Talk:British people/Lead overhaul

Opinons

Hiya Jza84. I see no problems with your proposal, it look jolly good to me. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way. How'd ya manage to link the Irish flag to Ireland (state)? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How does the last sentence of the lead come across? I want to say the British have spread (colonised perhaps... not!) to Canada, US, New Zealand, Australia, but don't how to say it succinctly. Thoughts?

I've no problem with using the word colonised. Afterall, that's how it occured. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the Ireland flag, I've no idea, I just copied the infobox from the existing British people page. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I must confess, my knowledge of this kinda topic, is limited. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Paragraph

I like most of the fourth paragraph now, except for "Internationally the British are "famed for their manners" and are "regarded as a reserved, unemotional people that face misfortune with resolution"". This certainly is no longer the case but even if it was i dont think its worthy enough for the intro. Also at the end i think it should mention why theres large numbers of British decendents in those countries listed. (British Empire / colonization etc) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think domestically it isn't the case, and I totally agree with you that it seems a little outdated, but internationally this is, and there's an important distinction to be made there. Manners/ettiquette/politeness and "reserved nature" is a recurring theme when doing any Google search on the British. It's also in the 3 books I've taken out from the library this morning. I'd be happy to drop "unemotional people that face misfortune with resolution", as that's just in the one book mind.

I like the idea of British disapora being elaborated on, but I've no source. Do you know of any? I've struggled with that aspect to be honest. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I make a suggestion. Instead of the longer "Internationaly the British are famed for their manners and are regarded as a reserved, unemotional people that face misfortune with resolution" you could rephrase it as "Internationaly the British are famed for their manners and stiff upper lip" perhaps going on to say that this perception is slowly changing if there are sources to back up the changing perception. Jack forbes (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! Welcome back Jack! I'd be comforatable with this so long as we can cite our sources? I'm heading out for a few hours (lucky me!), so please feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should avoid all such issues in the introduction because its going to be challanged often if placed in such an important part of the article. It certainly use to be true but its just not today. I wouldnt want to see included in the introduction, today however the British people are known around the world for being drunks and thugs or we are the most depressed and miserable people in the world, sources for which could probably be found. Its safer to keep all such sterotypes out of the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher. I did find this source for the stiff upper lip and the decline of said lip. Perhaps "Internationaly the British were famed for their manners and stiff upper lip, though over the years the perception and reality of this stereotype has changed". What do you think? Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt reject change because of it, the current introduction is seriously lacking so any adding to it will be welcome, i just think theres more important things to explain in the intro than general sterotypes (especially ones that have dying / died out) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that it doesn't belong in the intro, though I'm not sure. I do think it was such a strong stereotype throughout the world, and as JZ said, still is in many places, that it does deserve a mention. Jack forbes (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to say it's dying out unless there's reputable evidence this is so (otherwise we'll undoubtedly get fresh waves of editors - particularly foreign at a guess - adding things about tea, bad teeth etc). And, like I say, virtually every source about British people either talks about their "resolve", "reserved nature", "manners" and "stiff upper lip", which is why I'm still confident these deserve just a sentence at the back end of the lead. I have altered the sentence slightly, but perhaps we can pool some sources together here?

That issue asside, are there any other objectionable/shaking statements? I'd like to elaborate on the final sentence of the lead, but haven't a source yet. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Butting in here uninvited I know, but I'm also unhappy about the sentence : "Internationally the British are "famed for their manners" and "stiff upper lip" and are regarded as "reserved"." What would you think of something like: "Historically, the international reputation of British people has highlighted their resolve, manners, "stiff upper lip", and reserved nature" - with, if sources can be found, an additional clause along the lines that such traits are less evident in modern British society. Words such as "Internationally the British are..." suggest that the latter part of the sentence is unquestionably true, when what is in fact true is the perception. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your wording is probably better. I have been thinking though that it may be unlikely that any mention of reserve and stiff upper lip will survive long on mainspace. What do you think? Jack forbes (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "International perceptions of the British are/revolve around... XYZ"? Then, something like "however, bla bla bla" to give balance. The problem I'm having is finding quality sources to assert what we all know to be true about this matter! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm i quite like the sound of that and it seems to be a bit more balanced. Something like ""Historically, the international perceptions of British people had highlighted their resolve, manners, "stiff upper lip", and reserved nature however such traits are less evident in modern British society" - But i still think this is going to be challanged, and is a bit too much self promotion. Its like an article on American people saying internationally Americans have been known as brave freedom fighters, quoting sources from different wars they have been involved in. Anyway im ok with such a paragraph if everyone else is but if it does cause problems (if added) we should consider removing it rather than strongly defending it. I agree such things are important but still think its better placed in its own section not the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the more any such statement is hedged around with caveats and bolstered with references, the more chance it has to survive - but I do share many of Snowded's concerns (on the main talk page) that these perceptions may be more about "English people" than "British people"; they are not necessarily, or even at all, true; and they are stereotypes and need to be described as such. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont know even with references and caveats i think its problematic, but over all the current suggested introduction is so much better than whats currently found on the article so i can live with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Some points on the current sandbox version:

• Second sentence: How about: "The British are now see themselves as a diverse, multicultural society, with strong national and regional accents, expressions and identities."
• Third sentence: How about: ...traditionally revolve around....
• Fourth sentence: Do we need to add something like: "...but historically also occurred in other parts of the former British Empire, including India and South Africa."
• and finally... what about Ireland? In the sense that we are describing, essentially, "British" as relating to the island of GB, but historically there was also settlement in, and links with, Ireland as a whole, not just NI - as well as Ireland's contribution to the genetic pool within Britain, through immigration. Should this be addressed in the same section as the sentence relating to NI and unionism, or in the section relating to the British "diaspora"? We can, in my view, hardly omit any mention of the historical relationship between British people and Ireland as a whole.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to most of this on the basis of WP:V. Could you provide citation for these issues? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could question some of your sources and interpretations as well, but I'd rather not go down that route if we can achieve a broad consensus on what should be said in the introduction. Which of my suggestions are you "reluctant" about? - I'm disappointed if you find them contentious, and I'd be grateful for the comments of others contributing to this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "now see themselves as" is WP:OR, and piping Countries of the United Kingdom to nations is breach of WP:EGG. Also the references say "regional" - the point being made (and backed up by sources) is about regional diversity, not national. "Traditionally" is a POV, emotive term, although that element has been reworded/restructured. I have integrated Ireland into the migration patterns, but keeping this lead limited and managable is going to be very challenging if we want to include Anglo-Irish relations etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But "the British" do not have any regional identities; they have national identities, and "the English" (and indeed "the Scottish" and "the Welsh") have regional identities. If the source says otherwise, it's wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Several points here.

• Firstly, I think the notion of equating "Britishness" with post-1707 "unionism" - though undoubtedly historically at least partly true - is somewhat overemphasised. The idea of "Britain" predates the 1707 union - see this reference, which refers to the idea of "Great Britain" (not precisely the same concept I know, but very closely related) as originating in a 1474 proposed England-Scotland marriage union, and in the 1604 assumption of the joint monarchy by James VI and I. So, the idea does not wholly postdate 1707 - although there is no doubt that that is when it became more prevalent, and particularly in the late C18/early C19 wars against France etc.
• Secondly, the idea of Britishness being "closely tied with Protestantism since its inception" is true historically, obviously still believed to be true by many people in Ireland and elsewhere, but is certainly not now accepted by many people in modern British (ie GB) society. There are many (possibly a declining percentage, but still many) people who define themselves as "British" (often in preference to other designations such as "English", "Welsh" etc.) who are either wholly secular or belong to other religious traditions rather than Protestantism. I think it would be wrong for WP to suggest that what is historically valid is still valid now, in modern "British" society, by which I mean society in the island of GB.
• Thirdly, I think the paragraph needs to take on board the view that over many centuries (and not just since 1707) many people in these islands have both intermarried and moved freely between different parts of the islands, for a whole variety of reasons. "British" has come to be, for many in GB at least, a catch-all term, which covers people who have genetic heritage from a mixture of countries (in my case, for example, Welsh and Ulster Scots, via NW England) and who could have been born and/or now reside in any of those countries (in my case, born in England and living in Wales - in my children's case, born in Wales but with additional English genes).
• In the final line of the para, would "conviction" be better than "affection"?

Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of this. Could you give me a moment to try and integrate these ideas? Much of what I've based the lead on comes from Linda Colley who is the expert on British national identity, and a professor of history at Princeton University. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Some of the ideas and views we share seem to be quite difficult to reference, or at least slip in from a cursory glance. I'm really quite pleased with how this is shaping up! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Ghmyrtle that in Britain as a whole it is not just protestants that define themselves as British and that other religions and those who are secular do so. I would point out though that in Scotland, and in particular the heavily populated West of Scotland, it is still very much the case that protestantism is associated with unionism. Strangely enough, a large proportion of the Asian community consider themselves Scottish first. (cites needed). Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Asian communities are going to need some considerable attention to detail when (I hope) we get round to padding the article outwards. I know for sure that here in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, the Asian community consider themselves British, but not English, and I mean 2nd/3rd/4th generation British Asians. "English" seems to be reserved for whites only. It's an interesting phenomena that is probably typical in North West England.

