Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Uniformity

I have removed the 'uniformity' section as it is plainly ludicrous, the section stated that editors must not impose uniformity regarding nationality when that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If any one descriptor required uniformity it is nationality, consensus seems to be moving towards actuality as it applies to British nationality and stopping people impose uniformity on a straightforward classification makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and, while tipping our hats to good faith if anything, favours bias, unless editors are prepared to start (for example) describing George W Bush's nationality as 'Texan' or 'Connecticut'? Twobells^t@lk 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. There can be no consensus over "nationality" when it is clear from this discussion (and multiple previous discussions) that there is no consensus over the meaning of the word "Nationality". Does the infobox say "Legal citizenship"? - no, it doesn't. Does it say "Sovereign state at time of birth"? - no, it doesn't. Perhaps it should - but that's a discussion to be had in a different place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So all US and Canadian citizens should lose their 'American' nationality descriptor because 'there is no consensus on nationality'? Twobells^t@lk 13:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm.. no. So far as I'm aware, there is a consensus on "nationality" in the US and Canada - unlike in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And there is a consensus on UK nationals both factually and historically all of which I can cite credibly, we have the crazy situation whereby certain wikipedia editors are suggesting that British people are not British irrespective to all the evidence we can source. Not one editor here has been able to source a citation stating that British people are not British. Twobells^t@lk 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, you may think that "certain Wikipedia editors are suggesting that British people are not British" but that is only because you are misrepresenting what others say. The actual point is that British people have British citizenship, but various nationalities. FF-UK (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Including British, of course. Unless you are suggesting that British is not a nationality. Not everyone claims any other nationality than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As I have said already, numerous times, we must go with the sources. If reliable sources say English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, we use that, if they say British, we use that. Editors cannot make it up for themselves! FF-UK (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers my above point. Your wording suggested that "British" is merely a citizenship, not a nationality. Your (quite correct) point about sourcing is far removed from the reality of BLPs on Wikipedia, where nationalities are made up by editors more often than not, and subsequently defended ad infinitum. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

My wording does not suggest that "British is merely a citizenship, not a nationality." FF-UK (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We'll agree to differ on that. Thanks for clearing it up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The last time I tried to impose uniformity on British articles, I ended up with a 3-year topic (2011-14) ban from British articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Ghmyrtle I have undone your revert for now but am open to a secondary revert if you can explain how else we can tell if someone had nationalistic sympathies and not wish to be described as 'British' even though they are described so by the state, the EU, the UN and NGo's? ? It is my belief that we should use their nationality unless credible sources state that they had nationalist sympathies (even though they were still a citizen of the UK...) Regards. Twobells^t@lk 13:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you appear to have no idea what the difference is between someone in Scotland / Wales / Ireland / England having "nationalist sympathies", and declaring their "national identity" to be one of those countries. Many millions of people in the UK describe themselves as English / Welsh / Scottish, etc., without having the slightest trace of "nationalist sympathies" - by which is commonly meant nationalist political sympathies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We will get nowhere if editors continue to equate accurately describing the nationality of a Welshman or Scot with having "nationalistic sympathies". Taking as an example the appropriately referenced designation of James Clerk Maxwell as having Scottish nationality (as cited by the references from the UK Parliament and the London Science Museum) then such references to "nationalistic sympathies" are blatant nonsense. FF-UK (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Contributors here must try to understand (it is not really difficult) that England, Wales and Scotland are all nations. Texas and Connecticut are not, they are states. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• With respect you both are completely ignoring good faith in assuming that my use of the term nationalist sympathies is somehow derogatory, it does not matter one iota how someone 'feels' about their identity when referring to nationality, it is what their legal definition is, many Texans and folks from the southern states don't consider themselves 'American' but you don't see their bio's stating they are 'Texan' do you? This whole madness introducing 'feelings' when dealing with such a straight forward issue is indicative of why educators mock Wikipedia, subsequently, any attempt to bypass 'British' as the nationality of people from Scotland, England, Wales and NI is nothing more than agenda-pushing. Twobells^t@lk 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

