Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT Template:Werdnabot

UK articles missing geographic coordinates

A breakdown of the numbers of UK geographic articles missing geographic coordinates has been put together at Category talk:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data. There are today just less than 11,000 UK articles which appear to need geographic coordinates, to drive links to maps and to make them appear on 3rd party map sites such as google maps. Articles are categorised for convenience by county. Some counties, such as Berkshire, Herefordshire and Leicestershire have been completely geo-coded. Many others have backlogs of numbering from a very few to less than 400. And there are about 1,000 London articles needing a coordinate. Adding coordinates is straighforward. All assistance in improving articles by adding geocoordinates is welcomed/urged/implored. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

before UK in 1707 which King? Scotland or England?

Currently all Stuart Kings from King James VI of Scotland and I of England to William and Mary have the title "X of England". Let me use King Charles I of England as an example. Yes I'm aware he was King of both Kingdoms (England and Scotland), however I think the title should be "Charles I of Scotland", and that "Charles I of England" should be a redirect. It should be Scotland because he was born in Scotland and because his parents were Scots making him Scottish and not English. The Stuart royal family were a Scottish family. Also the only reason he was King of England is because his Dad King James VI of Scotland was invited to the thrown of England after Elizabeth I died without an heir. I think it would be more logical for the title to be "Charles I of Scotland". This is the same for all Stuart Monarchs, but Specifically James VI/I and Charles I because they were Scots born in Scotland, from a Scottish family who just happened to have the title King of England too. But they were not English. Arguably Charles II onwards were English as they were born in England, But James VI/I and Charles I were fully Scottish and not English therefore it should be King of Scotland in their article name IMHO. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the title given on official documents of the period, such as proclamations, Acts of Parliament, Letters Patent etc.? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Both titles, King of Scotland, King of England and also the title King of Ireland. That is my point, he has more than one title. Why should the article title use only the English name? James IV/I and Charles I were 100% Scottish Kings who also had the crowns of England and Ireland. That's why I think it should be of Scotland in the article title. IJA (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue, as far as I'm aware, that has been put to rest for quite some time. The relevant convention is at WP:NCNT, which is where you may wish to raise the issue. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Oik"

Nick Griffin has a quote referring to "skinhead oiks". This is a direct quote from the source, so we may not want to reword it, however I think that many Wikipedia users will be unfamiliar with the term "oik". I've made it link to the Wiktionary entry, but this seems a little clumsy. Does anyone want to make Oik redirect to some appropriate article? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your link didn't quite work, because the URL was followed by a pipe with no intervening space. I've fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stopping the "far-left"/"far-right" swinging pendulum

U.K. editors who are capable of leaving their own political biases at the door are invited to help with the neutrality problem outlined at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

British or English?

Apologies if this has been covered on this page or somewhere else. I'm not finding it here.

Just by accident I've come across two instances of edit warring about what to call someone living in or coming from the United Kingdom. I've seen it in Keeley Hawes and again in Declan Ganley. I was watching the former and came across the latter at Requests for page protection. Both involve rapid reverts about how to identify the subjects as British or English. On the face of it, this seems quite the silliest thing I think I've seen on Wikipedia. But being ignorant of the fine points of what I may be an English patriotism movement, there may be wider implications. Regardless, is there any guideline somewhere to stem these random edit wars, that will say with authority what to call someone who was born in or hails from England? --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UKNATIONALS and Talk:British_people#British_People.27s_nationality_dispute. I personal advocate that we try to use both. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My passport says I'm British. When I watch football or Rugby I'm English. I happen to live in England and, when south of the border, must obey English law where that differs from Scots law. Those aside, I don't really care and may use either or both almost interchangeably. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

depending on the context, either could be used. Freshymail (talk- The knowledge defender 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So it appears the general way to handle these rapid reverts is to allow them until one gets tired and quits? --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You can always block the edit-warriors or lock the page. Typically references will show if someone has a more specific national identity than British. Just being born in England (etc) is typically not enough to outweigh their British nationality. That is, if they are from the UK they are generally British unless it can be shown that they are more identified (including self-identified) with a particular constituent country.-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think I EC'd there) [to Moni3] Possibly; but if somebody can cite a reliable source that explicitly describes the subject as either British or as English, that's what we should stick to. Two differing reliable sources, we let it go whichever way the wind blows.

