Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contents 1 Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion 2 Northern Ireland 3 Title 4 Evidence 5 Background facts: Northern Ireland 6 'Presently' is a misleading word. 7 New 'main line' - please Talk 8 Moving Talk back to the original Biographies Talk page 9 ALL Talk has moved to the original Biographies Talk page 10 Why is talk on this essay being moved?

[edit] Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion

Hi, all. Now that the discussion on the matter at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" has concluded, I've prepared this draft of a Wikipedia essay on the matter, incorporating some suggestions by Matt Lewis. Views on how the essay may be improved are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

The description regarding Northern Ireland is unnecessarily complicated, going through the legal description of entitlement to Irish citizenship. (Under Irish law everyone begins being "entitled" to Irish citizenship, but only legally become one upon doing something that only a citizen can do - e.g. register to vote, apply for a passport - then they become one retroactively from birth. However, even if you don't so anything that only a citizen can do, that doesn't mean that you are not an Irish citizen. Confusing, or what?)

You write:

“

People from Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, people who are both born on the island of Ireland (including its isles and seas) and have at least one parent who is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen, have a constitutional right to Irish citizenship.

”

This is perfectly accurate but, despite all if it's round-about language, there is no difference between entitlements to Irish citizenship between a person from the North and someone from the south. It can be made clearer by brushing over the legal requirement to citizenship as is done when describing entitlement to UK citizenship:

“

People from Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, people from Northern Ireland are Irish citizens on the same basis as people from the Republic of Ireland.

”

--sony-youth^pléigh 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will make the change. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Could you also change the title of the essay? Calling it a Manual of Style gives the impression that it is based on consensus rather than a personal view. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure about the title. Any suggestions? "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, have renamed the essay. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Thanks for writing the essay!

I think one of the difficult points is your suggestion:

"Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country?"

The problem is that someone who was born and resident (for a long time) in, say, England, was also born and resident (for an equal length of time) in Britain. So I would argue that this gives us no more reason to call them "English" than "British". Bluewave (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Any suggestions? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to distinguish between the two levels of "nation" and "nationality" in the text of this article. For example, the above guideline could be rephrased:

"Is there any other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's more specific nationality, such as birth and long residence in one of the home nations?"

As a separate point, I'd suggest that place of death or burial can be another indicator of specific nationality. For example: an Angus-born playwright who spent much of his working life in London, but chose the town of his birth for his final resting place; I'd identify him as Scottish. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On the point about burial, I don't think this is always a good indication of a person's national affiliation - places of burial are often chosen by relatives and not necessarily by the person themself. Fundamentally, though, my concern is that, whilst the nationality "British" is provable, the use of, say "English" is entirely a matter of personal preference. If I live all my life in England, I may regard myself as "English" or may think I'm "British" and I don't think anyone could infer my preference from where I was born, lived, died or was buried. I suppose I would therefore argue that to use anything other than "British" as a nationality, we should have some evidence that a person considered themself to be, say, "English". Bluewave (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason, thanks for the suggested rewording. I think that's quite good. As regards the comments on a person's place of burial, I suppose it depends on whether it was one chosen by the deceased or by his relatives. I would also add that a person may choose to be buried in a place that he or she feels particular affinity for, which may not reflect nationality. I'll try to work something about a burial place chosen by the deceased into the guideline.

Bluewave, I entirely agree that from an evidential point of view it is more likely that a person's British nationality can be confirmed, compared to the fact that he or she is Scottish, [etc.]. However, I think we have to live with the current reality that there is no consensus on preferring "British" over "Scottish, [etc.]", which is why the guideline needs to be fairly neutral on this issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I accept that I'll never get consensus on this...which is probably why I'm having a whinge on the talk page of a discussion document, rather than continuing to slog it out in the biography guidelines! One point perhaps worth including is that geographical affiliations that are not actually nationalities are sometimes appropriate in articles, as long as they are used in a context where they are not presented as a nationality. It is quite reasonable to describe someone as (say) a Texan or a Parisian, if appropriate. Likewise, in the UK, people are sometimes referred to as being "Yorkshiremen", "Cornish", "Liverpudlian", etc, but these descriptions shouldn't be used in place of a nationality. There are even times when the words "English", "Scots" or "Welsh" might be used in this sense! Bluewave (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, take consolation in the fact that I agree with you on the "British" point. About your other point: do you think should regional appellations be mentioned in this guideline? If so, would you like to try your hand at framing some suitable phraseology? I've got no strong views on the matter – I'm happy with the point either being included or excluded. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background facts: Northern Ireland

I've made a minor edit to the changes made by Jnestorius. He rephrased the second paragraph to read "People born in Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from other parts of the United Kingdom". However, I think it is better to leave it as "People from Northern Ireland" because the article "Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity" suggests that people who are from Northern Ireland may acquire British citizenship by naturalization without actually having been born there. On the other hand, it appears from the same article that only people who are born on the island of Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship, so the second sentence is fine. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Presently' is a misleading word.

On first look I can't see too much to object to, but I have seen this (how could I miss it!);

"There presently does not appear to be any consensus on how this guideline should be applied with respect to people from the United Kingdom."

Oh dear - it's the first line!

It must begin something like 'on Wikipedia, there has never been consensus...' I'll change it first right now, as it's, ahem, rather important to get this bit right. It must be your POV breaking through to say 'presently', as it suggests it's a temporary situation. All the evidence clearly points to consensus never being found. It's NOT an ugly hole - its simply our natural state.

