Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Opinion masquerading as policy?
This is the opinion of a few editors looking as if it is some kind of policy. There is no useful advice to speak of it basically says that despite the fact that there (currently) is only one legal nationality involved, we should make things up as we go along.

Note that I am not referring to national descriptions (British scientist, English politician etc) but to statements of actual nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not policy, it's an essay. It was prepared several years ago after a prolonged debate on the issue to note down the fact that there is currently no consensus, and to provide some suggestions to editors on how to deal with the matter. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to be being treated as policy in some quarters. I think we do need better guidance than this so I suggest an RfC.  I also suggest that we move the article to a more general title such as 'Statements of nationality in articles'.  There is no reason that the UK should be treated any differently from many other countries with distinct reagions with separtate cultures and with a degreee of autonomy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed a section that in my opinion is too extreme. This whole essay is based on a very limited discussion and written by a small number of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My change has been reverted based on an alleged consensus. I really see no real consensus for this essay.  We need to broaden the discusssion considerably. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This essay seems very sensible to me, including the bit you removed. "No consensus for this essay" is probably not true and even if it were it wouldn't be useful. This essay describes an area in which people have failed to reach consensus in the past and gives enough information to let people make sensible decisions.  Trying to replace this essay with a more uniform approach is just an recipe for drama.
 * I say "probably not true" because this essay has survived a long time. That is a good indication that it reflects consensus.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted this essay. The nationality of people from the UK is 'British'. No essay required. I personally don't mind whether a British national is described in the main text as British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, or Gibraltarian, but if we are specifically talking about sovereign nationality under the heading of nationality, then there is only one right answer. That right answer is 'British' and that's what should be stated under the heading of nationality in any introductory info box. British is the widely understood term on the international stage, and it's what people from outside the UK are interested in. People ask 'was he a British or a German scientist?' The English or Welsh bit is additional information for those who want to read more. You cannot usurp the sovereign nationality with a subordinate regional nationality in the main info box, because we need to assume international readership. If I primarily want to know whether Orville and Wilbur Wright were Americans or British, I don't expect to see them described as having Midwestern nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My advice to MH & yourself, is to walk away from this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not apprpriate advice for Wikipedia, the encycl;opedia that anyone can edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with your concerns. I too prefer we use British/United Kingdom in the UK biographies. Just pointing out that you're going to face strong resistance. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation"
 * The United Kingdom consist of several nations, including England, Wales and Scotland, and also Northern Ireland. Taking Scotland as an example, because it is relevant to what has reopened this discussion, we have official confirmation that Scotland is a nation from a number of sources. One is the Court of Lord Lyon (a court of law and a department of the government), when referring to the saltire, the Lord Lyon King of Arms states: "this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality."  (See http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/236.html).  Another recent source is a speech from former Prime minister, Gordon Brown.   In his pre-referendum speech in defence of the union he stated: "The vote tomorrow is not about whether Scotland is a nation; we are, yesterday, today, and tomorrow."
 * No one should doubt that the constituent nations of the UK are anything other than nations, they are most certainly not regions! People who belong to those nations must, by definition, have the nationality of that nation.  Claiming anything else is illogical nonsense.  This is not to say that do not also have UK nationality, and that is what is shown in a passport, but only a minority of people regard themselves as having British or UK nationality as their main identity.
 * Since this essay was first published a very significant event has taken place. For the first time the 2011 census asked respondents to state what national identity they regarded themselves as being: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British (as well as non-UK identities).  Multiple identities were permitted.  The three UK censuses of 2011 are for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.   In the Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales 2011 it is recorded that only 29.1% identified as British with only 19.1% choosing it as their sole identity, by comparison, 67.1 identified as English, with 57.7% as their sole identity. The figures for Welsh were 4.3% and 3.7% respectively.  In Scotland's census 2011, it is recorded that 62% identified as Scottish only, a further 18% as Scottish and British, and 8% as British only.  The Northern Ireland Census 2011 Key Statistics Summary Report states that 39.9% identified as British only (with a further 8.3% as British and some form of Irish).  25.3% identified as Irish only, and 20.9% as Northern Irish only.
 * It is quite clear that in all parts of the UK the majority of people identify as having a single identity which is not British. This is a fact which cannot be countered. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * UK nationality belongs not only to people in the UK, but people in dependent territories as well, because they have the "status of belonging to a particular nation", even if it does not happen to be the nation they were born and live in. That basically included the entire British Empire until after the Great War.  But we describe Billy Bishop as a "Canadian", not "UK national", "First World War flying ace".  TFD (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You overlook the important fact that Canada has become independent of the UK since the first world war, whereas Scotland is still part of the UK, so your analogy with Canada does not hold water. Canadian citizenship came into existence in 1947 as an internationally recognized sovereign citizenship for immigration, passport, and overseas consular purposes. Scotland has no equivalent. Have you ever worked with a group of British people? Once you've got passed the Glasgow accent, how does a Scot differ in any respect from a Geordie, a Cockney, or a Scouser? Do we not see the same diversity of character traits spread equally over each of the regional groupings of the UK? Can you think of a single distinct character trait that sets the Scots apart? Those census questions tell us nothing, because they were asked within a British context. Somebody is trying very hard to argue that British people aren't British. Well they're certainly not French either. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * IP 109.152.249.9, please stick to the facts, your opinions on whether there are differences between the people of the various nations of the UK are unreferenced and have no relevance. The simple fact is that in all parts of the UK it is only a minority of people who regard themselves as British, as proven by the sources provided.  FF-UK (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The facts are that British people are British nationals. I am sticking to the facts. You are citing opinion polls about self identity within an internal UK context. When in trouble with the law abroad, British people will declare themselves as British and they will seek the British consul, and they will be described as British on the news. Foreigners will see them as British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The UK Census, conducted by the relevant authorities in the various nations of the UK, is NOT an "opinion poll" (which is normally a small sample of population), it is an official gathering of information from every household in the UK and published as such. You may not like the facts that it reveals, but you cannot dismiss them.  FF-UK (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are right but the purpose of WP is not publish editors' private research into public opinion but to state facts, supported by reliable sources. The 'nationality' field is not the place to deal with the complex isssues of national identity.  These are much better described factually in the text, for example, 'He was born in Wales to French and Irish parents, grew up in Scotland, did most of his work in London and always considered himself Englsh'.  Facts like that cannot be condensed onto a single field and it is not our job as WP editors to form our own opinions on the subject and then state them as fact.  To our readers, a statement of nationality shoul be the legal and diplomatic nationality as recognised from an international perspective, not an attampt to condense the subjects life history into a single word, or to claim ownership ofthe subject for a specific group of people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing public sources relating to the only official research which has been done on the national identity claimed by ALL inhabitants of the United Kingdom cannot possibly be dismissed as "editors' private research into public opinion". The numbers provided are precisely "facts, supported by reliable sources".  Please stay honest.  FF-UK (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do any of your sources refer to any Nationality other than 'British'. I have no problem with giving the facts about subjects' national identity where we have good sourcing, I am objecting to trying to claim ownership of a person by misusing the term nationality.  If we had a source saying that, throughout his life, Maxwell regarded himself as a Scot through and through I would have no problem in saying that but it would not change his Nationality.

