Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Essay lacks essential clarity

Wikipedia must be first and foremost, clear, millions of people around the world use the English Wikipedia, unfortunately, the online encyclopedia is letting itself and readers down by this farcical lack of clarity when it comes to British nationality. Reading this talk page gives you an idea just how unclear the definition is among even British editors, imagine how confused non-British readers must be when it comes to understanding British nationality. It is my belief that as editors we are letting down Wikipedia in our failure to agree on a policy which must leave a negative impression on the rest of our community and the wider Wikipedia readership generally.Twobellst@lk 09:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, here's a basic truth: since 1707, Englishmen, Scots and Welshmen have been British, but they didn't stop being English, Scottish and Welsh, either. The question should be how to recognize this essential fact of dual, double or tiered nationality among the citizens of the United Kingdom in the biographies of British article subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That is correct and is the cause of much needless argument here. There is a perfectly logical way to do what you say that has been suggested by several editors here before.
In the article text we should try, where possible and relevant, to qualify the national description with the basis on which it was decided. Or to put it another way, just state the facts, as shown in sources. If we have a source which says, 'He always considered himeself a true Scotsman' then that is what we should say, rather than interprst the statement as 'His nationalty was Scottish'. There is no reason that we cannot have conflicting national descriptions when we work this way, for example, the same article could also have, 'He was actually born in Wales but his friends all though of him as British'. I find it hard to see an argument against this approach; it conforma to all WP policies.
In the infobox 'nationality' field, on the other hand, it is simply not feasible to have a clear explanation of the basis on which a particular nationality was selcted by editors here so it makes sens to have just the formal, legal nationality of 'British'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Twobells, I have yet to meet an American who does not understand that Scots come from Scotland, the Welsh come from Wales, and the Irish come from Ireland. There is some confusion here between England, Britain and the UK, but that is not a reason to always describe Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish as British - that ought to be glaringly obvious, even to you! 174.58.12.204 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Many people, including some from the UK, do not know that England, Scotland, and Wales are all part of Great Britain and that, together with Northern Ireland, this forms the United Kingdom and that the formal/legal nationality of the people from all these places is 'British'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Who gives two hoots about what it says on someone's passport? It is hardly what defines them, and how often are you likely to be able to check on a person's passport anyway?. It is a person's real nationality that is of interest to others, and that is usually the nationality that is mentioned by sources. It is the task of WP editors to represent what the sources say, not to make decisions about shoehorning information into some idealized format to suit the anal retentives. 174.58.12.204 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That goes a bit too far, IP user:174.58.12.204. While I am all for accommodating the reasonable desire to identify Englishmen, Scots and Welshmen as such, it is also an undeniable fact that the majority of the world views all of the residents of the island of Great Britain as "British." So, yes, that passport (and legal nationality/citizenship) does matter to how the world views and defines you, like it or not. There is a reasonable middle ground here: people are not either British or Welsh, they are both. And we should find a reasonable way to identify them as both for the benefit of our readers whenever possible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is precisely why we use both nationality and citizenship in the infobox. FF-UK (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Please provide examples of several infoboxes where the nationality and citizenship parameters are both used in the context of British citizens and their English, Scottish or Welsh "nationality." In my personal experience, "nationality" is one of the most amorphously defined words on Wikipedia, and one of the most edit-warred over. Rather than two overlapping parameters in the same infobox, to my way of thinking it would make more sense to state, for example, "nationality = British (Welsh)" in the infobox. I think that captures the two-tiered nationality quite effectively. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The article with which I have greatest familiarity is James Clerk Maxwell which was the subject of Martin Hogbin's concerted campaign to alter the status quo last year. Other examples include: James Boswell, Thomas Telford, Peter Tait (physicist), James Hutton, Patrick Geddes, John Boyd Orr and James W. Black. FF-UK (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not 'British' in the infobox field and the rest in the text where it can be properly discussed, as has been suggested by myself and several other editors? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Martin Hogbin:, that is more or less the formula that I have been using for the articles for your British Olympic swimmers on which I am currently working (see, e.g., Helen Varcoe and David Carry articles). Of course, I have the advantage of using the "national team" parameter of Template:Infobox swimmer to define nationality based on the athlete's national Olympic team (i.e. Great Britain"), but I also acknowledge the athlete's English, Scottish or Welsh nationality in the lead, too. It's a formula that works for Olympic athletes, but probably would not work for association footballers, whose national identity is closely tied to England, Scotland or Wales, and who do not participate in a "British" national team. Please see if you approve of what I'm doing in these two articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I like your formula. It is what I would call a 'Render unto Caesar' approach. The text contains information appropriate for the text and the infobox contains information appropriate for an infobox; complex situations can be explained neutrally in words and simple facts can be unequivocally stated. I have not checked, but I am assuming that your national descriptions of 'English' for example are based on the descriptions most commonly found in reliable sources. There is no reason to always mention either 'British' or the name of the constituent country of the UK in the text, the words used should be based on how the subject is predominantly described in quality independent sources. Of course, if sources disagree then we are free to mention both national identities, preferbly with some brief explanation as to why they are given.
The point raised by 174.58.12.204 above about, 'shoehorning information into some idealized format' does apply to the article text and I do not think it would be feasible to insist on always describing the subject in any one specific way however, in an infobox field, we are obliged to do that as we have only a few words available and this may not always be enough to describe a complex situation.
The particular problem in dealing with the infobox 'nationality' field on a case-by-case basis is that the readers, on seeing just the word 'English' or the word 'Welsh' will have no way of knowing what that word means. Does, 'Welsh' mean that the person was born in Wales, that they self-identify as Welsh, they are considered Welsh by the media, or that a new legal nationality of 'Welsh' has been recently created by the British parliament? What the reader would expect to find in the 'nationality' field of an infobox is the formal/legal nationality of the subject; except in very few cases that is a simple matter of fact. I have suggested renaming the field 'legal nationality' to make its meaning absolutely clear but I am not sure that such a sweeping change, which is irrelevant for many nationalities, would be easilly accepted throughout WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Martin, regarding reliable sources for the English, Scottish or Welsh nationality of British athletes, that's easy for most of them, especially for those who participated in the 1930 British Empire Games or subsequent Commonwealth Games -- they had to declare their nationality to participate in the Games. That's fairly definitive, and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, their declared nationality for the Games also corresponds to their geographic birth place. The more interesting cases are not those of Brits from the four home countries, but those who are returnees from the colonies: is a South African-born British athlete "English" because he spent half his childhood in England? Rather than search for sources, I've chosen to simply refer to such persons as "British."
I was not keen on FF-UK's use of both nationality and citizenship parameters in infoboxes, but having reviewed several of the examples he linked, I think his approach should be one to be considered among several for properly acknowledging the tiered nationality of notable British citizens since 1707. I think some flexibility is required, and there may be several approaches to getting this done with a minimum of fuss. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Citizenship & Nationality idea for the infoboxes are acceptable. Would suggest using British being in the 'Citizenship' section, instead of United Kingdom or Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, although I do not object to having citizenship as well as nationality I do not see the point. As the British nationality law article makes clear the six different classes of British citizenship all have British nationality. Let us try to keep it simple and just have the formal/legal nationality in the infobox 'nationality' field, simple because everybody will know what it means. It is not a personal or political statement, or the opinion of some editors, it is a simply statement of fact, which is what infobox fields are for.
Dirtlawyer1, in your comment above are you referering to the nationality shown in the infobox or do you agree that this should always be the legal nationality, which in the UK is 'British'.
If you are talking about what we say in the text, then I agree with you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As an American and an outsider, my take on this is that the overwhelming majority of non-UK readers identify notable British persons as British first, and English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish second. Within the the UK, however, I also recognize that there a particular sensitivities in not acknowledging the home country nationality of British citizens. To me, the sensible solution is obvious: the strong majority of British citizens since 1707 should be identified by both nationality (i.e., English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or Northern Irish) and citizenship.

