Talk:Briton/Archive 1

Views on briton Society

The last part seems more like the same nationalistic but mostly wrong stuff that was taught (or rather drilled in their skulls) in the first years of school of kids in France about "our ancestors the Gauls" about fourty years ago. The effective genetic research has used very low samples over small areas and even then, the densest area of the kingdom (I mean the east coast of England), according to their samples, had among the white population the heaviest proportion of germanic/scandinavian descended people, which allows to have heavy doubts about the idea that the "native population" is a majority in Britain.

Please feel free to incorporate this information into the article as you see fit.

I've tried to reword that so the implication that all modern Brits trace their ancestry to the Britons is less clear. --Saforrest 02:00, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The commonly held view of the earlier 20th century that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the Britons of England and forced the remainder out to Wales and Cornwall has been refuted by modern genetic analysis. The modern indigenous British have a definite link to their earliest ancestors. About 90% of the population of the United Kingdom today, or about 54 million people are matrilineally descended from women that were part of the original population of Britain 3000 years ago. Even in England, in which Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and later invaders played the most important role, about 50% of all men in that region claim patrilineal descent from the inhabitants of the British Isles 3000 years ago.

This paragraph is rather too unequivocal for my taste, especially since the debate about origins seems far from over (see [1] for evidence supporting the theory that the English are mostly descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders). If no one else tackles the job of making that paragraph more NPOV, I'll try to do when when I feel like it. --Saforrest 02:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

If you have a look here, you can see evidence based on Y chromosome analysis for mass migration of Germanic (Angle/Saxon/Jute etc.) people (well at least men, as it's the Y chromosome) into England, but not into Wales. But it is important to remember that Y chromosome analysis only applies to male descent through one line. There is no evidence for example that people living in England don't get other genetic material which is not Germanic through female lines. There is no evidence that invading Germanic peoples did not inter marry with the indigenous female population. That would explain matrilineal descent from Celtic britons, but patrilineal descent through Germanic peoples (or if you like English Y chromosomes and Celtic mitochondria (which come from your mother)). The BBC story you reference suffers from the typical journalistic problem of being written by someone who only half understands the science. By studying only Y chromosomes we get only half of the story, it certainly doesn't support the concept of a genetic barrier between the Welsh and Germanic peoples. So everyone can be right, most Britons can be descended from Germanic and Celtic peoples, even from antiquity. Another thing about these studies is that they refer specifically to stable rural populations. The idea was to see if there is evidence of migration to Britain from the areas where Germanic peoples are thought to have come. To do this people were chosen for the study who had a long family history of living in the same rural village, to decrease the chance of getting people descended from later immigrants. This does not preclude the possibility of Celtic men having also been part of Germanic-British society. Mass migratios of English people to South Wales and Welsh people to English cities during the industrial revolution has almost certainly lead to even more and massive mixing of celtic and germanic genes in heavily populated areas of England and Wales. (I myself grew up in Wales and went to a Welsh school, I think of myself as Welsh, but I have grandparents from Wales, SE England and NE England, so 3 out of 4 grandparents are from England). We can never know whether celtic Y chromosomes which occur in English men have been inherited from celtic-Britons living in England from antiquity, or from recent post-industrial migrations. One should remember that given an average generational gap of say 25 years, which would be 4 generations in a century, that gives 40 generations in 1000 years and 60 generations in 1500 years (when Germanic peoples were at their most expansionist). Given that every generation has 2 parents we have a whopping 2 to the power of 60 (two multiplied with itself 60 times) people donating their genes to each of us over this timescale, does anyone seriously believe that all these ancestors avoided intermarriage with Germanic or Celtic Britons? It is the height of absurdity (bordering on the unscientific and dangerous concept of racial purity) to try to make any serious case for any genetic differences between English and Welsh people. The other thing to remember is that there was no indiginous British human population, all peoples that have ever settled in Britain have ultimately come from somewhere else, the first humans came from Africa not Britain!!!! Who knows how many waves of invaders there have been? Certainly there were people in Britain before the Beaker folk came in about 2000BC, then the Celts came in about 700BC, then the Romans, then the Germanic peoples sometime shortly after the Roman legions left.--Alun 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that invading Germanic peoples did not inter marry with the indigenous female population. - true, and in fact there's good evidence that they did. If you look at the history (e.g. James Campbell's The Anglo Saxons), the first thing most of the leaders did when they arrived was to marry a woman with a Celtic name. This implies firstly that they were marrying into an existing Celtic ruling family rather than wiping them out entirely (they may have wiped out all the male heirs, of course). Secondly, it implies that there were plenty of Celtic people still in the invaded areas whose allegiance would have to be gained (by marriage to one of their former ruling families) rather than simply displacing them. This whole article looks very dodgy and could do with some hard references - it's one of those areas where people come up with all sorts of stories which suit their own racial or nationalist prejudices, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of substantiation for most of the claims in the article. --Andrew Norman 15:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this bit in the foreign conquest section:

fails to take into consideration the complexities of a few thousand Germanic warriors against millions of, albeit disunited, Britons

There is no evidence of only a few thousand Germanic warriors invading, indeed the evidence, such as it is, points to mass Germanic invasion. It is also not established that the population of the south east of Britain (where the Germanic peoples invaded) was actually in the millions. Medieval demography gives the population of europe as about 25-30 million in 542AD, with about 15 million of these in Carolingian France. Here the population of Britain after the Roman legions left is put at 1.5 million. But of course the Germanic peoples were not invading the whole country, even if half the population lived in the fertile SE at the time, then it's three quarters of a million people and not millions.--Alun 05:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Use accurate language