As stated above, definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation", I know of no sources to say that Maxwell was not Scottish. FF-UK (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need a source that says he was not British. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FF-UK, Nobody is saying that he wasn't Scottish. Don't side track the issue. The problem here is that you are trying to usurp his British nationality, which was his sovereign nationality, with a subordinate regional nationality. You have no evidence that Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality. Scottish nationalism was virtually non-existent in the 19th century. Scottish nationalism is a new thing which began with North Sea oil, continued with Braveheart, and culminated in a recent wave of hysteria. But not even the 62% of "Scottish only's" that you mention above showed up on the day of the referendum. The score was 44.7% with the nationalists having been given every conceivable advantage. They even lowered the voting age to 16 to accommodate the nationalists. Maxwell was a British national. He was not a British citizen as the article states, because British citizenship only came about in 1983. If the article is left in its current state, it will be plain wrong. You cannot describe him as a British citizen. It must be British national. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me just add that it would make no difference if Maxwell was uncomfortable with his British nationality, it would still be British. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about Maxwell. This discussion is not about Scottish Nationalism, that has nothing to do with the nationality of people living in the United Kingdom.  Please let us stick to the facts, nowhere in any part of the United Kingdom do a majority of the population consider themselves to be British, either alone or in combination with any other identity.  The referenced census report states that "The highest percentage of the population with a British identity (on its own or combined with other identities) was found in London at 38.3 per cent, an ethnically diverse area."  Just because "British" is what appears on a passport, it is not a valid indicator of the perceived nationality of UK citizens, the majority do not see themselves that way.  And while on the subject of citizens, the Oxford dictionary definition is "A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized" so please let's not waste time with any nonsensical claims that subjects are not citizens. FF-UK (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I see what is going on here. Editor FF-UK appears to be on a crusade to bury British nationality. He's produced what he thinks amounts to conclusive evidence that the majority of British people don't see themselves as British anymore, and so he seems to have taken it upon himself to ban the term 'British nationality' altogether. He's pushing a political cause. That's worse than POV pushing, and this essay written by some editor who is calling the concept of British nationality into question, seems to have been written with the same cause in mind. While wikipedia normally forbids editors from using it as a medium to promote personal opinions, it seems that they have made an exception for this topic, and that the opinions of the author of this essay are being upheld as some kind of legal authority. The abuse of the system therefore goes much deeper that I had at first realized. The RFC would seem to be the only remaining solution. It would be a simple question along the lines of 'should the nationality field in a biographical info box refer to the sovereign nationality, or to a regional subordinate nationality? If it's true that most British people don't consider themselves to be British, and I don't think it is true, then until such times as the British government changes its nationality laws, an encyclopaedia still has to describe British people as British nationals until a new internationally recognized identity is established in law. That hasn't happened yet, and I doubt if it will happen.

I looked at the sources which FF-UK has provided. They fall well short of proving the point which he is trying to make. There is no evidence at all that the 57% in England who only ticked the 'English' identity box on the census form, have actually rejected their British identity. Such widespread rejection cannot be ascertained from a question like that. The census form would need to ask a more specific question such as 'do you reject your British identity?' before any inferences of the kind that FF-UK has been making could be inferred. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, you are making two inconsistent arguments: one is that the people of the UK are the same people, the other is that they are legally all nationals of the UK.  But the first argument justifies using terms such as Scottish and English, while the second would include - particularly historically, when a quarter of the world were legally nationals of the UK - people who were clearly distinct from English people.  And no I do not think a single character trait sets the Scots apart.  Neither do I believe that a single character trait sets citizens or nationals of the UK apart from anyone else in the world.  TFD (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The two arguments look quite consistent to me? I don't get your point. As regards ex-British territories, just use the post independence appellation unless the historical subject was very closely connected with the UK such as by birth. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you have said, "Once you've got passed the German language, how does a Hanoverian differ in any respect from a Zulu, a Chinese in Hong Kong, or a Maori? Do we not see the same diversity of character traits spread equally over each of the regional groupings of the quarter of the world that is pink on the map?"  All of them were after all "nationals of the UK."  TFD (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This argument seems to be moving in the direction that nationality is determined by character, ethnicity or or self-identification; it is not, it is determined by the nationality laws of the relevant states. The people who ticked the 'English' identity box on the census form may or may not have rejected their British identity, we have no way of telling, but whatever they did or thought it makes no difference; all these people have British nationality, whether they like it or not. We must base what we write in WP on facts not guesses of what people are thinking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin has a consistent habit of redefining what others are saying, and then arguing against his own redefinition as opposed to what was actually said by other editors, this is not a helpful way of progressing this discussion. Introducing the concept of 'rejection' of a particular identity is attempting to synthesize something from the census which is not explicit, and therefore cannot be legitimately used in WP. What the English census questionnaire actually asked is "How would you describe your national identity?".  The Welsh questionnaire and Northern Irish questionnaire used the same question.  The Scottish questionnaire asked "What do you feel is your national identity?".  What we do know, beyond doubt, is the national identity or identities chosen by all UK citizens, and that clearly shows that only a minority identify as British.  FF-UK (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We've yet to see a source that prooves these people are not British. We've yet to see a source that prooves that England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are not within the United Kingdom. A human can declare him/herself to not be human, but does that make them 'not human'? GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If we use nationality law to determine how to describe nationality, then we would have lots of anomalies. Dutch during the reign of William III, Germans during the reign of the Hanoverians and anyone born in the British Empire or Crown dependencies were all nationals of the United Kingdom.  Calvin's Case (1608) determined that Scots born after the ascension to the the throne of James I were English subjects.  So any Scot born after 1603 and deceased before 1701 was an English national.  TFD (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Some objective and factual indicators of nationality

 * A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state is subject to all laws passed by the UK parliament. (Parliament may delegate some legislation to local govenment but ultimately its laws take precedence.) This includes laws to which a foreign national would not be subject, such as conscription.


 * A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state will be able to get a Britsh passport, but not one of any other nationality.


 * A person from anywhere in the UK who is not a national of another independent state would have to go to the British embassy to get assistance in a foreign country.

Where did it all go wrong?
Having now studied this issue for the last few days, I can see exactly where the problem lies. The problem lies with this essay itself. No essay was needed. The guidelines were already perfectly clear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph but some editor decided to fudge the issue for the special case of the United Kingdom. Burying the concept of British nationality is a political movement and it is contrary to wikipedia policy to support such political cause pushing. Wikipedia is supposed to stick to the facts. British nationality is a fact. We hear the term 'British' every day on the news. It is not for wikipedia to decide that the term is no longer in use. It is in use. The fact that some people wish that it would go away is not a reason to have an essay like this. I'm sure if you asked Texans do they consider themselves to be Texans, many would say 'yes'. That doesn't mean that we bury American nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IP 109.152.249.9, you are making the same errors as Martin Hogbin, a consistent habit of redefining what others are saying, and then arguing against that redefinition as opposed to what was actually said by other editors.  You absolutely cannot describe the official UK censuses as "a political movement" which is  "burying the concept of British nationality".  Also, you really do need to understand that whereas England and Scotland are constituent countries of the UK, Texas is not a constituent country of anywhere, it is a very silly comparison.  FF-UK (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * England and Scotland are within a sovereign state/country, just like Texas. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I just say that the discussions that have taken place over the last few days show precisely why consensus on the issue could not be reached in the past? On one side were editors who believed honestly and passionately that all people with a sufficiently close relation to the UK should be referred to as "British" in their Wikipedia articles, and on the other side were equally honest and passionate editors who felt that they should be referred to as "English", "Northern Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh". The essay was put together to simply record the fact that consensus could not be reached on the issue, and so editors are advised not take unilateral steps like changing a whole bunch of articles to state "British" without discussing the matter on each article's talk page. Of course anyone is free to reopen the discussion and even take it to RfC if it is thought appropriate, but prepared for a heated and prolonged debate that may not get very far. Good luck. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's too bad, that a consensus can't be reached to use both in the infobox :( GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, Editor FF-UK is engaging in original research and political cause pushing. He is using his own interpretation of census data in order to push the political cause that British nationality does not exist. I'm very disappointed that others haven't noticed what he is up to. British nationality does exist and it's the sovereign nationality for the UK. We hear it mentioned regularly on the news. In particular we often hear it used in connection with ethnic minorities who seem to embrace it with particular enthusiasm. Editor FF-UK has recently been trying to promote the concept of 'Scottish Nationality'. He is not content to simply use Scottish in the main body of the text. He insists on a lot more than that. He specifically wants to usurp the British nationality that should be in the info box, with the concept of Scottish nationality. He is not interested in any compromise. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet again, more dishonest nonsense from IP 109.152.249.9. Citing official sources does NOT constitute original research.  I have not claimed that British nationality does not exist, and cannot, therefore, be accused of pushing a non-existent political cause.  I fully accept what is written in this essay, and have provided additional sources to back this up.  I have pointed out that the census data, which was not available when the essay was written, strengthens the logic embodied in the essay.  What I am against is precisely what the essay is discouraging: "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained." FF-UK (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the reasons for anyone's opinion are that important. What is important is the advice given in the MoS and the facts.  This essay is superfluous. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jack, this discusssion has nothing to do with editors who believed honestly and passionately that all people with a sufficiently close relation to the UK should be referred to as "British". It is not a matter of editors making judgements about relative closeness it is a simple matter of fact. The nationality of people who live in the UK is British, they have no choice in this matter. They will have British passports and be subject to British law. It would be just as silly to be discussing whether we should allow 'Texan' as a nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why, Oh why, Oh why, do we have to have this repetitious nonsense about Texas. Texas is not a nation, England and Scotland are. FF-UK (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * England and Scotland are subordinate nations. They are part of the UK. The UK is a sovereign nation. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that as being the case. It then follows that English and Scottish would be subordinate nationalities, but a subordinate nationality is none the less a nationality. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What criteria would you use for deciding what could be used as a nationality?


