from Ireland at every point in the 19th and 20th centuries by definition immigrated. Furthermore, in the 19th century, there was no immigration from anything then known as "the Commonwealth", but we can all understand that the phrasing in respect of Commonwealth immigration either refers to the 20th but not the 19th century, and/or that we would read a "what is now" immediately before "Commonwealth". What kind of vote would you suggest, anyway? --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We are, after all, not trying to draft a legally binding and watertight statute here, we're just trying to broadly describe a situation in a sentence or two. The sentence as it stands is certainly not "nonsensical". Having said that, I guess one alternative would be to have something like - "Since the 19th century, and particularly since the mid-20th century, people from Ireland, the British Empire and then the Commonwealth, from Europe and elsewhere have all emigrated or moved to the island of Great Britain and the wider United Kingdom ..." That would presumably cover all the bases, and also solve the rather clumsy "there has been immigration ..." wording.--Nickhh (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good solution to me. And by the by, it's as nonsensical as stating that since the 19th century many people from England have emigrated to the United Kingdom (of GB and Ire and later GB and NI). It doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonchapple (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the principle of Nickhh's proposal is fine, but the wording has the side effect (and this may be me being pedantic, or may not) of suggesting that people from Ireland particularly moved to GB since the mid-20th century - which is true of the Empire / Commonwealth and may be true of Europe (not sure), but I strongly suspect is not true of Ireland where the main movements were earlier. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the Island of Britain and the Island of Ireland. Great Britain is the name of a state of sorts.  However like all things associated with these islands there are multiple common usages and overlaps with varying degrees of accuracy.  If this is an article about the people of the United Kingdom (British Citizens) then it would be correct to say that there had been immegration from Ireland (note the pipelink).  However as has been pointed out, at the time in question it was all part of the United Kingdom with the whole of Ireland.  One way round this is to say that for that historical period there was movement from Ireland to Britain (or the island of Britain) or similar. It may be easier to say that there was movement from Ireland to the major cities (which was the case) thus being more accurate and informative at the same time.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonchapple - but the point is that England, in its entirety, has always been part of the UK, in all its versions. Hence it would indeed be daft to ever talk about immigration to the UK "from England". By contrast, for most of the 20th century, most of Ireland was not part of the UK. Therefore it is not nonsense to talk about immigration to the UK "from Ireland [and other places]" since the "19th century". Again, it's not suggesting that everyone who emigrated from all parts of Ireland from 1801 onwards was necessarily an immigrant.
 * Ghmyrtle - good point. I simply based it on the current wording, which I guess was maybe built up over time, and does blur the situation in respect of the Commonwealth with that of Ireland. Maybe just have it say "since the 19th century", maybe adding "and then later" directly ahead of Commonwealth? Then we can be more specific as to which groups came when in the main body.
 * Snowded - my slightly lengthy proposal does include reference to "moving to .. Great Britain", which I hope deals with that issue? --Nickhh (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say island of Britain, but OK with Great Britain -- Snowded TALK  18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Britain is better. There is no island of 'Britain'. Jonchapple (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd better go and edit Caesar then, not to mention get all those Atlas people to rename their publications. -- Snowded  TALK  19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's with the chip on your shoulder? Click on the links. The island's name is Great Britain. Britannia Major (Great Britain) = our island, Britannia Minor (Lesser Britain) = Brittany. It's not my opinion. Maybe you should open that atlas of yours. Jonchapple (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note in the article Caesar's invasions of Britain, 'Britain' links to Great Britain. Jonchapple (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No chip on my shoulder at all (and no reason for you to suggest as such), you're the one who is insisting on making a point. I am OK for you to use Great Britain as stated above. I'll happily add Tacitus to the list above if you need it, but your statement that there is no such thing as the Island of Britain is wrong.
 * Is immigration really the proper word for the movement of people from Ireland to Britain? In the case of most people of Irish descent living on the British mainland, their ancestors would have been moving within the same country - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And in the case of all people of Irish descent living on the mainland, their ancestors would have been moving within the British Isles. Irvine22 (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Britons in Japan
Maybe there is a simple explanation the person who posted this reference (20, quoting 17,011 British people in Japan) can give. However, I can read Japanese and nowhere I can see in the reference given does it give any statistics whatsoever on the number of British people in Japan. It gives statistics on the number of Chinese, Korean, Brazilian, Filipino, Peruvian etc but not British. Unless I'm missing something here the 17,011 stat should be taken down until a reference is given which actually states how many British people live in Japan. Dodger9 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably needs removing. It was added by a Japanese user - I assumed good faith that it was a reputable source and tidied it up a little. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  11:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the above, I've removed the figure. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton etc should not be included
The ethnic British people are white. This does not include mixed race people, or anything else.--BronAISLEawe (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the first sentence of the article: "The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits, or archaically Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, and their descendants." (own emphasis added) The article covers the citizens of the UK regardless of race. Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the British.
Here, it assumes that most of the British population are descended mainly from the poeple living in Great Britain before the Medieval period and it disregards the fact that Britain is foremost an immigrant country and there has been a constant immigration from Europe since the Middle Ages. Look at the Protestants persecuted in Catholic countries, the Jews and ethnic minorities such as Ukrainians and Poles persecuted by the Russian Empire.