I have in several places needed to replace the term large concentrations of Britons with large numbers of Britons. Concentration refers to people per unit area. Therefore a place like Gibraltar may have an extremely high concentration of ethnically British people, as relatively few people live in a very small area. A place like the US may have a far higher number of Britons, but spread out over a far greater area, and hence less concentrated. Let's make sure we all use appropriate words.--Alun 16:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The first Britons

It is utterly unbelievable that the (alleged) distinctive appearance of modern people in various geographical regions of the British isles reflects an identical distribution of appearances in pre-Celtic times, so I've removed that sentence. I'd also prefer to see some evidence that the river names are pre-Celtic, but it doesn't seem impossible. --Andrew Norman 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree.--Alun 05:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

fwiw I remember reading somewhere that brown-eyed English people were at one time concentrated in the towns because that is where the French settled after the Norman Conquest. On the other hand I read somewhere else that DNA analysis of a very ancient corpse found in a bog in, if I remember right, Somerset showed that a fair proportion of the people living in the nearby village were his close relatives. Ireneshusband 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Cheddar Man, a paleolithic skeleton (some 13,000 to 9,000 years old) found in a cave. His mtDNA was found to closely match that of a local school teacher, it was later revealed that two children had identical mtDNA sequences to the ancient skeleton. Compelling evidence for modern British human descent, at least in part, from the very earliest modern human inhabitants of Great Britain. The inhabitants of Britain at the time of the paleolothic may or may not be considered ancient Britons, depending on one's point of view. Most people would think of ancient Britons as speakers of Brythonic Celtic languages, but it is unknown, and probably unknowable when Celtic languages, or even Indo-European languages spread to Great Britain. The traditional view would be that Celtic languages were introduced in the Iron Age, which is when there was a mass migration of Celts, this would make the ancient Britons very recent immigrants to Great Britain relative to Cheddar Man. On the other hand many modern archaeologists dispute that mass migrations occured at all, and there is even a train of thought that Indo-european languages may have been introduced into Europe and Great Britain at a much more ancient date. Francis Pryor in Britain BC (I stress that this is a very personal perspective) states that I can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic....So the root tongue of what were later to develope into the languages of the Indo-European group must have spread a very long time ago indeed. and Barry Cunliffe in Iron Age Britain states that As archaeologists abandoned invasionist theories, so linguists began to reassess their evidence. The general position now, widely held by many scholars in the field, is that the Indo-European language was introduced into Britain perhaps as early as the early Neolithic period.... You may also be thinking of Lindow Man who was found in a marsh near Manchester, but he is a very much more recent inhabitant of Great Britain, being an Iron Age man, some 2000 years old. Alun 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Genetic and archaeological considerations

I've rearranged and to some extent simplified this section, it's still very far from being perfect but at least it's in the right chronological order.

If anyone can make sense of these two sentences, please do and reinsert them: Ancient Kings of the Britons written by Nennius, Gildas, and Geoffrey of Monmouth helped make rich histories of these people. Over time, they became Celtic in culture, and it is in this time that the Picts became noted as a separate cultural entity in the north and east of what is now Scotland.; - the lists of "Kings of the Britons" are myth, as the linked article says.

Nice edit, it was a bit of a mess. Surely perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I mean it is a POV if something is perfect or not!!!!! I agree that these two sentences are a bit naff.--Alun 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfection's the destination but I don't think we'll ever get there! I think on the whole, the article has too much of an air of 19th century "racial nationalism" - the Saxons pushed the Celts into Wales which is why everyone in Wales has dark hair and is musical, and everyone in England is blond(e) and respects liberty, and all that sort of guff. I'm going to swap round the genetic and foreign conquest sections, since the first seems to me to be a discussion of evidence for the second. I don't think it's really worth expending much effort on this entry, though - English (people) and Demographics of England cover a lot of the same ground in England at least, and Scottish people also has some information. Probably better to delete or correct some of the most obvious POV/unreferenced material, and redirect people elsewhere if they want information about the Saxons, Celts, Picts, the history of the various British nations, etc. --Andrew Norman 08:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, having seen the article at Immigration to the United Kingdom, which does a good job of covering all the details without indulging in speculation, I'm inclined to scrap most of this article. Perhaps it should be limited to discussion of the Celts prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions (i.e. the "ancient Britons"), with a mention of the modern usage to mean anyone of British nationality. What do others think? It would be a real pity to lose the genetic stuff, though - maybe it could be moved elsewhere? --Andrew Norman 12:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think a simple statement that the term Briton is often used to describe pre-Roman native people from the British Isles, and in the modern world is used to to describe natives of the UK and their descendants living elsewhere. Personally I always refer to myself as British and think of Britons as the ancient pre-Roman and Roman native population. I agree it's a bit daft for people to start having arguements over ethnic ownership of what is essentially an inclusive word. A link to the Immigration to the United Kingdom article is a good idea. One problem is that it's not always obvious how much material is being covered elsewhere. Good work though. Maybe the genetic stuff can be put into the Immigration article somewhere.--Alun 12:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should leave this for a week or so, and then "be bold" if nobody else has objected. As you say, especially on this sort of topic there are often several articles covering similar ground, and English (people) and Immigration to the United Kingdom are much better than this one (shame there isn't also an article for Welsh people, and that Scottish people is so inferior to the English article, though maybe I just haven't found the good articles yet!). --Andrew Norman 12:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