 * I have proposed a single clear, easily understood, and internationally logical criterion, that 'nationality' must refer only to an independent state (for current states recognised by the UN).


 * How would you decide? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have an observation to make on the use of the term "subordinate regional nationality". As far as I can tell, this term does not exist anywhere outside this particular discussion, it returns no results on any search which I have conducted.  This is not surprising because it has no discernible meaning, nationality relates to a nation or country, not a region.  There can therefore not be any such thing as a "subordinate regional nationality".  It may seem by some to be a convenient tactic to invent a term and then repeatedly use it in a misguided attempt to make a point, but if the term itself is meaningless, then the arguments employing it are also meaningless.  The term appears to have been invented by the editor using IP 86.145.98.85, see diff of the Maxwell article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell&diff=636487767&oldid=636477939] who then uses it again here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell&diff=636510133&oldid=636496031] and here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell&diff=636575241&oldid=636539119].  The use of IP 86.145.98.85 commenced at 16.25 on 1st December 2014 with a message of support for Martin Hogbin, and continued until an edit made at 15.44 on 4th December.  All edits related to the same subject.  Several hours after the last IP 86.145.98.85 edit, at 20.47, another editor using a new IP address, 109.152.249.9, appeared on the scene with an edit of this page which used the same erroneous "subordinate regional nationality" term, see diff [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom&diff=636659204&oldid=636645770] and used the term again, also in on this page, at 21.09 on 6th December [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom&diff=636932884&oldid=636921017].  IP 109.152.249.9 is still in use at the time of writing, and as with IP 86.145.98.85 is being used exclusively for editing on pages associated with this subject.  Both IP 86.145.98.85 and IP 109.152.249.9 are BT Public Internet Service WiFi hotspots in the Greater London area.  The use of these two IPs for edits which are exclusively associated with InfoBox nationality, in consecutive periods, and with edits from both repeatedly using the erroneous "subordinate regional nationality" term, suggests the possibility that they are both being used by the same editor.  This must be considered when applying any judgement on whether a consensus exists or not.  FF-UK (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason that the term does not generally exist is that there is no general need for it because most nationalities given in WP are real ones; the independent state to whose laws the person is subject (for example US, Portugese, British) . It is only when editors try to create nationalities for internal divisions of independent states (for example Texan, Azorean, Scottish) that the need for the term arises. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the reason the term "subordinate regional nationality" does not exist is that it is entirely meaningless and conveys nothing. And stop comparing the nation of Scotland with places such as Texas which are not nations. FF-UK (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do read Unitary state and Federation. You will see that Texas more reason to claim independent statehood than Scotland.  You resolutely refused to address these issues on the Maxwell page, perhaps you could do so here.
 * Regarding Texas, I suggest that you read the decision of the Supreme Court on that matter. "In the Constitution, the term "state" most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A "state," in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country."  As has been amply demonstrated, the United kingdom consists of several different nations in union.  The fact that the UK government and the Scottish government recently agreed to the holding of an independence referendum, which outcome could have (but thankfully did not) result in the ending of the Union, is a more than ample demonstration of how the two situations differ.  FF-UK (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But, Scotland (like Texas, Alberta, etc) is not independent. Therefore, keep it simple. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could also give your reasons for wanting to allow 'Scottish' as a nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Simply because it is the correct thing to do, and is a long established WP convention. Scotland IS a nation, there can therefore be no doubt (and it has been referenced) that Scottish IS a nationality. The same applies to England. FF-UK (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scotland is not independent, however. Therefore, it's acceptbale to use British, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FF-UK, Your problem is that you are being willfully blind to the British nationality which is supreme over any Scottish nationality. You either state the senior nationality, or you state both. My own view is that you only state the senior nationality under the nationality heading in the info box, and that you can describe him using his junior nationality in the main body of the text. You do not state the junior nationality at the expense of the senior nationality. Scotland is not an independent sovereign nation. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And Anonymous IP, your problem is that you are hell bent on redefining Scottish nationality and identity out of existence! There is no notion of "senior" nationality and "junior" nationality within the acts of union, the founding articles of the United Kingdom. Scotland and England are nations. Wales is a principality. Ireland is a nation, divided in two, one part of which remains in the UK. Despite your claims, Scotland is a Sovereign Nation. It is also, however, part of the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Joint Acts of Union - one passed in the Scottish Parliament (which was suspended until reconvened in 1999), and one in the English Parliament. . You have an agenda, which is driving this entire discussion. FDCWint (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scotland is not an independent state. Since the Acts of Union 1707 it has part been of the Unitary state of the United Kingdom. The article says, 'The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain"'.  You will note on the page that you refer to it says, 'The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force'.  The ultimate power in Scotland is held solely by the UK Parliament.  Scotland has less right to be reagarded as an independent nation than Texas, which is part of  Federation and less right than Cornwall which 'is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation, not merely a county of England, and has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody said "independent state" except you. And since when does statehood matter to nationality? Nationality - belonging to a nation. You have been told repeatedly that the Texas comparison is not valid, yet persist in expounding it. You conflate states with nations quite deliberately to muddy the waters and make your argument fit... and here's the crux of that entire argument - denigrating Scotland and diminishing it's identity. for all your careful talk about wikipedia, this is nothing more than political soap boxing with a deeply unpleasant agenda. Incidentally, as you and Anonymous IP seem to be answering each other's questions fairly fluently, I should ask - are you sock puppeting? FDCWint (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

May I please urge all those who wish to contribute here to take notice of the first item on this talk page. The essay is a distillation of the outcome of previous discussions which can found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality. Martin Hogbin's earlier suggestion that "This is the opinion of a few editors looking as if it is some kind of policy is completely false and simply demonstrates that he had not bothered to actually study it. It is quite clear that an editor who has no previous connection with an article should not parachute in and change the nationality field based on his or her own non-consensual narrow interpretation of what the term means.  There is WP history and practice on this, and there is no excuse for edit warring to attempt to change long established entries on the basis of an individual's PoV.  Martin Hogbin's campaign at James Clerk Maxwell is a perfect example of how not to do it.  Having failed to gain any kind of consensual support on the article talk page, or on this page, or at the Village Pump, on the infobox template talk page, he just keeps on changing it anyway.  That is not acceptable behaviour. FF-UK (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the least surprised by the outcome of these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus on this talk page as at least two editors (before I came) hold completely opposite views to those expressed in this essay. They semm to have been completely ignored.  Whatever it says here has no force anyway; it is not policy or guidance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

James Laidlaw Maxwell the Missionary- An Illustration
Let's illustrate the point using the example of the missionary James Laidlaw Maxwell. First of all, as a side issue, I don't see any reason why we need to write his name in Chinese in the lead, but apart from that, would we describe this man as Scottish? Or would he be more accurately described as British? You can read the Wikipedia article about him here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Laidlaw_Maxwell 109.152.249.9 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this discussion is not about how we would describe someone. That is a very complex subject and would epend on may things.  The disagreement is about how to state a person's nationality.  That should be the simple matter-of-fact statement of the independent state to whose laws the subject is subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to get side tracked when discussing this topic. The issue is as you say, not so much about how to describe somebody as it is about what to write beside their nationality in an info box. Certainly in the case of James Laidlaw Maxwell, the answer would be 'British nationality'. He was a missionary to China and his nationality was British. The born in Scotland and lived in England bit can be covered in the text. Just as a side issue though, why the need to have his name written in Chinese? He was a British missionary to China. Surely his British name should suffice in English Wikipedia. Next they'll be arguing about whether to write his name in Mandarin or Taiwanese, or in Wade-Giles or Pinyin. I say, always keep it simple. Name: James Laidlaw Maxwell, Nationality: British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

British nationality law
Can anyone provide a source for what a British national is? The British British Nationality Act1948 does not define it, but refers to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. That act does not define it either, but begins with "Definition of natural-born British subject." The acts it replaced, the British Nationality Acts of 1730 abd 1772 do not even contain the terms national or nationality. It seems that British national means British subject or in its modern form commonwealth citizen as opposed to alien.