How can you assume that people are descended from the pre-medieval immigrants. The Eruopean immigration was not documented, we don't know how many came, where they were from exactly, only roughly, as their descents no longer practise the culture of the country of origin but mixed with the other groups, immigrant or resident and became "English" or "British". Most White British people do not really practise religion anyway. You cannot make assumptions on the political history and the foundations of kingdoms or the history of language. The statement in the introductory paragraph disregards the centuries of Eruopean immigration, and sees is as a very small group of people who came. Many people came, why do you get some English people who look Spanish and others who look Polish or Russian?

Think about history, Britain has raged a lot of wars of colonialism since the Middle Ages, the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon-Viking-Norman male population fought in battles and were killed, a lot emigrated to settler colonies in North America and Australia. However, immigrants came in, for economic reasons, fleeing from persecutions, wars etc, in Europe. Gradually the post-1066 immigrant proportion grew and the "Anglo-Saxon" one shrank with both demographic factors. Yes, British culture did not really become multicultural untill non-White people came from South Asia, Carribean, etc, because the immigrant groups lost the culture of the country of origin and intermarried with other groups.

Nowadays, multi-culturalism means White people appreciating and adopting aspects of African-derived cultures, Afro-American, Afro-Brazilian and Asian cultures. This also includes mediterraniean cultures, Italian pasta, Spanish tapas. This has nothing to do with the genetic origins of Whites. It is not like in Argentina where immigrant groups stayed apart and conserved their cultures, languages and religions.

Britain in an immigrant country and it what sets it apart from other Eruopean countries.86.156.199.108 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that Britain has had much immigration from Europe, and elsewhere, since the medieval period, for many reasons of which religious persecution is one. This is set out in the articles on Historical immigration to Great Britain and Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922. However, you have provided no evidence for your assertion that "Britain is foremost an immigrant country" - by which I assume you mean that most of the current population derives from post-medieval immigration.  I very much doubt whether that is the case - I think that most of the population is descended from pre-medieval or medieval immigrants, as set out under Genetic history of the British Isles.  But, it would be useful for a reliable source to be provided which quantifies the proportions of Britain's genetic heritage from different sources.  Does such a reference exist?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most White Brits are supposed to be quite a large percentage of aboriginal Britons though - more than was originally thought (which assumed the English were more Anglo-Saxon than they actually are) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown
In this weeks' election, Gordon Brown will likely be unelected Prime Minister. New pictures must be prepared with pictures of the most likely incumbent David Cameron (and maybe Nick Clegg, which is an unlikely possibility but has become a significantly more likely one in recent weeks). Sir Richardson (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Post the election we should probably have a look at the photos again. I don't see any reason to prepare anything -- Snowded  TALK  23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And Brown wasn't just picked because he is the PM. Brown is a living Scottish politician who identifies as British. I'm mindful we need to strike a balance between several factors, including public status, birthplace, ancestry, occupation, age, accent etc etc. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In that respect, David Cameron is half Scottish. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Sport
"The British "invented football, rugby and cricket", and "exported various other games" including badminton, boxing, golf, snooker and squash."

Tennis, at least in its modern form, has also been invented in Britain. I'm not sure why it isn't included here. Many people outside of Britain (i.e. Non-Britons) may certainly associate sports like squash, snooker, rugby and cricket very much and especially with Britain, yet at the same time some may not be so familiar with them. Just as in the case of football, I'd say it's somewhat different with tennis, which today is a universal, a global phenomenon -- played, enjoyed, followed practically everywhere in the world. However, curiously, there don't seem to be few people that wouldn't associate tennis necessarily with Britain. (At least my experience.) I'm not British myself and to my mind tennis clearly is a child of Britain, but that's just not what all Non-Britons fancy (perhaps know). What I'd like to suggest is simply that mentioning the fact of the British roots of tennis might be a little more surprising to some and therefore more informative. Also, tennis is, on a global scale, much more popular, than for example snooker or rugby. So I'm all in favour of including it there -- I mean, as long as you even list badminton... Zero Thrust (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I think. I've added it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Institutions and Politics
The Law Lords are no longer members of the House of Lords, at least for the time they remain on the bench. Due to the Constitutional Reform Act is unlikely that any more Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) will be created since the creation of the Supreme Court made that title and function obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.88.243 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

South Africa
I see that British born South Africans are added in the table, but what about of British ethnicity? Anglo-Africans in South Africa number somewhat 1.7 million, can someone add these figures? Bezuidenhout (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Darn Oppenheimer
Everywhere I look on wikipedia I seem to find this one bit of research by Stephen Oppenheimer repeated again and again as gospel truth. There are many in Britain today who try to push this as it backs up their view points; Oppenheimer as a professional geneticist gives them the claim to authority they need. However, to just accept what they say outright because 'the scientist says so' and not to question it is utterly wrong.

Oppenheimer's research is highly controversial and it is not at all anywhere near the domain of fact. There are many conflicting theories about the origins of the British people and the one formerly presented on this article as THE one is in fact just one of a number; and not the most supported or most likely one at that.

