Talk:White British

All Jewish people?

Jewish people are also defined to be White British by the United Kingdom Census.

Does this mean Oona King qualifies as white?! Timrollpickering 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

White refers to what people identify themselves. Dark skinned Southern Euriopeans are classed as white and so are Turks. A fair looking high cast Indian could choose to tick that he/she is white if they wanted, boosting the white population even higher! 92% white? more likely in its mid 80s.

I am, frankly, quite surprised that the Turks are classified as white in Britain. It seems that Britain is vastly different from other European countries in this respect. --217.172.29.5 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

please american south european don't equal to south american. Indigenious people of all europe are white!!!!!!!!!!so yes even the southern europeans are white, they haven't dark skin like iranian or indian people or south american people!!They're differents!! go to Spain, Portugal, Italy , Croatia etc... people are white here, yes they have suntan, they live in the south, but still white!! they also are blond hair, with blue or green eyes and even red haired people with freckles in south europe !!! this is Europe!!!not america!!Fol2choco (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By your definition then nearly all Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are White as well. 86.178.230.146 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of the statements above are misleading. Some South American countries do have a significant portion of whites. 47% of the population of Brazil is white, from there were several German, Austrian, Polish, white Jewish, Italian, Swiss, French, Spanish, Norwegian and Ukrainian immigrants, although the Brazilian government insists in portraying the country as 'black' for political purposes. Many Europeans from the South are indeed white, not 'tanned', except for a portion of them which was mixed due to invasions. Besides, the skin of an Asian, even when lighter, does not have the same complexion as the skin of a non-mixed white, nor do they have the same eyes, nose and cranial features. Whoever stated that the other user tried to make a definition of white is wrong because he didn't made that attempt, he just described some traits such as 'blonde hair' etc which a non-mixed Asian could never naturally have, and that's perfectly common sense.--191.180.102.168 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wilde

Is Wilde the best choice for a picture? Under modern rules, given his political views, he might well be classified as 'White Irish' (people in NI who identify as Irish are). 134.226.1.62 11:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher Picture?

Margaret Thatcher Picture? --Collingwood50 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this article correct?

In the 2001 census the category 'White British' is a sub-category of the group 'White'. The others being 'White Irish' and 'Other White'. The information given relates to the whole group i.e. 'White' as opposed to 'White British'. For example 92.1% of the population is 'White British' + 'White Irish' + 'Other White' = 92.1% if you see what I mean. Therefore this article doesn't actually descibe the group 'White British' at all. I appreciate that this is entirely down to the ONS refusing to break down the figures for the 'White' group, even though they routinely do this for other groups.

Romper 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)romperRomper 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The numbers shown are incorrect - 92% is the entire white population (White British, White Irish and White Other). See here[1], for a closer representation. --sony-youth 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article now claims that 92% (54 million) of the population is White, not White British, and has done for a little while. I know because I made the change. Be that as it may, there is a source that claims that there were 50 million "White British" people in the UK in 2001 (this would be about 86%). The source is not more specific that this figure.[2] with a link to The different experiences of the United Kingdom’s ethnic and religious populations. Alun 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

For the life of me I don't understand why this article was created. I can think of no real reason for it to exist. All it does is give a few unimportant details from the 2001 census, that are available online from the ONS anyway. The term "White British" is only applicable to the census anyway, no one refers to themselves as "White British", and certainly no one ever considers their ethnic group "White British". We're all either English people, Welsh people, Scottish people, Irish people or just plain British. Most of the information from the census is wrong. For example it claimed that the average "White British" household had 2.4 children, when the citation clearly stated that the average "White British" household was 2.4 people. It's a very badly written article, why does nearly every sentense start with "White British"? I'm thinking of AfDing this article, it has no merit, "White British" could just as well be redirected to Briton. Alun 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobbs, I agree with you man, and I dont know who is creating all these Asian, White/European, and Black/African "ethnic group" articles which is borderline stupidity if you ask me. I mean articles on the individual races is one thing, but its not like these groups are some fully cohesive group in each of these countries. However, not every British Isles person that is White is English, Irish, Welsh, Cornish or Scottish, and theres numerous White immigrant or immigrant-descended groups like Arabs, Berbers, Jews, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Norwegians, Spanish, etc. 69.157.107.88 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is no point in this article it nothing more than details from the census White British is not an ethnic group. --Barry^talk 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should be nothing more than a disambiguation page, stating that 'White British' is a census term, and directing readers to the pages of the English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish people. I don't know why on earth Dark Tea (and all you other fools) are in such a rush to create new ethnic groups out of thin air. Let's just get a bunch of people, put them somewhere, and name them based on colour and location rather the genealogy, history and heritage (sigh).