So the argument that statute defines British nationality as citizenship of the UK with right to abode may not work.

TFD (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It does seem pretty clear that a person born in Englend, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland has British nationality, does it not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing that's always bewildered me, is that any editor(s) would oppose the usage of British or United Kingdom in any UK bio articles, be it the infobox or the article content itself. Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland are within the United Kingdom. So what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is puzzling.


 * It is also notable that there is no mention whatever of Scottish nationality in the act. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing puzzling about it - you can see the issue right here, at work. It is not enough for Martin Hogbin to assert Britishness, he must also deny Scottishness. This is not about accuracy or correctness, it is about the imposition of doctrine, the stamp of one culture being dominated and crushed by another. As I commented at the Village Pump, this sudden interest in removing all mention of Scottish identity from articles cannot be taken in isolation from events happening outside of wikipedia. Since the 19th Setpember, a particular group of Pro-Unionists have taken to pushing "You're British 'til you die".  gives a flavour of the material being posted around the internet - in media outlets, in graffiti, in chanting and abuse. The 2011 Census results from Scotland  showed conclusively that a vast majority of the people living there consider themselves "Scottish Only" (62%), with a smaller group considering Dual identity "Scottish and British" (18%), with a tiny rump that consider themselves "British Only" (8%). It is this particular rump that is being pandered to by removing "Scottish" to supplant it with "British" in articles. Also, I have to ask - has anyone confirmed yet whether the Anon-IPs that have been active on this subject from BT Wifi HotSpots are related to Martin Hogbin? FDCWint (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus, who is talking about "dominat[ing]" or "crush[ing]" a culture? And where has this debate anywhere been about "denying" or wanting to exclude references to Scottishness? No one has deleted "Scottish" as the primary description in the first sentence of the lead of that page or suggested it should be removed; nor has anyone denied the existence of the Scottish nation or Scottish national identity – or even "Scottish nationality" in some uses of the term in some contexts and some sources. The basic point is about being consistent, across articles, by what we mean by "Nationality" in an infobox field, based on one generally and internationally understood standard. WP editors are so inflamed by nationalism and cowed into paranoia that they can neither follow an argument, it would seem, nor understand that any serious publication has to have consistency and clarity in how it defines and uses specific terms. They should also stop pointing to this essay as some kind of policy or anything more than a discursive rumination about national identity in the UK – which, incidentally, pace this "nationality can mean anything any individual editors on any individual page want it to mean" argument, does not of course mention those people from the UK who take a broader perspective and could therefore be said to have "European" nationality or "Nationality: None". No wonder I and others have given up editing here.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * N-HH, I do understand where you are coming from but, for the moment at least, I will fight on against POV pushing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin, while people born in England, Scotland etc. have British nationality under the act, so do people born in Canada, India, Bermuda and over 60 other nations. The point is the Nationality Act is a red herring in the discussion, unless you want to include all the Commonwealth citizens.  TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Only while those countries remained colonies, which the no longer do. People from the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar do have British nationality and they are very proud of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD, You are looking at old British nationality law. Modern British nationality law does not consider Indians to be British. I would describe a 19th century New Zealander as having British nationality, but for the second half of the 20th century, I would leave the British out. First half of the 20th century, I would describe them as a New Zealander and ascribe them British nationality.86.180.33.175 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gov.uk defines six types of British nationality, including "British subject." It says, "All citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983."  But all that happened in the change to the British Nationality Act 1981 (which became law 1 January 1983) is that a new class of "Commonwealth citizenship" was added and British subjects were re-named Commonwealth citizens, and earlier legislation that said "British subject" now applied to Commonwealth citizens. (Section 37)  The Act itself does not define nationality and does not say that Commonwealth citizens ceased to be British nationals.  Indeed they are still able to live, work and vote in the UK, although entry clearance is restricted to Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born in the UK.  The act also extended citizenship to the children of UK citizens (Section 2) and Irish people who had served the Crown were classified as British subjects (section 31).
 * Even if you think the 1981 act removed British nationality from Commonwealth citizens, it is not extremely old legislation, and it would mean that any Commonwealth citizen who died before 1983 was a British national. Under public international law, which does define nationality, citizens of Commonwealth nations that were recognized would not have been considered British nationals, whatever British nationality law said.  UK nationality law is not helpful in finding a useful definition for British nationality, partly because it does not define British nationality.
 * TFD (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This essay needs to change
It is quite clear from British Government sources that all citizewns of the UK have British nationality. This essay should reflect that fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started the process by adding a well sourced section giving details of the position according to British nationality law. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This bolt on paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb. It's clearly an add on, and breaks the flow of the remainder of the document. I have attempted to resolve this, whilst leaving your content in place, by moving to the opening section. I think you recognised that it belonged up there in a sense by linking to it. This is cleaner, because it sets the background legal position, but does not interfere with the thinking process of finding the correct label to use. UK law is no more definitive than common use. FDCWint (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of the word 'British national' is in common use daily on the news. Are you somehow suggesting that we should pretend that it doesn't exist, despite both the law and the common usage? 86.180.33.175 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to contribute to this discussion, sign your posts. I will not argue with an anonymous IP sock puppet. FDCWint (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not attack other editors or accuse them of sock puppetry. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and although I would recommend all editors to register ther is no obligation to do so.


 * As 86.180.33.175 points out, the use of the terms 'British national' and 'British nationality' is common in the media. I have never seen the term 'Scottish nationality' used at all in news media.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment about the media is a side argument, which does not relate to my point. I believe that this essay represents the nuanced position well - it tries to navigate the multiple identities of people who live in these islands, and seeks a sensible path. You are hunting around for the right way to impose your view - that everyone born in the UK must be described as British, not Scottish, English, Welsh - none of the constituent nationalities - in a palatable fashion. At every challenge, you simply try another route to the same (I believe) flawed end point. That you have been so disparaging about the constituent parts of the UK, insisting that they are lesser - or do not exist at all, shows a particular POV; yet you claim to be resisting POV-pushing. At it's simplest, the statement of Scottish or English nationality provides more information than simply stating British. As you have said repeatedly, everyone who is English/Scottish/Welsh is British. If you use the more granular descriptor, and you impart more information. Anyway, we will clearly not agree on this subject, and I have said my piece. I hope that your efforts are not successful. FDCWint (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no argument about how people are described or about self-identity these are complex subjects that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The argument is about the claim of a Scottish nationality when it is quite clear from British government sources that such a thing does not exist.  I have not said that anyone should be described as British only that their nationality is British. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats another big fat porky pie. FF-UK gave a link to a government website which talks about Scots nationality.  71.228.66.131 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is unwikipedian language. The web site is not a goventment web site (.gov.uk) but one that deals with heraldry and the like. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 71.228.66.131, thank you for reminding us of that.
 * Martin Hogbin I do not know what a goventment (sic) web site is, but The Court of the Lord Lyon is most definitely an official court with both criminal and civil jurisdiction, the official website of the court is www.lyon-court.com and includes reference to "the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality.". Should your disbelief need further proof, then I recommend this .gov.uk website which links directly to the website which you falsely claim is not a government site.  You might also learn from this official government page which describes the appointment of a former Lord Lyon, I chose this because it was published at a time prior to the SNP administration, in the hope that you would not dismiss it as having nationalist overtones.  It has useful background, and it also makes clear that the current legislation under which the court operates dates back to 1867 (although the court itself is much older).  As I said to you previously at the JCM talk page "Are you seriously trying to make out that the website of The Court of the Lord Lyon is not an official site?  that is lunacy, as for your faulty idea that only the gov.uk domain constitutes an official government site, then here are two more which completely disprove that: www.supremecourt.uk and www.jcpc.uk - or perhaps you are about to tell us that they are unofficial too?  Get real!"  When you have already been found out making a particular false statement, why do you later repeat the same mis-truth? FF-UK (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FF-UK, it has been suggested on the WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents page that I volutarily stop discussing the British/Scottish nationality issue with you so I am doing this. I hope you will do the same. I still suggest that the obvious and neutral compromise is to leave both fields blank.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your move is fine with me. It does fit in better at the start. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The word Nationality has, in English, two quite distinct meanings. One legalistic, the other emotional. And now we run into difficulties since "nationality" also becomes a political issue. Personally, I don't see why Wikipedia pages have to use some particular *legal* criterion to decide what someone's nationality is or should be or could have been. This has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and using all the good wikipedia editing policies which we have. I think it would help to make clear, in all disputed cases, that there is not really a dispute at all: there are just two different common meanings of the word "nationality" and they sometimes disagree. Problem solved.