They're all a part of sovereign states, the UK & the USA. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, quite spectacularly! Nationality refers to belonging to a nation. England, Wales and Scotland are nations, therefore they each have a unique nationality associated with them. Texas and Connecticut are not nations, therefore there is no unique nationality associated with them. If that is not simple enough for you, then I think that you should go away and brush up your constitutional understanding of that very messy entity known as the UK. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I fear that some editors have a very long history of spectacularly missing the point. It has been pointed out to GoodDay (and others) hundreds of times that we are not discussing which sovereign states they are citizens of, we are discussing their nationality. Some editors may think that "nationality" and "legal citizenship" mean the same thing, or should mean the same thing - but the point is that others disagree, and so there is no consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's be practical, gentlemen. In the end, the deciding factor 'here' (and on the related bio articles) is usually the same -- Numbers: As in how many editors want it this way & how many editors want it that way. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This essay has existed and helped to prevent stupid edit wars for a good while now. Edit-warring on the essay itself is a particularly stupid endeavour. There is no consensus here, or at the previous discussion in January, to change it. --John (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it looks like consensus was reached, in that the people's of the United Kingdom are British, irrespective of which country they come from within the UK and that my friends is the point, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are all countries within the United Kingdom, the sovereign state, the nationality and citizenship of all people's in Great Britain is British and has been since 1707 and the founding of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In closing, you willl not find a single credible source suggesting otherwise while I can cite any number of sources stating that the people of the UK are British and that is how we construct articles on Wikipedia, however, if those against consensus can source citations stating that the people of the UK are NOT British then please produce them otherwise the credible sources that show that the british are british stands. Twobells^t@lk 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, if you want to set up as a historian, then you had better learn the relevant history. The Acts of Union of 1707 resulted in the Kingdom of Great Britain which encompassed the nations of England and Scotland. Ireland was not involved. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who are you hiding behind your IP? Editors are asked to create subscriptions yet seemingly you refuse to, and for the record Ireland had been in union with England since 1541 so an attempt at sophistry to mock me fails spectacularly. Twobells^t@lk 10:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

In your dreams! Ireland did not enter the union until 1800, and when it did it was the whole if Ireland, not just Northern Ireland. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop testing mine and other editors patience, if you want to contribute to Wikipedia please follow the guidelines and create a subscription, also please refer to the Crown of Ireland Act 1542.

WP:ACCOUNT states "You don't need to be registered to contribute".

The WP article on the Crown of Ireland Act 1542. says: "The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 is an Act of the Parliament of Ireland (33 Hen. 8 c. 1) which created the title of King of Ireland for King Henry VIII of England and his successors, who previously ruled the island as lords." Note, no mention of 'union'. The same WP article goes on to say "Until 1801, Ireland continued to exist as a Kingdom in its own right, with its own Parliament" 174.58.12.204 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• • Twobells, as far as I know, no one is disputing the citizenship which applies to people of the UK. This about their nationality. The two things are not the same, and there are two appropriate categories in the Infobox to accommodate this. Please try not to confuse the issue. FF-UK (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Twobells deletions have been overturned. Perhaps FF-UK's additions should be aswell. We certaintly don't want anything that looks like a double standard. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

They are not comparable. The edits by Twobells were misleading, at best. The edits by FF-UK may not have been necessary - they are just the views of a politician, after all - but they are perhaps more helpful than unhelpful in explaining the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We shall agree to disagree, Ghmyrtle. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, please explain how my edits were 'mis-leading' please? I can do the basic math, consensus was for my edits yet they were still undone and in fact, although I clearly and politely stated that I was open to edit reversion if a credible reason was forthcoming, instead this was ignored entirely and three reverts made, two by Ghmyrtle and one minutes later by an 'anonymous' user. who incredibly, suggested that that the people of the United Kingdom are not 'British' and anyone who states such a fact is guilty of bias. I then received a 3RR message from John which is expressly against Wikipedia policy because generic 3RR warnings can be seen as aggressive and most certainly are not a tool to stifle legitimate edits and debate. The guidelines suggest that an interested party write to the user on their talk page which was not done, employing the 3RR warning in such a situation can be seen as nothing more than aggressive npov bias especially considering the fact that the parties who made the 3 reverts received no such warning. Twobells^t@lk 19:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Twobells - You removed the long-established section headed Do not enforce uniformity - clearly (in my view) against consensus, or (at best) when active discussions on the point were still ongoing - and you suggested that nationality should be chosen on the basis of whether the subject "had nationalist sympathies". That is an extraordinary suggestion. As has been pointed out to you, expressions of national identity have little to do with expressions of "nationalist sympathies". So, it was clearly misleading. The rules on 3RR apply to everyone, and it was clear from your actions that you needed to be reminded of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

of course I did, I laid out my reasoning at the start of the section, I can produce any number of sources that show that British people are UK nationals yet seemingly not one editor can show that they are not, subsequently, the ridiculous section 'do not impose uniformity' on the citizenship of UK nationals holds no water whatsoever. Twobells^t@lk 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