My alternative suggestions for handling these situations include:

  1. identifying the subject's nationality as English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish and his or her citizenship as British in the infobox, with separate infobox parameters for both nationality and citizenship; or
  2. identifying the subject's birthplace or nationality in the lead (e.g., "an Irish-born British military leader and prime minister" or "a Scottish economist and moral philosopher" or "a former British cabinet minister and member of Parliament from Oxfordshire, England"), and as a British citizen in the infobox citizenship parameter; or
  3. identifying the subject's nationality as both British and English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish in the infobox nationality parameter; and
  4. avoid prominently featuring British citizenship in articles where you know it's going to be controversial (e.g., Alex Salmond), or contrary to common real world practice (e.g., English, Scottish and Welsh footballers).

Different wording does work better in certain circumstances, and we should preserve flexibility to address the particulars of a given subject, while recognizing the general principle of acknowledging the subject's British citizenship and his or her English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1's Comments and suggestions would seem to accord with the position taken by the essay. The principle of recognizing both British citizenship and the appropriate nationality of the respective 'home nation' is both balanced and respectful. FF-UK (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"balanced and respectful": IMHO, that should be the goal in handling this issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Applying English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish nationality requires careful sourcing. The widespread practice of checking where the subject was born and assuming they identify with that constituent country is lazy and error-prone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No doubt that it requires some extra effort, Bretonbanquet. But there is no doubt that Adam Smith was Scottish, Churchill was English, or Wellington was Irish-born, and in each instance it may be said with certainty that each was also a British citizen. Sometimes our editors fall short in their diligence, minor subjects don't get a lot of attention, and sometimes the nationality of even very well-known persons may be difficult to describe because of mixed parentage, education, career or residence (see, e.g., Peter O'Toole). we do the best we can with the information available, but that should not prevent us from stating a general set of principles and/or Wikipedian guidelines for how we should ideally treat British citizenship and English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationality in our biographies of British subjects. I think acknowledging both citizenship and nationality is the way to resolve most of these edit wars and contentious discussions; for high-profile subjects -- the ones most often edit-warred -- there is usually little question about self-identified nationality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I broadly agree with you (as usual), especially in terms of there being a broad principle of stating (British) citizenship together with any self-identified "other" nationality. I agree with you that this should solve most contentious cases. In many cases there is little doubt. But in many others, there is no indication of any self-identified preference. Many, many people consider themselves a mixture of two or more of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish. Some people (myself included) identify with nothing other than Britishness, or have never given it much thought. If I were well known, and unfortunate enough to have my own article on Wikipedia, it would doubtless state that I was English, which I am not. There's a lot of guesswork and drive-by changes involved in this infernal question of UK nationalities and it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. Beyond guesswork, and in the absence of any statement from the subject him/herself, how would (paradoxically) self-identified nationality be established? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You are using the wrong terminology for the UK. All British citizens have British nationality. They may self-identify as belonging to one of the constituent nations of the UK but their nationality must be British or they could non be British citizens - see here [1].
