Talk:British people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBritish people has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed


Confusing

[edit]

A basic point – what is a 'British' person? – is unclear in this article. The lead defines it with some clarity and the final sentence mentions the diaspora, separating its members from 'the British'. But later there's "Britons – people with British citizenship or of British descent", which redefines 'British', and the presence of a diaspora map in the infobox and a (very long) list of countries implies that the diaspora is also 'British'. I'm confident that there aren't 72 million British citizens (the opening sentence definition) in the US. How we can clarify for readers? EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English people tend to think of 'British' as a term invented to be inclusive of the Scots, Welsh, and Irish. Primarily they take it to mean Celtic people, people with hairy legs. Burraron (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should simply make this double-usage clear: it can refer to people of "British descent" (English, Scottish, Manx, Welsh, other historical British Isles) or it can refer to people of British citizenship. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

[edit]

I wish to hyperlink the name of the author of reference number 236, as a Wikipedia page has been created for that author recently. DetuchVonzer (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ferien (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


British peopleBritons – Per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Nations that have a singular non-gendered unambiguous name are usually labelled as such. Only in cases where such a form doesn't exist, as with French people, Dutch people or Japanese people, is the form "foo people" used. This is a common name as well, see Ngram results. Privybst (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. What is the consistency argument? "British people" is hardly lengthy or cumbersome. Briton may well be a common name but, as an article title, has the disadvantage of ambiguity, in that the Ancient Britons are commonly referred to simply as Britons; I imagine this will have influenced your Ngram result. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...so Oppose Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mutt Lunker that is what I mean with the consistency argument: User:Privybst/UN member states nations. Privybst (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it is another "perfectly normal and accurate term" and it is not "puke-inducinng" but the issue is as to whether it is a preferable term to the existing title. Per above, it is not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you don't say "a British", like you say "an American" or "a Canadian". British is only an adjective, never a noun. If you want to use a single noun, you say "a Briton". There's nothing wrong with the word and it's completely current. I would happily describe myself as either British or a Briton (or English or an Englishman). As I said, I'm not sure I agree with the suggested change, as British people probably is the commoner term, but to describe it as "puke-inducing" or to say "what century are we talking about here" is ludicrous and fairly insulting to Britons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that is your point, those are the very things I was referring to when I said "agreed". And we are also agreed that that does not tip the balance in favour of the proposed change. Double-agreed, hooray. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I was replying to Sirfurboy, not you, hence my original indentation which you then altered! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, there's clearly been an element of misunderstanding but, as Sirfurboy made no ref to the "puke-inducing" comment and I did, it was reasonable to assume that that, at least, was addressed to me. In regard to whether this proposal is worthy of adoption, the three of us are evidently not in support. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of British citizens in the United Kingdom

[edit]

I don't want to get into complicated discussions here, but British people in the UK are clearly the entire population, except for those who do not have British nationality. So, according to the House of Commons Library, there are only 6 million people in the UK who are not British nationals. So if we take that number and subtract it from the total population determined by the World Bank (the same source used in the article), we get 61,326,569 British in the UK.

House of Commons Library:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/#:~:text=There%20are%20fewer%20foreign%20nationals,population%20is%20concentrated%20in%20London.

The World Bank:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=GB Lewishamsmith (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logical though this is, we can't do it. Please read WP:SYNTH. You can't use numbers from two different sources to calculate a new number that is not in a source. If a published source has done some calculation, you an cite that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is simple math WP:SYNTH? The chart doesn't show this because a chart showing what "100%" looks like isn't very helpful, so the number is the British diaspora (e.g., includes Australians of British descent living in Britain, but excludes British citizens of non-British descent.) DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The calculation is simple, the contention behind it is not and is unsourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess

[edit]

This whole article is in need of a complete rewrite. It is way out of date on recent Archaeological discoveries and on modern DNA research. There is too much reliance on books by TV presenters rather than historians in the references. Panama1958 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]