References

I may have been over-bold, but I've removed most of the stuff from the "foreign conquest" section about whether or not the Saxons killed all the Celts, or caused massive population movements, or they all married each other and got along swimmingly. This is controversial and to a large extent still unknown, and it's one of those subjects where (as you can see from previous edits to this article) people have strong opinions on what "really happened" without necessarily having any evidence they are able to cite. In accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources I'd like to see some proper academic references before any of it goes back in. --Andrew Norman 09:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of most of the article

Given that nobody has objected, and in light of the discussion above, I propose to remove most of the text of this article, keeping the introductory section and the "Modern usage" section, and directing people to the far superior English (people) and Immigration to the United Kingdom articles if they want the gory details of who invaded the islands and when. I'll find somewhere for the section about genetics, probably in the Immigration article. I'll do this in about a week, unless anyone makes a serious objection. --Andrew Norman 20:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good plan. --Alun 19:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

'Tis done. (The genetic stuff is now in Immigration to the United Kingdom) --Andrew Norman 10:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brit

I don't like the word "Brit" myself, but it's widely used and not just by Americans - a quick search of the Guardian [2] [3] and Telegraph [4] [5] websites shows it being used in both papers (at opposite ends of the political spectrum) in the body of articles. --Andrew Norman 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In Ireland, it is used and is definitely pejorative. Palmiro | Talk 14:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Brit is used pejoratively in Scotland too. British nationalists/Unionist politicians (Lab, Con, LD) are frequently referred to as "Brits" by their opponents.--Mais oui! 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Brython

Might it not be a good idea to merge the content from Brython into this article? Dewrad 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (oops)

Well no because this isn't anh article, it's a disambiguation page, directing users to other pages. Isn't there another page that the content can go to? -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Francs2000. If brython and Briton have distinct meanings then why any merger at all? I'll cross reference them.Alun 05:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some evidence that Brython is actually used in the sense that article claims it is. While I don't trust google as the fountain of all knowledge, I can't find any indication that it is used in anthropological or historical language as a substitute for "ancient Briton", rather than being the Welsh word for "Briton". I'm going to add an "unreferenced" tag to Brython now. I don't think it should be merged at all, and Brython should probably be merged with Brythonic languages or Celt or Ancient Britain. --  ajn (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the OED entry for brython:

A member of that great division of the Celts of the British isles, which mainly occupied South Britain; a Briton of Wales, Cornwall, or ancient Cumbria. Hence Brythonic, a. Of or pertaining to the Brythons, or Britons of Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria, and their kin.

So according to the OED a Brython is a Welsh (or Cymric) ancient Briton. Or if you prefer an ancient Briton speaking one of the the Welsh like ancient British languages, that is Brythonic. Having said this according to Picts, pictish may well have been a brythonic language, but no one knows for sure; and according to the Scottish Gaelic article this language was introduced to Great Britain in around 400CE (leading to the possibility that all ancient britons were also brythons!!!). So the brython article should really concern itself with the distinction between goidelic celts and brythonic celts. While the word Briton has various meanings, depending on context. The two are not synonyms. Possibly the sensible thing to do would be to direct brython to brythonic or celt and possibly put a small mention there about the use of the word. So I'm in agreement with Andrew.Alun 05:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Modern Britons

I wonder wether this page is correct - I have never heard of the modern british refered to as britons in any context, they are the British, which is shortened to 'brits' often. I am tempted to say that the sources should be checked, but there are none, and where would one start to prove a usage.

of course the term britons does refer to the ancient tribes and peoples as is well presented here. DavidP 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that that the usage of the term Briton to identify modern britons is in very wide spread usage. "Brits" is largely an American contraction. To find a usage open any British newspaper any day of the week or search Google News for "Briton" nick 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambig?

I don't think it's right that this is a disambig page rather than an article. I have just been doing some disamig link fixing and it's very obvious that there needs to be a article explaining that a Briton is an inhabitant of the British Isles, whatever his birth date. I can't work out from the comments when it became a disambig page, but IMO it needs to an article. nick 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been pottering about on this article for a little while, and there has been lots of totally misunderstood nonsense about genetic studies used to support rather racist opinions, like only Welsh or Celtic people can be Britons etc. The a similar sort of thing has gone on at Irish people. I have also been looking recently at English people, it's much better there as there seems to be a general (and correct IMHO) consensus for using English ethnicity as the model for the article rather than nationality. I think what we really need is an article on British people, which should take British ethnicity as it's model, this could substitute for a Briton article, while complementing the English people, Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people articles. Would something like that be appropriate? Alun 09:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think so, though I think much care would have to be taken with semantics, even the English people article you mentioned links to "Britons" in the context of "Celtic Britons". (Looking again, this isn't even a proper disambig page. Cook is a proper disambig page; it directs you to articles about various kinds of "cooks", this one doesn't, it directs you to various articles related to the subject, but not actually about it). nick 11:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link in English people. The correct article to link to is Brython. Briton and Brython are not synonyms, there is a discussion of this above when someone suggested a merge of the two articles. I think the English people article meant ancient Britons when it said celtic britons. I think the Brython article is currently the Ancient Britons article, it redirects there anyway. There is also a Brythonic languages article which is most illuminating. Maybe you are right, this isn't a proper disambig page. I'm not sure that it is trying to be. It gives definitions of the various meanings of the word Briton. The word Briton has so many different meanings depending on context, that it is difficult to have a single article on it. I think that is why it has been changed to redirect people to more specific articles. I think a British people article would be less contentious as it is less easy for someone to appropriate it. Alun 05:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say orginally; I think Briton (the article) should be an explanation of "Briton" (the word), almost as it is, but not called a disambiguation page and with a bit more text. It can then point people in the direction of British people, English people etc. That would certainly save anyone having to fix all those disambig links ;) nick 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"relating to the Irish people"

The article states that 'The usage of the term is sensitive in some areas, particularly those relating to the Irish people...'