I think what we're saying is that, yes, all British citizens have British nationality, but they may also identify with the nationality(ies) of one or more of the constituent countries of the UK. If it is established that England, Scotland etc are nations, then people identifying with those nations have the corresponding nationality(ies). This is not to the exclusion of British nationality, but in addition to it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bretonbanquet: In answer to your question above, in which you use your own nationality as an example, there is going to be a minority of British subjects whose home nation nationality is not clear from reliable sources or who self-identify only as "British," and there is nothing wrong with that. We should not attempt to pigeon-hole someone's nationality in the absence of reliable sources and/or self-identification. The default setting is "citizenship=British," and we go from there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, that sounds promising, @Dirtlawyer1:. As long as we work according to reliable sources, there shouldn't be any issues (theoretically). Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, there were no "British citizens" in 1707. UK citizenship was created in 1948, when it was extended to British subjects in the UK and its dependent territories. TFD (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
TFD, that is factually incorrect; please review the History of British nationality law article. You are confusing the pre-1 January 1949 status of British subject/citizen, under which all residents of the home nations and the empire were considered "British", and the post-1January 1949 status of a British citizen under the 1948 citizenship act that created a new UK-specific citizenship, and recognized the separate and specific citizenship of of Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and other residents of the empire. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
DL, the essay's past discussions itself, is an example of why the essay exists. The only way these disputes can be handled, is on an article-by-article basis. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur that "British" is not always a substitute for "Welsh", "Scottish", or "English". People are "British" only in a few particular ways:
    • Legally, as a UK citizen. Using this as a general identifier, except where citizenship is the issue in the context, blurs the sometimes very sharp and meaningful cultural distinctions between these peoples (and individual members of them). This usage is directly confusing with regard to the Northern Irish, and should also be avoided for those living in Crown Dependencies (e.g. the Manx) or parts of the Commonwealth that still recognize the British royal family as their sovereigns (e.g. in Canada).
    • In an official capacity. There is no such thing as the English Prime Minister (at least not in modern times; my UK history is rusty enough to not recall whether there ever were any).
    • Because the subject has never stayed put long, having lived in various places in the UK across the UK's internal "country" boundaries, and they self-identify as "British".
    • They self-identify as "British" for clear political reasons (mere self-IDing as "British" in some cherry-picked sources is insufficient; plenty of British citizens describe themselves as "British" to foreigners, so they don't have to get into an explanation of where Wales is, etc.
As as side matter, those who self-identify consistently and pointedly as not British but something more specific or other (e.g. Cornish, or Irish but living in N.Ir., or Barbadian despite having grown up in Wales) should never be identified as "British" except for a good reason and clearly with regard to what is meant (e.g. "was an Irish author, legally a British subject from [date to date]". Their actual situation, as reliably sourced, should be explained clearly and without editorializing.
Americans and the like who can't get their mind around the fact that Scotland and Wales are separate countries from England in some senses, but all part of the UK, a country in a different sense, and that Northern Ireland is different [not part of Britain] from them but still part of the UK, and that the Isle of Man is different from all of those, etc., just need to accept it and get over it. Anyway, there are loads of things to nitpick about in this essay, but this is the most important stuff. This should probably be worked into a standard MOS national sub-guideline after some more consensus discussion. This page is the subject of editwarring all of a sudden largely because it's had an essay tag on it for so long, despite years of relative stability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Alderney