In order to turn down the tempature. I recommend that FF-UK's additions to the main-page, be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This implication that a quote which provides information on the subject from the head of the British Government should in some way 'raise the temperature' is simply too extraordinary for words. Can we please conduct this discussion in an reasonably intelligent way. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

An observation: On Wikipedia, the 'United Kingdom' seems to be the only sovereign state, in which there's a resistance to identifying with it. AFAIK, very few have problems with Canadian, Russian, Estonian, South African, Australian, Brazillian etc etc. But try to apply British? all heck breaks loose. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox consensus

There does appear to be a consensus to having the infobox nationality in line with other infobox fields, a clear and well-defined property that is easy to verify, in other words the infobox field should state the legal nationality. A number of editors have supported this suggestion and so far none has spoken against it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You can take my speaking against this general nitwittery to also be against the various specific nitwitteries like this one. --John (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Refering to a good faith suggestion to gain consensus as 'nitwittery' is uncivil. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Returning to disruptive and tendentious nationalistic POV-pushing mere months after the last time you were here is pretty uncivil too. --John (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, incorrect, and quite unnecessary language about a fellow editor. You do not have to agree with me but there is no need to attack me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It aint gonna stick Martin, unless you've got bus-loads of editors to back you up. Ya gotta approach this on a practical basis. Any attempts to insert British across these bio-articles, will be met with resistance. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am hoping that some logic wil prevail. 'Nationality' in the more general sense is a totally unsuitable subject for an infobox field. It is completely uninformative to our readers who will have no idea on what basis it was decided; self-identification, place of birth, nationality of parents, ethnicity, place in which the subject is best known, or the random preference of a group of editors. That is a subject for the article itself. Legal nationality, on the other hand, is a simple easily verified fact like every other infobox field. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Logic & British bio articles, don't blend well ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The existing guidance at Template:Infobox person makes it clear that either nationality or citizenship can be used in the infobox, but they should only both be used "when they somehow differ", and also notes that the citizenship parameter is "rarely needed". It's all been discussed many times on that template's talk page as well, most recently, I think, here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Who mentioned citizenship? Not me. The point is that 'nationality' in the sense meant by many editors here is a very complex and contentious subject that can be discussed fully in the text if necessary, and as such is not suitable as an infobox field. Infoboxes contain simple, uncontroversial, easily-verified facts; legal nationality is just that.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the existing guidance that allows flexibility. The current suggestion seems to be to limit any attribution of nationality to only being based upon the assumption of citizenship of the state. For a person to establish claims around a British nationality it may sometimes rely on where the person, their parents or even grandparents were born. I don't support the current suggestion as I don't see that one-size-fits-all approach works here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Flexibility is fine in the article text but it is exactly what is not needed in an infobox. All the other fields contain simple facts, like date of birth, which have no flexibility at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's too simplistic to state that infoboxes should only contain "simple, uncontroversial, easily-verified facts". What about, for instance, "occupation", "notable works", "genre".... etc.? They can all be as contentious as nationality. Even dates and places of birth are often the subject of argument. I'm not convinced that there is a pressing need to tighten up the (much-discussed) current guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be completely correct to say that infoboxes do contain "simple, uncontroversial, easily-verified facts" but I think that is their intended purpose to contain such facts. I would be equally against any infobox fields that contain complex contentious facts simply because such facts cannot be condensed to a simple word or two; they need explanatory text. Having complex information in an infobox field also means that the reader has no idea what they are being told. I have seen endless, and pointless, arguments over 'genre', for example, just because it is very subjective. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The solution for genre is to insist on reliable sources and editor discretion and intelligence. POV-pushers who add their own opinions to many articles are routinely blocked. I have blocked many of them myself. The solution for nationality is to rely on sources on a case-by-case also. This essay exists to try to explain to those in search of a simplistic solution that no such solution exists. You would do well to heed it, and to drop this particular stick once again. --John (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not in an infobox. However much editor discretion and intelligence is used in an infobox field the reader has no way of knowing what meaning was intended. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes in an infobox. Our readers know how to read and this issue is probably not as important to them as it seems to have become for you. --John (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If course our readers can read but how do they know the basis on which a 'nationality' in an infobox is decided if it is not the well-defined legal nationality. If they see, for example, 'English', they may, incorrectly, assume that this must be the legal nationality of the subject. Alternatively, they might assime that it was just because the editors of the article were keen to promote English nationalism, or they might think that the subject always self-identified as English, or was born in England. From the one single word 'English' there is no way of telling what it is meant to be telling the reader. The more general meaning of nationality needs to be in the text of the article where its specific meaning can, if necessary, be made clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Here in the US people seem very comfortable with the concept of English, Welsh and Scottish nationality, it is British which seems to confuse them, they usually assume that it is completely interchangeable with English and are often surprised when an explanation is given. There seems to be no confusion when it comes to Irish though. I expect that the US provides by far the greater part of English WP's readership, so it seems a somewhat quaint concern to imagine the lack of understanding which Martin envisages. Few Americans are concerned about an English speaking foreigner's citizenship, but they do like to know which part of the British Isles they hail from, and that is just one reason that the more precise nationality, not British, is generally better. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy smokers, don't get me started on the Americans ;) They're always erroneously describing Elizabeth II as Queen of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the information given in Wikipedia is correct. From a legal point of view the situation is quite simple; people from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales all have British nationality, they carry British passports and are represented in foreign countries by the British Embassy. This is just the same as people from Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii having US passports. This is a simple, easily verified fact, which just the kind of thing that an infobox shows.