As I've said so much before, most people in the UK are happy with the flexibility and absence of consensus - we live with it, and have done throughout our history. It cannot suddenly be implied that it's a temporary thing! It's like saying the French are 'presently' romantic!

The idea of Britishness can certainly be used by politicians and the media to encourage racial distrust (and hence, of course, advance security measures and foreign policy) - but on the whole we simply accept each others differences here. That means flexibility in identifying ourselves. There is no 'presently' about it. That general UK feeling really should be in your head by now, Jack. Oogy-boogy flexibility really is the state of play.

Surely as a foreigner studying in the UK you have felt this? I hope you've not had any bad vibes.

Regarding what identity can mean to some people in this blood-soaked world, you will find me every bit as strong about all this as I have been before - so be prepared if you fancy an argument.

I'll change this now and see if there is anything else I can see. On first look it seems innocuous enough - so a tentative 'well done'.

PS. "There presently does not appear to be any consensus" actually sounds awfully English! (in a sort of "at present I'm rather at a loss over the whereabouts of my pyjamas" kind of way) --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New 'main line' - please Talk

OK, I almost changed it - then thought it was wisest to remove it completely for the time being, and discuss my possible changes here first:

3. Nationality –

3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.•

3b. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

•Note that no consensus exists on 'Nationality' regarding people from the United Kingdom. There is an essay on people from the United Kingdom that could be used as a guideline for similar collective states, and also for areas that have disputed rights.

The only way I can see this really working is if the essay doesn't singularly focus on the UK. Then the line could offer a general 'surrounding exceptions' essay. Any thoughts?

PS. I think essays need to be introduced as such, and I've no idea how to do asterisks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Matt. Personally, I don't think there's much difference between the way I drafted the modification to the guideline and your suggestion of putting the notice about the nationality of people from the UK in a footnote. (There is a way to create footnotes using {{ref}} and {{note}} tags.) Also, while the essay could certainly be expanded to discuss other collective states, I'd rather we just stick to the UK for the moment (somehow it seems to generate the most debate!) and leave the issue of whether the essay should be extended as a battle to be fought another day. But your suggestion of mentioning in the Manual of Style that the essay could be used as a guideline for other collective states is a good one. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - we have some agreement. I have to move the 'presently' (re section above) - so will do that now, and then we can work on a footnote, yes? Then perhaps we can broaden the essay.

Just to say - I personally don't think it's right for any kind of 'work in progress' to be up on such an important page - but i've been reverted once after removing it to here, and so am compromising on this issue.

Also, Melty Girl wants me to put my points in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style biographies - we are clearly going to have to go back there. Despite your notices, I don't think many people have noticed yet that the discussion was moved here! (I didn't immediately, as I didn't picture the unconventionality of it). Obviously, a guaranteed consensus can only occur on the correct Discussion page - so let's carry on there.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Talk back to the original Biographies Talk page

By request, please conduct further content discussion to the link in this heading.

Only very minor points on the essay structure should be discussed here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created a few sub-headings to get the [{Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29|the original Biographies Talk page]] discussion going again - just in case some confusion with here occurred.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ALL Talk has moved to the original Biographies Talk page

This Talk is currently moved to the place of the original discussion: the original Biographies Talk page. It might come back here in the future, but it needs to stay in one place! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE!

Moved last few discussions to link above. (apologies for rudeness! It's got to be in one place.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removed new section "== I know it's just an essay but... ==" to other Talk, and made comment... --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Removed new section "== (Removing) Celtic heritage ==" to other Talk, and made comment... (we are currently keeping all Talk together) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Moving ==Republic of Ireland== per above. Frustrating I know, but this Talk must be in one place! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is talk on this essay being moved?

Matt, why are you moving talk on this essay to the other talk page? Is this normal practice? It seems a little confusing. Bardcom (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clealy explained above! Have you read the original Talk yet? This discussion on a guideline/essay needs to be kept all in once place. If you read above, Jack, the originator of this essay, agrees that the original page is the best one. Please don't disrupt things! It's far more confusing if it goes on in two places (ie. in here as well)! Only a few people at first noticed it was moved here from the original place - that wasn't exactly fair! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to the MoS in question, but I can't find where my posting is. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird - I did do yours (as I noted above), but it's not there - must have not saved it or something. I've just done it again now - sorry about that. There's was only a few until today - I've done the others. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Matt, I'm not taking a shot, take it easy. I have looked at this talk page, but I can't see the reason, and if it was clearly explained above, I wouldn't have asked and other people wouldn't be making the same assumption that I made. I've no doubt there is a reason, but for my benefit, and for the benefit of all the people that follow me that will ask the same question, I thought it best to allow you to clarify it once, here, and be done with it. I guess that you regard the "original place" to be the Manual of Style (Biographies), but for most, it doesn't make sense to go there to talk about this essay. Sure, it was fine when the idea was mooted originally, but now that the essay is in place, it makes more sense to talk about the essay here. (At least to me.) Bardcom (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we should have discussion there, but respect the wishes of the community. I've made a note about it in a much clearer header at the top to avoid confusion. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job. It does kinda stand out well. Perhaps this page should be "archived" too, if that's the wishes of the community? Bardcom (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. People seem to be seeing other sections then adding a new section - it's what people are used to I suppose. Perhaps it could be page-archived, like the one on the MOS talk from last year? The new banner is great, but sooner or later someone will fail to spot it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - as far as I'm concerned the essay went into the MOS side-panel too early! It's still basically the original guideline Talk as far as I'm concerned. It's seen many changes since it's been up - far more than any other on the side panel I'm sure. Even the title isn't right yet, imo (but that discussion is on the MOS Talk page here!....) --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.