Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom/Archive 3

< Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ghmyrtle in topic A carrot for all?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A Fresh Look at British Nationality Regarding Biographies on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago87 comments13 people in discussion

We have a crazy situation in that anyone NOT English is listed by editors feelings of national identity, not the BLP or historical biography position on citizenship, it seems that irrespective of the fact that no source exists citing a love of nationalism recently we have a situation where editors with a nationalistic bent project those feelings onto Wikipedia biographies of people from the United Kingdom.. However, hypocritically, as soon as anyone attempts to follow the same policy on English biographies non-English editors immediately revert it immediately citing arguments such as 'oh he had one Scottish parent' (even though he was born in England) or "her great grandma was from Ireland' etc. With respect, the WP:UKNATIONALS article is as clear as mud making for heated exchanges as editors use countering positions because the guidelines are so mixed up. I humbly suggest that this be made general policy, all people of the United Kingdom are British which is what their passports and identity documents state but employ national identity link under the British banner like so: 'Alexander Fleming was a British biologist' or 'Donald Davies was a British scientist, one of the three so-called 'fathers of the internet' and finally Alan Turing was a British pioneering computer scientist.'. In closing, it looks on Wikipedia as though English luminaries have many fathers while Scottish and Welsh all seem to have one and that is completely unacceptable. In closing, until very recently the peoples of the UK considered themselves thoroughly 'British' yet this politically fashionable nationalism north of the border has been allowed to push their agenda irrespective of factual reality and without a single source backing up the view that any person with a historic biography had nationalistic feelings. No, this is more a case of editors projecting their feelings of national identity on Wikipedia articles covering British biographies. Twobellst@lk 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

