Jump to content

Talk:British people: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 141: Line 141:


A recent video shows a family of three being [[Hua Hin|knocked out on a crowded street in a city]] [[Thailand|a country that underpays its police- and justice ''officers'']]. I have purposely not provided any links to that case. Are any of the reactions to the case notable (perhaps from British officials)? The video, from municipal surveillance cameras, was allegedly leaked from a non-British police force. Is the case notable yet, for an article of its own? Of non-British media, one Danish newspaper also reported about the case and the video. Are there also any notable claims that there was racism involved (against the Britons)? [[Special:Contributions/46.15.248.80|46.15.248.80]] ([[User talk:46.15.248.80|talk]]) 08:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
A recent video shows a family of three being [[Hua Hin|knocked out on a crowded street in a city]] [[Thailand|a country that underpays its police- and justice ''officers'']]. I have purposely not provided any links to that case. Are any of the reactions to the case notable (perhaps from British officials)? The video, from municipal surveillance cameras, was allegedly leaked from a non-British police force. Is the case notable yet, for an article of its own? Of non-British media, one Danish newspaper also reported about the case and the video. Are there also any notable claims that there was racism involved (against the Britons)? [[Special:Contributions/46.15.248.80|46.15.248.80]] ([[User talk:46.15.248.80|talk]]) 08:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
:Now mentioned in this version of about the tourism in that city [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hua_Hin_District&oldid=718398025]. [[Special:Contributions/46.15.248.80|46.15.248.80]] ([[User talk:46.15.248.80|talk]]) 08:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:17, 3 May 2016

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

British/Briton is not an ethnic group. This article is stupid and useless.

The term "British" is used to refer to nationality, a citizen of, or a person living in the United Kingdom. If we're talking about the native ethnic groups, those would be English people, Scots, and Welsh people. Honestly, this is as stupid as someone claiming "American" as an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.63.121 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regard myself as ethnically British. We've been British for ten thousand years. Why do we have to categorise ourselves into English or Welsh? The United States is an immigrant country with people from all over the world whereas we are an indigenous society whose ancestors are aboriginal, the first people in our island. Your view needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.129.237 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, many people (like me) do identify as British. Most of my great-great-great-grandparents were Welsh speakers, in Wales. The other great-great-great-grandparents were born in Ireland of originally Scottish stock. Familes moved around. Three of my grandparents were born in England, as was I. I've lived in England for about two-thirds of my life, and Wales for about one-third. What does that make me? A (fairly) typical British person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to nail this old chestnut once again. Etnicity and nationality are two distinct and independant descriptors of people. British is a statement of nationality and also has a legal context. Nationality associated with: Scottish Welsh English etc provides a way for people to express their allegiance or heritage to one of the constituent countries of the UK but does not affect their legal status as British. White British or Black British or Asian British are examples of ethnic groups used in the United Kingdom which are applied via self classification and cannot be legally applied / imposed on a person by the State. The belief that there is such a thing as 'ethnic-English', '-Welsh' '-Scottish' etc is today at best an out-dated concept. At worst wll enough said.....!! Above all its not the artical that is uselessTmol42 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images?