Is it ever used in relation to Irish people? The two meanings I am familiar with seem restricted either to British people (modern) or the ancient inhabitants of Britain.

The article also says that in modern usage "people from Ireland are generally excluded". This makes no sense at all, as it's clear that the historical sense couldn't apply to Irish people. Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at this, and have amended the second of these two references to Ireland - no more "people from Ireland are generally excluded". Does this help? I think so... In the case of the first reference to the Irish, I'd say it's OK as it is, on the grounds that what the article says is that it's an area (an area of discourse? a context?) which relates to the Irish people, not the term "Briton" itself. Hmmm... Snalwibma 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But Northern Irish Unionists would call themselves Britons and they live on the island of Ireland. This is why it's sensitive. To a Republican in Northern Ireland the Unionist Britons are foreign occupiers. But a Unionist would see themselves as both Irish and a Briton, even though their families have lived on the island for centuries. Alun 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just been reading the Ulster and Gerry Adams topics when I wrote this. I think I got confused and maybe overplayed it a little. As Alun says it probably is sensitive in Northern Island, but then most things are. Other then in the context of a Unionist emphasising the fact that he wasn't Irish, I don't think Briton would ever refer to someone from Ireland. nick 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouold they really call themselves Britons? Maybe, I don't know. Many of them certainly consider themselves British, so if Briton is considered a synonym for British then it might well apply. By the way, I think that "To a Republican in Northern Ireland the Unionist Britons are foreign occupiers" is an oversimplification at best; there may well be republicans who think like that, but most of them regarded only the British armed forces as foreign occupiers. Palmiro | Talk 15:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a simplification, but it needed to be simplified to make the post a short and to the point. This is not really the place to have a detailed discussion about NI politics or it's ethnic groups. Alun 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Its very much the place for this discussion Alun. "relating to the Irish people", says the article. The people of Northern Ireland are Irish people. Would we call ourselves Britons? Not generally, no. The term 'Briton' is used as a noun for "British people". So in that sense its technically correct. There are some who suggest that Brythonnic was the language that we spoke in Ireland before the arrival and dominance of Gaelic culture. In that sense, it might also be technically correct. When we read an article in a newspaper about some eventss that have affected Britons abroad though, we would generally consider this to apply to all of the people of the UK - the British people. --Mal 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

relating to the Irish people says the title of this section of the talk page actually. This is still not the place to have a detailed discussion of the politics of Northern Ireland, this is a place to discuss what should go into the Briton article. I suggest that the correct places to discuss the politics of Northern Ireland would be at Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Assembly. I do see your point though. I was a bit confused by your edit. Maybe a better phrasing would be or a person of British citizenship. What do you think? Alun 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - you're right. I had started to answer the question and had copied and pasted the subheading and subsequently forgotten where it came from!

With regard to discussing the politics of Northern Ireland.. well the point is that politics are instrinically mixed up with sense of ethnicity and national and regional descriptions. The question was "Is it ever used in relation to Irish people?", to which I, as an Irish person, felt qualified to answer. Obviously a minimum referral to the politics and history is necessary in an explaination therefore.. without going on about it! :)

I should note that (in reference to my use of "we"), in my experience, a more extreme nationalist or republican would never refer to themselves as a Briton (in the same way that more extreme unionists or loyalists would never refer to themselves as Irish). However, more moderate nationalists would recognise that the term 'Briton' would refer to them, given particular context, even if they would prefer not to be referred to as such.

The phrase or a person of British citizenship strikes me as being unnecessarily complex. a British citizen sounds more grammatically correct. --Mal 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Northern Ireland seems to be one of those places where identity is so multi-faceted and layered, that it can seem almost an impossible task to find any form of words acceptable to everyone. Anyway the original wording of the section was overly detailed and I think this new one is better. Let's see how it works for others. Alun 04:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Tea and crumpets