Alderney is missing from the Channel Islands (I would just add it, but someone who knows its exact legal situation should do it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Alderney is within the Bailiwick of Guernsey, which is mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist Tribalism or ?

I am trying to understand why certain editors are insistent on the status quo when it comes to this essay, all British people are British, I can cite thousands of credible sources stating so, yet to my surprise I find a few intransigent editors who insist that the subjects of British bio's are not actually British, that really they are English, Welsh, Irish (NI) or Scottish irrespective of the previously mentioned multitude of sources. 'Feelings' have been cited by editors as a reason as to why British nationality cannot be applied to British people yet WP works along cited sources not 'feelings', strong or otherwise. I have strong feelings about certain political ideologies, but my feelings do not belong on the pages of Wikipedia, rather a neutral, factual view of the subject does, yet seemingly, nationalist 'feelings' have been allowed to overrule some basic WP tenets so my question is why, why mustn't uniformity be applied to British people? While a few sources might state that a bio is also Welsh, English, Irish (NI) or Scottish the common denominator is that they are all British so I want to know why is it so important to a few editors that the accepted term is not applied to biographies of British nationals when 'feelings' are irrelevant on an encyclopedia? With a tip of the 'good faith' hat to each and every editor, one can only assume that the motive be one of tribalism. Twobellst@lk 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, please say why your own user page has, for the past 18 months, proclaimed that you are English (not British) which appears to be hypocritical and totally at odds with your demands that bios of UK citizens should only state that their nationality is British. Please explain your apparent belief that WP permits editors to synthesize the status of "British" in the absence of available reliable sources. Please also provide some examples to support your very broad claims about editors who insist that the subjects of British bio's are not actually British. You might like also to provide examples of sources to support the idea that, for example, James Clerk Maxwell should be designated British rather than, as currently, Scottish (in accordance with the cited sources). Martin Hogbin has spent much time claiming Maxwell should be designated as British, but signally failed to cite appropriate reliable sources, with your level of certainty perhaps you can do better? All we are getting is a lot of hot air, but no substance. FF-UK (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Surely, that is obvious? Having read and contributed here surely you understand why? Okay, let me lay it out once again; while I was born in England my nationality is British and that is essentially the crux of the matter before us. Twobellst@lk 11:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
One thing that seems painfully clear but apparently needs to be pointed out: describing English or Scottish people as British is not any kind of synthesis, or WP:OR. It's an inescapable fact. Whether they are to be described as both is a different matter, but all English / Scottish / Welsh people are British, whether it is sourced or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect to all editors here and assuming good faith, the 'synthesis' argument seemingly is purely an attempt at sophistry by a bunch of what can only be described as tribalists intent on breaking down the UK into the country's constituent parts, something their own essay warns against, why else would they be so opposed to factual, credibly-sourced political reality? Twobellst@lk 11:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Twobells You are clearly proud of your status of being English, otherwise you would not proclaim it on your talk page. I too am proud to be English and also state it on my talk page (I can trace my English ancestry back to the 12th century and am unaware of any non-English ancestors - my DNA profile supports that theory also). David Cameron is English born of a Scottish father and an English mother, he has recently spoken, on several occasions, about the fact that the UK is made up of a family of nations, do you consider him a tribalist for making those statements? If not, why would you accuse me of being a tribalist? And why have you offered no examples of the outrageously broad claims that you have made about other editors? You clearly believe that it is helpful to explain that you are English, as opposed to the less specific term of British, so why are you so against the same precision being applied to those whose nationality is stated in sources to be specific to one of the constituent nations? Your approach is entirely illogical! FF-UK (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

They're different categories of terms, people. "British" is usually a shorthand for "citizen of the United Kingdom", though it can also be used in a sense that is exclusive of people from Northern Ireland, which is not part of Britain, but part of the UK. Meanwhile "Scottish", "Welsh", and "English" are (in their modern senses) cultural identities. "They're really British" vs. "they're really [English/whatever]" is an utterly pointless argument. The easiest way for Americans to get their minds around this is probably to consider that it's boneheaded to insist that Puerto Ricans are really/only Americans, or that they're really Puerto Ricans and not Americans. They're both, in different senses, culturally vs. in a particular legal sense. The relationship between PR and US isn't the same as that between Wales and the UK (it's more similar to that between the Isle of Man and the UK), but it's close enough to drop the "we just can't understand so we're going to keep arguing the same senseless point until we drop dead" act.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Editors who watch this page may be interested in a point I've raised at Talk:Bertrand Russell (and previously at User talk:Apollo The Logician#Bertrand Russell) on how people from the UK should be categorised - in the categories at the foot of the article. Russell, for example, is categorised as a "British mathematician" but a "Welsh philosopher"... etc. Should there be a mention in this article of how UK individuals should be categorised, in order to help achieve some sort of consistency? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Welsh philosopher, welsh writer etc are all subcats of British philosopher etc. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
But, as has been pointed out to you, he did not identify as Welsh, and the consensus on his article is that he be described as British not Welsh. Anyway, rather than just repeating the same things to each other, let's see what others have to say on the more general point, of whether the advice in this essay needs to be clarified to cover categories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That wasnt directed at you. Either way I agree.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally (as you know) I don't like the go by self-identification as the decider. However, if Russell doesn't say what he considers himself primarily (British or Welsh), then I would assume that British would be the default choice, as Wales & England were part of the United Kingdom when Russell was born. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is it?