A good guide to things: http://heritage-key.com/britain/genetic-britain-how-roman-viking-and-anglo-saxon-genes-make-uks-dna

--94.9.54.242 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * and I see its been reverted right away. Whatever happened to NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.54.242 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a disputed area - but the big change to the article that you made needs discussion first, so I reverted it just so that discussion can take place here - thanks for kicking it off. This is a regular disputed point in Wikipedia, so you're not the only one who disagrees with using Oppenheimer citations or leaning on them too heavily. A good starting point would be to produce alternative referencable sources of quality that disagree with Oppenheimer and write some material in the article drawing on those sources. There's no rush and with reasoned, sourced points, you can make progress. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And looking through the article text, it doesn't give a clean sweep to Oppenheimer, it also brings in Sykes and a source from the University of Wales. It could be that your starting point would be to suggest variations in the way the text is worded, if you feel it gives too much weight to Oppenheimer. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a persistent and unresolved related issue, in that the article on "Genetic history of the British Isles" places very considerable emphasis on the books by Oppenheimer and Sykes, and many geneticists seem to agree that this emphasis distorts the article. I've tried to persuade one or two of the editors who strongly dislike that article to change it, by suggesting that they rewrite it with appropriate references, but so far with markedly little success.  Help in improving that article would be welcome.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article mentions other research only in passing. Sykes as an addition to the Oppenheimer truth. It states Oppenheimer's theory as fact with no mention of conflicting research. The article I posted sums it up, look also to http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/10571/ for one.


 * Anyway. I'm not going to get involved here. I just saw a painful article which plays into the hands of an abhorant viewpoint and didn't want people reading it and going away believing that those people are right. The truth of the argument (which it is) must be given.


 * Not many replies yet and I haven't been following this article but I just hope the people who do follow this article are decent folks and not BNPers. I quit wikipedia long ago and don't want to get involved in it again due to the way its a place where mob rule of parties with a vested interest dictates what is the truth and not fact and reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.48.200 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Institutions and politics
Why is there a section about institutions and politics in an article about British people? It seems odd to just tells readers about institutions and politics in the UK when British people are all over the world. This section should not be here.

sorry - shouls have signed 86.158.122.213 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification
The article does quite well when it describes a modern nationalist trend amongst some Scots and Welsh people to distance themselves from being British (and to some extent even some English people do this). This can be seen a mainly political, but there is also a degree of poor education. Certainly outside Britain the terms "English" and "British" are often thought to be coterminous, leading to assertions like "the Scots dislike the British", and the New York Times referring to a 1-1 draw between Britain and the USA in the World Cup, with the British goalkeeper making an error. Should the article refer to the prevalence of such inaccuracies? Ausseagull (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange article this!
I'm quite new to wikipedia but it seems to me that this is a strange article. If this is an article about british people who the article describes live all over the world and not just in the UK, then it seems odd to have a section about culture when that section only describes the culture of british people in the united kingdom and ignores british people elsewhere in the world. Since 'culture of the united kingdom' is already dealt with elsewhere, why is it also in this article? Can I suggest this should be trimmed right back? I might even do it myself if no one objects. 86.157.203.68 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? This article follows a layout recommended by WP:ETHNIC, an 'award' winning layout used for other peer-assessed articles about human groups. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think part of the "strangeness" is how the article defines "British". It includes "citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, and their descendants.  Thus the claim that there are over 36 million British living in the USA.  Sorry to disillusion anyone, but simply having British ancestry does not make one a Briton.  How did the definition used in this article come about?  I might have British ancestry, but I am an American, and not a Briton.  I have no rights to British citizenship nor any real cultural affinity (I've lived in the UK, and Americans and Brits certainly have different cultures).  Perhaps the definition used here needs to be revisited.  Eastcote (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Collage: Representing the British
I know there was a discussion on this topic, but the majority of that discussion occured a year ago, and as per policy, consensus is not immutable and can change. And since there have repeatedly been complaints on the talk page, I think it's about time to discuss the collage again. I've been bold and changed some of the images, with the following rationales: No representation of British inventions and inventors. Again, four people representing athletics in the collage is too much. Being replaced with
 *  James Cook, notable explorer of New Foundland, New Zealand, and the Pacific Ocean: We had four people representing British athletics out of 21 people, I think it shouldn't be controversial to replace one with an explorer as internationally renown as James Cook. Also, there should be someone representing British exploration, with which the British Empire could not have existed without.
 *  Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, notable figure of the Gothic and Romantic artistic movements: Shelley is perhaps one of the most influential figures in the field of fiction, creating many genres and redefining others. Also, we need to have someone representing Romanticism, which was the dominant artistic movement of when the British Empire was at its greatest heights.
 *  George Harrison, the lead guitarist of The Beatles: Going through the archives, there have been some (although I think silly) arguments that Lennon and McCartney shouldn't be included because they aren't considered patriotic enough. But we do need at least one of the Beatles, and George Harrison is a good fit.
 *  Tim Berners-Lee, credited with the creation of the World Wide Web: There's no representation in the collage for British inventions and inventors. I think we can sacrifice one of the athletics related pictures with someone who's creation allows for a site like Wikipedia to exist in the first place.
 *  Vivian Leigh, lead actress of Academy Award-winning A Streetcar Named Desire and Gone with the Wind, which with inflation factored in, is the highest grossing film of all time: Don't get me wrong, I like Keira Knightely's movies, but Vivian Leigh is considered a cinematic icon, and Knightely is not.