The task and culture of britons revolves heavily around the consumption of Buiscuits and like during Tea time. I'm also aware of the abundance of British bars where these acts of tea meetings take place. I belive tea and crumpets should have an mention in the article. Any second thoughts..? -Zero^Talk 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You being serious? If anything, it should be on a page about the culture of the UK - Briton is an informal and inaccurate term for the modern British. But I think you'd have to a. find sources and b. explain how its a relevant part of British society. Robdurbar 10:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't exactly associate "these acts of tea meetings" with pubs, and please note that Scottish crumpets are very different from the English variety. Carry on chaps. ...dave souza, talk 11:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was being serious. I'm not quite sure how my query can be construed as bizzare, but I'm making an truthful effort about this subject. I'll inquire User:Tony Sidaway about this subject, since he's british. Thanks for your replies. -Zero^Talk 11:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound offensive. I think this is a rather stereotypical view of the 'Brtion', to be honest, and also a highly English, not British, view. The habit of drinking tea sociablly is quite a common one, but shouldnt be confused with going to a Public House, where alcohol is more commonly consumed - this is more typically an evening event, than the daytime tea drinking. Perhaps something on this would best be placed in the 'Sport and Leisure' section of Culture of England. Robdurbar 12:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a stereotypical view. You might as well say that all British men wear bowler hats and spats, and the women wear ostrich feathers in their hats. Americans wear stetsons and chaps and have spurs on their boots, and the women all work in saloons and have derringers tucked into their garters. The French wear stripey pullovers and berets, and sell onions from bicycles, and the Germans wear spikey helmets and leather shorts, and eat lots of sausage. Amusing caricatures, but not encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound so enclosed in my query. Please see my comment and take note. I did not state it was something that's done religiously, simply something I believe that's fairly common practice around the culture. I understand that its not correct to make an accusatory statemtent of the entire culture, but it is somewhat common. I'm positive Tony has engaged in Tea time on many occasion. -Zero^Talk 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have tea time every day. Of course, in Scotland tea time equates to English dinner time, while at mid day they have lunch and we have dinner. More to the point, that's crumpets sorted out. Enjoy. ....dave souza, talk 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So how should we go about placing this in an article..? I'm doing some research right now, but assistance on the source content would be appreciated. -Zero^Talk 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's having Dinner at midday and tea in the evening got to do with Scotland? We do the same in Wales, I think it's a working class thing. Working class people have dinner at midday, posh people have lunch at midday. What has drinking tea got to do with the Briton article? More tea is drunk in India and China than in Britain (tea comes from China [6]). Many Britons drink coffee. Crumpets may be peculiar to Britain, but they have no central part in British culture, I would suggest scones are more popular. Just because crumpets are British doesn't mean they are important. If you really want to make a comment about something really British that is culturally important, then real ale would be far more apt. Tea is not drunk at any particular time of day, rather drunk during work breaks, during breakfast, or at any other time when one fancies a cuppa. Can we keep this article free of misinformed stereotypes please. Alun

Glad to hear of Wales, agree about the class thing, just that during a decade in darkest Hertfordshire found everyone there said lunch. Britain is complex. Do you have Welsh crumpets? ..dave souza, talk 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We have Welsh cakes, more like a scone with raisins. Alun 09:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

scones and crumpets please!

Aah, scones. I shall nip down to the local baker's shop tomorrow and choose from the fine variety on offer. ..21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not an expert, I just merely believe we should have an section pertaining to the drinking habbits of the Britons, weather it be tea, coffee, or beer. I think it constructive that we explain the eating aspect of any group of people, and i inquire for other's assistance in rectifying this.

As for Tony and Wobble's talk of stereotypical views, eating and drinking bowler hats, and sausages, I think Tony would have to bashfully admit he's had his fill of tea on many occasion [7], as well as a great deal of crumpet consumption. And no, I do not know what Dave souza's reference to scottich biscuits has to do with this.-Zero^Talk 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your crumpet intervention was off-topic, but useful as it chased me to add the Scottish variety to crumpet. Now just don't get me started on the cultural significance of Tunnock's Caramel Wafers, Rich Tea, Abernethy biscuits etc. Britain has been multicultural since 1707. ...dave souza, talk 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its not a bad idea to include this... but take it to Culture of England I think, as it fits in best there. Robdurbar 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. That seems more fitting. Still, I'll leave the conversation here for now in the case more would like to contribute to it. Tea time is extremely important to the british culture. -Zero^Talk 11:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bretons

Now this is interesting I must say and warrants some discussion before being posted as what were posted are views that I have never seen before nor have read on other message boards. Bretons considering themselves Britons? Issues of note here would be that to be a Briton, the Bretons would need to be descended entirely or mostly from Britons who moved to Brittany during the dark ages, and that's highly unlikely as the numbers moving to Brittany would not have constituted a great amount. What is historical is that the culture of those in Brittany was very similar to those in Britain at the time and this is where the commonality lies. I am sure that most Bretons don't consider themselves to be ethnic British people.

The name Albion is indeed the/an ancient name for Britain, but so is Alba and there probably are more, including of course Britain which cannot be written off as being simply a gifted Roman name. The term prefix Great was added, was it not, to differentiate between Britain and little Britain (Brittany)? Enzedbrit 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Cornish

Added this link * Cornish people

Weasel words

This is a form of weasel words:

• Many prefer to identify themselves as distinctly English, Scottish, Cornish, or Welsh

Here's a quote from the avoid weasel words style guide: Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