It's revisionism on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a 'White British' ethnic group. There has never been one, not in a thousand years, and there won't be on in the next, so why is it masquerading as one? Michael ^talk 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"White British" is not a census category in Scotland. The choices were White Scottish or White Other. This article is about a census category, not an ethnic group. That should also be clearer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's inaccurate and your conclusion is similarly so. The two categories offered in place of "White British" were "White Scottish" and "Other White British" (reference here - so White British was still an implied category and is used for statistical purposes by incorporating both subcategories in the Scottish census - it just happened to be more specific than the one in England and Wales. --Breadandcheese 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group

An infobox for ethnic groups was removed recently on the grounds that "White British" were not an ethnic group. Considering this tag is applied fairly liberally to other groups, exactly what denies it this status?--Breadandcheese 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• White British is an evelop name for people of indigenous British Isles origins - English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh; so where is the article for the 3 million "Other Whites" which envelop the large Polish, Greek, Italian and German communities across Britain??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is an infobox for Black British and Asian British, why not one for White British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.235.218 (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word indigenous

Really ought to be removed, since White Britons are not indigenous to the British Isles. Even if you go back as far the Celts, you'll find that they were migrants who traveled west from Celtic centres on the Rhine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.86.230 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That could be said about all "indigenous" groups around the world, yet they would be offended by you saying that they are not really the "indigenous" people of the land, if you said that. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the use of the word indigenous should actually be encouraged in all areas. "White Britons travelled west" - everyone came from somewhere else. We - native Britons, those who are British by ethnicity - are the indigenous people and we are the majority and as far as 50 years ago, 99% of the population of Great Britain was indigenous and we are one of the most homogenous indigenous populations around today. Look at the last major wave of non-British white migration to Britain with the Normans - this was the time that indigenous Polynesians were still finishing their colonisation of the Pacific. Does this make them less indigenous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.150.190 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the category used on UK census forms. These forms do not use the word indigenous. The article is about demographics, it is not an article about either (1) ethnic identity (white British is not an ethnonym) or (2) the descendants of a putative prehistorical population of Britain (which would be indigenous in nature). Keep the article relevant to the subject at hand. If you want to contribute to articles that do discuss the various ethnic groups/nations of Great Britain and Ireland, or the various phases of colonisation and population movements out of and into this geographical region then I think the articles you are looking for are as follows:

1. Genetic history of the British Isles
2. Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland
3. English people
4. Irish people
5. Scottish people
6. Welsh people

Cheers. Alun (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article might be about the category but the category of white British as contained in this article entirely covers the indigenous population and not otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.188.234 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends what you mean by "indigenous" doesn't it? For example do you count English people? Some theories postulate that English people are the descendants of a mass migration that occurred about 1500 years ago. Does that make them alien invaders, or doe sit make them indigenous? How long does a people have to be living in a region to be considered "indigenous"? The word indigenous is overused and little understood. The UN uses it to mean something like "the original population that existed in a region prior to a mass recent colonisation", so Native Australians are indigenous and native Americans are indigenous, but the UN would not count the white population of the UK as indigenous, see Indigenous peoples. Besides all this we are an encyclopaedia, we don't include original research, we simply report what our reliable sources tell us. What you want to do is include the word indigenous because you believe that the term "white British" is equivalent to the term "indigenous to the British Isles". That's not what our source says, the census makes no claim regarding the origins of the population of the UK, that's not what it's for. Alun (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there such as thing as "indigenous British"? If so, perhaps there should be an article on Wikipedia with that name, that details what it is. --Rebroad (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as an indigenous British person. Unlike every other ethnic group on the planet, British people came from Mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.81.185 (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this now for a while and perhaps it's too soon to make a reasoned comment, but I shall. I believe that the term indigenous is an accurate and appropriate term for the "white British" group. The points against, I feel, are easily outdone. - Indigenous has been hijacked by the BNP - Well, the BNP or anyone can and should be allowed to say anything they like with the confines of the law. Yet just because a group whom many hold with great contempt chooses to use particular language does not invalidate that language. - White British came from elsewhere - every indigenous person not residing in sub-Saharan Africa has ancestry that must obviously come from elsewhere. What is important about indigenous is that the word has come to mean first people - incorrectly a synonym for aboriginal - and that wherever there are people, there are a first people. Some of those first people have arrived in recent times; some have been settled for many thousands of years and had adapted quite well until recent arrivals from elsewhere. White British people are predominately descended from people who arrived before the Romans came to Britain. Waves of cultural exchange have had little impact on the genetic pool of the British. The Welsh, English and Scottish identify themselves as different peoples based on factors that are cultural rather than genetic. In essence, they are one family growing up in separate rooms of the same house. - Claiming indigenous heritage is racist - Not necessarily. Many people who are black or brown skinned will be indigenous to Britain due to heritage that is native to Britain. For example. They may have one parent from Africa yet one from Yorkshire. Or a grandparent from Yorkshire. Or Aberdeen. They are still indigenous. Their heritage may not entirely be from the British Isles but they are still a descendent from its first people. Colour should never be a determinant in indigenous identity. - How do you know that your family have been here that long? - Ask this question to any other indigenous person and you'd be done for indecency. We don't. If someone identifies entirely with Britain, that is enough. If someone can irrefutably dispel links with another land, that is enough. It's enough in the Americas. It is enough in the UK. Remember: one doesn't have to be 100% descended from the first hunter gathering humans to cross the landbridge from France into Britain 15,000 years ago in order to be indigenous to Britain. They have to recognise some, yes, but not all. Were it all, then nobody alive today, except for a few tribes in the Amazon, would be indigenous. The term indigenous is not racist, it is not limiting and it is not offensive. About 85% of the British people are indigenous and this is a decreasing number. Some may think that's a good thing, others a bad thing, but it is a reality. Maybe as the aboriginal Britons become an increasing minority in their own land, the term indigenous or aboriginal will hold more weight. Until then, if we are to judge other indigenous peoples by terms of fairness simply because we do not live there, we must likewise recognise that we can be white, the majority, those in charge and, oh my gosh, the direct descendants of the people who first settled this land after the last ice age, and recognising this harms nobody. Enzedbrit (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