Re Protestantism, I've changed the wording so that it better reflects our concerns, and luckily, the source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting there, but I've still got some concerns:

• First sentence: Would this be clearer? - "Although the idea of Britain as encompassing England, Scotland and Wales early assertions of being British dates from the Late Middle Ages, assertions of a developed British national identity became popular around the time of emerged following the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707."
• Last part of para: I think this confuses too much the historical development of Britishness and the current issues. Need to think more about this - will get back to you.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I added something about intermarriage too since my last post. I'd personally like to keep the length no greater than it currently is, and instead, try to rephrase the existing content.

I think "geographic" Britain is far more ancient than the Middle Ages, by way of Alba, Britannia and Roman Britain. If anything, Britain pre-dates England, Scotland and Wales by nearly a thousand years. I'd rather concentrate on British identity rather than geographics. Also, I'd be reluctant to change to "Became popular around the time of", because that isn't quite what the source material is saying. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the modern sense of "British" is all to do with the fusion between the three distinct countries which existed on the island before GB in the "political" sense was created. I was not talking about the "geographical" definition of Britain, but about the three pre-existing (and now re-emerging) countries, whose relationships are crucial to disentangling and understanding current questions of what "British" means. I'll withdraw the "becoming popular" part having read a bit more of what Colley has said - though it's apparent she has some critics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing i would like to see changed is the "forged" during the wars, it sounds like we owe our British identity to the French. Could we not say strenghtened or enhanced? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about formed or shaped? That's more inline with what the quote was implying about Britishness. Enhanced would, to me, imply that Britishness was already around but built upon; it seems 18th century Britishness was a new brand of Britishness, or so they are saying.

I'm just reading the conclusion stage of Colley's work and I think I can put something together about the "fusion" of nations for us. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

Just one small point. Is Britisher a common enough term to be used in the intro? I know it states that it is rarely used, yet I personaly have never heard it said even though I have been around quite a bit. I believe it was a term used in the past, rather than today. I stand to be corrected of course. Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very rare. I had heard of it a long time back, I think on The World at War series. Its probably worth a mention, but in a different way. How about "or archaically Britishers"? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Britishers is too rare to deserve a mention in the introduction i think. Its going to create alot more people questioning it or thinking its a mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It will need a mention somewhere. I think I'm onto the stuff (I mentioned elsewhere) about Britons unifying during war periods. If that's so, I'd like to expand the main body to have more stuff about the 2 world wars, then add the "Britishers" poster image, then elaborate there. Would that be OK? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i like the image and it should be mentioned, just there are dozens of names more commonly used or known for British people so i dont think its needed in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is of course the rather horrific Alternative names for the British... I don't think I have the strength to tackle that one! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Britishers should be mentioned, and I don't think it's archaic. If anything, I would say that "Britons" is more archaic - certainly I think it's only now used in quite formal contexts. I'd also add that "Brits" should be flagged up as colloquial, and in some cases defamatory (Ireland?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer: The British (also known as Britons, Britishers or colloquially Brits).... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I still dont know why we are including Britishers in the introduction it is hardly ever used now except for in India according to that alternative name article. British, Britons, Brits seem like the 3 reasonable and well known terms that need to be included and i dont think Brits needs to flagged at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A Google search seems to show this term lasted well into the 20th century in Britain, and still has significant usage globably. Even I'm surprised at that! Would you object to leaving it there for now, then test the water on the main article for a while to see what kind of feedback we get? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes if others are happy for it to be left in i can live with it, like i say the current proposed version is so much better than the introduction on the article at the moment so it would be an improvement. But if we get people questioning the use of it (like the bit on international perceptions of British people) then we should consider removing them rather than getting into a long drawn out fight over its use even if the sources back up its inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Britisher a word actually used by British people? Or at least changed from British by non British people such as in Germany and India. If the second, would it be right to use a term that is not part of the English language? As BritishWatcher says, it can be included then see if there are many objections to the term. Jack forbes (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to only be Indian websites or news reports or african ones that come up mostly from the google search. Thats why im rather concerned we would give such an unusual term thats certainly not used today in Britain the same status as Brit or Britons. I wouldnt want to start getting called a "Britisher" because someone read it on wikipedia and thought it was often used. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the flipside, I wouldn't want someone reading the term elsewhere (history book, article, war propaganda) and not being able to find any reference to it. I suppose it is highly comparable to Scotch, which gets enboldened at the Scots people article. I'm confident that with the note on archaism, we've covered it pretty neutrally. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention of it and inclusion of that image somewhere in the article is good because its educational and shows development of British identity, its just giving it the same status as Brits or Britons which is far more common and known i have a problem with. Perhaps im being too negative because i dont like the word, something about "Britishers" that makes me cringe lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point, and I share your views, I'm just trying to come at this with an open mind. Google Books throws up thousands of results, some into the late 20th century, and many from the UK, Australia and Canada. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion to add to this line."International perceptions of the British revolve around their politeness and reserved nature". To "International perceptions of the British revolve around their politeness and reserved nature, though within Britain itself this perception is related to the upper class English people". Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is another bit that makes me cringe, if it remains in there we really need to say it use to be a perception, as its really no longer the case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2137729.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This boils down to WP:V ultimately. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight edit conflict there sorry. I'm not confident about that source. It'd be WP:SYNTH on our part, and it's just one poll reported on in 2002 about tourism. I'd much rather we find a whole quote about this, so one that has the point we're seeking in its entirity. Otherwise we're going back to "some say this (source), but others say that" - it's like my dad's stronger than your dad, and fragments the point. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats why i think we should avoid all mention of these sterotypes in the introduction all the sources that can be found are just POVs. Whilst some say Brits had such qualities others would of been calling us butchers, and today we all know the reality of modern Britain. I think its more about neutrality than verifiable sources. As i mentioned before we can find sources describing americans as brave heros and freedom fighters, i wouldnt expect such a description on the American people article intro, even if it were true. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. If one imagines they ask a thousand random people from across the world to write this lead section, I imagine pretty much all of them would make mention of these traits/perceptions. Wouldn't you agree?