In fact this whole section about the use of Briton being sensitive strikes me as very POV, and rather uninformed, we need a proper reference, and for neutrality the oposing point of view, which is that the vast majority of British people are happy to be called British or a Briton. Alun 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah so you know for a fact and have evidence about what the vast majority of people consider themselves to be do you? Well lets see it then. British nationalism does not entitle you to mislead people, you might see British culture as inclusive but try telling that to the Cornish who have had their culture excluded. Bretagne 44 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So every other culture in England has had their culture included (in what?)? Or is Cornwall somehow unique in that it's England and it's Cornwall? Very arrogant. Why even bother moaning here? What is your political agenda?? Enzedbrit 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have evidence, here it is Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity, in this report 83% of English identify as British to some extent, 69% of Scots identify as British to some extent and 79% of Welsh identify as British to some extent. Actually the fact I refer to is the POV of the section, are you claiming that the alternative POV (that most British people are not offended by the term) does not exist? If you are where is your evidence? I have presented my verifiable source and I think you cannot but agree that the reliability of the source is impeccable. I am under the impression we are talking about ethnicity not nationalism, if you do not understand the difference then I suggest you go and find out. There is no such thing as benign nationalism IMHO, I deplore all nationalism of whatever ilk, so you are barking up the wrong tree with your accusations of British nationalism, you are also showing your own colours as a nationalist, why do you presume that a Cornish nationalist is any less of a racist than a British nationalist? IMHO all nationalists are as repugnant as each other. I am a Morgannwg man, Cymro, British, European, and human does this make me a nationalist for all these identities? I would respond to your comment about the Cornish, but I have absolutelly no idea as to how it is relevant to this debate. Alun 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one problem here is that the survey I found (a put in the text) claims that people identify more to their sub-state identities over British; though I wonder whether this info is more appropriate for the (cuurenlty poor) British aritcle anyway. I think the results are highly dependent on how you pose the quesiton; and I also wholehartedly agree with Alun/Wobble's view on nationalism, this isnt the place to bring up blinkered political ideologies. --Robdurbar 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is good about the ESRC report is that it gives data for two types of question. People are asked to identify exclusively as English or British, Scottish or British and Welsh or British, and the answers were generally in favour of their nationality, 38% as English, 72% as Scottish and 60% as Welsh. When given the choce of one of five options (Welsh not British 21%, more Welsh than British 27%, equally Welsh and British 29%, more British than Welsh 8% and British not Welsh 9%) the answers were somewhat different, so the vast majority of Welsh people identify as Welsh and British, the same goes for Scotland and England. These are the data I have used because they allow greater freedom in identifying one's ethnicity. It just goes to show that people are really quite sophisticated in how they identify themselves, and most people do not seen to see ethnicity as an exclusive option. This is why I was suspicious of the original wording as it is obviously an attempt to introduce unverified POV into the article. I just needed to find a proper citation in order to verify the change I wanted to make. Alun 12:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Handy link?

A link on English identity, ethnic diversity and UK constitutional change ..dave souza, talk 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Great source, need to find some time to read it now. Alun 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"devolution, public attitudes and national identity"

I really do not agree with how this source is used in the section "sensitivity around usage of the term" since the percentages taken from this source are being referred to as ethnic identification in this article. The report itself asked peoples national identity, not ethnicity/ethnic origin and therefore has nothing to do with how people identify themselves ethnically. This is obviously why so many people see themselves as British since there is no Scottish, Welsh, English ,etc. citizenship or nationality, only British. The source is useful, but just not when referring to peoples' ethnic identification. Im sure many of these respondents view their ethnicity as something different then nationality, especially if they are immigrants or descendants of immmigrants.Epf 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, it now reads Some people prefer to identify their nationality as exclusively English (17%), Scottish (31%), Cornish (N/A)[6], or Welsh (21%) not British,[7] referring to aspects of their own culture and origins which distinguish the peoples of Britain from each other.Alun 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the N/A for Cornish in the statment on exclusive identifications, on the cornish people article, this link here Quality of Life in Cornwall, claims 35% of people identified as Cornish when given the option of choosing "Cornish" or "English", but not both. I couldnt link to the article, but I dont know if its because of the link doesnt work or if its just my browser. Epf 08:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to have the data, the problem is we can only compare like with like. If we are going to use the Cornish data, then we can only compare it to the data from the rest of the UK that is also exclusive (I mean English or British, Welsh or British etc.), which goes English (38%), Scottish (72%), Welsh (60%). This is well and good, but it would mean significantly increasing the length of the section, and ultimately going into a bit of detail about the methodology of the research. I am in two minds about it, on the one hand I think it would be good to get both sets of data in there for completeness. On the other I'm not sure the section is particularly relevant, and becomes less readable the more we go into methodology. It's the reason given for removing the whole genetic studies section I did from Anglo-Saxons and then Sub-Roman Britain, and I can see the point. I also think it is something of a digression from the main theme of the article. It's the sort of think that would fit very well in a British people article IMHO. Alun 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah true, it wouldn't be great to extend the section any further since there are already separate ethnic articles for the peoples of Britain. Alun, you obviously know my views on some "British people" article, lol, so I won't go into that too much. I wouldnt mind a "British peoples" article in the same sense of "Iranian peoples" and other supra-ethnic groupings. As long as it is mentioned that the peoples of Britain also belong to other supra-ethnic/cultural groupings such as "Germanic" or "Celtic", even if based on culture/language as much as or more so than descent. Epf 09:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think that is a very good idea, Epf. Probably a more accurate title than a British people article. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a supra-ethnic grouping though. Germanic only means people people who are ethnically German, like Germans and Austrians for example according to the OED, which I admit is not the font of all knowledge. Speaking a Teutonic/Germanic language does not make one ethnically Germanic. It is also far from established that there is any such thing as a Celtic ethnicity, this again is more a linguistic classification. I think these sorts of things can be ironed out in the article though, it's a question of including both points of view and providing verifiable sources. Alun 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the distinction between nationality and ethnicity here is too blurred for the majority to see a difference. --Robdurbar 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the Cornwall link doesn't work in my browser either. --Robdurbar 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a dead link. Alun 17:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at this and managed to find the info if anyone is still interested, it's a downloadable .doc, you can get it from here and here's more info about the project, it's by Cornwall CC. Alun 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see how it is too blurred since they are two separate concepts, even if some nations have ethnicity as a pre-requisite for citizenship. Epf 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in what sense are you using nationality? Cos for many people (the Scottish 'nationalist' party) Scotland/England/Wales and (though it pains me to say it) Cornwall are nationalities. Personally I think its all a bit petty, but I think most would not see these as distinct from ethnicity. Similarly, that most countries are nations is a pure nationalist myth --Robdurbar 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they aren't blured to you, but you are an anthropologist, so it's bread and butter stuff to you, but it may be far less obvious to someone on the street being asked the question by a pollster. We aren't talking about citizenship, so the difference between nationality and ethnicity is more blurred in multi-national and multi-cultural states like the UK. Alun 09:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good point but usually it is mentioned, as in the case with these statistics, if they are asking ones nationality or ethnicity. Your right about it being more blurred in a multi-national state like the UK and indeed citizenship isnt necessarily nationality. Many people though respond differently to ethnicity than to nationality depending on where they live and even in the UK's case, they are separate concepts. Epf 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may well depend on the exact wording of the question, I don't think they say what it is in the report, they certainly say nationality in the report, but may simply have asked people to identify which group they belong to, and then just shown them a list. Alun 10:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "citizenship" is a sign that you're an incomer: us lot are all subjects! (boo) .. ;) ..dave souza, talk 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Boo indeed, up the UR (United Republic?) Alun 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think we are all citizens now, it says British Citizen on my passport, and I think it was changed in the early 80's when Thatcher was bussy re-defining Britiain's relationship with it's Dependent Territores, see British Nationality Act 1981 and British subject. Alun 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a relief, thanks, Can't have been paying attention at the time! :) ..dave souza, talk 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Celticist hate for Romans and Saxons