For years, I pushed that British be used on British bio articles. TBH, I would've had more success nailing jello to a wall. I wish you better luck, Twobells. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, may I ask, did you request guideline clarification from the administration at the time? Twobellst@lk 14:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Common sense should apply. We would not say that Sir Walter Scott was a British writer, but we would say that Gordon Brown was a British politician. We do say btw that Charles Dickens was an English writer. That is how most sources refer to them. TFD (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that this was recently talked to death on several different talk pages it seems pointless to attempt to restart the whole process! FF-UK (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect the issue will continue to crop up with no resolution because the guidelines are seemingly non-sensical. Unless an editor can produce a source showing a person of historical signifance favoured some form of nationalism then all Wiki articles should show the nationality as British with the 'British' term linked to the country that person was born in, ie: England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, that is, in my humble opinion the most neutral avenue to take, anything else panders to the opinions of editors and not the subject. Twobellst@lk 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You may not like the results of the various processes which took place, but that does not seem a good reason to go back over it all again when the surrounding circumstances have not changed. A bit like all those Scots nats saying "yes, we know we lost the referendum, but we do not like the answer so we should have another referendum"! FF-UK (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
(response to Twobells) I can't remember exactly how I tried to bring about the usage of British & United Kingdom in the bios articles. Whatever I did, it must've been wrong, because I ended up with a 3-yr (2011-14) topic ban from British/Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Twobells, if you want to be legalistic, British nationality extends not only to people born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but also to dependent territories. Are we going to call ANZAC soldiers killed in battle British? TFD (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Twobells and and GoodDay. Consensus can, and in my opinion should, change. Please note that the argument for British is about nationality particularly in an infobox where people expect clear and simple guidelines to be followed. In the description we can use whatever term the sources use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The article about John McCrae (1872-1918), author of "In Flanders Fields" says that he "was a Canadian poet, physician, author, artist and soldier during World War I." He was born in Canada as were his parents. Should we change that to British, since at the time there was only British nationality? TFD (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion that article is absolutely fine. There is no mention of the word 'nationality' in the article and no 'nationality' field in the infobox. How the subject of a bio is decribed is flexible and depends on the way that they are described in sources. If the majority of sources on John McCrae call him Canadian then we should describe him as 'Canadian'.
If we had a 'nationaity' field in the infobox (or a statement in the article along the lines of 'his nationality was...') then that should be 'British' because, as you correctly point out, his legal nationality during his life was 'British'. That is an important historical fact that we cannot change whatever our opinions on the subject. If the fact that he came from Canada is considered very important then there is no problem in calling him Canadian. If the fact that his legal nationality was British is considered unimportant then we do whet we would do with any unimportant fact and say nothing on the subject. If we do choose to put a nationality then we must put 'British' just because that is what his nationality was, whatever we think if that today. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I move that 'British' should be used on all the people's of the United Kingdom as that is the describer on their passports, all identity papers and documents from the state as well as the EU and UN, however, for the sake of neutrality we link the word 'British' to the country within Britain they were born ie. Donald Davies was a British scientist, I believe that finally resolves the issue in that the nationality is listed correctly but also refers to that persons country of birth. It seems that in the last 2-3 years nationalists have been editing and altering long-standing articles pushing their position on nationality in historic biographies and BLP's irrespective of the fact that not a single citation can be sourced suggesting that person had even the slightest nationalist tendency, subsequently, I reccomend we make that policy. Twobellst@lk 13:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, we should be linking British to British people & the Citizenship/Nationality fields should be eliminated from the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Twobells and GoodDay. In the past I've had all kinds of trouble with this, mainly people changing British to English or Scottish simply based on birthplace, which is often a poor indicator of Englishness or Scottishness. All these people should be listed as British, with any relevant details on nationalist or regionalist leaning being made in the text with the appropriate sources. I wouldn't link British to anything though, as I'm not sure nationalities should be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Readers can look at the birthplace and make a judgement based on that if they so wish. It is not up to Wikipedia to make that judgement for them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This is begining to look like a consensus for 'British'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, there'd be resistance on the bio articles, to replacing Welsh, Scottish etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There are two fundamental flaws in the above opinions.
1) No evidence has been put forward to support the erroneous concept that ascribing Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationality is the action of nationalists.
2) WP requires articles to be supported by sources, if the sources say that nationality is Scottish, Welsh or Irish then that is the only thing which can be included in an article. WP cannot sit in judgement on when to ascribe a nationality which is not supported by sources.
It must be accepted that all of this has recently received the scrutiny of a number of different WP processes, and there has been no consensus to change the existing approach. Drop the stick. FF-UK (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
1) It doesn't actually matter who's doing it.