There is also a much more complicated meaning to the word 'nationality' which can refer to many different things, for example, country of birth, ethnicity, country to which the person self-identifies. It is argued by some people here that when considereing the more complex meaning of the word 'nationality', constituent nations of the United Kingdom should be considered as possible nationalities. Some people also argue that other regions of other countries, such as Texas, Cornwall, or the Basque Country should be permitted as nationalities. Others would prefer to stick only to legal nationalities. There is no general consensus on what should be allowed. Nationality is likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis for each individual article. It some cases it is impossible to condense all the relevant facts into a single nationality. Far better just to state the facts and in for example, 'Joe Soap was born in South Dakota and although he was legally a US national he always considered himself a member of the Great Sioux Nation'. No matter how much effort WP editors put into finding sources and deciding which was his 'real' nationality it would surely be crazy to try to condense these facts into a single 'nationality'. Legal nationality, when it exists, is a simple, verifiable, fact and is thus the only thing suitable for an infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

One interesting non-UK example is Tina Turner. Most people would describe her nationality as American. But she is now a Swiss citizen, not an American citizen. And so, the subject of much edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor example, as Switzerland & the United States are both sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In her case, surely the thing to do is to give her infobox nationality (with the name changed to 'legal nationality' if it helps) as 'Swiss' and then give a detailed description of her birthplace, self-identified nationality if known, and when she changed her legal nationality in the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, notice that there's no fighting over whether Turner is a Zurichian or Swiss. Nor is there any fighting over whether she's a Tennesseeian or American. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remember , this WP article is called Nationality of people from the United Kingdom - Discussions about other nationalities are out of place and irrelevant here. FF-UK (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually they are relevant. AFAIK, there's no Nationality of people from Germany or Nationality of people from France etc etc. 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Then go create them, but these non-UK discussions have no relevance here. FF-UK (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of relevance, because, correctly they point out the npov bias being applied to these guidelines. I can source any number of citations stating that the people of the UK are British, can you cite any that state they are not? Remember, this is Wikipedia, where we use credible sources in the articles and guidelines, if none are forthcoming then it stands that the people of the UK are British. Twobells^t@lk 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before, any indication of nationality must be supported by relevant sources, as in any other matter in WP where there may be a dispute. I only edit the infobox nationality when there are such reliable sources. This is not a PoV issue. FF-UK (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There are sources for both. Let's be honest, the deciding factor 'here' is we editors. If enough editors push to use British? then there'd be no way for you to stop it. Likewise, if enough editors push to avoid using British? then there'd be no way for me to apply it. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why is is that every English bio states that the person is 'British'? Seemingly, only English people are 'British' on Wikipedia, what nonsense [shakes head] Twobells^t@lk 10:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, Your premise is simply untrue, once again you are making it up as you go along! FF-UK (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"There are sources for both" What an extraordinary sweeping generalisation! I believe that each bio must be taken on its merits, and it is only the relevant reliable sources which matter in each case. I am concerned with only two bios on an ongoing basis, in one case the reliable sources all refer to the subject as Scottish, in the other case there is no infobox, and the description says British. In the latter case I am not aware of any significant sources that mention nationality at all, so there are no grounds for querying the British description. In the former case I am not aware of any reliable sources which indicate British, therefore it would be unreasonable to go against the established sources for Scottish in the infobox. If you stop and think about it, both of those examples are entirely within the spirit of this guidance. FF-UK (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please show me a single source that states that the nationality of a UK national is not British please? Twobells^t@lk 10:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the deciding factor is we editors. As for yourself & I? we're likely never going to agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You really do not understand do you? This is Wikipedia, the deciding factor is the source(s)! FF-UK (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There's sources for both usages. When this occurs, we the editors become the deciding factor. I seen this across Wikipedia for any topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There you go, generalising again! That does not work, you can only be guided by the sources which are relevant to each case. There is NO "one size fits all" solution. Hence, this article.FF-UK (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We shall agree to disagree :) GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unless an editor can produce a credible source stating that UK nationals are not British then the section imposing non-uniformity must go for the npov bias it is. Essentially, we have editors on Wikipedia stating that something which is - is not and no amount of credible sources and factuality will change that, however, luckily, Wikiepdia works according to credible sources. Twobells^t@lk 09:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at endless length, there is no consensus for removing that section (which was originally included in this 2008 edit). Either back off, or continue the endless discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the suggestions that editors should not discuss the subject of the article on this page; that is what it is for. The important thing is to keep the discussion civil and about the subject itself rather than the editors. Twobells is not a lone tendentious editor arguing against a clearly established consensus there are many (probably a majority) of editors here supporting the suggestion made by Twobells.