Well, well, well...don't those famous Ancient Britons have their panties twisted in bunches? No mention of Old King Cole? Bah! Éponyme 14:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Whit yese oan aboot Hen? ...dave souza, talk 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous Britons

i moved the list of famous ancient Britons to the Brython article (since that article is about the ancient Britons).

However, can we make a new list of Famous Britons - should not be too hard! While generally anyone from the UK could be put in there, I'm really thinking of people who are defiantly (or at least much more) British rather that English, Irish, Scottish etc.. or important in the creation of "British". --sony-youth^talk 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"British people" are not an ethnic group

I have removed template:Infobox ethnic group - British people are not an ethnic group! The UK is a civil society, invented in 1801 (or arguably 1707), as a cauldron of many ethnic groups. The concept of "British people" (in the sense used in this article, not Ancient Britons) was an invention of the 18th century (or arguably, the 17th if we include Ulster). --Mais oui! 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the bit at the bottom about related ethnic groups, it's a nice and in my opinion useful infobox which doesn't say much about the very dubious issue of the point at which all these "national" cauldrons of ethnic groups become a distinguishable "ethnic" group. The ideal from my viewpoint would be to keep the box for all the modern groupings of "people" while questioning the idea of racial ethnicity which is arguably an invention of the 18th and 19th centuries. The modern concept of "British people" seems to have roots in the medieval Historia Britonum and Historia Regum Britanniae, myths which played a part in Tudor politics of the 15th and 16th centuries before being adopted by Jim VI in 1603, then after a few civil wars becoming popular post 1707. Obviously the whole thing's entangled with the idea of Ancient Britons, which you'll note is a redirect to Brython, itself a term invented to try to draw a distinction. It's a fascinating and complex topic, but in my opinion it's daft to remove attractive and useful infoboxes on the basis of trying to draw a line in the grey area of ethnicity. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A pedantic remark first. "Civil society" does not refer to a type of society, but rather the civic-minded work of everyday people as opposed to work directed by the state e.g. community centres, after-school sports clubs, meals-on-wheels, etc. That said, I get what you mean.

British certainly has few of the qualities we normally attribute to people who can be described as an ethnic group. Surely ethnic groups need to be descendants of an ancient people, speak a strange common language, have mythical stories of their origin, share a common homeland? Aren't those the kind of people that they describe on the news as belonging to an "ethnic group"? But if you think about it, don't the British fit all of these? British is also particularly strange to describe as an ethnic group, because it is not mutually exclusive. Aren't ethnic groups supposed to be exclusive? Aren't they supposed to be at odds with one another? British, on first impression, doesn't appear so. You can be English and British, Scottish and British, Manx and British ... but, French and British, or German and British, or Spanish and British?

In the end, all of these come down to identity - and especially the sharing of an identity. This is why British is described as an ethnic group, even by the UK government.[8] --sony-youth^talk 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a member of the British ethnic group. All societies were 'invented' but the modern Briton is only reapplying a term that represents a concept that is thousands of years oldEnzedbrit 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical development

As England became established, the "Britons" appear to have become assimilated or confined to the west coast, and Wales was arguably the last area they controlled, even though both Cumbria and Cornwall must have some claim. Snyder mentioned some early Anglo-Saxon king claiming to be ruler of Britain though I can't find the page: he mentions the Sovereignty of Britain being a theme seen as early as Gildas, becoming dominant in the 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae. Ferguson in The Identity of the Scottish Nation describes the Historia Britonum as being compiled by the Welsh Nennius to eulogise his own people: however the Wikipedia article suggests there's doubt about who was the author, so this needs examined. .. dave souza, talk 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Population

There are far more Britons in the world than purely the population of the United Kingdom. To state 60,000,000 people as a maximum implies that when one leaves the UK, one ceases to be a Briton, and that when one migrates to Britain, one can realistically adopt that ethnic identity. Ethnic British people make up the second largest group in the United States according to data on Wikipedia, the largest group in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and they form significant populations in South Africa and other European states.