Anyway, I've had a look at your user page, and I think you're American, with an unusually strong interest in the Everglades - perhaps you're from Florida (since you don't actually say that, maybe it doesn't matter to you). The British/English thing is comparable to American/Floridian. A person born and raised in Cardiff, Wales, and of Welsh parents, would be just as offended at being described as English as somebody from Albany, NY being called a Floridian. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed in Florida and have more than a passing acquaintance with using "y'all" in my daily vernacular... I understand the difference between England and the UK. Were I speaking to another American, I don't know if I would identify myself as a Floridian as it has become virtually meaningless in this black hole of immigrants sucking people from every corner of the globe. Instead, if someone asked me where I was from I would say I grew up in Florida. I am hard-pressed, after living in another state, to think that a large population of people would identify themselves here as Coloradoans, Washingtonians, or Marylanders. Perhaps regionally significant places like Southern California/Northern California, or New York. Since the end of the U.S. Civil War, it has been a long, slow process to move away from state-identities to a national identity. This seems to be at odds with perhaps a growing sense of nationalist sentiment where editors are seeking to differentiate English from British. My only sense of this is from these surprisingly persistent reverts. I have protected Keeley Hawes in the past, and I just semi-protected Declan Ganley. But they won't stay protected and it seems it will arise again at some future point. Is this more of an issue of identity, where the subject must state in a reliable source that he identifies as English over British, or vice versa? --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in a heated argument where the choice was betwen British and Scottish (although English was also a possibility). The resolution in that case was to refer to parentage and to towns of birth and residence directly, and allow the national labels only when quoting or closely paraphasing reliable sources. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The current position on wikipedia about handling these matters is offensive, British citizens do need to be described as British citizens on their article pages to avoid confusion. I have no objections to English, Scottish etc being mentioned but it should be as well as British. Especially as for example Scottish people goes out of its way not to mention British people or British citizenship.

This matter should be dealt with somehow, the status quo whilst workable is not the right one. As suggested somewhere else, putting British in the infobox and sayign Scottish/English tc in the introduction would be a good compromise. Or putting Scottish / English as the ethnic group in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, BritishWatcher. Who could possibly be offended by an article that begins: "Dame Vera Lynn, DBE (born 20 March 1917) is an English singer whose career flourished during World War II." You state your case as if the world were about to end. Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, i clearly said the status quo is workable, i just think its not the right solution. When many people think of nationality they think of citizenship, rightly or wrongly. There for peoples citizenship is needed too. Its offensive to not describe British citizens as British citizens.

Its like the fact we have no British inventions because they must be split down, English, Welsh and Scottish lines.. which is questionable. There are many of these sorts of issues repeated across wikipedia when it comes to the UK / citizenship. When you add it all up, yes its offensive and in some cases could be considered politically motivated. Not the end of the world i agree, just something that needs to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, may first, second and third generation immigrants (verifiably) see themselves as British, not English etc. We have nothing in place for that. And if I identify as an African (which I'm just not), does that mean I'm not British? Again, a weakness in the idenfication view.

I forsee this discussion going nowhere, with the same camps pushing for one or another. All parties should be working towards a compromise not a blanket rejection of a pariticular grouping along idiological lines. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Television was invented by a Scotsman living in Brighton Hastings - so is TV Scottish or English? Both, I'd say, so let's instead say that it's British, and therefore there are British inventions. Different people attach different levels of importance to matters of nationality and/or ethnicity. I'm currently looking for work, and on almost every job application form there is a bunch of boxes asking me to tick one in order to state my ethnic origin. The first one is almost invariably "White British"; there are never "White English", "White Scots" etc.

To some people it doesn't matter, any more than sexual orientation matters. Do we put on every biographical article whether they're Gay/straight/other? In some cases, yes - Martina Navratilova is in Category:Lesbian sportspeople, Category:LGBT sportspeople from Czechoslovakia and also in Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States, because (I guess) this matters to her, but in many cases, no - it just isn't important. So, whether somebody is described as British, English, Scots etc. should be influenced by what reliable sources state; and for preference, such reliable source would be a personal interview between subject and biographer or (failing that) a respectable journalist. I don't think we should be silly though; have a look at the first sentence of the lede for John Barrowman who is apparently "a Scottish-born British American ... with dual citizenship in the UK and the US". Do we need five different terms?