2) So what about the thousands of articles that ascribe a nationality of English / Scottish / Welsh with no sources at all? Why do they take an apparently uninformed guess at nationality? The 'existing approach' is scattergun and utterly unencyclopedic, if it can be said that there's an approach of any meaningful, coherent sort. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:INTREF The rules are clear: One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. Where is the problem? FF-UK (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It's easily verifiable that England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are not sovereign states. It's also easily verifable that they are within a sovereign state called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Show me where WP defines that "nationality" has the meaning you ascribe to it. The actual definition of Nationality in the English language is "The status of belonging to a particular nation". FF-UK (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It's plain that, by your last definition, British people can have two nationalities if they choose. One is easily verifiable via a passport and incontrovertible (British) and the other has no basis in nationality law (English/Scottish/Welsh) and can be claimed with no qualifying criteria whatsoever. You ask 'where's the problem' with unverified stuff – indeed. So why are so many BLPs carrying no nationality sourcing at all, while claiming English / Scottish etc? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, you seem to be making the common error of confusing nationality with citizenship, the latter is what is indicated in a British passport. As far as the lack of sourcing is concerned, if an indication of nationality is controversial, and no sourcing is provided, then clearly that cannot stand. If sourcing is provided, then it must stand. FF-UK (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm making that error when in my last post I've clearly demonstrated the difference between the two. The fact remains that one is easily verifiable, and one is not. We should be using the easily verifiable one (citizenship in your terminology). In any case, British is also a nationality – it is mine, for a start. The fact that some British people decide they are English or Scottish or something else, does not deny the fact that they are British, whether they like it or not. I'm really talking about nationality in the way that the rest of the planet (and international law) talks about nationality.
You're right about sourcing, but you try changing English or Scottish or Welsh to British, saying there are no sources for it. You get passionately reverted in a heartbeat. This is the problem – widely unsourced claims being made and no workable way to fix it under the current approach. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it's not an error of course. The underlying problem here is that "Nationality", as routinely pointed out, has different meanings and uses. In one sense – arguably the most commonly used in the real world, as it happens – it is something pretty much akin to citizenship; in another, something closer to what might otherwise be referred to as national identity or ethnicity. And that's where the superficially attractive and correct option of just "looking at sources" fails, because different sources will be relying on different meanings of the term "Nationality", and WP will end up with some people being classified under one meaning and others under another, with no clarity for the reader as to which is being used in each case. Plus some editors seize on broad descriptions, where sources don't even make explicit claims about nationality per se and where the use of "Welsh", "British" or whatever will inevitably vary with context, and claim that they nonetheless count as definitive assertions of nationality. That's just a recipe for endless confusion and warring over apparently conflicting sources.
There's also the point that there are two issues here: the "Nationality" field in the infobox and the description in the opening sentence. As suggested ages ago, before this all became too boring, the rather obvious solution is for the infobox field to be explicitly used to refer to legal nationality, ie membership of the sovereign state. That way, there is consistency across all WP bios, and an easily verifiable fact in 99% of cases. However, for the opening sentence, as currently, there can be more flexibility. For example, it surely makes no sense to insist that Nicola Sturgeon's page describes her as a "British politician", or for Gary Lineker's page to say he was a "British footballer" (I'm not sure about the easter-egg linking option, for various reasons). Having the former described as a "Scottish politician", but noting her current legal nationality as "British" in the infobox, has the added advantage of offering more information, all on the actual page itself. Isn't that also a sensible compromise between those demanding both should say "British" or both "Scottish"? N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with all of that. There is a case for certain BLPs to state English or Scottish – now I think of it, I've written many articles myself about footballers who would (if they were good enough) qualify to play for England, and I describe them as English, not British. The Sturgeon example is another good one. They are easily verifiable (in most cases) and uncontroversial. But actors, musicians, TV presenters, business folk and most other BLPs do not fall into those categories. The flexibility N-HH talks about being afforded to the opening sentence should still be subject to the proper sourcing guidelines without fear of edit warring and abuse. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Putting different information in the article text and the infobox is inconsistent with the advice given at MOS:INFOBOX: “the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article.” Daicaregos (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not about what is, or is not, in the article as a whole. Nor is the information in the opening sentence "different" to that in the infobox, in the sense of being contradictory, if the former says, say, "Scottish" and the latter "British". Both are correct, because they are focused on different things. The entire point is to resolve that problem and the disputes that arise. N-HH talk/edits 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles still need to conform to WP:MOS. This proposal doesn't. Daicaregos (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If you say so. In fact they don't, and you've given no explanation of how exactly it doesn't anyway. N-HH talk/edits 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just speculatiing. I believe the 'problem' in all of these British -vs- English, Welsh & Scottish disputes, is that because E/W/S are called countries, some believe it puts them on equal footing with France, Italy, Canada, Japan etc etc. We must understand & reflect that 'country' has multiple meanings. As for (Northern) Irish? the core of the problem is its geographic location - i.e the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, rather than speculate perhaps you should appraise yourself of how the words 'country' and 'nation' are used by our Prime Minister, who is a passionate Unionist. As an example, in his speech following re-election he said:
"Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own governments, as well as the United Kingdom government. Both are important, and indeed with our plans, the governments of these nations will become more powerful, with wider responsibilities."
It should be obvious to all that the constituent nations of the UK have corresponding nationalities, you cannot have one without the other.
The attempts by you and others to play down the concept that Britain is a state consisting of several nations does nothing to further the basic purpose of an encyclopedia which believes that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." FF-UK (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Cameron can call them whatever he chooses. They're still not on equal footing with France, Russia, Australia etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No-one suggests they are. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between a description and nationality

