Talk:British diaspora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Including "Irish" as "British" diaspora[edit]

It's deliberately contentious and "baiting" to include the Irish diaspora as being part of the British diaspora. If the articles you linked to were limited to the time period where Ireland was part of the empire, there might be a case. But this is not the case. In addition, the census statistics do not split the Irish diaspora into those with British subject origins, and those without, making it impossible to quantify. Finally, I notice you do not include the British overseas territories, or include the diaspora from other ex-British countries.... --HighKing (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Those other countries are not listed because they were not part of the UK. Ireland was, and was therefore part of the home nation. It is misleading to state that Ireland was part of the "Empire" - it only was insofar as England was, for example. ðarkuncoll 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is called "British diaspora". This article is a collection of links. It is contentiously confusing to make the claim that the Irish diaspora is a subset of the British diaspora - which it very definitely is not. It is also WP:OR, with no references provided, to show that the Irish emigrgants identify themselves as part of the British diaspora. Finally, it is inaccurate as the articles in question are not confined with the period when Ireland was part of the UK. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am Irish. As such, when I move abroad, I will become part of the Irish diaspora. I will also be, as an Irish person, a part of the British diaspora - therefore, a 'subset'. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The Republic of Ireland is NOT part of the UK, so they form their own diaspora, just as we have the French, German diaspora. It is most definitely not a subset of anything; that is just nonsensical. I doubt that the above writer is truly Irish after seeing they wrote such a thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - also Cornish is no more a valid category than any other English region - Wiltshire American, Yorkshire American. Suggest removal of "Cornish" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

China / Hong Kong[edit]

Hi, there seems to be a discrepancy between the map and the table as far as China and Hong Kong are concerned. The table says that Hong Kong (or according to the footnote, possibly Hong Kong and China combined) is home to 3,752,031 "British people" (which actually I find quite surprising in itself, but I suppose must be correct according to the definitions used). However, the map shows China at a level that looks like 10,000 to 50,000, while Hong Kong is not separately visible at all. As well as the discrepancy that China is shown on the map but not (separately) in the table, the major problem with the current presentation is that the overwhelmingly largest concentration of British people outside Britain, i.e. in Hong Kong, is not apparent at all on the map. (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Including the vast bulk of the (Chinese) population of Hong Kong makes this article look rather silly... no-one in Britain classes 3.5 million inhabitants of this part of China as 'British' whatever the technicalities may be. The term 'diaspora' implies being scattered from the home country...which Hong Kong Chinese clearly are not. The Hong Kong Chinese should be treated in this article as a separate and distinct entitity ... if they should be included at all Vauxhall1964 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


Is this article about only ethnically British people(English,Scott etc) or about those "British" who have immigrant back ground? At least it should mentioned how many percentege of British people living abroad have immigrant back ground??Ovsek (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move of Anglo-African to British in Africa[edit]

See Talk:Anglo-African#Proposed move to British in Africa. Helen (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

People of British descent born outside the UK[edit]

This article gives the number of British people living abroad, but the British diaspora includes people from anywhere who are of British ancestry. This includes many millions in the US, several million in Canada and several million in Australia, yet this isn't mentioned in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Table synthesis[edit]

This is our source. Mixing other estimates in the table constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Links to countries[edit]

Should all of the countries in the table include a flag and links to each of them? This seems to be the convention in tables related to demographics. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Links would probably make sense, and as far as I understand WP:MOSFLAG, it's acceptable to use flags in this context too. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Are the numbers right? The number given for Australia is greater than the number of British-born residents of Australia, and not all of those (one would expect) would fall into the citizenship categories specified. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your rationale for the "dubious" tag, PalaceGuard008. The IPPR estimate is indeed 1.3 million, as reported here. I think that as long as we make clear that this is the IPPR's estimate, not a definitive figures, then there isn't a problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it Cordless Larry. The BBC site makes it clear that these are estimates for 2006. I would suggest this should be made clear in the table, as it seems misleading to present figures that are almost 10 years old as current. Also, the definition for "Britons" (again according to the BBC site) is "British nationals and/or people born in the UK believed to have lived there for a year or longer", which is not quite the same as what is suggested by the introduction to the table in this article. It also suggests that they use different criteria in different countries, but it is not clear which in which. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this could be made clearer, PalaceGuard008. I'll have a go at making it so. I'm not sure they are using different definitions for different countries, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your amendments Cordless Larry. I have taken off the dubious tag, but it remains unclear to me whether it is correct that the figures are based on a definition of Britons as "British subjects" (as defined in the article). The link to the report itself is dead, and the BBC says the definition is "British nationals and/or people born in the UK believed to have lived there for a year or longer". Did you see the definition of what is counted as Britons in the report itself, before the link died? Did it match what is in the article now, or does it match what the BBC has? I am happy to go with what is in the article now if that was what was in the report, but if we cannot be sure what the report itself said, my view is that we should use the BBC's definition, as that is the best source we have available now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, PalaceGuard008. I've updated that link, but as far as I recall, the full text of the report was never available online. I think I had a copy of it, so I will see if I can dig it out when I get time and check the definitions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


The data in this article is now over a decade old - are there more recent sources we could use? Pseudomonas(talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Table 16 here has data for 2015. I've not looked through it in detail to see how complete it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)