If anyone's able? we need some images for this article's infobox. It looks rather bare, without one. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree GoodDay (talk) Lets start listing all those British people whose pictures can be included in the collage . Inventors , Leaders , Artists , Scientists , Authors , Musicians , Socialists .Lets select 25 greatest British of all time who can be put in a picture frame as similar to this article I am Starting with Isaac Newton , Agatha Christie , King Arthur , Queen Victoria , Christopher Nolan , Paul Mccartney , Charles Darwin , Michael Faraday ,Tim Berners-Lee , James Watt , Alexander Fleming ,Sean Connery, Alfred Hitchcock, James Clerk Maxwell ,Ian McKellen, William Shakespeare , Florence Nightingale, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Best , Robin Hood, John Lennon, Alan Turing, Ian Botham,Emily Blunt, Boudica, John Logie Baird , Douglas Bader, Emma Watson, Harold Larwood, Virginia Woolf . I don't want Winston Churchill in this list; even if he ranks number one in 100 greatest British as he was responsible for 1943 Bengal famine. --Cosmic  Emperor  09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great :) GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will confess to not being a fan of info box portrait images. Anyone who patrols the British Pakistanis and British Indian etc articles will know they quickly become a venue for adding and subtracting IPs favourite celebs. It becomes also tedious when what is added is a non feee images. I am aware WP policy generally advises in favour of a single iconic image rather than an indiscriminate image gallery of miscellaneous pictures. To the list above we could all add another 500. If it was already there bet Jeremy Clarkson would have found his way there by last week. If you have to go this route I will not protest but expect those on favour to then patrol it. But why not make use of the 100 Greatest Britons which at least has some democratic process defining notability going for it.Tmol42 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's not do this. It just invites endless arguments, & will have little encyclopedic value. A photo of a British crowd might be better; I've added a nice one as a suggestion. Note from a section a little above that a collage has been added and removed in the past. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Will select 20/25 people from Greatest 100 Britons list . I know about that list. I will give preference to International fame , international reputation than local reputation. However my choice won't be permanent. If someone feels that someone in that list needs to replaced by anyone who is better than he/she can do it.CosmicEmperor (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod and Tmol42. A collage of thumbnails will have little encyclopedic value and be continually contentious (note for example that CosmicEmperor's list above includes only white British and represents fiction authors with Agatha Christie, or see the exhausting discussion at Talk:British people/Archive 3#Infobox Collage: Representing the British). Take a look at the tiny thumbnails of Scottish people and that article's contribution history, or look at Americans as it now is and as it was a few months ago, before editors agreed to drop the infobox images completely in discussions (Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good and Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Infobox images) which cited this article as a good example of doing fine without such infobox images.NebY (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why this page has pictures of afro arabs then ? . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Arab .Do We have a restriction against White People . So a Pakistani Women with no international fame will represent thousand years of British culture and History. If any non-white British citizen is equal to the persons I have mentioned (in terms of contribution to society and international reputation) then He/she deserves to be in that list . You can name them who are as great as Shakespeare and Darwin . I am am ignorant of such great non-White British who are greater than Shakespeare and Darwin . And I never said my list is permanent . Editors can change it afterwards .NebY (talk) Don't accuse me of favouring White people as that was never my intention . I am not even White and I always hated British rule in India CosmicEmperor (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicEmperor: I didn't accuse you of favouring white people. I used the fact that your list only featured white British to illustrate how contentious such a collage would be. I'm sorry that disturbed you. Sadly, we've just demonstrated how discussions about who to include would often become fraught very quickly. I've indented your response a little more per WP:THREAD to make it clear you were responding to my post, not GoodDay's. NebY (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Infobox image collages are pointless, subjective trivia. Whatever the result of selection, no-one will will happy with it. Lists of British people shows how divisive this will be. Daicaregos (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by Daicaregos, Johnbod, Tmol42 and NebY, and am glad that attention has been drawn to the discussions at Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good and Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Infobox images. I favour getting rid of the images in the infobox completely, essentially for many of the reasons set out in those discussions by Secondplanet:
  1. It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space.
  2. Selection of the images inevitably reflects personal bias and leads to an absence of consensus, and conflict
  3. Images of famous British people are barely relevant to the wider topic of British people.
  4. The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers. The images are ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article.
So, I propose that the mosaic be removed not reinstated (oops...). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, well we don't have one, it having been removed a while back (see a couple of sections up). A consensus seems to be emerging to keep it that way. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously too much sun has been getting to me. Sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the very well-summarised reasons set out by Ghmyrtle for retaining the status quo and tentitively suggest we might aim to promote what I hope is an emerging concensus here by initiating discussions which encompass the 'British diaspora-related' articles which have collages which seem to endlessly evole as a whole bagatelle of preferences and dare I say it prejudices are played out.Tmol42 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason of why a crowd of (all white) British people at an event in Kent adds to anyone's understanding of the article topic. I certainly do not want to have a mosaic reinstated - but I don't want some random photo of people waving flags included either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Daicaregos (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! Does one need to set out the advantages of illustration in general? I hope not. I'm getting rather tired of this page, but I will just say that a lead image is a good thing, and people ought to propose a new one before removing one that's there. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A wide-ranging (and occasionally contentious) topic like "British people" does not lend itself to a single image. We are not here to make the article look pretty - we are here to provide useful information. A picture of a random crowd doesn't do that, and nor does a selection of "noteworthy" people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that's complete nonsense, but I'll leave you all to it here. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think being overly utilitarian in this may be unproductive. I agree in principle with what I think is Jonbod's underlying point: that a "British" crowd scene has a general (aesthetic) illustrative benefit even though it might fall short of being instructive. I don't think the flag waving scene he chose fulfils that aesthetic requirement though. (Btw, the gallery/montage of "famous" people are always a problem in all the X People articles and should be done away with in general.) I think it could work if a good photo of a "British" crowd scene could be found - which isn't necessarily "representative" but is in some way, in itself, notable. I thought, perhaps, that a photo of the stadium audience at the Olympic opening ceremony could fit the bill - but, surprisingly, I couldn't find anything of suitable quality. But I think something of that nature would potentially benefit the appeal of the article without strictly increasing the readers' "understanding of the topic". DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With sincere apologies for deflating your balloon but any image of a crowd at the Olympic opening ceremony will certainly be an international one. A GB & NI team image meets the nationality test as would one of British MPs as seen assembling for the Queen's speech but be beware of the 'reluctant British' who appear in such a photo but have self declared themselves to have a preference to be Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or English. Then why not Britannia or the British Royal Family? But Republicans and others may not sign up to them as representative. So perhaps we should look for an image of a 'stiff upper lip' and post it up there on 1st April and at least we can have a good laugh about our confused identity!Tmol42 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, any balloon I once had has long gone floppy. My point is that the "representive" objective never works. Better to go for an aesthetically pleasing crowd scene at a notable "British" event (eg sporting, cultural, even political). Only problem is I just can't find one. DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've got images for English people, Scottish people & Welsh people (we should have images for People of Northern Ireland aswell), therefore it shouldn't be too difficult to choose pictures from those articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay is absolutely right. Northern Irish needs one. I also agree with CosmicEmperor, a collage is required for British people. As for Daicaregos, Johnbod, Tmol42 and NebY, seen that Britain is a multiethnic territory, certain people believe that there should be few spaces for Asians or Blacks on the collage, but I think that the solely foreigner we can include would be Sake Dean Mahomed.--115ash→(☏) 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to have any images . Last time this page had images they were so small that they were pointless, GA articles of this nature no longer have the kid images. --Moxy (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on British people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case being downplayed until police video leaked (about 3 family members from Britain being knocked out including an elderly lady)

A recent video shows a family of three being knocked out on a crowded street in a city a country that underpays its police- and justice officers. I have purposely not provided any links to that case. Are any of the reactions to the case notable (perhaps from British officials)? The video, from municipal surveillance cameras, was allegedly leaked from a non-British police force. Is the case notable yet, for an article of its own? Of non-British media, one Danish newspaper also reported about the case and the video. Are there also any notable claims that there was racism involved (against the Britons)? 46.15.248.80 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now mentioned in this version of about the tourism in that city [1]. 46.15.248.80 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_people&oldid=718398287"