I think that there is a very important distinction, as discussd by N-HH above between a decription of person as for example in 'a Welsh scientis' or 'a British sportsman' and a firm statement, particularly in the infobox nationality field, of nationality. In order to avoid the continuous going round in circle that we had before, where people were arguing about several different things, can we agree to separate the discussion into two strands, 'infobox nationality field', and 'description'. I have started two sections below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Citizenship & Nationality fields should be eliminated from the infoboxes, as they're more bother then they're worth. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox nationality

I support what N_HH said above, which is for the infobox field to be explicitly used to refer to legal nationality, ie membership of the sovereign state. Infobox fields normally contain simple factual information such as 'place of birth' or 'date of birth'. Legal nationaity is similar. In most reasonably recent bios legal or formal nationality is a simple matter of fact that cannot be changed by opinion. In the few cases where the legal nationality cannot be determined we could write 'unknown'. For older subjects, where the concept of leagal nationality did not exist during their life, the solution is equally simple; put nothing at all in the nationality field.

If it would help reduce tension and disagreement I would support changing the name of the field to 'legal nationality' or 'formal nationality' or whatever is considered to make the situation clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted, being explicit about this would solve the problem of different bio pages using different meanings of the term and different criteria. Any reader would know what a specific and explicit attribution of "Nationality" was saying and not have to second-guess whether it meant: legal/formal nationality (as proposed); self-declared nationality or national/ethnic identity; third-party-ascribed nationality or national identity; or simply editor-cherry-picked passing description in a couple of sources. It would make verification simple and avoid endless debate – once established and verified, it's done, unlike with the more nebulous and subjective concept of national identity, where people can endlessly present contradictory sources for the same individual. Currently UK bios are all over the place with this, and that needs sorting out, for consistency and clarity. Assuming that's accepted, any UK Nationals guidance needs to be amended to include this point (it doesn't address it at all currently AFAICT), while the main people infobox guidance, which is not currently 100% clear, needs to be made more explicit on it, not least because the issue of course affects other countries too. N-HH talk/edits 13:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Leave out the Citizenship & Nationality fields in the infoboxes. They're more bother then they're worth. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If you define the field and terminology consistently – as any serious reference source would – to mean specifically legal nationality, as has been suggested, rather than allowing the current free-for-all of "whatever meaning of nationality any passing editor chooses on each page", there would actually be virtually no bother, because the answer in each case would be easily verifiable and not open to sudden contradiction by someone bringing along a source that happened to say something different about that classification. That's precisely the point. It would also give you, as it happens, your "British" lock-in, so your objections are doubly odd as well as being about removing valid and standard information about people. N-HH talk/edits 17:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree. In an infobox (legal) nationality sould be no more probematic than date of birth. If it is not known we just put 'unknown' or leave the field blank. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion:
1) For individuals who's birth & death occured in the United Kingdom - we omit United Kingdom from the birthdate/deathdate.
2) For individuals who were born outside the UK, but died in the UK & were born in the UK, but died outside the UK - We use United Kingdom in place of or in addition to England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, in the birthdate/deathdate. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions

These are much more flexible and must be based on what sources say. There is no need for a single ststement of national identity, the text can show diiferent things in different places, as in, for example, 'XXX was Scotish...' and maybe later '..as a highlander, XXX ...' or 'XXX was an 'English scientist..., with ' as a Cornish chemist XXX...'. Cases where the formal nationality different from the assumed national identity can also be made clear in the text and in for example, 'XXX was formally a Britsih subject but always considered himeself as a true Canadian...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is kind of current practice and is what the guidance here currently more or less suggests AFAIK (once anyone's gotten through all the discursive and overdetailed analysis preceding that), so shouldn't be too controversial. Where there's hard evidence that the person is usually seen as, or sees themselves as, being Scottish, Welsh, English or (Northern) Irish rather than British, and/or where the profession they are in is better preceded by Scottish, Welsh, English or (Northern) Irish (eg sportspeople and in some cases politicians), I can't see the problem. However, there's an issue as to how far this should go in the very first sentence – eg should it be limited to the four countries or go more locally than that sometimes (Cornish being the obvious issue)? – and the guidelines should stress that one-off or passing descriptions, especially in internal UK sources where more localised descriptors are often used, do not necessarily suddenly trump other evidence or descriptions. N-HH talk/edits 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason for the UK's constituent countries to be getting special treatment. We don't give this special treatment to Canadian provinces, American states, French departments, etc etc.. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact we do give special treatment to Canada. Canadian citizenship was only established in 1947, before which they had the same nationality as people in the UK. Yet we do not put in the info-box for John McCrae that he had UK nationality. TFD (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Would he have been called Ontarian? GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point. We call him Canadian because that is how he is normally described despite the fact that his only nationality was U.K. In fact U.K. nationality has never been withdrawn from "Commonwealth citizens", it has only become obsolete with the introduction of citizenship laws for each nation within the Commonwealth. And no, we would not say his nationality was Ontarian, because Ontario is not a nation, unlike Canada or Scotland. But the term Ontarian is used to describe people in Ontario, just as Londoner is used to describe people in London. TFD (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we disregard nationality entirely from these bio articles. It's nothing but a powdered keg & serve no positive purpose. PS- I see Scotland, the same way I see Ontario or Michigan, they each are a part of a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay says: "I see Scotland, the same way I see Ontario or Michigan, they each are a part of a sovereign state." And there, in a nutshell, is the arrogance of those who keep coming back to worry this bone and trying to change the WP status quo! I cannot speak for the Welsh, or the Irish, but as an Englishman who has lived for a long time in Scotland (and is avowedly anti-Nationalism) I can confirm that Scots do not see their country that way, their frustration with the large number of my fellow Englishmen who do is one of the main drivers for the current strength of Nationalism in Scotland. The make-up of the United Kingdom just will not fit into a pattern comparable to any other state. The nature of each the component parts is without obvious similarities when compared with the others, both in size, national characteristics, and the various degrees of difference in the national institutions. The current guidance in this article takes cognizance of that, but the mischief-makers who keep worrying at this bone are simply, in their own small way, adding fuel to the fire which is threatening the break-up of the UK. Shame on you all. FF-UK (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The people-in-question are British whether they like it or not. I've nothing further to say on this topic, as I'm not a fan of going around in circles. The floor is open for input from others :) GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed they are British, in one sense, just as they are also other things too. Hence why the totality of my suggestion would see "British" simply and consistently acknowledged in the infobox Nationality field (a tightening of the rules), with the possibility of a separate, additional description in the lead proper (the latter as currently). As I said, that's a compromise, based on tweaking the status quo, which gives as much information as possible, reflects real-world practice and, one would have thought, also satisfies both those insisting on the use of "British" and those demanding the use of the more specific descriptions available and in common use – but you're arguing for the field to be removed altogether. And no, Canadian provinces are not equivalent: the demonyns for them are simply not as widely used, in the same way, as those for the individual nations of the UK in the real world. That said, I'm also done. I never really wanted to come back into this or any other debate on WP, which all tend to go round in circles while the obvious solution is slowly sabotaged, including by those who you'd have thought would see how it benefits their position. N-HH talk/edits 16:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