Interesting, that we use constituent countries in this essay page, yet we don't use constituent country in the intros of England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Just an inconsistency, I've noticed. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sport

Currently the sports section claims there are three predominant ways in which the national sports teams are organized in various sports:

  1. The United Kingdom competing as a whole
  2. Ireland competing as a whole island (e.g. Republic of Ireland + Northern Ireland) and a Great Britain team representing the rest of the United Kingdom
  3. Separate teams for each home nation. Ireland may compete as a whole island, or there may be separate teams for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

However, I don't think that is correct with regards to second option. I cannot find sport where there is an All-Ireland vs Great Britain situation. In fact in every sport I find that uses an All-Ireland team, the rest of Great Britain is represented by separate teams (e.g. Rygby Union: England, Scotland, Wales; Cricket: England+Wales, Scotland; Rugby League: England, Scotland, Wales).Tvx1 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Basketball? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

British Identity

So, while.. technically correct, that British includes 4 constituent countries, practically to the rest of the world 'British' means English. And nothing more. This article is a guide .. but one that doesn't guide in complete fashion. I just came from Andy Murray's talk page.. in his lead he is noted as British from Scotland, kind soul that he is, he was bullied and harassed about supporting Scottish Independence.. and now the Unionists claim him as 'British' .. what a total joke of a website Wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dava4444 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And, the difference between "technically correct" and "correct"? Andy Murray is Scottish, and also British. Is there a contradiction there? I honesty don't think WP is responsible for harrassment he has suffered. If the guide is incomplete could you suggest a way to improve it? FrankP (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Equal union?

The article says that, "under British law, these four countries are an equal union". I have seen this kind of statement made before, and I do not think it is at all correct. This despite the fact that many people might believe it or even wish that it were so. Is there a reliable source for this claim? It would be true if the UK was a federal state, but this it definitely is not. Historically the union between England and Scotland was an agreement between sovereign states, but even there it is highly debatable whether they could be seen as "equal". The present relationship between England and Scotland is far from equal constitutionally or politically. And the different and complex arrangements with regard to Wales and Northern Ireland are another question entirely. I think it would be better to state that "the United Kingdom is composed of four constituent nations", and then explain as far as possible how the Union is structured. FrankP (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If you mean this page, it isn't an article. It's an essay. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, please read it as "The essay says .." FrankP (talk)
If you mean adopting constituent nations to post-1707 British articles? then I wish you luck. I tried getting constituent countries adopted as usage, but met resistance each time. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't intend to try to change the terminology. I guess in my comment I just used my personal preference. My point is that, whatever you call the constituent entities of the UK, they are not in an "equal union" under "British law" (whatever that might mean -- there isn't such a thing). I am challenging the accuracy of this statement. If it is an essay not an article does that change the standard for reliable sources? That is a genuine question, could someone point me to the guidelines covering essay content please? FrankP (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you should change this page and see if anyone comes back with a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have done that, and edited the section some more in a way that I hope improves it. Happy to discuss further if anyone disagrees or wants to make more changes. FrankP (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not an equal union at all. England is dominant, particularly over Wales (merged legal system, grounded almost 100% in English law). Scotland has retained more semi-sovereign rights than Wales has, including its own legal system and (except for a 200-year merged period) its own parliament. Cornwall no longer exists as a nation. The Isle of Man is a British protectorate, and not technically part of the UK; same with the Channel Islands. And Northern Ireland isn't a nation or country at all, but British-administered land within an ethno-linguistic "nation" in one sense of that word (Ireland). I'm not sure where "four" is coming from, except from the confusion and context-limited notion of "the Home Countries" in sport, which is a fitting of a round peg into a square hole (sport competition at that level is generally state-based, but none of these things are technically states, though three of them were formerly and they all retain some features of states and are defined as "countries" in one sense of that term, while Northern Ireland is just a geographic area with a political border around it, but treated as basically "more or less a country" for sporting purposes).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Using "British" vs "English" to describe a person/company/work
New thread about this opened at the main MoS page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There's current UK government guidance that is broadly relevant to this discussion at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770300/IntroductionToDevolution.pdf It refers to the four "nations" of the UK, but doesn't seem to refer to them as "equal". Very roughly, England has 84% of UK population, Scotland 8%, Wales 5%, and N Ireland 3%. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSBIO

There's a discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding turning this essay into a MOS guideline. Input appreciated at: WT:MOSBIO#WP:UKNATIONALS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_5&oldid=1180685060"