I'd like to see Bertrand Russel in somewhere there, who is arguably the most influential figure of British philosophy, but I'm not sure who to replace. And I agree that Princess Diana should be replaced with Queen Elizabeth II, but will wait for more consensus.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify: you have replaced Keira Knightley with Vivian Leigh; replaced Chris Hoy with Tim Berners-Lee; replaced J K Rowling with Mary Shelley; replaced Alex Ferguson with James Cook; and replaced Noel Gallagher with George Harrison. I support, in principle, reviewing and changing the image every so often to ensure that it does not get stale.   However, the changes made raise several issues.  One is that the image now shows an even greater majority of dead people over living people, which in my view tends to reinforce global stereotypes about Britain as being a place living in its past.  It also shows a net reduction of two Scots (Hoy and Ferguson), which is undesirable given what I think is the need to balance the contribution from the different countries on the island.  Most importantly, have the images been checked against licensing requirements - are they free to use?  These are all issues which have been discussed at some length in the past - see the archives.  My own personal view would be to retain Berners-Lee and Harrison, but reinstate Knightley, Rowling and Ferguson. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I hadn't realised that Vivian Leigh was born in India - but, before anyone raises the question, I don't put that forward as a reason for removing her - in my view, she falls within the definition of "British people" in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * James Cook is Scottish. View the copyright information on Commons (Image:21Britons.png), all of the pictures are in the public domain, derived from Commons, and are free to use. And as for the issue having been discussed, it has, three years ago (the majority of the images were decided on in 2007), and any other suggestions following it responded with the procedual "it has been discussed in the archives" comment. Consensus is not immutable and can change, and as the amount of the complaints in the archives do show, some new discussion into the collage is very much much needed. Also, just as a note, most of changes I made weren't my own, they come from suggestions that users have made in the talk archives.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the concern of having too many people from the past, it's the idea of having too many people in the present, and ignoring the history of an ethnic group, that concerns me more. You can't just lump all the dead people into a single category of being "from the past"; history comes in stages and eras, and all of them should be represented in the collage. The stereotype of Britain "living in the past" is not one that I've heard of, and I don't think it applies to Britain, at least not any more than any other ethnic group. The image collages for German people, French people, Spanish people, and Russian people have a far greater share of dead people than in this image, and the collage for British people should not be exempt from this established precedence. I think it's far more important to address the issue of not having a single person representing British Romanticism or British exploration, than to worry about whether or not the person's still alive. Besides, even with the changes, 12 (that's over half) the people in the collage lived through the 20th and 21st centuries, and 6 (that's nearly one third) are still alive. Compared to the other ethnic group collages, I think people living in the present are overrepresented, not the other way around.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If we have enough users to participate, I would support a straw poll to gauge consensus for each picture individually.--Hongkongresident (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could go with a rotating picture, like how some portals (Portal:Video Games comes to mind) are implemented. This is more difficult to impliment, but certainly possible.--Hongkongresident (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Churchill, Nelson, Thatcher, Cook, Darwin, Harrison (or another Beatle) are ‘musts’. Sports people okay. Why not Agatha Christie or Connan Doyle, and Shakespeare? What about Newton? Shackleton? Would support replacing Gordon Brown and Lady Diana by Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth II respectively, any time. Apcbg (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * People like Shakespeare and Newton, while very notable, can't be British. They were born before the British identity was established, before the Acts of Union in 1707. But I do support the inclusion of Conan Doyle.--Hongkongresident (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no rush. There is a need for consensus. Quote: "I think it's far more important to address the issue of not having a single person representing British Romanticism or British exploration, than to worry about whether or not the person's still alive."  I don't.  I await the views of others.  The last time the collage was changed was in 2009, not 2007.  And James Cook was from Yorkshire (though his father was Scottish).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, you're correct about that, although a year's still a long time. Correcting accordingly.--Hongkongresident (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rotation would be great if it can be achieved in some fairly sophisticated way to display from a wide range of images - the issue here is that we are spoilt for choice and palettes can reflect different constituent countries, historical periods, movements, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing an easy copy and paste job off the portals can't do. I think what we should do is have a list of must-haves, as Apcbg has listed, and a list of aspects of Britishness that need to represented in the picture, like British literature or British inventions or British explorers, which can be cycled with every viewing.--Hongkongresident (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine in theory, but it could be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think there are many - in fact, almost all - aspects of WP that deserve more attention than this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True. The simpler answer could just be to expand the picture from 21 Britons to a higher number and make everyone happy. On an unrelated note, I've realized we're missing Alexander Flemming, the Scottish discoverer of Penicilin, which no one's mentioned in the talk before.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your last point Ghmyrtle - isn't the point that there are so many possibilities that it would be better to have them change periodically? The rotation could be slow. I would prefer that than we attempt to narrow it to fit particular viewpoints, or get involved in arguments about which should prevail - it's such a big range. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with the approach suggested by Hongkongresident, namely to first develop a list of must-haves and a list of aspects of Britishness.

Must-haves: I confirm my support for Churchill, Nelson, Thatcher, Cook, Darwin, Harrison (or another Beatle), and I would also add Queen Elizabeth II (or Queen Victoria).

Here follow few ‘aspects’ or rather fields of occupation with possible candidates.

Sports: Probably some sports like soccer (Beckham?) and boxing (Lennox Lewis?) that are popular worldwide but with a strong association with Britain too.