TBH (and acknowledging the reality of Wikipedia), even if we all were in agreement here (at UKNATIONALS) to use British. Its being applied across all the bio articles-in-question would most likey be strenously fought against. Regretfully, edit-wars would likely break out in many areas :( GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


  • At the end of the day, any nationality has to be given within a certain context. Calling someone a "British footballer", a "British rugby player" or a "British cricketer", to be blunt, would be bloody stupid - that gives absolutely no context to who they played for, since each country has its own separate team (bar the occasional event where a combined team plays, of course). I think most things would generally be fine with just "British", unless the nationality is specifically relevant - like in sport. But then again, I also think it would be fine if we used English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish. It is my personal opinion that the views of people who have no ties to the UK should be taken with a pinch of salt - just like mine should be if, for example, a proposal for Americans to be known as "Texans" or whatever (ie, state-based identity) - simply because they are not personally familiar with the debates. There are, however, a few areas where drawing a fine line may be a problem. For example, what of politics? It's easy for Prime Ministers and such, but what would a guideline tell us to do for, say, Alex Salmond? Is he Scottish, as a former leader of the SNP, or is he British as a current Member of Parliament (as opposed to being "just" a Member of the Scottish Parliament)? It's worth noting that he has had far more years as an MP than he has as a MSP, and that isn't even solely down to the fact that MSPs are relatively new things (even in the time since MSPs were introduced, he's still been a British MP for longer). I agree with what people have said above; you cannot define nationality as just being where you were born, or even where you live. Maik Taylor, for example, has to be regarded as Northern Irish within the context of his football career, even though he was born in West Germany, to German and English parents. Owen Hargreaves is, of course, similar. Regardless of any of this, I find the naivety of people trying to restart this discussion to be pretty stark; when something has been set in stone on Wikipedia for a while, and it's both fairly major and provokes strong feelings on either side, there will never, ever be a consensus formed. The only thing that can change that is either Scottish independence, or Scotland completely turning its back on independence, in my opinion. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not exactly within Wikipedia's, or its editors', hands. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Only a minority of people in Britain describe themselves as British. The 2011 census shows that people in England, Scotland and Wales describe their sole national identity as English (60%), Scottish (62%) or Welsh (58%) respectively. Describing all those from the UK as British is just wrong. One size does not fit all. Daicaregos (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As I mention above, what people see themselves as, 'is irrelevant'. They're British, whether they like it or not. However, I know that to attempt to replace Welsh, Scottish, (Northern) Irish & English with British, would be a long drawn out fight, which could lead to 'topic-bans' (or worst) for many editors. I personally won't be getting involved in those 'edit wars'. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Daicaregos. The 2011 census results for people living in Scotland showed this: 83 per cent of the population felt they had some Scottish national identity, including 62 per cent who felt Scottish only; 18 per cent reported that they felt Scottish and British; 8 per cent said they felt British only. In the referendum held in Scotland in September 2014 there was 85 per cent of the population turned out to vote with just under 45 per cent of those people agreeing with the question that Scotland should be an independent country. The referendum didn't lead to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom but should serve as a reminder that there are some complex issues here. I would suggest that descriptions are dealt with article by article and issue by issue where necessary. I would think that for biography articles, in circumstances where contention is encountered, that descriptions will be a better place than Infoboxes to allow exploration of whether a person has declared their own identity or identities, or whether there is a reason for assuming one identity ahead of another. I would like biography articles on Wikipedia to be able to show that they can deal with the complexity of people's identity. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What people "feel" is irrelevant if they are trying to deny the country of their citizenship. Saying, "I'm English/Scottish/Welsh, not British" is utterly absurd. You cannot be any of the former without being the latter, and this kind of census information doesn't actually help when establishing facts. Your latter point about using descriptions rather than infoboxes to explain any further identity issues is a good one – it would be ideal if people could do that while using the normal system of sourcing and referencing, but they don't. There are thousands of unsourced "This guy is English" / "That guy is Scottish" statements out there and they just make the encyclopedia look amateurish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I included the figures to illustrate how people living in one part of the UK actually view identity. One reason for doing this was to highlight the extent of the problem that we face if we try to reduce constructs of national identity to anything that is too simple. There are vast numbers of people who consider themselves to only belong to one of the constituent countries, while still technically being citizens of the state that is formed through political union. While some Wikipedia editors may feel that citizenship would be a viable short-cut to establishing nationality, there will be large numbers of people looking at Wikipedia articles who are not satisfied by this simple measure. I feel that it would be better to try and encourage constructive ways of exploring why each individual is viewed as having a certain identity, rather than default to a proxy measure such as citizenship. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
While that is true, we're supposed to be dealing in verifiable facts, and identity in these terms is (in the vast majority of cases) almost impossible to verify. That's why we have the current situation with "national identities" ascribed to BLPs with no thought or proof whatsoever. It depends what people want – something that is verifiably true, or something that some unknown editor took a guess at, which susbequently proves to stick like glue because folks edit war over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not in dispute that identity issues are complex, in the UK as elsewhere, and that many people in the UK do not describe themselves as British in terms of national identity (as opposed to legal nationality/citizenship, where there is less choice); or that even those who do might also describe themselves as something else as well, as would third-party sources. There's no need to have a huge debate to establish that. The issue is about presentation of information in an encyclopedia, based on consistent underlying principles that are applied across all articles. Currently, MOS:BLPLEAD explicitly demands that the opening sentence of a biography highlights "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident". Despite that, current practice on the pages of UK nationals is to allow some deviation from that, to allow the use of Welsh, Scottish etc rather than simply British as a broad description in the opening text of the lead. I'm not sure there's any momentum towards reversing that practice – even those who would prefer to do so (I'm not among them) say it's a non-starter – but we could perhaps be clearer and more consistent about when and on what basis that is done. Separately, I have suggested, with some support, that we should however always stick with the use of British as the legal nationality in the infobox parameter (see subsection above). Often people will fairly randomly stick Welsh, English, whatever in both places, often on the basis of a passing use of the term in one source, leaving not only confusion as to what sense we are using the term in when we are defining someone's explicit "Nationality", depending on what page we happen to be on, but less information on the page for the reader not as well versed in the complexities here. N-HH talk/edits 20:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, presentation is secondary to accuracy and properly following the sources. Clearly if the person is a national of Wales or Scotland then they have Welsh or Scottish nationality, as both are countries. FF-UK (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It goes without saying that whatever is presented has to be accurate, and it's ridiculous to imply I was suggesting otherwise. The point is that there are different questions and usually no single answer; we have to decide what exact question we are asking and hence which answer to use. As for your second sentence, the leaps of logic involved in it, based simply on your own bold assertions, and on what will be a pretty big "if" in many if not all cases, rather stand against your self-righteous claims about "accuracy" and "properly following the sources", as well as missing entirely the point about the differing uses of the word "nationality". It's that kind of bullshit reasoning and battering-ram attitude that bedevil this question. N-HH talk/edits 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said earlier, show me where WP defines that "nationality" has the meaning you and the other objectors ascribe to it. The actual definition of Nationality in the English language is "The status of belonging to a particular nation". Nothing about sovereign states or passports! FF-UK (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and there's nothing anywhere that says definitively what is a nation and what isn't. Some say Cornwall is a nation, which would make me a "Cornish national" using your logic. How would you propose anyone can verify that a subject is a Welsh or Scottish national? It is utterly unprovable. We should at least try to create parameters that are verifiable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The explanation of what nationality might mean – and the fact that the term has several different uses and meanings, which is precisely why we need to define which one we are using, and ideally use one which will provide a clear and unambiguous answer in most cases – has been provided over and over again. As Martin also says below, this part of the debate really belongs in the other subsection. N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to have drifted towards 'nationality' rather than description. Can we try to keep the two separate as it will prevent unnecessary arguments. Anyone who wants to discuss what is put in the infobox 'nationality' field, please use the section above.