Back to the original problem. Somewhere, I've got a Keeley Hawes interview clipped from the Radio Times (I just happen to be a fan of Ashes to Ashes (TV series)), which I shall try to find. Can't help with Declan Ganley I'm afraid. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue with who invented what is clearly problematic yes, which is why i think its awful someone is forced to just choose English Scottish or Welsh when in plenty of cases people are probably mixed making it easier to say British. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution would be to:

• use 'British' if someone is mainly referenced as, or self-identifies as, British;
• use 'English' / 'Welsh' / 'Scottish' if someone is mainly referenced as, or self-identifies as, English, Welsh or Scottish;
• use 'British' when an individual is primarily associated with UK politics, international diplomacy, military affairs, British representative sport or other 'global' issues, and their self-identification is unknown;
• use English / Scottish / Welsh when an individual is primarily associated with sub-national issues, for example politics in the devolved administrations, representative sport in the Home Nations, matters of regional or local interest, and their self-identification is unknown. Is this workable? Pondle (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To me Pondle that sounds like what we have now, which i accept is workable but doesnt seem best.. British citizenship should not simply be ignored and ofcourse it leaves open lots of room for edit warring with people thinking English / British or Scottish / British should be said.

In the case of someone like Sean Connery, clearly he is known around the world as Scottish there for it should say hes Scottish in the intro, but we should have his actual citizenship listed aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Each person is unique and we should deal with each individual on a case by case basis. For example, the article on Anthony Hopkins begins: "Sir Philip Anthony Hopkins, CBE (born 31 December 1937) is a Welsh film, stage and television actor. Considered to be one of film's greatest living actors ..." Further on, the lead notes that "Hopkins was born and raised in Wales, and became a U.S. citizen on 12 April 2000." (his nationality is not noted in the infobox). Would editors impose a pseudo 'British' nationality on him? If so, for what purpose? Agree with Jza84 - this discussion is unlikely to achieve anything. Daicaregos (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly someone that has become a US citizen doesnt need to say British citizen, although the introduction where it says "Welsh film.. etc" should probably be changed to say born in Wales rather than being Welsh. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol although looking at it, the sentence about him being one of the greatest living actors probably needs to be changed to say BRITISH actors, when you look at the sources for it [1]. I will have to look into more detail about the guy and let you know if i think welsh should be changed to British. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well after a quick read up about him, although i dont know his political views i see no reason why it would be wrong to say he was British there, rather than just saying Welsh. This ofcourse is the problem with the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Poodle, this discussion is a waste of everyone's time --Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also a very serious problem at List of British people. Currently people are forced to choose between English people, Welsh people, Scots or Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin which only includes groups like Black Britons, Asian Britons etc. Why is there no list of British People? Why are people being forced into the English, Welsh and Scottish lists, what happens to mixed people? there are plenty that may be born in England that are of mixed Welsh/Scottish roots for example, how are people deciding who belongs where? This matter needs to be addressed, its shocking this has been the setup of so many years on wikipedia.

Another concern although slightly separate to the above one, is the Cornish issue. On Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin there is a template. On that template Lists of British people, it says United Kingdom. Under United Kingdom there are 4 groups of people listed.