Science and invention: From the article United Kingdom: “The United Kingdom led the industrial revolution and has produced scientists and engineers credited with important advances, including:” (lists achievements and, among others, the following persons) Sir Isaac Newton (oops, a non-Briton :-)), James Clerk Maxwell, John Logie Baird (TV), Frank Whittle (jet engine), Charles Darwin, Alan Turing (computer science), Alexander Graham Bell (telephone), Francis Crick (DNA structure), Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web!), Alexander Flemming (penicillin).

Literature: I looked in British literature and the task is challenging indeed (too many superb candidates).

Arts: From the article United Kingdom: “Major British artists include Sir Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Gainsborough, John Constable, William Blake, J. M. W. Turner etc.”

Popular music: From the article United Kingdom: “Prominent British contributors to have influenced popular music over the last 50 years include The Beatles, Queen, Cliff Richard, Elton John, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones.”

‘Unpopular’ music (Benjamin Britten?)

Entrepreneurship (Richard Branson?)

British overseas territories (Peter Caruana?) We should have (along with Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish) someone from this category of British people too, I believe.

Mind it, the above list is an initial one, incomplete and arbitrarily ordered; and I apologize in advance if this approach has already been explored in the past. Apcbg (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the Queens (not Freddie!) and Thatcher, every one of your suggestions is male. Not a criticism per se - but something to be borne in mind.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, that surely ought to be taken into account. By the way, most of the above names are in lists taken from the article 'United Kingdom' not compiled by me.  I did nominate Agatha Christie in a previous posting too.  You would be welcome to bring up categories in which women are better represented or dominant. Apcbg (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Queen Victoria! It's surprising that she hasn't been included (has she been discussed before?). Especially considering how integral she is to the British identity, reigning over the most important period of British history, at the height of British expansion, British culture, and technological innovation and industrialisation. I agree that she's a must have.--Hongkongresident (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather have both queens than choose one of them; they had the mission of embodying Britishness, and both did it outstandingly (one still does) for a very long time, entire epochs actually. By the way, the Americans infobox collage has 12 persons (which might be better than the British 21), including 4(!) presidents and 3 women (I was surprised to see Martin Luther King missing). The Germans have a 25-person collage (plenty of philosophers and composers, appropriately; heavily male dominated too, with 2 women only!), while the French people's collage has 27 persons including 5 women. Apcbg (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

reset
Can we be a bit more structured about this - agree the categories then agree names. The former is easier the latter more controversial (I would argue that Bevin's creation of the NHS makes him a more prominent politician than Thatcher for example as the NHS is (or maybe was) as key aspect of British Culture while neo-liberal economics was a temporary abortion but we can leave that for later). My list would be


 * Semi-mythic (if we go back in time) (eg. Arthur, Boudicca)
 * Literature
 * Childrens authors (a storng point, Rawlings, Ransome etc.)
 * Popular authors
 * Composers
 * Opera performers
 * Painters
 * Sculptors
 * Philosophers (maybe Humanities in general)
 * Popular Music
 * Sports individual
 * Sports team
 * Popular culture (the superbrats, Diana etc. ie people made by the media)
 * Explorers
 * Science inventors
 * Engineering inventors
 * Eccentrics (we are really good in this category)
 * Business/Entrepreneurs

Ideally agree five in each and rotate them (manually if needed) -- Snowded  TALK  09:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When this was discussed in 2008 - not the last time there was discussion here, but the time before that - User:Jza84 came up with a set of criteria, which I think are worth repeating here. At that time we were talking about a smaller collage, but many of the principles still apply, in my opinion.  At least, this list may form a basis for further discussion:
 * 10 people.
 * 5 women, 5 men.
 * 1 "black" person, 1 (south)-asian (the Black and Minority Ethnic population of modern Britain is about 10%, and much, much less historically).
 * 6/7 of them "English", the other 3/4 Scots, Welsh (Irish and even Northern Irish has been very contentious in the past). This doesn't affect point 3.
 * Maintain the criteria as the past, i.e. All must be born post-1707, all must be born in Great Britain, and all must identify as British (if not in a quote then by way of their political, military or sporting allegiance).
 * A mixture of historical and contemporary notable people (the 100 Greatest Britons helped last time).
 * Individuals must have a free-to-use image already on WP, and it must be of a high and befitting quality.
 * No contentious or "distinctive" entries in terms of identity (so no Sean Connery's or Tom Jones's).
 * There are some aspects of those criteria that I, personally, do not agree with (in my view people can still be "British" if they are born in India or elsewhere, for example) - but what do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with the post 1707 to be honest and I would make the gender quality 7:3 on purely practical grounds (Ie I think it should be 50:50 but in reality it isn't) -- Snowded TALK  09:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

_______________________________ Here is some draft collage trying to strike some balance between the various recommendations and suggestions made so far in the discussion. It comprises the following 21 Britons:
 * Isambard Kingdom Brunel • Queen Victoria • Vivian Leigh • Winston Churchill • Tim Berners-Lee • Joseph Turner • Mary Shelley
 * Agatha Christie • Kelly Holmes • Adam Smith • Horatio Nelson • Margaret Thatcher • Richard Branson • Lennox Lewis
 * James Cook • Peter Caruana • Charles Darwin • Queen Elizabeth II • David Beckham • John Lennon • Emmeline Pankhurst.