Regarding statements in the text along the lines of 'XXX has YYY nationality' or 'the nationality of XXX is YYY', or even 'XXX is a Welsh national', the best thing would be to avoid them altogether because there is (clearly, from the endless discussion here) no general agreement on what the term means, apart from the well defined legal nationality, which we can put in the infobox.

Here, can we please stick to descriptions, such as 'XXX is Welsh', XXX was a British sportsman', where the word nationality is not mentioned. Saying 'XXX is English' is not the same thing as saying 'XXX has English nationality'. If we can separate out the different terminologies we might be able to reach some agreement.

Is there anyone here who objects to descriptions of subjects that use geographical terms that are not legal nationalities? I personally see no reason why we cannot say 'XXX was a Londoner', 'XXX was a Welsh comedian', 'XXX is a Texan', using any geographical term, regardless of whether it could be regarded as a nation or not, according to how the person is described in the majority of reliable sources. Does anyone disagree with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As a global encyclopedia, I'm not sure we should go that local as it were, plus it would take us even further from the MOS on opening paragraphs. For the UK, I'd prefer it to be limited to the four generally acknowledged home nations/countries, as it mostly is currently. Those demonyms are known and used in global sources. Counting sources is also quite a blunt tool of course, especially when those of a different geographical reach are going to approach the question in different ways (eg most UK sources would not feel the need to say "British"/"English" when writing about someone from the UK/England whatever). N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the choice is ours and I am not advocating going to any particular level; we should just say what the sources say. I agree with you in so far as the sources we should prefer should be authoritative, globally recognised, sources rather than 'Famous people fron Chertsey', for example. If the appropriate sources use a local description then so should we, but they probably will not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "XXX is Welsh" could possibly mean other than, basically, "XXX has Welsh nationality". It more than implies the same thing. This also doesn't address the problem of sourcing, especially as some BLPs will have sources verifying Welsh (or whatever) and British. Which source would we choose to go with? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I approach that question this way. Being in Wales, means you're in the United Kingdom. However, being in the United Kingdom, doesn't necessarily mean you're in Wales. Thus go with the source using British. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I'd look at it too. Unless the source for Welsh was particularly strong or had particular mention of the subject's identity. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Welsh is a commonly used description of people who come from the part of the UK that is called Wales. Many people would say 'I am Welsh' but that does not mean that they are claiming any form of Welsh nationality, jut that they come from Wales. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. How would you differentiate between people saying "I'm Welsh" that do mean they claim Welsh nationality, and those who don't? Again, impossible to verify. If we wanted to just say that someone was from Wales, we'd say "XXX is an actor from Wales", not "a Welsh actor". How would you define "from Wales" anyway? Look at Dawn French, which is a typical basketcase of edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Apart from simple verifiable facts, such as legal nationality, it is not up to us to decide anything, we have to follow the sources, just as we would for any other descriptive word or phrase. We should, as always, prefer authoritative sources with global perspective reather than local sources with a point to make. There is already plenty of guidance on how to deal with conflicting sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Conformity

Putting into practice any changes (decided here) across hundreds of bio articles, is likely wishful thinking at best. Though I favour using British, IMHO it would be best for 'everyone' if we just leave things as they are. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • User:GoodDay has it right. This was last discussed in great depth and with very little light being cast as recently as January. It would be great if we could wait until January 2016 before raising it again. It's a perennial and rather divisive proposal that I predict will never gain consensus. The reason it will never gain consensus is that there will always be a smattering of people who understand the subtlety and nuance in the area of UK nationalities to outweigh those who see uniformity as being worth more than the way the terms are used in the real world. No, it is not like Ontario. --John (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is probably, as ever, going nowhere, but as pointed out above, this is not so much about trying to impose conformity or uniformity, especially not the conformity of "British" everywhere. Momentum, such as it is, appears very much broadly in favour of retaining flexibility in the opening sentence of the lead, albeit there is the separate proposal to have more rigidity in the explicit infobox "Nationality" field. The point is more about being clearer about what we are trying to say in each case and about the basis on which we might choose a descriptive term in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 10:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is going round in circles and, as John suggests above, a moratorium should be placed on it until January 2016 as it was discussed in depth in January. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A moratorium could be seen as an attempt to silence those in favour of using 'British/United Kingdom', however. We must be carful about these things. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If there are no new arguments there is no point in discussing the whole thing again and getting the same outcome. It's a waste of our time. --John (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
As a member of WP:RETENTION, my concern is that editors could end up getting topic-banned from British articles. A moratorium would be alright, if edit-wars were breaking out (which they're not) across British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that there is currently no clear practice or principles to follow, which is what helps fuel the disputes on individual pages that do arise. Yes discussing it all here may not get us anywhere, but the status quo is hardly helpful. For the description in opening sentences, this essay – and that's all it is of course – and current general practice seem to suggest that each editor, subject to a few vague boundaries, should do more or less whatever they happen to think best in each case. As I have said, I'm in favour of that flexibility there, but there needs to be clearer guidance about how to deploy it. And there is no mention of the defined infobox field here at all, where I would argue there does need to be more rigid consistency for any definitive, explicit and exclusive one-word "Nationality" to be allotted. N-HH talk/edits 14:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, there is no justification for a moratorium on discussion, provided it is kept civil. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur, as long as the discussion is civil we continue to try to reach agreement. The priority is that we do not put barriers in the way of reaching consensus on the grounds that because we have yet to reach consensus then the status quo is acceptable when clearly that is not the case. Failing to resolve British sovereignty helps further educators claims that Wikipedia cannot be relied upon as a serious research tool when even such basic facts are ignored. I maintain the best approach is to use 'British' as the nationality, however, the editor links the descriptor 'British' to the country within the United Kingdom, I'll give you an example: 'Donald Davies was a British (links to welsh people article) scientist being the first person to develop a packet-switching network.' I truly cannot see a problem with that method as it settles both arguments, 'British' is the nationality yet the link points to their country of birth within their UK nationality. In closing, while acknowledging good faith it remains that we cannot let editors who may hold nationalist agenda to corrupt Wikipedia projecting their feelings on historic biographies and BLP's. Twobellst@lk 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Unacceptable - see WP:EASTEREGG. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Celtic heritage section