• English
• Welsh
• Scottish
• Cornish

Should Cornish be there? Cornish are not recognized as a group or minority, they are certainly not recognized the way the English, Welsh and the Scots are so its wrong to give it equal status. In truth Northern Irish probably belongs on that list, they are British citizens afterall. All of these matters need to be seriously addressed, its troubling that wikipedia is used by so many British people yet these major problems continue and do not get sorted out BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Its an ethic origin BW surely not even you can dispute that --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not and can not support something which incorrectly suggests Cornish, English, Welsh and Scottish are equal in status by putting them together like in that template. The British government recognizes the Cornish language and offers it protection, what it does not and will not do is recognize Cornish as a nationality or people the way it accepts there are English people, Welsh people and Scottish people. Its misleading and offensive (woops theres that word again) for Cornish to appear next to English like that. The people of Cornwall ARE English, although people reading wikipedia wouldnt think it, theres so much cornish nationalist propaganda across wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently an edit war is taking place over at Alex Salmond with some adding his nationality as British and others removing it. The idea we should just ignore all these problems and hope for the best is not suitable for the long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Alex Salmond simply is both Scottish and British. Whether he wants to be or not, and (if you're an editor here in Britain with the relevant nationality and citizenship) whether you or I want to be, it is the truth of the matter that you are British and something else, not or something else. If Alex Salmond is not British, then what is his nationality, and by what law, and what criteria? This "self-identifies as..." is a form of original research when deciding how to apply nationality. Wikipedia is not censored, we should be finding a way to use both British (which should be the default) and (if evidence can be found - not just self-identity, but any published evidence) English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish etc, and consistently so. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:BLP recommends self-identification. In fact it demands neutrality, and suggesting that the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party is anything other than Scottish is not neutral. Source the claims by all means, but without sources anything else is just an accident of birth. Cliff Richard isn't Indian. Prince Philip isn't Greek. Alex Salmond is Scottish. Fmph (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, few people do make public statements about their own identity, other than those who are politically aligned. Moveover, someone identifying as, say, Scottish alone - as presumably Alex Salmond does - does not make him cease to be British: unlike the home nations identities, Britishness has an added civic and political element, mainly surrounding citizenship. This added element makes Britishness rather more objective: if I am a British citizen, then that is factual; if I was simply born in Scotland, or lived there, that does not necessarily make me Scottish - or even British if we use the same basis of national identity.

I don't believe it's a question of neutrality, but notability. Places of birth are almost always identified: it can be assumed by any idiot that Alex Salmond, being born in the UK, is - in civic terms - British - if not, then it should be mentioned because it is unusual - but it's not really an issue that commonly arises. Equally that Cliff Richard is an Indian citizen (presumably) would be assumed from his birthplace - without him making an issue of it by, for example using that status to run for President of India, it just isn't really worth mentioning. --Breadandcheese (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a question of notability, then I'd suggest that he is more notable for being Scottish than British. But nationality is much more complicated than you suggest. Birthplace is not a good indicator. And if you disagree with WP:BLP then I'd suggest you are out of step with most of the community today. Fmph (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but its certainly not violating ANY policy to describe Alex Salmond as British on his article, even if thats not the best option. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So if he complained to Jimbo about being called British, do you think Jimbo would back you against him? Fmph (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lmao, i would ask Jimbo to ask Salmond what nationality his passport says he has. Alex Salmond is British, he can not "opt out" of being British simply because he doesnt like it. The guy is a British MP for goodness sake. Just out of interest if someone rejects the idea of being British and Scottish, yet remains a British citizen, what do we put? Would we have to leave it blank because the person doesnt like it? What about people who would rather be considered another nationality completly, do we lie because they have a right to decide what they should be labelled? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo has nothing better to do than to satisfy your POV. If you have a copy of Alex Salmonds passport you could surely post it as proof of his nationality. I certainly would accept that. But you haven't, have you? Personally, i only know what I've heard him say, and that is that he is Scottish. If he says he is British - on the record - I'd happily accept that. But I don't accept that because someone is born within the sovereign borders of a particular national entity (country, whatever) that they automatically become a national of that national entity. Fmph (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd view and, I believe, a red herring and a purposeful circumvention of how British nationality law is applied. If somebody says they are Scottish you are assuming they are not British, right? Did Salmond say his nationality is Scottish? Perhaps he was alluding to his ethnicity, or his community, or his heritage? If I say I am black does that make my nationality black or that I'm not British? I imagine England-born Mohammad Sidique Khan considered himself less British than Alex Salmond; I doubt he considered himself "British", but does that mean he is English, or is he British, or is he Pakistani, or Anglo-Pakistani, or British Pakistani? Is British Pakistani a nationality? What makes Salmond's Scottish nationality more of a nationality than British, or Khan's assumed Pakistaniness? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>What makes you think it is an odd view? To accept that each article subject knows there own nationality better than a bunch of wikieditors? What could possibly be odd about that? Sorry, but i don't think I'm the odd one in that regard. "...a purposeful circumvention of how British nationality law is applied...". I thought that it might be better to apply wiki policy than British nationality law. Perhaps I was wrong. If MSK says he is British, British Pakistani, English or Scottish, then - IMHO - thats what we should say. I have no objection to inclusion of birthplace, or to a good faith presumption of Britishness for British born article subjects, who have never expressed a preference otherwise. But to suggest that a nationalist figure like Salmond, or even Sean Connery, is/are British, would be a bad faith violation of the neutrality aspects of WP:BLP. IMHO. Fmph (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well i do not have a copy of Alex Salmonds birth certificate at hand, however you can be sure the British government does and if he isnt a British citizen it would be rather damaging so im sure it would get out, he goes on trips around the world so he must have a passport and it certainly aint a Scottish one. So if hes not a British citizen, he must be an Irish citizen or a citizen of another Commonwealth nation. Considering he only describes himself as Scottish and he was born in Scotland, its certainly not original research or bad faith to assume hes a British citizen. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally believe we should prefer British, being the sovereign state, in order to maintain consistency of style internationally; BUT (and it's a big but) other concerns can and often do outweigh that desire for consistency. For example, with a politician best known for engaging in the Scottish political system, or a Church of Scotland clergyman, it is most obvious to identify him or her as a 'Scottish politician' or a 'Scottish minister' rather than a British one, whilst figures like Gordon Brown would clearly be identified as British politicians - as indeed should almost all MPs, excepting nationalists and perhaps the distinctive Northern Ireland political parties.