Apcbg (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I count one Scot and no Welsh people in that set - so, I think those gaps need to be addressed.  The inclusion of Peter Caruana is, to say the least, quirky - I don't think there is a case for necessarily including a person from overseas territories.  So, I would reinstate Aneurin Bevan for Wales and, as a "British" Scot known worldwide I suggest Tony Blair - in place of Caruana and, probably, Branson.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The British people of the UK overseas territories are entitled to being represented no less than the Welsh or the Scots are. Tony Blair is okay I believe; as for the possible Welsh representative, arguably David Lloyd George is a much better choice than Aneurin Bevan.  Perhaps we could keep Branson and Caruana (or rather their respective categories, BOT and entrepreneurship), and consider having a collage of 24 persons instead (4 rows, 6 columns), adding say Blair and Lloyd George, and keeping for now the remaining position available for some overlooked or underrepresented important category. Apcbg (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The British people of the UK overseas territories are entitled to being represented." No they're not - no-one is entitled to be represented at all.  You seem to have a non-neutral position on the inclusion of a quite obscure figure, which seems unfortunate.  Lloyd George was born in Manchester of course, so not a particularly good example.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should probably draw the line at people closely associated with overseas territories and Peter Caruana is clearly not notable enough to be found in such august company anyway. I like the idea of having a larger box with 4 rows. Also I think Snowded is right about the ratios; it will be very difficult to achieve 50:50 for women for example. We can err on the side of having too many, since they can be rotated. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the list so far, but I'd suggest adding another line to include: Alexander Fleming (medicine), Salman Rushdie (representing contemporary fiction, as well as the need for South Asians, as Ghmyrtle suggested), Bertrand Russell (Welsh representative, representing British Philosophy), James Watt (another Scottish representative, helped to start the Industrial Revolution), John Wesley (religion in Britain), James Clerk Maxwell (another Scottish representative, representing British physics), and Alan Turing (British mathematics). And, while I don't agree with the stance, people have complained about Lennon being in the collage in the past, so it might be better to retain Harrison instead. I would have also liked to see Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and Sir Ernest Shackleton, but both are of Irish descent, so it would all be very controversial to add them.--Hongkongresident (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Draft 2
Per all the suggestions above, a new collage (now to 32) that should make everyone happy. 32 Britons, with:
 * 9 living people or very recently dead (post 2000)
 * 9 women
 * 6 with Scottish heritage (excluding the Queens): James Watt, Alexander Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, James Cook, Tony Blair, Adam Smith
 * 4 with Welsh heritage (excluding the Queens): Dylan Thomas, David Lloyd George, Bertrand Russell, Aneurin Bevan
 * 2 with Carribean/African heritage : Kelly Holmes, Lewis Hamilton
 * 2 with South Asian/Middle Eastern heritage: Salman Rushdie, Doris Lessing
 * 2 from British India: Vivian Leigh, Alan Turing
 * No controversial entries (like Sean Connery, Arthur Wellesley).--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rationales for all the entries, from left to right, top to bottom:

--Hongkongresident (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Isambard Kingdom Brunel, representing transportation
 * Tony Blair, representing contemporary politics
 * Vivian Leigh, representing cinema
 * Winston Churchill, representing World War II
 * Tim Berners-Lee, representing inventions and inventors
 * William Wilberforce, representing the abolition movement
 * Mary Shelley, representing early British literature
 * Anne of Great Britain, first monarch of Great Britain, last of the House of Stuart, participated in the Acts of Union
 * David Lloyd George, representing World War I
 * Kelly Holmes, representing Olympic sports
 * Adam Smith, representing economics
 * Horatio Nelson, representing the Royal Navy
 * Margaret Thatcher, representing the Cold War
 * Dylan Thomas, representing poetry
 * Lewis Hamilton, representing competitive sports
 * Richard Arkwright, representing entrepeneurs and business, British equivalent to Henry Ford
 * James Cook, representing exploration
 * Aneurin Bevan, representing the welfare state, as in the National Health Service
 * Charles Darwin, representing biology
 * Queen Victoria, representing the eponymous Victorian Era of the British Empire
 * Edward Elgar, representing classical music
 * George Harrison, representing popular music
 * Emmeline Pankhurst, representing the British suffragette movement
 * Doris Lessing, representing contemporary literature
 * Bertrand Russell, representing philosophy
 * Alan Turing, representing mathematics and computing
 * Elizabeth II, representing the modern monarchy
 * Salman Rushdie, representing contemporary literature
 * James Watt, representing the British Industrial Revolution
 * Alexander Fleming, representing medicine
 * Joseph Turner, representing the visual arts, painting
 * James Clerk Maxwell, representing physics
 * And all of the images are free/from the public domain, all derived from pictures off the Commons.--Hongkongresident (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Very impressive! I suggest you add it to the article and await comments.  I have no objections to that set, which seems to covers all the bases pretty well.  A couple of small spelling errors - Bertrand Russell, Salman Rushdie.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thanks for notifying me, fixing it accordingly. Updating the template, now at Template:32 Britons.--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better with forenames as well as surnames in the caption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also impressed - good job, although I would be tempted to remove Blair as there are enough politicians and put in a chemist such as Dorothy Hodgkin who was the first female Brit to get a Nobel-- Snowded TALK  09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have to put in one or two baddies like Blair, for balance! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got Thatcher, that is baddie enough and Blair was just a mutated version of same. -- Snowded  TALK  10:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Twelve problems and objections
A like the idea of progress, and I like that a lot of sensible criteria have been applied, but there are some things I really dislike about the new montage:


 * 1) The description, attribution and licencing of the montage is completely wrong at commons and unclear (it just copies my original one and so breaches the GA criteria and may be deleted for insufficient attribution).
 * 2) A great deal of the persons selected are not exactly "iconic" (i.e. I wouldn't expect a children's book or something like Encyclopedia Britanica to display them). I don't recognise several of the new entries (and without the description, still have no idea who they are).
 * 3) Is it necessary / best practice to duplicate many persons on both the British and English/Scottish/Welsh people articles (Flemming, Harrison, Bevan, Elgar, Thatcher)?
 * 4) Where is the evidence that Harrison and new entries like James Clerk Maxwell identify as British?
 * 5) Nobody from the world of football, the national sport of the UK?
 * 6) Queens Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II? A lot of mixed European heritage in them and three closely related persons. Are these really good choices?
 * 7) Although iconic of Britain, the Queen is a little tricky if not contentious - my understanding is that she not a subject or national of the UK and does not have a passport; she is also head of state of several nations around the world (and thus is a Jamaican etc); I do not believe she fulfils the fundamental principal of being British - citizenship of the UK.
 * 8) Has Vivien Leigh declared herself British / did she have British citizenship?
 * 9) Is it really necessary to have 32 people? And use an arbitary list of occupations to represent the British?
 * 10) Blair has said he identifies as English. Flemming (to me) is a distinctly Scottish personality, not British. Dylan Thomas is a very distinctly Welsh personality.
 * 11) Stylistically, the mix of greyscale and colour images isn't optimised.
 * 12) Queen Anne was born pre-1707. OK, yes there has been a rationale applied, but try and roll that out on other articles and I think there would be resistence to say the least!

Please can these be considered/addressed asap. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyright information was written down for the test image, but not posted on Commons. I've done so now, so there's no longer any issues with attribution. All the pictures can be confirmed to be free images, derived from others on Commons.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the rest of your concerns: If you have suggestions, go ahead and bring them up. It would be great if you did, the collage needs input and discussion to keep it fresh.--Hongkongresident (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) A great deal of the persons selected are not exactly "iconic": Iconic is very subjective. The selected pictures are considered to be either historically significant, or iconic in their respected fields of interests. For example, Bertrand Russell would be considered very iconic for a philosophy student, who may have no clue who Tim Berners-Lee is. And vice versa for a computer scientist.
 * 2) Is it necessary / best practice to duplicate many persons on both the British and English/Scottish/Welsh people articles (Flemming, Harrison, Bevan, Elgar, Thatcher)? Save for Harrison, all these pictures were included in the original collage (before the update). It's assumed that the previous discussion months ago had established that they belonged.
 * 3) Where is the evidence that Harrison and new entries like James Clerk Maxwell identify as British? They are all British citizens, I think that qualifies. Whether or not they personally identify as British, is another question, and one impossible to verify or answer. It's not something most people declare. Most of the people in the collage are dead, so I doubt we'll ever be able to know for sure.
 * 4) Nobody from the world of football, the national sport of the UK? There was no footbaler in the previous collage. Someone proposed to add Beckham, which I'd support.
 * 5) Queens Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II? A lot of mixed European heritage in them and three closely related persons. Are these really good choices? I strongly disagree with this. Americans come from vastly different heritages, but still identify themselves as American. Benjamin Franklin is of English heritage, had English citizenship, but it would be very contentious to say that he wasn't an American. The same applies here. And of all the pictures, the Queens are the most iconic, and most closely associated with British identity.
 * 6) Although iconic of Britain, the Queen is a little tricky if not contentious - my understanding is that she not a subject or national of the UK and does not have a passport; she is also head of state of several nations around the world (and thus is a Jamaican etc); I do not believe she fulfils the fundamental principal of being British - citizenship of the UK. I don't know much about this, can this be verified? But she is a British icon.
 * 7) Has Vivien Leigh declared herself British / did she have British citizenship? She did have British citizenship. She was born to British citizens, lived most of her life in Britain, and died there as well.
 * 8) Is it really necessary to have 32 people? There's nothing inherently good or bad about it. 32 is an arbitrary number, much as the previous 21 was. One of the benefits of having more people is that they'll be less complaints, there's something in there for everyone.
 * 9) And use an arbitary list of occupations to represent the British? Not occupations, but fields of interests and historical periods. James Cook was, by occupation, a Commander, but is remembered as an iconic explorer. The idea of using fields of interests was proposed because it shows the great diversity of British people in their pursuits, and most importantly, avoids the balance issues that are inherent otherwise. As example: a person interested in film would probably include more actors and directors, something a person interested in science would disagree with. Limiting a person to one field and historical period prevents this issue from happening. And the field thing is not ironclad, it mainly serves as a great framework to base the collage on.
 * 10) Blair has said he identifies as English. Flemming (to me) is a distinctly Scottish personality, not British. Dylan Thomas is a very distinctly Welsh personality. Isn't it possible to identify as both English and British? They're not exactly mutually exclusive. Like how Americans can identify themselves as Italian Americans or Irish Americans.
 * 11) Stylistically, the mix of greyscale and colour images isn't optimised. Was it for the original image? Define optimised.
 * 12) Queen Anne was born pre-1707. OK, yes there has been a rationale applied, but try and roll that out on other articles and I think there would be resistence to say the least! Yes, she wasn't born British, but that was because she created the British identity. I think that merits inclusion. :)


 * Thanks for replying. But I'm not entirely sure you hit the nail on the head - a lot of the answers are speculative and and have sweeping statements (e.g. Anne "created the British identity"? Vivien Leigh "had British citizenship"? - where's the evidence?). I suppose I'm just concerned that there's something of a "pick-and-mix" of loose criteria, and, the above kind of confirms that things could've beeen a little better.