I aim to have a section in the British people article about "Perceptions and/or traits", pooling some commonalities and quotes into there. Remember, the topic is about the people, not just ethnicity, ancestry and nationalism, and guidelines attest that we be broad, if not full in our coverage on any given topic. Ask any French, Canadian, American, Indian what are the British known for and being "English, Scottish and Welsh" wouldn't be in there at all. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see BritishWatchers point. Initially I was quite happy to have it included, but I do understand his concerns. As Snowded says on the main page, Scots are perceived to be mean, Welsh to be erm, sheep ****. If we include all the ways the British are or where perceived it could be never ending. How would many Irish perceive us? Jack forbes (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But these are obscure, national perceptions. Like I've said, have a research into what the British people are for 5/10 minutes - I assure you, all the reputable sources make prominent mention of this. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay Jz. I'm happy to have it included with your references. Do you agree with my addition to the sentence clarifying what the perception is inside Britain? Jack forbes (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the content, but not with its inclusion. It's a matter for verification. I would feel very reluctant and uncomfortable forcing the traits onto a specific group of people when it is not sourced. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the creation of a section dealing with British identity, sterotypes and character and how it has evolved over the years. It was one of many things lacking from the original article which i had a problem with, i just dont think an old trait or perception is worth including in the intro, especially without a counter to it. Seems biased and POV (even if it was accurate at the time). I can find dozens of sources describing todays Brits as yobish and trouble makers where ever they go, but i wouldnt want it included in the intro. Despite the current one being a positive message, its still the same principle. As for what the Irish would think of us? theyd think we are friendly peaceful neighbours and they all worship the ground we all walk on :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I had been planning on going to the book shop today, so I'll have a look and see if I can find anything that can help us out here. Jack forbes (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this rephrase? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. Would it be better to add at the end of the sentence "and of various levels of politeness and reserved nature"? Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's not really the point being made in source material. The threshold for inclusion is verfiability, not truth. The sources refer to Britons collectively, not that every single Briton is like this (of course), and there's an important distinction there. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Or something like: In the past international perceptions of the British broadly revolve around their politeness and reserved nature, however the social structure of Britain has changed radically since the 19th century, with the decline in religious observance, enlargement of the middle class, and increased ethnic diversity. Today the British are a diverse, multicultural society, with strong regional accents, expressions and identities. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not really getting my point across! "In the past" is original research, and not supported by a reference. I know it's probably true, at least domestically, but we're not here to change quotes and rewrite opinion.

Here's the quote from O'Meara (Irish?), used already:

It's intriguing that Brits are famed for their manners. Outsiders laugh at the innate impulsion to queue that exists in Britain. You might be forgiven for thinking that keeping a 'stiff upper lip' is no long a British trait. Overseas, however, the British are still regarded as a reserved, unemotional people that face misfortune with resolution and without recourse to tears.

There's nothing in there about upper class, English, past or not being true anymore! Infact there's nothing else in there. Nothing. Nothing about being loud, or unpolite or anything. It's about modern, persistent, international perception. If we want to include/integrate other facts, we need to get hunting for quality reference material. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)