In articles about actors, musicians and so forth, it becomes rather more complicated - and in these situations, I think a British weighting ought to exist, except where such people really are more significant for their Scottish, English, Welsh or (N.) Irish identity: Sean Connery would clearly be best described as a Scottish actor than a British one, despite his vast range of UK-wide and international world.

Unfortunately common sense doesn't seem to stand for a lot when axes are being ground. --Breadandcheese (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the case of someone like Sean Connery whos clearly known around the world for being Scottish, it should say that although i think his citizenship is important aswell. In the case of Salmond i agree hes Scottish and identifies as Scottish so it should say that, but there certainly isnt a neutrality issue with also pointing out hes a British citizen, he may not like that but its fact.

Whats more complicated is like somone that Daicaregos mentioned Anthony Hopkins. He is described as Welsh, but i see no reason why he shouldnt be described as British. Although now hes a US citizen its probably best not to say either, but if he hadnt become a US citizen, then i fail to see why he must be listed as Welsh. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) OK. Would how would this sit with people:

1. We endevour to use English/Scottish/Welsh in the lead section of all biographical articles. British should only be used as a fall back here, and each article should be only changed on a case-by-case basis using sources and consensus.
2. For those from Northern Ireland we use no descriptive nationality in the prose unless it is explicitly supported directly by a reference (in which case Irish, Northern Irish or British or "British and Irish" is used).*...the Good Friday Agreement allows for citizens of Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both.
3. All infoboxes for sportspersons who represent the UK or any of the home nations need their infobox field changing at the infobox itself so it does not say "nationality" but "Sporting nationality", per WP:MOSFLAG. So this would apply to Andy Murray as much as it would Ryan Giggs.
4. In all infoboxes of persons born after 1707, who do not represent any of the home nations in sport, we use British in the nationality field (baring in mind that England/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish is used in the lead section).
5. If there is an ethnicity field in an infobox we endevour to England/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Cornish etc, on a case by case, verification basis.
6. Cornish should not be used as a nationality or sporting nationality, but may be used as an ethnicity and may be used in the lead section of articles.
7. All terms should be piped to the "people" articles, not the country articles (so "Joe Bloggs is a Cornish poet", not "Joe Bloggs is a Cornish poet".

--Jza84 |  Talk  17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with much of the proposal. However, I disagree with #4 (In all infoboxes of persons born after 1707 ...). It seems to be confusing nationality with citizenship. If someone is English etc there is nothing to gain by putting their British citizenship in the infobox as it is implied by their nationality. There is widespread confusion between English and British and for some, less educated people, they are either interchangeable or, mean the same thing. That's fine for many English people and is how they feel themselves, and for those who are mixed race (Scots/English or whatever). But for the Irish, Scots and Welsh it is not so fine. I see no reason to change the infobox of John Logie Baird, for example, to British from Scottish. Just what would be gained? Daicaregos (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

--I think the response from me on this is threefold: firstly what would be gained would be that we each concede some acrage and get both British and English/Scottish/Welsh etc in an article - it would be something of a compromise (I hope). Secondly, how would we deal with someone like Chris Ofili or Omid Djalili or even Richard Dawkins? Are they really English? If so, how so? Thirdly, "British" is a quantifiable nationality owing to British nationality law (not British citizenship law). Being English is not quantifiable nor is there any English nationality or citizenship law. The first point is the biggest point of this though - a compromise. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

John Logie Baird
Born	13 August 1888 Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire, Scotland
Died	14 June 1946(1946-06-14) (aged 57) Bexhill-on-Sea
Nationality	Scottish, British
Occupation	Engineer
Engineering career
Projects	Television

Hmmm i have a problem with quite a few of those points actually. But one general question if its ok to have "British and Irish" in an infobox. Couldnt we just put Scottish and British or Welsh and British like demonstrated in this infobox.