infobox

An infobox is needed here. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to have an infobox for UK census categories? We would have to have a different infobox per census because the categories change from census to census. It's not a bad idea though, an infobox dealing with demographics that can be used in any UK census category article might be an useful thing. Would you like to have a go at making one? I just removed an ethnic group info box, that's for the simple reason that this article is not about an ethnic group. As it says clearly at the head of this article "This article is about the UK census classification", and census classifications are not the same as ethnic identity. Alun (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

25%

"25% of the total UK population or approximately 14 million of the white British claim Irish descent"

Is that 25% "white British" or 25% of "white", "white Scottish", "Other White British" and "white British"? (taken from the earlier paragraph: "In Scotland the classification was broken down into two different categories: 'White Scottish' and 'Other White British'. The classification did not appear in Northern Ireland where the comparable classification is described simply as 'White'.")

If only white British then it should say "25% of the total English and Welsh population ..." --PBS (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the citations, I think I have found the source: Ethnicity & Identity. AFAICT the 25% is a misreading. "People from the White British group were more likely to describe their national identity as English (58 per cent) rather than British (36 per cent)." which makes at least 94% do not describe themselves as Irish and that does not include Scottish and Welsh (as shown in the graph). I think the misunderstanding is that about 25% of the "white Irish" consider themselves British not that 25% of the UK population consider themselves claim Irish decent. --PBS (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice piece of deductive reasoning ;) Alun (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

infobox

If there are infoboxes for British Mixed, British Black and British Asian, why not for White British, they are also racial categories for the census, not ethnic groups! It's not fair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.235.218 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So fix it - this is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If there isn't an infoxbox for White British it isn't due to some global conspiracy to keep White British people down-trodden and oppressed, it's because no one's created it yet. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The infoboxes are for ethnic groups. This article is not about an ethnic group, it is about a category in the UK census. White British is not an ethnonym, no one ever refers to themselves as "white British", usually one would refer to themselves as British, English Welsh etc, and we have ethnic group articles for these groups, see British people, Welsh people, English people, Scottish people etc. British Asian and Black British are ethnic groups, members of these groups would refer to themselves by these names, they are proper ethnonyms, see how these articles don't start by simply stating that this is a census classification, but hat it has a use distinct from that used by the UK state. As for Mixed British, I agree, it shouldn't have an infobox because it's not a proper ethnic group. On the other hand, if you want to create an infobox for use in census category articles, then that would be a good idea, but let's not confuse demographic articles with articles about ethnic groups. Thanks. Alun (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What does 'ethnic' mean? Some British people and English people have roots and cultures from other countries where their parents and grandparents are from, like Pakistani Britons and Indian Britons or Russian Britons. White British means someone with no foreign ancestry or ancestral culture to identify with. Even though the culture of young White British or English people is African American, i.e. rap and hip-hop, they are not descended from them. White British people are not considered an ethnic group in their own right but non-White British people are. English people are not an ethnic group according to Wikipedia, but all British people born in England! A lot of Asian or Black English people do not identify with English culture but with the culture of their parents country. They call themselves English whilst rejecting England's culture for their ancestral one!!! That is why the English cannot be called an ethnic group coz even though most are Whites, it includes everyone born in the country. Even most White English people prefer American or French culture to the English one, as it is seen as old-fashioned and embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.107.81 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's take the comment "White British means someone with no foreign ancestry or ancestral culture to identify with." Does that mean that someone with, say a single Irish grandparent can never be considered "white British"? Who says that? The Census doesn't have strict "rules" here, it doesn't say, what you claim in this statement. What about someone from the Near East? Someone from Iraq may consider themselves white (I know this from experience). If someone from Iraq did consider themselves white, and also did consider themselves British, what is to stop them from describing themselves as "white British" on the census? There is no law here, the census is recording how people see themselves. It doesn't provide strict rules about how one can classify oneself, and one certainly can't be prosecuted if one defines oneself as "white British" even if one has a significant amount of non-British ancestry. What about people like Rosalind Franklin? Is she "white"? Why is she not British? What about someone like Peter Ustinov, he certainly described himself as British, and he was "white" according to how these things are usually determined in the UK. How about the descendants of the Hugenots? Relatively speaking that could represent "the largest wave of immigration of a single community into Britain ever". Are their descendants "white British"? What does "foreign ancestry or ancestral culture" mean? If we are to believe some historians and archaeologists, there was a mass migration of "Anglo-Saxons" to Britain in the sixth century AD, does that represent a "foreign ancestry or ancestral culture"? I don't believe so, I ask simply for clarity. It seems to me that you choose selectively when to claim someone as British or white, with so called white people more likely to be considered British in your eyes even if they do have a foreign ancestry or culture (e.g. is Jewishness a foreign culture?).