Is that comment aimed at me? Of course I never suggested that editors should not discuss this page. On the contrary, I am all in favour of discussion continuing with the aim of reaching consensus. What I oppose is allowing one editor to remove established wording on the completely false basis that a consensus exists to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

2008 is a long time ago and consensus can change. In fact, if you look back at the talk pages from that time you will see that ther never was a consensus for most of the content of this page, Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Twobells' proposed deletion. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wan't involved with the 2008 discussions, but I disagree with the deletion of instructions not to enforce/impose uniformity that Twobells had suggested. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus that a uniform approach should be imposed. The essay as a whole makes that clear, but in my view it is helpful to reinforce that clear guidance by restating it more than once. Having said that, the wording that Twobells has again removed is (or was) quite poorly worded. I won't revert again, but if others do I will support them. To reiterate, again - there is no consensus that a uniform approach to describing the nationality of people born in the UK should be imposed, and edits contrary to sources should be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm against imposing uniformity on the biographies of this group of people. I recognise that nationality here is complex. Because I'm not in favour of the uniformity suggested by some editors, I also not in favour of Twobells deleting text that discourages editors who may be tempted to edit multiple article without considering individual circumstance. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is actually no consensus to do anything and there never has been. Have a look backthrough the talk pages and you will see no consensus for what we have now. It is an essay, based mainly on the opinion of a few people. Perhqps the best thing to do would be to delete the page altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And the purpose of that would be.....  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Within the context of MOS:BIO, to give supplementary guidance on finding the best opening paragraph description for UK citizens past and present, and help avert the continuous edit warring on nationality in some UK biographies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It cannot give guidance because it is not a guideline, even though you said in a recent edit summary, '...consensus cannot be used to prevent guidelines being updated'; it is an essay, that is to say the opinion of a small number of editors.

I do agree with one thing that you wrote though. You refer to the , 'best opening paragraph description for UK citizens' (my emphasis). That suggests that you do not consider there to be any view expressed in this article about the nationality shown in an infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Advice" then, rather than "guidance". The infobox should "summarize key facts that appear in the article" - WP:IBX. It can include information on citizenship, or nationality - but preferably not both. Citizenship is usually clear and unequivocal. Nationality is sometimes more contentious, especially in the UK, but at the same time is usually more important in a biographical article. The essay provides advice on how best to address this conundrum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On what basis are the few editors who wrote this essay entitled to give advice? From a legal and international perspective, nationality is clear and unequivical and in the UK it is rather simpler than citizenship, which is quite complex, see British nationality law. That is why we should use the legal definition of nationality in an infobox. For an opening paragraph description, alternative and more subjective terms may be appropriate, as discussed in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can give advice. The point of the existing essay is that it was set out following lengthy and protracted discussions in 2007-08 (much, much longer than this thread now) between a large number of editors, and has remained intact - and regarded as generally helpful, or at least not unhelpful - by most editors in the seven or eight years since then. There's no reason in theory why it shouldn't be revisited - but some of us have a profound sense of weariness that we are going over old and well-trodden ground yet again, and object to the fact that energy is being wasted on this as a result of the efforts of one or two editors. It's highly unlikely that any agreement will be reached by editors on this page. If people want to raise it again among the wider community, for instance at WT:MOSBIO, go ahead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not try to characterise the disagreement with the current content of this essay as, 'a result of the efforts of one or two editors'. If you look back over the history of this page you will see that a majority of editors have disagreed with many aspects of the page contents. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a majority - though, quite obviously, those people who object to the current essay are more likely to raise arguments here than those who find the essay acceptable and helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By my reckoning there is a majority against the current content but my main point is that we should continue to discuss the issue. This is not one or two crazy editors going against consensus.