On the different points..

1) I do not think that British should be seen as a fall back. Whilst i accept its useful to state someone is English or Scottish, there are plenty who are rightly described as British in the lead sentence.

2)Totally agree, dont understand why Scottish and British in nationality field is so unacceptable.

3)Sounds reasonable, although it depends on the templates if thats possible. Andy Murray at the moment just has that he plays for GB in the infobox and that hes Scottish in the lead sentence.

4)Agreed

5)Agreed, although in the case of Cornish clear references should show they consider themselves Cornish.

6)Agreed with ethnicity when clearly sourced, but should not be used in the introduction. If its a Cornish nationalist then im ok with it stating Cornish nationalist, but ordinary people born in Cornwall should be described as what they are. English or British.

7) I would be ok with this one if all the articles were in good shape, however Scottish people for example does not mention anything about British or British people. There for its better to link to the country article which states what Scotland is. A country that is part of the United Kingdom.

I can see its going to be very difficult to get agreement on these matters, although i do not think we should give up and just put up with the status quo. This issue needs sorting at some point. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

--Regarding your comments:

1)Perhaps this needs tightening. For example, I agree it is right to call Winston Churchill a "British statesman" and Lord Nelson a "British general". I suppose we may need to identify certain categories of persons where "British" is more appropriate (UK politicans, UK prime ministers, UK military persons?).

7)I agree that English, Scots and Welsh people articles need to be clearer about their relationship to Britishness. They're all pretty poor articles, and I have always wanted to do an improvement drive. As a wiki-friend of mine once said though, these articles are "obvious idiot magnets", so I've never mustered the willpower to make a serious attempt at an improvement drive.

Otherwise I'm glad you agree to these. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes we need like a list or table of when which should be used, the previous table in the debate the last time is far too open to someones own views. I think its fine that an MSP would be described as Scottish, or someone that plays sports for Scotland like in football be described as Scottish, in the intro and also used in the title of their article if disam is needed. But people in the British military, British Prime ministers, Sportsman know for their role in the Olympics rahter than commonwealth games should say British. Ofcourse that is still slightly problematic, as we then end up with the case whre Gordon Brown only gets described as British where as hes just as Scottish as Salmond. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another example would be Richard Wilson (Scottish actor), should that be the title of his article or should it be Richard Wilson (British actor). Hes best known for his roles in British tv shows, hes not known for being Scottish like Sean Connery is for example and he was for some time (not sure if he still is these days) a supporter of the labour party so not a nationalist. The dab page at Richard Wilson says hes a British actor, so why is the page at (Scottish actor)? I see no reason for this unless there were other British actors, like an English one.. then ofcourse it would be useful, or if he was a nationalist / known for being Scottish like Sean Connery. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wilson was English! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, most dont know hes Scottish and its the same with his wife in One foot in the grave, many dont know the woman who played her was Scottish too. Id say cases like that should be treated differently to someone like Sean Connery or Alex Salmond. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an odd disambiguation - If I had been looking for Richard Wilson, I wouldn't not have thought to have found him at that article. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But Jza84, if you (or anyone else) had been looking for Richard Wilson you would have typed in "Richard Wilson". This brings up the Richard Wilson disamb page, from which you would have selected "Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) (born 1936), British actor who played Victor Meldrew in the sitcom One Foot in the Grave". Had you entered Richard Wilson on Google the same (Wikipedia) disamb page is choice #2. Otherwise, you could have entered One Foot in the Grave and found him that way. I don't see the problem. If you want to see Richard Wilson on List of British actors and actresses then add him to it. Further, an opinion that "most dont know hes Scottish [sic]" is not a good advert for removing the fact that he is Scottish from either his article title or his infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm added him to the list. Ofcourse if you ended up at that dab page and it did not have the explanation saying British actor best known for one foot in the grave then you may be slightly more confused. The point is he is best known as a British actor from a British sitcom, unlike Sean Connery internationally known as a Scotsman. Why should Scottish take priority over British in such cases? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-1707 is British; not English, Scottish or Welsh. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In some ways I'd say a big "yes" to that, like I agree that state-tied nationality became British after 1707 (and there are sources to that effect, and I think that's something we all agree upon) but in other ways English, Scottish and Welsh have endured, and endured strongly and give a sort of precision as to the background of a person. As the British people article itself tells, Britishness was superimposed on to English, Scottish and Welsh as an "upper layer" of nationhood; English, Scottish and Welsh have persisted as important and cherished cultural divisions/categories/peoples/identities/ethnicities etc etc. I believe firmly we need to acomodate both in a way that each camp concedes some usage. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