Then let's take the statement "Even though the culture of young White British or English people is African American, i.e. rap and hip-hop, they are not descended from them." Well no, but nearly all African Americans have some European ancestry, about 30% of African American men have Y chromosome types usually associated with Europe, and the average African American has between 15-20% European ancestry, in the context of slavery, that probably means that amongst African Americans there is probably a significant British ancestry. So we certainly share a biological relatedness with many African-Americans just as we do with many European Americans.

Then there's "White British people are not considered an ethnic group in their own right but non-White British people are." Really? I've never heard of a ethnic group called "non-white British". That most certainly is not an ethnic group, and I'm amazed that you would claim such an ethnic group exists. But "white" is not an ethnic signifier, it is a "racial" signifier. The only group to use another color terminology for race is Black British, but black British is not necessarily an ethnic group. How do you define Black when it applies to people? It's not an ethnic designator. Is a Black British person from Africa from the same ethnic group as a Black British person from the Caribbean? I don't think so, the African person will have a very distinct and different cultural and social norms to the Caribbean person. Likewise often the term Black in the UK has been used to refer to any person with significant and obvious non-European ancestry living in the UK. Although it is less common these days it used to be common for people of subcontinental Indian origin to refer to themselves as Black. So Black British is not an ethnic group. I believe that British African-Caribbean community is more like an ethnic group. You are conflating census definitions with ethnic groups. Furthermore it is normal for the dominant group not to have an distinct ethnic designator. That's because dominant groups normally see themselves as "normal", while minority groups are seen as "different". If you want to go and find a reliable source that claims that there is a "White British" ethnic group that is comprised of only those people who can "prove" they have no "foreign" ancestors, then please do. We'll include it in the article. But the census definition does not draw this distinction.

What about "English people are not an ethnic group according to Wikipedia, but all British people born in England!" The Wikipedia English people article makes no such claim to my knowledge, and if it did such an exceptional claim would need a reliable source to support it, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Obviously there are a great many British people who are born in England who do not consider themselves English.

And "A lot of Asian or Black English people do not identify with English culture but with the culture of their parents country. They call themselves English whilst rejecting England's culture for their ancestral one!!!" So? Who says that to be English one has to subscribe to every element of English culture? Even within England culture is heterogeneous, people in different parts of England engage in different cultural activities. Are you suggesting, for example that unless someone is a member of the Anglican Communion they cannot be English? Or what about if they don't like football or cricket or rugby? Does that invalidate them from being English? What about Morris Dancing? I'm at a loss to understand which elements of English culture are deemed essential to being English. As far as I can see much of the cultural heritage you demand is essential to Englishness is rejected by the vast majority of English people. But that's a digression, this article is not about Englishness.

You ask "What does 'ethnic' mean?" That's an excellent question. It's not very easy to define, but I can give you some points.

• It isn't defined by ancestry or biology. Ethnic groups are not clades and they do not follow any phylogenetic or phylogeographic partitioning. We do not define them though any biological criterion. Kinship may be important in certain types of social organisation, but in anthropology kinship does not necessarily mean a blood relatedness.
• Ethnic groups are social groups, their membership is constantly in flux, they may feel like concrete entities with a fixed boundary to those who are members, but they are not. Who knows their ancestry past a few generations? I consider myself Welsh, but I know that three of my grandparents certainly didn't consider themselves Welsh, they were from England. One may have numerous ancestors who didn't belong to the same ethnic group one belongs to, and be totally unaware of the fact. E.g. see here
• Ethnic groups are transient. We may think that ethnic groups are somehow constant and permanent. But by any objective measure that are transient. There was no English ethnic group before the time of Alfred through to Athelstan, which is when ethnogenesis really started. That ethnogenesis was as much about a common Christian cause against a Pagan opponent as it was about a single ethnic group fighting a "foreign" ethnic group. Even then the Danes in England kept a separate identity at least up until Ethelred the Unready ordered the St. Brice's Day massacre in 1002. But prior to these events there is no evidence that people thought of themselves as "English" so much as Wessexian, or Mercian or Northumbrian. Likewise with the Welsh, the Romans didn't encounter "Welsh" people, they encountered Silures and Ordovices. Indeed even much later we cannot think of a Welsh people, there were people of Gwynedd and people of Deheubarth.
• Ethnic groups are like other identities, they vary with context. I feel Welsh when I am in England, but I feel British when I am in Finland. This is normal, we oppose our identities to the culture/society that is around us. A Black British person from England may well feel more Caribbean when in England, more English when in Scotland, and more British when in the Caribbean or elsewhere abroad. Even from a white English person's perspective this may be true. That person may think of a black English person as not really English when they are in England, but when they meet a Black English person in a foreign country the context will highlight the similarities rather than the differences.
• What constitutes the cultural norms of an ethnic group can and do change constantly. Curry is one of the favourite foods of British people, there are "British Curries", these are British versions of Indian subcontinental foods. Just as Britain has changed the identities of it's recent immigrants, so those immigrants have changed British identity. This is normal and is happening constantly. Don't kid yourself that there is a "normal" British culture. The past is a different country. Do you really believe that you could be transported back to say 1600 and fit in normally? Of course not, we are not our ancestros, and the norms that made up their culture and society are not the norms that make up ours.