On the matter of what is shown in the infobox field, there has been virtually no discussion previously. As I have already agreed, 'For an opening paragraph description, alternative and more subjective terms may be appropriate' but the infobox is a different matter. Infobox fields are just a few words and it is therefor quite impossible for them to include a full discussion of the subject of nationality. For that reason I think that using the legal nationality is appropriate for an infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't described anyone here as "crazy". Re the infobox.. I know what you think. I disagree, simply because the word "nationality", undoubtedly, means different things to different people. Legal nationality is one such definition - there are others. That is why it will be impossible to get consensus here, and why the basic advice in the essay (don't change nationality without discussion, and be guided by what sources say) is helpful and necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, MOSBIO is the place to go. Martin. I highly doubt you'll get any consensus 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: I don't think it was me who said "...consensus cannot be used to prevent guidelines being updated". Diff please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies it was not you who said that. I misread it anyway so please ignore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Uniformity double standard?

It's strange. Any attempts to uniformily impose British on British bio articles will get rejected. Yet, Welsh is uniformily imposed, Scottish is uniformily imposed, Northern Irish/Irish is uniformily imposed & English is uniformily imposed. If any one doubts my word? Try replacing any of those with British at some Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England based bio articles & see what results you'll get. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Some articles. Uniformly imposed. Hopefully you will spot the difference, and understand why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Then they must be reverted as 'non-uniformity (while ridiculous) is supposedly the policy. Twobells^t@lk 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving Forward: A Proposal And Policy

While one or two editors disagree that Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish bio articles are also British the guidelines should lie with the verifiable, legal, constitutional facts; employing the previous guidelines which pushed 'non-uniformity' while at the same time suggesting that employing uniformity was not wrong either, was a mess and frankly in danger of making Wikipedia look ridiculous. Editors should not try to impose their ideological positions on biographies of British people in that a neutral point of view WP:NPOV must always guide us. We reach neutrality by employing Verifiability, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The vast weight of available sources state that UK nationals are British. The guidelines makes no sense, in that the editor who wrote them tried to suggest that it was not possible to 'create a uniforming guideline' while such strong disagreement exists', that guideline is completely unacceptable and against the tenets of Wikipedia especially as it is so out of line with every other Wikipedia biography, a number of editors have in fact suggested that the creation of the 'Nationality of people from the United Kingdom' guidelines is in of itself odd as no other country has any such 'guidelines' and while many Americans, Canadians, Spanish, French, Germans, Europeans, Asians and so on may consider themselves not of that nationality every other article reflects the verifiable, constitutional and legal facts that they are, British nationals should be no different.

Proposal:
Currently, we have a bizarre situation where most English bio's are shown as 'British' while non British bios 'Scottish', 'Welsh' and 'Irish' (NI), evidently, the English are not the only British people so how do we move forward? The weight of opinion has moved towards uniformity in the Info-Box, therefore for the sake of neutrality and balance the info-box should read 'United Kingdom' and secondly the country from within the UK they came. The lede should read for example, 'Donald Davies, was a British scientist, one of the three fathers of the Internet', the info-box should read United Kingdom and Wales. The personal section should highlight the country where the person was born with a link to his country within the UK, therefore, in the case of Donald Davies it would be Wales. In closing, the previous guidelines stated 'Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.', giving a nod towards good faith and with respect to that editor every other bio sustains national uniformity with ease yet he tried to suggest that in the case of British people that is impossible, I call that implausible and should be strongly discouraged considering that the weight of verifiable sources state otherwise. Finally, the reality is that bio's of non-English people have increasingly been broken down into their constituent nationalities, thereby breaking the existing guidelines, such a situation cannot continue, otherwise we'll look a laughing stock, change must come no matter how much editors fail to like it. Twobells^t@lk 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, would you like to set a good example and remove this box

This user is English.

from your user page? 174.58.12.204 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One would have to make similiar requests to others, concerning their userpages. A slippery road, that should be avoided. Wouldn't you agree, IP? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In a descriptive word or phrase

As in 'She was a British scientist' or 'He is a Welsh sportsman'.