English, Scottish, Welsh is acceptable for those whose lives occured before 1707, but not after (IMHO). If only the choice was up to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about putting "English, British" or "English and British" in the infobox like shown above so that both are mentioned without the need for doing new templates or making alterations to them. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lmao it appears this problem will not be solved even if Scotland left the UK. [2] , which ofcourse will never happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting and telling article. I remember a few years back the SNP suggested that some (if not many) British insitutions could/should stay inplace in a sovereign Scotland.... but anyway, I think this debate has stalled. I'd be interested in sandboxing a formal proposal to supercede WP:UKNATIONALS along the lines of the seven points above. It needs alot of tweeks mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to change the page WP:UKNATIONALS should be discussed at WP:UKNATIONALS. Daicaregos (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We can take this debate to there, however its just an essay and not a policy or official guidelines. Quite honestly id say most of that page needs deleting, i am very disappointed i was not around to get involved in that debate before. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually i take that back, alot of the information on the page does set a good background and is useful for those from outside of the UK to get to grips with everything, im just unhappy at the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to your question '3 days ago') After 1707, I make no acceptions, it has to be British. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

History of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom needs updating.

A helpdesk request pointed me to this article, and seeing wikiproject UK and politics is rather empty i thought i forward this here instead. The above page is documenting the past cabinets of the UK, but is quite badly outdated. I have no idea if this information is documented elsewhere in which case it could be redirected. If not, it might be a good article to improve soon as this is explicitly referred to on Cabinet of the United Kingdom, a top-importance article for UK and politics. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening of discussion for a possible semi-protection of Derry and County Londonderry

Join the discussion at Talk:Derry#Opening of discussion for semi-protection of both city and county page. Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Affirmative action" in the UK

Just a quick question from an American: is "affirmative action" known as "discriminative action" in the UK? It sounds like vandalism to me but it hasn't been reverted after several hours so I thought I'd ask here. -kotra (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "affirmative action" is rarely used in the UK, for example by the National Black Police Association of the UK here.[3] I believe that it has only been applied in practice in Northern Ireland. I've never heard of the term "discriminative action".--Pondle (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One common expression is "Political correctness gone mad". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative Action and Political Correctness (gone mad) is tending to become rampant in the UK. There are not enough women in Parliament (apparently it should be about 50% to match the population); so male condidates might be barred from standing as condidates at the next General Election. It is also claimed that there are not enough black and Asian police, so there is Positive Descrimination in police recruitment (and it is not illegal in the UK) and in other bodies. "Discriminative action", as stated above, is not a term used in the UK.Pyrotec (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is usually known as 'positive discrimination' in the UK. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but also got a slap on the wrist once by an NHS equality officer who said it must be called "positive action". Could be NHS jargon mind, but it might be worth looking at. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This site says:

Reverse or affirmative action is illegal in the UK. Positive action however describes measures targeted at a particular group that are intended to redress past discrimination or to offset the disadvantages arising from existing attitudes, behaviours and structures. Lawful measures can include:

• Targeting job training at people of particular racial groups, or either gender, who have been under-represented in certain occupations or grades during the previous 12 months, or encouraging them to apply for such work.
• Providing facilities to meet any specific educational, training or welfare needs identified for a specific racial group.
• Measures to provide training and special encouragement for returners to the labour market after a period of time discharging domestic or family responsibilities.
• Special encouragement such as targeted advertising and recruitment literature, reserving places for one gender on training courses or providing taster courses in non-traditional areas......