But for more see ethnic group. Cheers, Alun (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chileans don't stop being Chilean just coz they don't dance the cueca! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: May I make a couple of points?:

1. I've removed the image from the infobox as it was possibly one of the worse examples of anachronism I've ever seen anywhere - to the likes of Shakespeare and the Bruce, Britishness was a concept of the future by a few hundred years! (it's like saying they were part of the European Union!)
2. Most of those depicted in the infobox image did not participate in the 2001 UK census. I've removed them.
3. "White British" is an ethnic group (ethnic groups can have any criteria they want), but we should only be listing and showing people who identify as such; forcing it on people is not an appropriate way forwards: Ethnicity is “a relational concept. That is, the existence of one ethnic group or identity presumes another. Ethnicity, then, is both a matter of how people see themselves and of how they are defined by others” (Mason, 2000). Therefore although one may view themselves as part of the Igbo people, others may see them as Nigerian, Sub-Saharan African, African, Black African or African. Closer to home one may see themselves as ethnically Scouse (if they choose to be then that's their choice) but also Northern, English, British, White British, Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, European or White - ethnic groups are always negotiated and context sensitive.
4. White British is an ethnic group defined by the ONS to provide the most useful and relevant statistical data at the time of that census; it may change at any time, although is unlikely AFAICT.
5. The image should not be restored for WP:BLP reasons.

Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do actually find it offensive that we are unable to treat White British people in the same way as other British ethnic groups such as Black British or Asian British where they do have images in their info box. However i agree with most of the points made by Jza84 and the image should not be re added. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how much I agree with, but would be happy to participate in a drive to improve and monitor the article as a link to ONS census analysis. Personally I find just about every reference to "ethnic groups" "offensive", but I accept that a majority might disagree with me on that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I've just removed another image. It had people (like Adam Smith) who did not participate in the 2001 census (though did define himself as British (not White British mind)), and also Kelly Holmes, who I imagine it is fair to say did not list herself as White British. If we want an image in this infobox, then we need to work out a way forwards before we impliment it. If a simillar image is restored again without discussion I will use WP:BLP powers and lock out editors/articles to force discussion. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Major Religion

I have removed Islam and Judaism as major white British religions as they are both obvacly fule as the larger of the 2 relegon is islam which is 2.7 of the population, with a perstentage that low there is no way that there is a large (significant) number of white British muslims. Beyond the 75% is 17% non religion. Alexsau1991 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lmao @ the page move

Whilst i do not object to the title changes tonight, i did find it rather funny. Will we be moving Black British and British Pakistanis to something along the same lines? Why stop there though, how about we move the English people Scottish people and Welsh people to the same sort of thing too? lol.

As someone that would define myself as "White British" should i take offense that only the articles on White Brits or mixed race are being changed to this sort of title? As someone that spends alot of time bashing the disgusting BNP, it pains me to say it but they do sort of have a point on these matters dont they :) What amazing double standards.

And i said to myself, what a wonderful world.... BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not double standards. Articles such as Black British discuss the wider use of that term, whereas the White British article is primarily about the census term. English people Scottish people and Welsh people are all terms used beyond the census. However, I concede that White British may have wider usage, so I wouldn't object to you moving it back. Note that I also moved the Other White article to Other White (United Kingdom ethnicity category) for a similar reason. I also moved British Mixed-Race to Mixed (United Kingdom ethnicity category) since the ONS simply used "Mixed". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

lol dont worry was just a general comment more about the real world than here on wikipedia, i agree White British isnt a term often used except for the census. I do find it interesting that British Pakistanis British Asians , British Jews are treated as proper groups with an infobox etc but we do not deem White British to be anything other than a term. Anyway i wont be making changes or moves, up to others if they are against this change, i see why it was done and dont oppose it, just found it amusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Much of the British people article seems to be about White British people, particularly the "ancestral roots" section. I guess the reason why White British is less used is because minority groups tend to attract labels more than the majority population due to the way people understand ethnicity. Could be related to the way in which some people use the term "ethnic" only when they refer to ethnic minorities. Also, it might have something to do with often Britishness being a civic as opposed to an ethnic identification (as you mention, there are articles for English people and so on). Cordless Larry (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You make good points yes, even Griffin and the BNP use ethnically - "English", "Scottish", "Irish" and "Welsh" to define what they class as British, although i guess i must have missed the lesson telling me my ethnicity is English. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrible move. There is no need whatsoever for disambiguation as there is no other page with the same name. --Breadandcheese (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, given the opposition I've moved it back again. I take the point about not needing to disambiguate, although I think that editors need reminding that the article is about an ethnicity classification used in the census because lots of material had been added on the genetic history of Britain that didn't belong here. That was my aim with the page move. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm disappointed it's been moved back, though I understand Breadandcheese's reasoning. Having an unspecific title will, I think, make it inevitable that some editors will try and re-include irrelevant material which is best covered elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is obviously contentious, I'm going to suggest the move so that it can be discussed in full. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Please note that the addition of parentheticals is deprecated when the plain title is not in use. Dekimasuよ! 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

White British → White British (United Kingdom ethnicity category) — - I previously made this move but have moved the article back because it was more controversial than I anticipated (see above). I'm now suggesting it so that it can be discussed in full. The rationale for the move is that the article is about the use of the term White British as a category in ethnicity statistics, rather than White British people in the more general sense (e.g. White British pupils). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is not ambiguous, and the scope of the article may easily be broadened to cover deeper aspects of the ethnic group. If there were two articles, there would be a case for this move; as there is but one, there is no case.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oops - blinked and missed this. Would have supported a move, obviously. Hey ho. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the discussion was closed somewhat early - only 12 hours after the first contribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I somehow missed the fact that it was up to be moved - first I knew was when the discussion was closed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What the term means.