If you want to insult someone, tell them that the "government" says that their nationality is different from the nationality which they think they have. The legal use of the word nationality comes from the legal concept of nation-states. The word "nation" has to do with "birth", in other words, identity by birth. Something like "tribe". Very emotive, very political -- and at the end of the day, artificial, almost imaginary (though nation states have power and that is what this discussion is really about: power. Power to impose meaning onto words). Some categories which we use in common language are more nuisance than use. Richard Gill (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why I have suggested that we leave the 'nationality' field empty in contentious cases, such as James Clark Maxwell.


 * I would not object in any way to having two infobox fields, one matter of fact one called 'Legal nationality' or the like, and another one called something else. I am not sure what we would call the other one and how we would decide what to put in it and I would advovate the same principle and above, that if it is very contentious we put nothing.


 * On the other hand, it would be quite clear what the 'Legal nationality' was and it would in nearly every case be non-contentious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nationality (de jure) and Nationality (affective) Richard Gill (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. There are a couple of problems though.


 * How would we decide what to put in the Nationality (affective) field, and how would our readers know what we had decided?


 * It might be a fight to change the infobox as it affects many articles. I would support the change though.  My main point is that we should make it clear exactly what information we are imparting to our readers.  At the moment nobody knows what 'Nationality' means or how it is decided. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I've always found this essay (and it's just an essay) to be more bother then it's worth. I wouldn't shed a tear, if it were deleted entirely. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree but it is not going to happen, we can only hope to improve it.

My only concern is that we do not mislead our readers
The problem with stating 'Nationality - English' in an infobox is that, by what seems to be the most common understanding (from Googling it) of nationality, many readers may think that the subject is a national of the independent state of England. That is misleading, as no such independent state exists.

I have no objection whatever to stating in some way that the subject was English, born and bred in England of English parents.

I understand that if we state this persons nationality as 'British' some people (but probably not so many) will think that he self identified as British and had no special English characteristics. This problem can be solved as you suggest by having Nationality (de jure) - British.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the article Nationality needs refining first. Richard Gill (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Look up the word in the dictionary. There are *two* meanings. And by the way, the word has only been used in these ways (the two concepts have only existed) since about 1830. The "nation state" is a disastrous nineteenth century invention which has caused more trouble than it's worth. The word has always had political and emotional overtones. It's all about power. Richard Gill (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the word 'nationality' has two meanings, that is why we must make clear which of the two meaning we are referring to when we state a nationality. I would have no objection to two fields, nationality (de jure) and nationality (assertive, as you have called it).


 * The problem is that if we have just one field for nationality our readers will not know whether it is intended to show the 'de jure' nationality or the 'assertive/ethnic' nationality.


 * I think that most people would expect to find the de jure nationality in an infobox. The other kind, which does not even have a name, is harder to define and even harder to agree upon but I would have no objection to having two clearly defined nationalities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Under public international law, a national is someone who owes allegiance to a state even if they do not live in that state, are not a citizen of that state, have no ancestry from that state, and/or are not allowed to enter that state. For most people, the term nationality is a synonym for citizen. But nationality ≠ citizenship. TFD (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alot of problems in this area would be solved, if we just eliminate the Nationality/Citizenshp field from the bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Info-boxes are better for non-controversial facts.  TFD (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people agree that England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are countries. When you ask someone where they're from, they tell you which country they're from. States come and go, countries tend to have longer existence. One talks about one's fellow countrymen, countrywomen. I think that (state/legal) nationality and citizenship are pretty uninteresting features of persins described on wikipedia. Their country is interesting. The country they are from, perhaps also the country they made their home, if it is different. We are talking about fellow human beings (I hope), not about administrative items. Richard Gill (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a person's background is more interesting that their de jure nationality. It is often more complicated so we should not attempt to summarise it in an infobox field.  We should describe the facts in the text, if they are considered important, (born of XXX parents in YYY.  Lived in in ZZZ until x the educated in AAA, etc).  The problem with the infobox field 'Nationality' is that it is use by various groups to claim ownership of the good and the great.  This is not the purpose of WP.


 * So, to make my position clear, I am thouroughly against having the (assertive/ethnic) nationality in the infobox because it cannot sensibly be done in many cases, will often be contentious, our readers will not know what we have done and why, many will expect to find the de jure nationality in an infobox, and it is open to abuse by groups who want to claim ownership of a person.


 * Regarding the infobox field, I would be happy with any of: delete it, leave it blank, put only the de jure nationality, and rename it 'Nationality (de jure)'. All of these options will have problems.  Deleting the field will affect many articles where the nationality is not the least contentious.  Editors of those pages will likely object to what they will see as the pointless removal of useful information.   Agreeing to leave the field blank if there is any significant disagreement sound good but there will still arguments about what 'significant disagreement' is.  Putting the de jure nationality in the field did not get much support at the village pump.


 * For the UK, one compromise option, proposed on the Maxwell page, is to put 'British (Scottish)'. This is in accordance with nationalities shown on British army records so there is some precedent for this.  It does allow some ownership claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nationality means nationality and citizenship means citizenship. That is why this infobox has both fields and has had since 2007. If editors can take the trouble to inform themselves of the difference and edit in accordance with the meanings of the two different words, there will be no problem. In fact, historically this essay has helped ensure that there has been no problem. This current discussion is largely predicated on one particular editor, their nationalistic agenda, and their resulting deliberate misunderstanding of what nationality means in relation to the nations of the United Kingdom. In the era 1707-present, for example, a Scottish person has Scottish nationality and British citizenship. James Clerk Maxwell is a good example of this. I know there is an agenda that wishes this were not so, but it is so and this has been established by countless discussions, resulting in this essay. The long-standing consensus that this essay represents is just fine. There is no need to consider bastardised suggestions like "British (Scottish)". At a certain point, these continued faux-misunderstandings of nationality and citizenship become disruptive. A month's worth of querying this topic which the community has already settled is plenty. --John (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may, John. Both sides, shouldn't be suggesting any agenda behind each others stance. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse John's response. Consensus here (and elsewhere) is to maintain the advice on defining nationality in Wiki bios currently given in this essay. Perhaps it is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Daicaregos (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing & frustrating, that a majority of editors are opposing your proposals, Martin Hogbin. In 2012, I got a 2-year topic ban from British & Irish articles, for refusing to 'drop the stick'. You're gonna have to accept the way things are on Wikipedia. If a majority of editors favour 'blue is red', then 'blue is red'. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A two year ban?!! That is outrageous, I can see the reason for your advice.
 * Can you provide a link to the case please? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's at ANI archive 740. If you've any further questions on it? bring it to my userpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I well understand the difference between nationality and citizenship. It is explained in this Summary of British nationality by the British Government and in this govenment overview. You will notice that it is imposssible for a person to have British citizenship and not have British nationality.