In these cases it is hard and I think wrong to try to introduce complete uniformity. We should follow the sources. I think we must have and even handed approach though. It is not acceptable to have all people from Scotland being described as 'Scottish' and all people from England being described as 'British'. Amogst other things this usage perpetuates the common misconception in some places that British=English=British.

Statements af national self identity are, in my opinion, alway better expressed expicitly, so, for someone who self-identifies as Scottish rather than just, 'He was Scottish' we should have 'He always described himself as Scottish'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In an actual statement of nationality

As in, 'His nationality was Scottish' or 'She has Welsh nationality'. I think these statements are best avoided altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox 'nationality' field

It present, this usage is not covered by this essay. Because in an infobox ther is no space to describe what general meaning of 'nationality' is being applied we should use the legal nationality of 'British'. Other aspects of nationality should be covered in the text as described above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(for the sake of keeping the proposal clean and sensical please respond to the proposal below, many thanks)

@ Twobells No-one here, that I have seen, disagrees that, in one sense, all UK nationals are British. But, many people are English, Scottish, Welsh, etc., as well as being British... and define their nationality in those terms, not in terms of their legal citizenship. (Incidentally, that identity does not necessarily have anything at all to do with where they were born - Lloyd George was born in Manchester, but few if any sources describe him as "English".) Absolutely no evidence has been produced to support the assertion that there exists a "bizarre situation where most English bio's are 'British' while non British bio's are 'Scottish', 'Welsh' and 'Irish' (NI)". The question is whether there should be only one interpretation allowed of the word "nationality" in the infobox - the legal interpretation. And, if there is a view that there should be a policy capable of being imposed on that point, it should be discussed at WT:MOSBIO, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just to be clear, my comments here are not a response to Martin Hogbin's comments, even though they have been moved so that they appear to be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording, Ghmyrtle. All these bios-in-question are British. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I have no idea what you are talking about. In any case, neither you nor anyone else should go around changing other editors' comments (or, indeed, placing them next to comments to which they were not responding). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article is currently confused and unhelpful. What might make discussion easier and less heated is to always distinguish between three way in which the word 'nationality' is used. These are listed above. It is because of our failure to distinguish between these three cases that the discussion seems to go round and round forever.

In agreement, as I've chirped before, British should be used across the bios-in-question. But, be prepared for a 'fight to the dagger' (particularly on Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland-based bios), trying to impliment it. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Threat of Barring on Essay Completely Unacceptable

The hypocrisy, 'Be aware that "edit warring" with other editors by repeatedly changing the text of an article to suit your views is against Wikipedia policy.'
Whoever wrote that threat about 'edit warring' on the essay page? Specifically, it is under the section on 'Uniformity' essentially threatening editors to abide by other editors will and not edit the essay seemingly without 'consensus', that any attempt will be reverted and if undone will result in a ban, that is completely unacceptable as wiki policy states that the 'consensus' argument cannot be used when adding verifiable sources and material. Editors are attempting to bring the article to neutrality yet seemingly other editors are using the threat of bans to enforce their position. Twobells^t@lk 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple statement of existing policy. What's the problem? Incidentally, there is a difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong on the essay page, that's why, and why is it located in the 'uniformity' section? Looks like nothing more than bias enforcement. Also, why are you asking GoodDay to explain? Twobells^t@lk 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an essay, an opinion. No reason to exclude a statement of policy from the essay. Headings can probably be tweaked, if that helps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For now, until we get agreement to remove the threat, I have toned it down and moved it to the general section so editors won't get the wrong idea that 'uniformity' alone is being targeted.Twobells^t@lk 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the subject of BLOCK & BAN were brought up. Check my block log & you'll see the differance between them. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors are specifically told to refrain from referring to other editors blocks and bans so you can imagine my surprise when yours was alluded to. Twobells^t@lk 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Atleast Ghmyrtle didn't make a 'direct' reference :) GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle has removed any indirect allusion to my past. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous wording of the section - no consensus to change it - and placed it in accordance with MOS:LAYOUT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And I've toned it down till we vote on its removal as it might put off new editors from contributing. Twobells^t@lk 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that change. Threats, of any kind, are not the way WP should work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I have no idea why the existing wording "might put off new editors from contributing", and Twobells suggested wording is not an improvement in any way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

sroc's contributions

Hi all,

I was drawn here by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies § Nationality of people from the United Kingdom (yet again...). I can see a lot of recent discussion above on the future of this essay, which all seems too daunting to delve into, so I thought I would simply share my thoughts.