Does White British mean or include people descended from recent immigrants from other European countries or does it mean people descended from people living in the UK centuries ago?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.18.206 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 December 2009

Official statistics on ethnicity rely on the individual's self-categorisation (see Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom), so the category included whoever decided to tick the 'White British' box on the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so you can't exclude recent immigrants. I have reversed the edit.--Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Our IP is now edit warring his position if someone else whats to take this up. I have issued the warning. The same editor also vandalised two other pages so it may just need a block. if any admin is watching --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported it at WP:AIV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious...

I am curious as to why we do not have a page regarding white Britons and their cultural achievements, whilst we do have one for white Americans. If we do decide to do this, please don't let Noobs take control of the project. --BoJackson34 (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As the start of the article states, "This article is about the United Kingdom census classification." Matters such as cultural achievements are at the article on British people. The section on Culture in White American is very brief, unreferenced, and in my view unnecessary - but that is up to other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Project ratings

[3]

Well, what ratings do you propose? Since White British amount to 85% percent of the UK population, I would have thought they would be given a high rating and I don't see how a Top importance isn't warranted. For ethnic groups, that project's rating system isn't too well organised but many ethnic groups there are given a High rating. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are only 31 articles classified as top importance in the UK WikiProject. British people is one of them and I don't see why a census ethnicity category that accounts for most of those people needs to be there as well. I'd suggest that the article is of mid importance. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the group of people described as "White British". It isn't just about the census classification (that is only used to define it). If British people are top importance, I don't see how 85% of that suddenly means it's only Mid importance. You were very quick to revert, before re-reverting minus the importance. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the 85 per cent figure that makes the group not of top importance, but I dispute the argument that the fact that lots of people fall into this category makes it inherently important. An article on British people is clearly important in relation to the UK, whereas a loose grouping of people based on race or ethnicity is less so. How about we settle for high importance? I accept that it's a relatively important topic, but don't think it meets the description "of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information" given to the top importance category. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted quickly because I have the article on my watchlist and happened to be online when you made the edit. I re-added the banners minus the importance rating because that was I that I intended to contest. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The White British people built the country and are its foundation. I know that many (and not just white nationalists) would differ with your assessment but High importance is fine for me (in the interests of keeping peace), though would prefer Top. Perhaps we can let other members of UK Project decide? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some white British people may have done, but many, including myself, have done nothing to "build the country" but were simply born here in an already-existing country and don't particularly see much relevance in skin colour. I don't see how such questions are relevant to the rating of the article though. I will raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board to get the opinions of others. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A lengthy history in constructing the country is not relevant to how important the group is to the country? That seems to make little sense. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that while the people who built the UK, whatever that means, may have been largely "White British" (though that is a relatively recent term), they did so as individuals rather than as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

High importance seems fine, these ethnicity articles are secondary to an article like United Kingdom, Scotland etc. The article itself is still very problematic though. We are treaing white British as a simple term used in a census, whilst other people articles like Black British and British Asian is far more in line with people type articles. Its pretty offensive in my opinion, but i have far bigger concerns than this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that is a potential problem, although my hunch is that "Black British" and "British Asian" are terms that many people actively identify with, whereas "White British" isn't one that people would use to describe themselves so much and is therefore more limited in use to settings such as the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is true, minority groups are encouraged to identify with their skin colour, something that is seen as politically unacceptable for white people, not just in Britain. Id rather everyone just considered themselves British and these were all just terms for forms. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not really what I was saying. My guess would be that the majority of white people in the UK identify as English/Scottish/Welsh etc., whereas members of minorities have found it difficult to be accepted as part of these categories due to them being seen as ethnic rather than civic identities. That's where Britishness comes in, albeit often in hyphenated form. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

my view...Project rating should be High to Mid ..not Top ..Top would be the main Ethnic group article for the country/area as a whole --> Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom..then all sub articles rated bellow the main one. Each project should only have very few top articles..like the introductory/main jumping off articles. Moxy (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with CordlessLarry, in general the only people who self identify as "White British" tend to be those of a far right persuasion. I've never really understood why this article even exists, but if it has to then its low priority. Its not a commonly used term. --Snowded ^TALK 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "low priority" - it essentially deals with a census indicator. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But should this article be more about the census indicator than other similar articles? If it is mainly that, then of course it's not too important. Is this article 75% percent census / 25% people and the others the other way? How would someone go about applying the importance to all the ethnic articles? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should, for the reasons outlined above. Whereas Black British, for instance, is a term that many people actively identity with, White British isn't. White British people are more likely to describe themselves as British people, or English people or whatever, so I don't think the articles are comparable. One solution might be to create an article on the Black British census category that would be equivalent to this article, distinct from the existing Black British article. Or we could just merge all of the articles that only discuss a census ethnicity category into Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with low-to-mid, erring towards low. As already stated, this is a simple article about a census classification, nothing more. "White British" is not a term I have heard used anywhere else (probably because the majority have no need to identify as a minority group!). Let's stop trying to turn a simple page rating into something else. GyroMagician (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to rate it as mid importance, since that seems to be the average of the suggestions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I realise the article has more of a census-driven approach rather than a people one. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Difference between White British and White Other.