 * There is much talk of a consensus for this essay. There clearly is none on the talk pages here.  Can anyone give me a link to where such a consensus can be found. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can you not see that a majority of editors do not support your proposed changes, no matter how many trips to the well you make? You are disparaging of the existing consensus - this essay describes the nuanced reality of nationality and national identity within the UK - your repeated attempts to enforce UK government statements as over-riding authority are disruptive. I had ceased editing on this subject, as it appeared that you were going to voluntarily do the decent thing and drop this highly contentious change... and yet, here you are again. Drop the drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. FDCWint (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify - This essay is a result of a lack of consensus for any overall usage on these bio articles. The essay suggests that each UK bio article determine its own usage. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, to "agree to disagree". To recognise that there is no single encompassing one true version, and to do the best in good faith to represent the individual. In what way is this improved by imposing a UK government endorsed legalistic interpretation? And why now? why is this topic so suddenly broken that it needs this change? I have already highlighted (and it has been studiously ignored!) that this is not a wikipedia only phenomenon, and in the wake of the constitutional upheaval in the UK this year, there has been a protracted effort to impose "Britishness" in the public space. Why not offer an alternative explanation? why is this topic suddenly so worthy of dispute?FDCWint (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My observation, is that MH's is concerned that the essay is being used as tool to promote that there's a consensus to use English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish in UK bio articles, when in fact there's no such consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct. My opinion, supported by several other editors, is that we should give 'British' as the nationality of people from Britain but I have stepped back from that and supported two compromises. One is that we should not give any nationality (or citizenship) until there is a clear consensus, which there is not at present.  The other is to use 'British (Scottish), which was proposed by another editor.
 * Disputes in Wikipedia should be resolved by civil discusssion. That is what I am trying to do.  I will start a straw poll below on the two compromises. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You completely ignored my question. AGAIN. *WHY* is this suddenly so pressing? Why now? Each of your so called "compromises" achieves the same outcome; either Scottish is removed completely, or made subservient to British. Your entire argument is a naked assault on (my) national identity. I'm dropping out of this discussion completely now. It's hard to see someone attack my nationality over and over again. And yes, my nationality is "Scottish" whatever you, or the UK government says FDCWint (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just happened to be looking at the Maxwell article and noticed that the nationality was shown in the infobox as 'Scottish'. When I changed it to 'British', which I considered to be correct, it was reverted.  That drew me into this argument, which I later found out had been running for some time.  Now perhaps you could answer my question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite reading this entire page of pointless discussion top to bottom, I don't see a hanging question from you. What did you ask me? FDCWint (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I ask again, there is much talk of a consensus for this essay. There clearly is none on the talk pages here.  Can anyone give me a link to where such a consensus can be found. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FDCWint, You are misrepresenting the situation. Nobody is trying to remove 'Scottish' from any article. If the nationality and citizenship fields in the info box are removed altogether, there will be no mention of the word British in the article (not that I would have a problem if it were), and Maxwell will be described as Scottish in the lead. What is your problem with that? 86.180.33.60 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have made clear, I'm not debating with an anonymous IP. You are entirely welcome to edit articles in Wikipedia, as per policy. as far as I am concerned, you don't exist. FDCWint (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Some examples
Here are some examples with contentious national identities from other articles (in which I have not been involved) showing how the subject was dealt with there in an NPOV and informative way.

Marie Curie No 'Nationality' field in infobox, but:

Residence: 	Poland, France Citizenship: 	Poland (by birth) France (by marriage)

Frédéric Chopin

No infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

No 'Nationality' field in infobox, but:

Citizenship:

Kingdom of Württemberg (1879–1896) Stateless (1896–1901) Switzerland (1901–1955) Austrian of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1911–1912) German Empire (1914–1918) Weimar Republic (1919–1933) United States (1940–1955) Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
The proposal is that if there is any significant disagreement we should not show the 'Nationality' or 'Citizenship' infobox fields at all.


 * 1) Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) 86.180.33.60 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) dave souza, talk 08:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) TFD (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Surely an anonymous IP does not get to vote?FDCWint (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) FDCWint (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) FF-UK (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolute nonsense. Given "British" is read as "English" by a majority of people, it's downright misleading. And, intentionally or not, racist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) 71.228.66.131 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) We had this discussion before. Talk:James Clerk Maxwell... Hafspajen (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) This whole debate is nonsense and a waste of everyone's time.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article", per MOS:INFOBOX. A subject's nationality, as stated in the article, is a key fact. Daicaregos (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Adam, the proposal is not to show 'British' but not any show nationality at all.


 * Daicaregos, And how would you determine that nationality? If some sources say Prussian and some say German do we just leave it at Prussian? 86.180.33.60 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither Prussia nor Germany is within the United Kingdom, so beyond the futility of this discussion taking place at all, Prussia, Germany etc are outwith the scope of this discussion, such as it is. --John (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland are within the United Kingdom, however. Therefore, I'm bewildered by the resistance to use British, but not surprised by it. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know your contributions here are in good faith, GoodDay, so at risk of prolonging a debate that is not really going to go anywhere, I will answer this one. The problem is one of subsidiarity. In the modern age, Scotland is in the United Kingdom, which in turn is a member state of the European Union. If we are discussing a person born in Scotland, should we call them Scottish, British, or European? It becomes a judgement call, and one which is definitely best left to the judgement of editors on an article-by-article basis. This is a long-standing consensus which is very well understood by the majority of editors in this area, and has led to the creation and widespread acceptance of this essay. The whole situation does not bear useful comparison with any other in the world and may be regarded as a sui generis one. If, for example, we were to describe David Hume or James Clerk Maxwell as being British, it would make just as much sense to refer to Margaret Thatcher or David Cameron as being European. In practice, almost all attempts like this to revisit or standardise usage in the area are ill-intentioned and disruptive, which I believe this current one also to be, especially by this stage. The essay rightly recommends against such attempts to standardise, for reasons which those following this discussion who are blessed with any degree of cluefulness must surely be able to see by now. --John (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The European example doesn't hold water as a comparison. Europe is a continent, while the United Kingdom (like Poland & Germany) is a sovereign-state. Anyways, it's time for this straw poll to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The EU has many attributes of a "sovereign state", as does the UK, as does Scotland, as has been discussed ad infinitum here and elsewhere over a very long period. Even if you do not get the EU comparison, you must see that we are not suddenly going to change this long-standing compromise via a straw poll. Perhaps this matter should be added to WP:PERENNIAL. --John (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We ain't gonna agree on the 'Europe' example. Anyways, I'm calling for closure on this straw poll :) GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
This must surely be an obviously WP:NPOV proposal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And now, like Homosexuality was once labelled "the love that dare not speak it's name", we will have "Scottish" - the nationality that cannot be spoken, but must be hidden away, in case it annoys the British Nationalists. This is not a compromise, it's another route to eliminating any assertion of Scottish identity. FDCWint (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not allow personal emotions to get in the way, please. Using terms like "British Nationalists", is no more acceptable then (for example) "Scottish nationalists" or "Welsh nationalists". It's impossible for any of us to know what each other's motives are, so we shouldn't be using such 'terms'. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be less able to remain unemotional if it was your own nationality that was being attacked repeatedly. Talk pages on Wikipedia are an open book for the Internet to see, which means that the discussion of tactics where our favourite Anonymous IP editor, who always pops up in the nick of time to Agree with Martin, says "I think the next move should be to remove the nationality field in the info box on the grounds that there is no consensus about a definition of nationality, and so the field cannot be allowed to be abused by separatists" Diff: makes it completely transparent that this is a premeditated attempt to act against "separatists", the favourite BritNat slur for a Scottish Nationalist... Again, this entire discussion is about forcing one political POV to be adopted as Wikipedia policy. FDCWint (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those comments by the IP are also unhelpful. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all comments attacking other editors are unhelpful. Can we get back to discussing the subject at hand which is just what we put on the 'Nationality' field of infoboxes. Some editors want to put 'Scottish' and a similar number want to put 'British'.  Neither side has persuaded the other so I am proposung a neutral compromise, which is to leave the field blank.  This is not an attack on anybody nor a restriction of what we can put in the text of the article but a proposed way out of a dispute that has become deadlocked.