Positive discrimination is not to be confused with positive action. Positive discrimination, affirmative action or reverse discrimination, generally means choosing someone solely on the grounds of their gender or racial group, and not on their abilities. Positive discrimination is illegal under UK anti-discrimination law. (NB Under the Disability Discrimination Act, positive discrimination in favour of disabled people is not unlawful. In fact, employers and service providers are under a positive legal duty to make all reasonable adjustments in favour of disabled people.)

Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement at MigrationWatch UK

Three single-purpose accounts have been making numerous comments at Talk:MigrationWatch UK about the reliability of sources used for the article and suggesting material that is critical of the organisation be removed. I'd appreciate the views of others on this. The comments start under this heading and continue to the bottom of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Watneys Red Barrel

I see that according to your project page, images are required for this. I have a little original plastic Watney Red Barrell on my keyring, it is (surprise) red and has WATNEYS in black printed on it. Not fantastic, I know, but possibly worth having as I imagine there was quite a lot of merchandise when they were trying to introduce this filthnew product.

Unfortunately I won't have a camera until the weekend. So I'm posting this mainly as a reminder to myself; having done so I won't forget it. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Watneys Red Barrel key fob

I've uploaded the image to File:Watneys Key Fob.jpg. It's not great but I can make a more tailored, better image if anyone has a use for it. I've added it to the Watneys page. Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Review for Dalek

I have nominated Dalek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

A vote to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II is being held at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11.

76.66.197.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Royal Family

Hello! I have nominated Bosnian Royal Family article for deletion. The reason for this can be found in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family. Related discussions have been taking place here and here. Your opinion is requested because you are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject England, and therefore you may be interested in the discussion. Some of the disputed claims made in the article, the one which may be of interest to you, include the sentences:

• "England's main motivation to act towards Bosnia as a foe... is in her old animosity towards the Catholic Church..."
• "England's infamous persecutions of Catholics throughout history, which are now part of common knowledge, then occupations of Ireland and Scotland..."
• "For the past 300 years, English monarchs violate human rights of Catholics so openly that the The Act of Settlement of 1701 bans a Catholic or anyone even marries a Catholic from becoming England's monarch."
• "England's rulers have enabled distruction which creates permanent instability in the region as well as continental Europe overall..."

Please note that this is not mean to be canvassing for support; it's done according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

English, Welsh, British

I'm sure this is old hat to many editors here. Could you kindly direct me towards guidance of how to handle national descriptors? I notice that Richard Price has been moved from Category:English Unitarians to Category:Welsh Unitarians, although he spent his whole adult life was in (what is now) London. Before I take the matter up on that talkpage, I'd like to know what the current state of thought is on English, Welsh, British, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. See #British or English? above. Now I'll have to unwatch this page for a couple of weeks again, until it all cools off. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE "cools off" - I don't want to look!

If Richard Price (which is incidentally a Welsh surname with and English first name) lived his adult life in England, but he didn't self-identify with being Welsh, or his life wasn't significantly related to Wales - then he should be labelled as "British" really, not "Welsh" (or as a second line, "He was British of Welsh descent", with an further following qualifier if needed). Britannica has him as British.

Regarding the lists - personally I think UK lists like this are unworkable - UK identity is too complex, and people can be British as a singular identity, and/or Welsh/Scottish/English/Northern Irish (or a combination of the UK nationalities) in a lesser, greater or equal degree. See Countries_of_the_UK#Identity_and_nationality.

These nationality 'lists' simply mistake the places people are born, effectively, with their lives. The only workable way of doing these things in list-form is using "of" in the sense of "pertaining to": "x of y" would result in "Unitarians of Wales" and "Actors of France" etc. Sadly, the needs of Wikipedia, obsessions with the common idiom, and nationalistic pride rarely all mix together well. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of the United Kingdom

Hello all, just a nudge that I'm looking for collaborators to work on a new version of the Architecture of the United Kingdom page. It is presently found at User:Jza84/Sandbox3. To avoid accusations of bias, please feel free to get involved. Please give me a quick note on my talk page if you wish to get involved. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about categorisation of British people by ethnic or national origin

Please see here for discussion regarding a possible merger of categories of British people by ethnic or national origin. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK place: distances

I would like to draw the attention of the WikiProject to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Dublin. In summary: {{Infobox UK place}} has the following four fields - |dublin_distance=, |dublin_distance_mi=, |dublin_distance_km=, and |dublin_direction= - should these be kept, or removed? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)