Does the term British refer to citizen/passport or ancestry/cultural identity? 86.156.196.244 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UK ethnicity classifications are based solely on the respondent's self-identification. Someone is classified as White British if that's what they choose to identify as. For further explanation, see Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

all whites in britain are White british

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, Lightpositive has been blocked 24 hours for engaging in an edit war barely three days after I've warned him in another instance. Further reverts by him on this article, after the expiration of his block, would be viewed as WP:Gaming the system and would be dealth with accordingly. Latest update: Block upgraded to a permanent one after self-confession to be a sock of the BANNED user − Chaosname (talk · contribs).

---

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of neutral point of view and verifiability policy.

while there is a term called "white other" this article should be more logical as for example a british pole or a british italian are just as white as all other white people in britain, the defention of white people in britain should include everyone white Lightpositive ^talk 11:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way if you look on the United kingdom article it also says that white people is 92.1 percent of the whole population in britain Lightpositive ^talk 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not true, the 2001 Census distinguished White from White British, look at [[4]] and this United Kingdom Census 2001#Ethnicity please. Being white living in Britain does not a white British make. El0i (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"the 2001 Census" is obviously outdated, please see United Kingdom Census 2011 and [[5]] the new and current census does no longer mention any difference beetween "White british" and "White people in britain" Lightpositive ^talk 13:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2001 census is not outdated as it's the latest census from which statistics are available. The 2011 census' results have not been released and it does make a distinction between British White and Other White [[6]], even though that's irrelevant in this. El0i (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No all of your claims are just your personal opinions, and lets just wait for somebody else to give their opinion so that i and El0i avoid edit warring Lightpositive ^talk 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn the definition of 'personal opinion', you decided to change a previously established fact which is backed up by United Kingdom Census_2001#Ethnicity; notice the two seperate percentages of the ethnic groups "White British" and "White (other)"? Do you have any references to back up your idea that "White (other)" is the same as "White British"? El0i (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this p. 7, first results will be released September 2012. And in the census form, under "White" they have British, Irish, Gypsy and Irish Traveller, and any other white background. So it seems El0i was right. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. El0i (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) For the benefit of both the above editors. To clarify this article is about the meaning of the term 'White British' which is a self-designated ethnic category distinct from the other two White definitions used in the UK population analysis; 'White Irish' and 'White Other'. Logic does not come into determining the article as it is based on the ethnic category definition and white people who are from Poland would normally be a member of the White Other ethnic grouping. The 2001 UK census is the most recent national census for which data is available. The ONS provide annual midyear estimates of population changes from the 2001 census. The first official estimates based on the 2011 Census will not be available until probably midway through 2012. The 2011 Census still contains self categorisations of White British; White Irish and White Irish and for the first time the categories of 'White Gypsy/Irish Traveller'. Tmol42 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, may I remind that the reference for all edits/inputs which you've made (or intend to) has to be both a verifiable and reliable source. Failing which, it will be remove from Wikipedia on sight. Anyone caught engaging in any form of silly edit warring will be reported and dealth with accordingly. (Read also WP:Lamest edit wars.) That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. GedUK  13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

White people in Britain → White British – The article is now titled incorrectly, following this edit undertaken without discussion. The article concerns the Census classification "White British", not "White people in Britain" in any more general sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to rectify the error, but may well have done it wrongly. If an admin now needs to clean up after me, I apologise! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it now. Please please please don't do copy paste moves! We need the article history attached properly to the article so we can see who wrote what; it's part of the licence requirements. This is not an administrative move based on a consensus decision by the way, but to fix the page so that, if necessary, pages can be properly moved in future following discussion. GedUK  13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures?

I want to know how come there is no grid with photos of white british people like there is on every other race - nationality page?--86.6.234.40 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be because nobody has made/found one. You are welcome to submit such an image. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Such an image is not possible. The article deals with a census category - nothing else - and, as census forms are confidential, there is no way of knowing who defines themselves as "white British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are telling me its not possible to know who is white british yet pages such as Black British, Asian British ,White American all have pictures?86.6.234.40 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle has indicated above this article is about the census category exclusively and as such it is not appropriate let alone possible for the reasons stated to have a collage of images. The other articles you refer to are not exclusively / not related to the census category so such issues do not arise.Tmol42 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No disambiguating qualifier is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