I think that this essay is useful in providing a primer for editors to understand the terminology and distinctions, and particularly to avoid the misconceptions that "British" = "English" and "Britain" = "Great Britain". I wouldn't suggest throwing this all away. I'm not sure that it should be promoted to a policy or guideline either—unless there is a pressing need to avoid rampant edit warring, in which case an RfC should be launched to attract wider discussion and form a consensus.

I have made a string of edits to the essay, mainly to tidy up the formatting and minor wording for clarification, which I hope is uncontroversial. I also included a link to British people § Classification, which has a relevant synopsis of how Britons identify—as "British" vs "English"/"Scottish"/"Welsh" in particular—as I believe it may be useful for editors in understanding why different terms are used for different people, so again, I hope this isn't controversial.

—sroc 💬 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing 'Non-Uniformity' For & Against?

I don't know whether we'll delete the essay but until then can we vote on removing the 'uniformity' section, please? I originally removed it as it came across as extremely biased and nonsensical. Why the importance? because editors are referring others to the essay as policy and/or guidelines, subsequently, editors are seriously confused so we need to act as a matter of urgency. Twobells^t@lk 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Indeed it should be removed. It's odd that there's a resistance toward using British across these British bio articles. Yet Welsh is pushed across a majority of Wales-based bios, Scottish is pushed across a majority of Scotland-based bios, Northern Irish/Irish is pushed across a majority of Northern Ireland-based articles & to a less degree English is pushed across many England-based articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete see above. Twobells^t@lk 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete and replace with the principles I have suggested above above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose per WP:CLUE. Also, editors are seriously confused so we need to act as a matter of urgency? Where is the evidence that anyone other than a small group of nationalists is exercised by this issue? For most of us this was settled years ago. --John (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that it is a group of nationalists attempting to oppose the proposal, why else would anyone wish to prevent credibly cited factual knowledge being added to Wikipedia bio's confirming that the individual is British? Twobells^t@lk 12:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Please do not attempt to reframe the discussion by setting up strawmen. There is no evidence of anyone attempting to prevent the use of "British" in WP bios when that is what the sources indicate. The problem is that Twobells, Martin Hogbin and GoodDay are attemping to prevent credibly cited references to English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationality being used in those bios! FF-UK (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

For every one of your sources stating that someone British is English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish I can find a dozen more credible that state they are British. Twobells^t@lk 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see that there as a good basis for removing this advice, nor do I feel that there is any sense of urgency to remove it. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - no new arguments appear to have been presented. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose WP is founded on sources, editors must cite sources for all articles and must use the nationality descriptor which appears in those sources. WP:NOR prevents editors from synthesizing nationality as British if the sources indicate English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. FF-UK (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The advice is sound; neither biased nor nonsensical. Daicaregos (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

People, rather than going head-to-head like this could we not try to discuss some ways of impoving this essay so that it could be accepted as a guideleine. This clearly cannot happen while there is this degree of disagreement. It is clear from some comments above that sometimes people are arguing about different things. I have put some principles in the section above that we might be able to adopt. From what I have seen here most of these principles could be accepted by most of the editors here. With a little more cooperation we might be able to then come to a clear consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We already have a clear consensus that has persisted for several years. Now a small group of editors who appear to be pursuing a nationalistic agenda wish to challenge this consensus. They are not bringing any new evidence to the table, merely a series of assertions and opinions that the long-lasting consensus is "wrong" and that "something must be done" to change it. You will forgive us for being slightly jaded and unimpressed by this. If you wish to change the existing very strong consensus over thousands of articles and many years, the onus is on you to explain to us why this change is necessary, and what new evidence makes the change necessary. This you have signally failed to do. --John (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we do not have a 'clear consensus' as it hypocritically breaks the essays guidelines, British people must not be broken down into their constituent parts and that is exactly what has going on in the last few years, essentially a group of nationalists have insisted that the factual descriptor 'British' not be applied to British people which (with respect to editors) seems lunacy. Twobells^t@lk 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus now and I do not assume any particular motives and agendas for other editors. In fact I continue to suggest the we concentrate on content and not editors.

Whatever your opinion, or mine, it is clear that, with the current degree of disagreement shown on this page, it will remain just an essay, having no special status or authority within Wikipedia. As this is obviously a somewhat contentious topic it would be good to have some official guidelines. I do not think that there is quite so much disagreement here as you think and it should be possible to reach a real consenus if there is the will to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who took the time to enter accurate data into the persondata templates of biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve such data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable notable baseball players: Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)