 * There are similar isssues with other biographies and, as you can see above, the examples shown have all been resolved by putting nothing in the nationality field of the infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yawn. You still here Martin? Does the fact that you are the only person who feels strongly about this tell you anything? There are a bunch of other things that need done more than propagandising on this settled issue. Why not do them instead? You've been banging on for over a month now without attracting any real support; people have been very tolerant so far but that won't last forever. --John (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of support, just look above and on the Maxwell page. Please do stop attacking other editors and making claims that I am a lone voice.  I have looked through the talk pages and there is not and never has been a consensus for what is written in this essay.  I am looking for consensus now for a neutral NPOV compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Irish Question
You know, Ireland, up until the 1920s, was part of the United Kingdom. We happily label people's nationality as Irish who come from before Ireland existed, and Martin Hogbin has said he agrees with this. Which means he's quite happy to ignore all his arguments when they aren't being used to suppress "Scottish". The arguments used to say that we never, ever, ever could call Maxwell Scottish get thrown right out the window when it comes to Oscar Wilde or Michael Balfe or William Rowan Hamilton.

"British" is read by the majority of readers as synonymous with "English", and, as such, using "British" for a Scottish, Welsh, or Irish person is cultural imperialism. Nothing less.

It is racist. Maybe not intentionally, but it is, as it gives the achievement of one nationality, Scottish/Welsh/but not Irish, to one that is usually considered, technically incorrectly, to be synonymous with English. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO - Wilde, Balfe & Hamilton are British. However, I've no intentions of pushing that on the UK bio articles :) GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Adam, that is way over the top. "British" may be seen by an element of readers as synonymous with "English", but the fact remains that it is not the same thing. Encyclopedias (at least, serious ones) shouldn't be pandering to that falsehood. We should be in the business of ramming home the differences between British and English while maintaining absolute neutrality. Suggesting that it's racist or cultural imperialism to call a Scottish or Welsh person British is ridiculous. I am a mixture of Cornish and Welsh, and do not consider myself even slightly English, but I am absolutely British. I am perfectly capable of holding British nationality without it ever, even one iota, compromising my Cornish or Welsh nationality or worrying about it making me English in some way. An article about a Scottish person who is/was a British citizen or national should clearly state Scottish and British. Same with Welsh and English, although Northern Ireland is a trickier matter. To mention one without the other, or to "suppress" either, is simple bias and inaccuracy. I just wish Wikipedia could reflect reality rather than the views of the people who edit here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that British is the correct nationality to show but I have proposed a compromise above to try to end this argument. The compromise is to do what other pages with comtentious nationalities have done and show no nationality at all in the infobox where there is any disagreement.  Can there be anything fairer amd NPOV than that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm saying that British is correct in these cases, I'm not saying that it's the only nationality to show. I don't really think that it's NPOV to omit facts, any facts. One question: if no nationality is shown in the infobox, what is shown in the text? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * British, should be shown in the intros of all the UK bio articles. However, that'll never be possible, per the opposition it creates. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. I wonder if this is one of those aspects of building an encyclopedia for which consensus will never provide an answer. In such cases I'd generally recommend sticking with the wording used by the first substantial contributor, or very long-standing wording. Not very satisfactory, but at least it should promote stability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) FDCWint (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) FF-UK (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Hogbin claims I made this proposal, NOT TRUE.  I only gave an example to show the goverment position is not always just British like he says it is!! 71.228.66.131 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Same comment as above in the other "voting" section.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Daicaregos (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
A second choice for me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise the validity of this straw poll. Wikipedia does not do votes and these proposals have now gone past WP:POINT territory and well into the Republic of Troll, Horse District. --John (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also reject this poll. You are trying to force a choice between two choices, when the third; "Leave it alone, and continue as at present" is deliberately left out.FDCWint (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposing both proposals is the status-quo option. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. I have marked opposition to both proposals, although I recognise that Martin's strategy is simply one of attrition here. He will keep on flogging at this until other editors acquiesce or give up in disgust. FDCWint (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason this "straw poll" is hogwash
This essay embodies the (correct) idea that the nationality of people from the United Kingdom is a subtle, nuanced and sensitive area. It therefore does not make sense to hold a vote that proposes any kind of "one-size-fits-all" solution. This seems kind of obvious. --John (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The de jure nationality of people from the United Kingdom is 'British' plain and simple, many editors, including myself have argued that that is what we should put in the infobox.  However the other meaning of 'nationality' is exactly what you say 'a subtle, nuanced and sensitive area' should not therefore be condensed by a few editors here into a single word.  It is a difficult problem, we can either put the de jure nationality in the infobox, argue endlessly about 'a subtle, nuanced and sensitive area'.


 * I am now suggesting a way out of that conflict, which is to do as has been done on the Einstein, Marie Curie, and Frédéric Chopin pages and leave the nationality out of the infobox altogether. What is your objection to that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see. Are Einstein, Marie Curie or Chopin British? The answer to this should give you a clue. --John (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. Well said John! FDCWint (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No John, They're not British, so what is your point? 86.180.33.60 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that, as they are not British, there is limited usefulness to comparing them with this argument. The nationality of British people is a somewhat sui generis case, hence the existence of this essay. You might notice there are no essays at Nationality of people from Poland, Nationality of people from Germany, or Nationality of people from France. Ever wonder why that was? --John (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In agreement with John, that there'll likely never be a solution for the UK bio articles. Indeed, we've rarely (if ever) seen disputes over the usage of Polish, German, French, etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If the straw poll is hogwash, why dispute its being held? GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that it is being held, I just think it is a waste of time and I tell you ahead of time I will not be bound by any "conclusion" reached by such a flawed process. --John (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay's advice "Do not enforce uniformity", has been prooven accurate in that there continues to be no consensus for either versions. We can't enforce British or English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish across the UK bios. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have marked "oppose" in two sections above but I agree this is simply a waste of everyone's time; like the John Clerk Maxwell article, the "discussion" is just going round and round and round in circles. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Close
Though it's only been 3 days, I'm sure many here can gather that neither of the 2 proposals in the straw poll are going to be adopted. Whether we like it or not (I sure don't), the 'article-by-article' method continues to be the preferred method by the majority of participants. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources! Sources! Sources!
It is a Wikipedia fundamental that we rely on sources. It may be useful to look at how sources have been used in the discussions on UK nationalities, both here and at Talk:James Clerk Maxwell, where the current debate commenced.

The nationality of Scottish ascribed to Maxwell in the infobox appears to be based on the two sources cited in the lede. The first is A Westminster Parliament motion about “great Scottish scientist James Clerk Maxwell”, it is signed by 108 MP's, mostly English, and including only 7 nationalists. The second is the bio published by the Science Museum in London which states “James Clerk Maxwell was a Scottish physicist”.

Those wishing to change the infobox have cited an entry from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which describes him as British, however this is a notoriously unreliable source which provides incorrect dates for his birth, his time at Edinburgh Academy, and his time at Kings College London (The current Encyclopaedia Britannica describes him as 'Scottish'. The only other source cited for Maxwell being British as opposed to Scottish is an offline rehash of the WP article, apparently frozen during one of the brief periods when the infobox was changed to 'British'.  Obviously WP cannot be used as a source for WP!

Some sources specifically stating that Maxwell had Scottish Nationality have been cited in this discussion (JCM1 and JCM2). Many other sources which have not previously been cited describe Maxwell as Scottish. There is more detail on this at Talk:James Clerk Maxwell.