 * However, it's not really all doom and gloom - there are some good improvements. I'd like to come back to this with an adjusted montage using what I'm sure are the better modifications. This should be a good compromise. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  11:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Viven Leigh was a British citizen. See the section at British_citizenship, her father was a British officer in India, this makes her a citizen as well. If you want an exact source, here's one from Voice of America: "She was a British citizen born in India." Whether Anne intentionally or not created the British identity is up for debate, but she did play a huge part in the Acts of Union that established the British empire, and she was the first queen of Britain. --Hongkongresident (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think that clears up Vivien Leigh.


 * Taking all that in to consideration, and looking up through the talk page, here's what I'd suggest for the article (I've uploaded it to my Flickr account to avoid messing with Commons trickery for now). The original 21 are retained (which I think is a good thing - they have endured for circa 3 years and had a stringent criteria), but an extra 11 are added. Cook and Cameron are included (been requested a few times) Thomas and Flemming are removed (per above); Branson is included (a lot of his promotional stuff uses the Union Flag etc which helps); Richard Dawkins is included (more readily identifiable, sharper image, philosopher, biologist and born outside the UK which is something users appear to want); the monarchs are removed but Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons is included (Royal, British subject and Scottish aristocrat which all helps); Amir Khan is a British Asian (who represents the UK). What do we think? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that, the more images we include, the smaller they become, and the more important it is that we have good clearly recognisable well-cropped images. Several of the ones you suggest - most obviously, McCartney, Berners-Lee, Pankhurst - aren't likely to be recognisable.  Can they be cropped?  Personally, I would not go beyond 21 images.  And I really don't think Noel Gallagher is a very good choice - he is outdated, not a global figure, and of little long-term significance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Re Dylan Thomas in particular - I don't think the fact that he self-identified as Welsh should necessarily over-ride the fact that, by legal nationality, he was British. The article covers various definitions of "British people", of which legal nationality is one - not the only one, of course, but it shouldn't be discounted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with retaining the original 21, for the same rationales I gave a week ago. Noel Gallagher and Keira Knightley did not belong, I think replacing them with McCartney and Leigh is justified. And Shelley's a much better choice than Rowling, especially now since the collage has three contemporary writers (Lessing, Rowling, and Dawkins), so it would be better to have at least one person representing Britain's literary roots. (Although it doesn't have to be Shelley, Jane Austen and Lord Byron are fine too)--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a better idea, would be to take the current 32 images, but trim out the objectionable ones to bring the count down to 24. I wouldn't oppose adding a few new ones, like Richard Branson, but even as an atheist and a skeptic, I can predict all the complaints with including a controversial figure like Richard Dawkins.--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would there be "complaints" over Dawkins? And what if there are? I think his inclusion would be an excellent idea.  I'd support McCartney and Leigh over Gallagher and Knightley.  But Oscar Wilde was definitely not British!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true, very true. Can't believe I forgot about that! Jane Austen then. But the point is, we should have someone representing early British literature. And I'm not opposed to Dawkins. But if we're not including certain people due to the possibility of controversy (like Irish figures, regardless of their prominence in British culture, such as Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or the Queens, due to their European heritage), then Dawkins belongs in that category as well. --Hongkongresident (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to go back down to 21. 32 is, in my view, unnecessarily large (the largest oeople montage at Wikimedia Commons by some margin). 24 is probably a good compromise though.


 * So could we agree to a few things? 24 Britains - replace Gallagher, Knightley and Rowling with McCartney, Leigh and Shelley? Retain Bowes-Lyon, Dawkins and Branson taking us to 24?..... OR..... would the 32 version at Flickr suffice as a test? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be a little facetious here, but bear with me. I suggest the following be added to the collage, because they fit the definition of "British" given in this article:  George Washington, George Patton, George W. Bush, Daniel Boone, Daniel Webster, and Daniel Brown.  None of these are, of course, Britons.  The article counts roughly 40 million "Britons" living in the USA, because it includes "...and their descendents" as part of the definition.  If the article is going to define Britons this way, then the collage should represent this world-wide view accordingly.  If we American descendents of the British are not to be included, then please drop us from the definition.  Eastcote (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This new collage should address any and all concerns. It incorporates the suggestions by User:Quantpole and User:Jza84, while removing the contentious entries.--Hongkongresident (talk)06:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The new additions are Rowan Williams (current Archbishop of Canterbury), Bowes-Lyon, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Branson. Current composition consists of: Eight living people, six women, three with Welsh heritage, three with Scottish heritage (two of which are Anglo-Scots), two with Carribean/African heritage, one with South Asian heritage, two from British India, and one from Iran.--Hongkongresident06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to change the caption to the image - they do not match up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)