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I recently removed a section which I consider irrelevant to the subject of the essay. It was restored on the basis that I had edited against consensus. Can somebody please show me where any consensus for that section has been established. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You deleted, I reverted. Can you show me a consensus for deletion? 71.228.66.131 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What has Celtic heritage got to do with nationality in the UK. Are you suggesting that the Celts are the only ethnic goup in the UK? Why do we only consider Celtic heritage? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what it has got to do with British nationality. I don't even know what the Scottish devolution vote in 1997 has got to do with the 1% Gaelic speakers in the Highlands, or what the fact of an independent Scottish legal system has got to do with the 1% Gaelic speakers in the Highlands. The box about Scottish Gaelic also mentions the Scots dialect which is an Anglo-Saxon dialect that is not remotely related to Celtic. The box about Scottish Gaelic introduces far too many topics that have got nothing to do with Scottish Gaelic. The whole Celtic thing has been given ultra undue weight, since the vast majority of British people are predominantly of Germanic stock, even in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. 86.180.33.60 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There are also many people from other cultures and ethnicities in the UK now. As you say this section is ultra undue weight. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal of this entire section. It does not make a useful contribution to the subject matter of this essay, which is how Wikipedia deals with the question of nationality for UK subjects. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

References

This essay must follow WP:policies and guidelines concerning source and references. The section Celtic identity within Britain and Ireland: In 1707 the Welsh scholar Edward Lhuyd identified relationships between the earlier languages and those of the Celts of continental Europe, and grouped them together in what he called Celtic languages though the term Celt had not previously been used with reference to inhabitants of Britain and Ireland. A modern Celtic identity then developed in the course of Celtic Revival movements, and concepts of ethnic nationalism led to the "Celtic nations" being identified as territories in Northern and Western Europe where Celtic languages or cultural traits were still evident to some extent:, is not sourced thus appearing as original research. Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox - Birth and Death places, within the UK & outside the UK

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Recommend we add the United Kingdom in place of or in additon to England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, in the infoboxes of those who were born outside of the United Kingdom or died outside the United Kingdom , or both.

For those born & died in the United Kingdom, we'd just go with England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any clue what you mean. Does anyone else? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I am certain that I don't! FF-UK (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Examples:

  • Person A - Born in Edinburgh, United Kingdom or Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Died in Paris, France


  • Person B - Born in Beijing, China
Died in Belfast, United Kingdom or Died in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK


  • Person C - Born in Edinburgh, Scotland
Died in Cardiff, Wales


GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What about UK nationals who have never been to the UK? TFD (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
They'd use the places they were born & died in. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the point of this section, it seems to be dealing with parameters which are not controversial, and are not the subject of the article. Birth and death places are useful pieces of information if there are sources for them, but do not supplant the nationality and/or citizenship parameters. FF-UK (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A carrot for all?

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

It would be good if this essay, for that is all it is now, could be elevated to being a guideline and maybe even policy. That would be a feather in all our caps but it is not going to happen while there is so much disagreement. If we are careful to always distinguish between the three meanings of 'nationality' and we are all willing to give a little we might reach a real consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding your definintions of 'nationality', you have my complete agreement, we need to include your suggestions in the proposal as well as your suggestion to elevate the essay to policy, would you include your 3 definitions in the proposal please? Twobellst@lk 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, this essay should be scrapped, as it seems to favour usage of Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish/Irish, throughout British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, and in its place put forward the proposal as policy. Twobellst@lk 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see the discussion on whether a formal policy (or guideline) on this point should be developed. Discussion should take place at WT:MOSBIO, not here. The process for deleting articles is set out at WP:XFD. Can't say I'm not being helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to let Twobells, Martin Hogbin or anyone else take that action. I can support such actions, but I can't initiate them. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
At the head of this page it says: "It is suggested that you notify editors active at "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" of discussions on this essay taking place here by leaving a message at that guideline's talk page." That is what I shall do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is not much point having the same argument in a different place. I think we should make some progress here first. As I have said before, we need to keep the three cases described above separate. Can we try to stick to just one case at a time please please. We can start to a national description in the article text that does not use the word 'nationality'.

A national description in the article text that does not use the word 'nationality'

What is the level of agreement to the following principles?


We should follow the wording used sources

By this I mean we follow the standard WP procedure of using the description used in most of the independent quality sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We can use any national/regional description used in source

That could include all geographical terms used in sources, such as British, English, Scottish, Cornish, a Londoner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There should be a general expectation of consistency

We should not expect to see most English people being called British, but most Scottish people being called Scottish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We cannot always condense a person's regional identity to one term

There is no reason that a person cannot be called 'British' and 'a Londoner', for example, in the same article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Where possible, we should state the basis on which each term is used

If we are giving a geographical identity because that is how the subject self-identified, for example, we should state that, as in 'He always considered himself Welsh', rather than just saying, 'He was Welsh'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3&oldid=1136058252"