---

White British → White British (United Kingdom ethnicity category) – i know that this was earlier disscused but the proposal was too rapidly closed and with the conclusion of "no consensus" and use this article instead to describe white people in united kingdom of britain in general , that would also make much sense because in the article "United Kingdom" mentions "92 % white" so it would be better if we pipelinked it to "White British" and move that page to White British (United Kingdom ethnicity category) User:Cordless Larry said : The rationale for the move is that the article is about the use of the term White British as a category in ethnicity statistics, rather than White British people in the more general sense (e.g. White British pupils). Ami Deutshe (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which discussion are you referring to which was closed too rapidly? I cannot see which of those above you are referring to and where the 'no concensus' decision comes from rather all I see was a contested move which was quickly reverted. We seem to have been round the houses on this enough already but despite this I will try and help clarify the argument for the status quo. To reiterate and develop the points made previously, 'White British' is a term which is used in the context of ethnicity categorisation relating to, or based on the UK census. Despite the feeling that it should have some equivelence to the term Black British, what I would draw your attention to is the article White people#Great Britain and Ireland where the cultural background relating to caucasians in Great Britain is set out. So despite the linguistic symmetry between the two terms; Black British and White British, there is no basis for synthesising a meaning for the term 'White British' To do so would amount to original research.Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

see "Requested move (2009)" section of this article three well established users "Barryob" , "Ghmyrtle" and "Cordless Larry" i have written 2 rationales and the arguments of those and the users i mentioned is sufficent Ami Deutshe (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you provide some veribiable sources for your contentions and rationale.Tmol42 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

do you really think that you alone represents consensus on the issue ? , no offense but this is NOT how wikipedia works ! Ami Deutshe (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming any position here like any other editor I'm just trying to help you as a newly registered editor as to how Wikipedia works in that you need some verifiable sourses. The requested move from 2009 was closed and is not relevant here and there has been another requested move discussion since which resulted in no change. So after two no change to the article name decisions you need to bring something here that supports your contention ie veribiable sources whch will infrom other editors for your reasoning for a change in name.Tmol42 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no other articles called "White British", so this disambiguation is unnecessary, per WP:PRECISION. Similarly, Other White (United Kingdom ethnicity category) should be moved to Other White. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ridiculous unnecessary degree of precision/disambiguation without ambiguity. 67.194.69.67 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

this has NOTHING to do with "precision" or "disambiguation" the point for the move is about using this article for british whites in general(english or polish and so on..) and since we cannot delete information used in this article i consider it is better for it to be moved so we can use this article for the things i mentioned about Ami Deutshe (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing the term White British used to refer to all White people living in Britain. I believe it is used pretty much exclusively to refer to a specific ethnic group. Romper (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not aware of any other usage being common. But anyway, until there is a WP article that creates ambiguity, it seems to me that it can just stay where it is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm somewhat confused by this discussion. I recognise that, at present, there is no need for disambiguation. However, the article is specifically about the official UK Census term "White British". The problem with the current article title is that it would appear to allow, if not encourage, editors to add material to the page which is about much wider definitions of "White British". Obviously, blatantly racist material, or unsourced references to "White British" as a so-called "ethnic group", can be removed quickly - but it is important to the casual reader that the article makes plain what it is about, and that it is not about racist or unsourced uses of the term. That is why, regardless of the absence of any formal need for disambiguation in the title, I think the proposed title would be clearer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good article, accurate title complying with policy (see WP:AT of course), no need to disambiguate at all, and as if that were not enough the awkward proposed disambiguator reeks of political correctness (see WP:SOAP of course). Andrewa (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Northern Ireland

If "White British" excludes people of Irish descent, then how can Northern Ireland be 98% White British? That doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be more like 50-55% White British? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As this data on ethnic group was gathered via the 2011 census exercise in each country / devolved administration it was open for individuals to self-classify themselves according to the ethnic group that they felt most appropriately fitted them. So their descent may or may not be the overriding consideration determining how they choose to categorise themselves. However, for Northern Ireland, due to the complexities inherent in this community the NISRA decided to offer only a single ethnic category of 'White' for all the ethnic category subsets of White, except 'Irish Traveler'. Accordingly, I have removed the entry and row of data for Northern Ireland and added a note to the table. Tmol42 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view it would be best to continue to exclude the NI figures from the total, as there is no way of knowing what proportion of the "White" population of Northern Ireland would identify themselves as "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions...

1.will The person of mixed Turkish/polish and british ancestry be count as white british?2.What is the definition of white british? does it refer to the person of fully British descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The UK census and other surveys rely on self-classification, so it all depends on how the person concerned sees themself (see the explanation here). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

So, If there is a man who has totally no british ancestry at all but born in UK(maybe of Italian or spain origin）and live in UK,then he can concerned himself as white British? then is that means even a west Asian could be a "white British" if he wants...so, the census and numbers here are inaccurate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not an objective thing, but rather subjective, so all ethnicity statistics are "inaccurate" if what you are looking for is classification according to some objective standard. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How to define the option "white british" here? Does it refers to person with British descent only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.83.51.37 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comments above, 171.83.51.37. The classification relies on individuals' self-definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No,that's not what i mean.you see,in the Official ethnic group question,there is a option "white british" ,then how the government define this option?that's my point,I know it's "self-definition". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.172.8.167 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The government doesn't define it. The boxes appear on census and other forms without definitions, and it is up to the respondent to decide which, if any, describes their ethnic identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Returning colonial populations

As a curiosity, are Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc of British extraction who migrate to the UK classified as White British or Other White? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is very old so I am not sure whether this question still wants an answer but they would come under (if they identified as 'Australian', 'Canadian' etc.) under Other White, Hope that answers this. Tweedle (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely this whole classification is racist? John Turner, Burgh House (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)