There has been much debate about the meaning of 'nationality'. We have a dictionary definition which states "the status of belonging to a particular nation". This raises the question of whether Scotland is a nation, That Scotland IS a nation has been supported by a number of sources, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister David Cameron and the Daily Mail.

A specific government reference referring to Scottish nationality has been cited. The source for this, 'The Court of the Lord Lyon" has been queried, but as this is a very long standing part of the Scottish Judiciary the challenge is groundless. An archived reference of an American commercial website has also been cited, this makes the same statement and attributes it to information from the Scottish Parliament Public Information Service in 2002, five years before the first administration formed by the Scottish National Party.  Other sources used to establish the status of the Lyon Court have been cited, the Scottish Courts website, and an archived announcement (pre SNP government) about a previous Lord Lyon appointment.

There have been a number of claims made that Scotland is NOT a nation, that Scotland is a "British region" or a "region of the UK", and that there is no nationality of Scottish. No sources have been cited to support any of these claims. Instead references have been made to a number of sources which simply do not mention Scotland, these include: The UN, The National Records of Scotland, 1914 nationality Act, 1948 nationality Act, 1981 nationality Act, Summary of British nationality, and Types of British Nationality, of course none of these disprove the existence of Scottish Nationality, they just do not mention it. The idea that 'British' is the only appropriate nationality to be applied to a citizen of the UK is further eroded by a parliamentry source which lists the descriptions of nationality which are used in official documents of the British Army, these do NOT include the simple statement 'British'. Elsewhere, 4 BBC news items, news1, news2, news3 and news4 were quoted as evidence that the BBC only used 'British', hardly of any statistical significance, and again, the absence of a mention of Scottish or Welsh does not disprove their existence, especially as none of the subjects were Scottish, or Welsh.

A dictionary definition of 'citizen' has been provided: "a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized". Claims have been made that Maxwell was not a 'British citizen' as that only came into existence in 1983, and that Maxwell was a 'British Subject', but as the definition shows, subject is merely a subset of citizen, so the claim is meaningless. It has also been claimed that "Citizenship is a Roman concept that was only introduced to British nationality law as recently as 1983". However, a Scottish history written during Maxwell's lifetime clearly shows that citizenship was a meaningful concept at the time in question, when speaking of the Union of 1707 it states "... the Scots agreed to this, provided the trade and citizenship of each country should be free to the other". A common citizenship (British) was clearly important to the Scots at that time, but there is no evidence that they sought or agreed to a common British nationality.

An editor at the village Pump discussion on this quoted from an article on National identities of people living in Britain: "Allthough everyone in the UK has a British citizenship they have different nationalities". This was dismissed out of hand by the editor at the centre of this dispute because the quoted source was a junior school website, but that editor failed to notice that the origin was a respected educational website which makes clear good sense. Certainly a lot better source that quoting second hand WP sources!

Government census sources for England and Wales, [http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-web/area.html#! Scotland], and Northern Ireland have been quoted. These clearly show that in no part of the UK do the majority of the population self-identify as British, but as English, or Scottish etc.

I leave it to other editors to draw their own conclusions as to whether the available sources support the changes proposed by Martin Hogbin and the 'wandering IP' FF-UK (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nationality has three meanings: culturally as in Scotland or Quebec; in international law as someone owing allegiance to a state, for example  Scots and Quebecers were nationals of the UK; and as a synonym for citizen.  When we put it in the info-box it is unclear which is meant and should be omitted.  But in the article we should use the most common descriptions.  Robbie Burns and Dylan Thomas were Scottish and Welsh poets, while David Cameron is a British politician.  TFD (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it were up to me, I'd use British & United Kingdom for the infoboxes & intros for all UK bio articles. However, it's not up to me :) GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does Scottish nationality matter? Here's why....
Martin Hogbin and the wandering IP are both clearly very certain in themselves as to the rightness of showing British as the nationality of Scots, and their refusal to accept that there is such a thing as the Scottish Nation. I believe that this lack of understanding of Scottish culture, and the true nature of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, is not an uncommon attitude in England. It leads to misunderstanding and mistrust between individuals and cultures, and detracts from the achievements that have been made as a result of the individual nations being associated in union without having become a single culture. Three quarters of my adult life has been spent in Scotland. I love Scotland, its people and its culture, but will always identify myself to others as an Englishman (married to a Scot), I never pretend otherwise. I have friends who behave the same way and we are rewarded by fitting comfortably into Scottish society, whether English, French, German, Polish, Australian, Canadian or American. I know many others from south of the border who have come to Scotland for work reasons, and have chosen to adopt an attitude of misplaced superiority, regarding Scots as somehow 'quaint'. Unsurprisingly, these folk tend to be uncomfortable in their new surroundings, their attitude leads to them perceive their Scots colleagues and neighbours as anti-English, and they rarely stay more than a few years. I am sure that this potential for cultural mismatch is not peculiar to Scots and English, but it takes on an enhanced form between those of either nation who choose to live in the other without taking the trouble to understand cultural differences.

A recent book, 'A New Race of Men: Scotland 1815-1914' by Michael Fry (2013), explores the influences of 19th century Scots on present day Scotland, and the rest of the UK. A review from The Institute of Historical Research (IHR) at the University of London gives a good flavour of the book, and will be useful reading for those who have difficulty understanding the issues. A couple of quotes from the review:  "Fry devotes considerable space to the great Scottish institutions that survived the union and helped define the nation, notably the law, the kirk and education." and "... a complex story that Fry unravels in an attempt to explain the dichotomy of commitment to union while sustaining Scottish difference. Indeed, much of the discourse here concerns nationality and how it impacted on the politics of the period."

Scots are justly proud of the contributions which their countrymen have made to the world in many fields of endeavor, and have an understandable resentment when great Scots are relabeled as 'British'. The achievements of Scots philosophers, writers, economists and politicians are rightly celebrated, but perhaps the greatest contributions have been Scottish inventions and discoveries, they are well described in the linked page, so I will not repeat that here, but will refer to the quote at the top of that page from the great American Nobel Laureate, Richard Feynman who said "the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electrodynamics".

Here are some quotes from other great men and women who rightly recognize the specific achievements of Scots:

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778).

"God help England if she had no Scots to think for her." Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950).

"Our Scottish theory … is that every country has need of Scotchmen, but that Scotland has no need of the citizens of any other country." Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour (1848-1930), Prime Minister from 1902-1905.

"You [Scots] come of a race of men the very wind of whose name has swept to the ultimate seas." Author and dramatist JM Barrie, creator of Peter Pan, speaking at a rectorial address on courage at St Andrews University, May 3, 1922.

''“Scotland has never ceased to amaze the world with its forward vision, bold action and great educational institutions. Nothing makes me more proud than to promote this wonderful land with all its richness and diversity wherever I go.”'' Evelyn Glennie

The wandering IP asked, about James Clerk Maxwell, "That's all very well, but you haven't explained why an info box should state his nationality as Scottish as opposed to British." Perhaps the best explanation of why correctly identifying Scots nationality matters comes from one of the greatest Englishmen of all time, Winston Churchill: “Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”

As we have seen, there are more than enough sources to establish that Scotland is a nation, and that Scottish is a valid nationality. I express my sincere hope that, in a sense of New Year good-will, we can agree that the guidance expressed in this essay remains appropriate. FF-UK (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's likely never going to be a consensus on these matters. So let's close it down. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion
A long dormant discussion at James Clerk Maxwell was re-opened on 26th October 2014. Thereafter it continued both there and in a number of other forums, including here, the Village Pump, and the raising of an Arbcom case request. The decision of the Arbitration Committee to decline Martin Hogbin's case can be found here. On 12th January 2015 Martin Hogbin posted the following statement on the James Clerk Maxwell talk page: "I will not edit this page again. It seems that Arbcom are not interested in fixing what is likely to lead to the downfall of WP; editors here deciding what the truth is. This is problem in many other places. The concept of an encyclopedia seems to have been lost. I have lost all faith in WP and do not intend to waste much more time here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)"  I have added this sub-section in an attempt to reflect the context of this discussion. FF-UK (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)