I've also removed the related ethnic groups of 'English, Welsh, Scottish' etc., as if one identifies as being of these groups, then one is a Briton by matter of historic lineage, ergo, by default. It is redundant to state that Britons are related to English people, for example, when English people are Britons. It would be as saying Europeans are related to Britons. Enzedbrit 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Enzedbrit, I've returned the "related" ethnic groups since many (most even, depending on how you count it) of these people don't consider themselves as British by identity (~= ethnicity). Regardless, they are separate and related identities/ethnicities to British. I also removed "indigenous" since this may refer to Brython not "Briton" and certainly not were not the indigenous inhabitants. The population estimate was made up from the proportion of people in the British Isles who identify themselves as British (~28,000,000) and the number worldwide with British citizenship (~60,000,000). How do you arrive at ~110,000,000+ — ~130,000,000? --sony-youth^talk 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you restore them? The article itself says that to be English or Welsh doesn't negate that one is also a Briton. If one is English, Welsh or Scottish then by default, as I say, one is a Briton. The same applies to European. We're all Europeans, like it or not. One cannot be ethnically English, Welsh or Scottish and not also a Briton because these three nations make up Great Britain and we have always been Britons. They are intertwined. Whereas the identities are separate in that one can view onesself as one AND the other, or one and NOT the other, this doesn't mean that they otherwise separate. To say that English and Britons are separate, for example, is really just confusing the matter. The population of 110 to 130 million, as I clearly stated above, is of all Britons in the world. If one emigrates from Britain, one doesn't cease to be a Briton. There are something like 60 million Irish in the world, but only 5 million of whom live in Ireland. If you look at all articles on Wikipedia of English, Scottish and Welsh people and where they are around the world, you'll come up with an estimated population of Britons, those people whose ancestors are the indigenous inhabitants of Britain, at the number that I have just restored. Enzedbrit 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied below. --sony-youth^talk 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Europe

Britons are an ethnic group. This cannot be disputed. As they are a European ethnic group, the article about Britons should be included in the category of ethnic groups in Europe. Before this is simply 'removed', I feel that there should be debate and justification as to why it is removed. Enzedbrit 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain how they are an ethnic group when the name "Briton" or "Brython" itself has never referred to all the peoples of the British Isles. Most people in Scotland called themselves Picts, Gaels/Scots or Anglo-Saxons in the past depending on where they were from. Irish have never called themselves Brythons or Britons and still do not. Briton is a political term relating to the country fo Great Britain that has only existed since the 18th century. Britons are not some distinct collective ethnic or cultural entity. This whole article does not relate to any British ethnic group and anything relating to a ethnic group appears to be minority opinions and original research (see WP:No original research). 69.156.88.156 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha ! You can't relate Britons to "Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders" etc. in the related ethnic groups box because your NOT talking about ethnic groups ! You are talking about COUNTRIES, POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, not about ethnic groups ! This article is about residents called Britons (people born in or from Britain), NOT an ethnic group. For ethnic groups, go to English ,Scottish, Welsh, Cornish people. The ethnic group box is for ethnic groups, not countries, nationalities or citizenship !!! 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a permanently banned user called User:Eoganan. Please revert his contributions and immediately report him to an admin. Alun 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is Eoganan ? You cant prove I'm him or not anyway. 69.156.88.156 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN/I. You use the same IP address as Eoganan, edit the same articles as him, have vandalised my talk page like him and use the same turn of phrase as him. I think you are him, something you have admitted on my talk page. Even if you are not him (which I seriously doubt) you have done enought trolling today to earn a block, if not an outright ban. Alun 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous

Wikipedia explains that indigenous people can be those who have the earliest historical connection with the land in which they live. Britons are the indigenous people of Britain because we trace our ancestors to the first inhabitants, regard the traces/remains of ancient British society as the foundations of our culture and history, and we have had it proven to us that the majority of our genetic heritage has a direct lineage to these first people. Today especially, there are millions of non-indigenous people living in Britain and increasingly, ethnic Britons are forming minority groups in areas of large cities. This is a trend that will continue. Thus, another aspect of what it means to be indigneous, that being forming a population prior to colonisation or maintaining a direct link to a culture that existed before the arrival of newcomers, also strengthens that claim. I see no reason why it should be negated on Wikipedia that Britons are indigenous, and I'm upset by the removal of this fact. Enzedbrit 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

British is as much an ethnic groups as Northern European this article is about British Nationals people who live in the British State if a French some other person lives in the UK long enough they can become a British National and still do not have link to your ancient British society, and I have restored the English Welsh Scots Cornish as they are Indigenous groups. --Barry entretien 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is actually about the modern identity of Briton. It states so at the very commencement of the article. I think that you are confusing citizen of the United Kingdom, which is better respresented in the article on the United Kingdom and in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_of_the_United_Kingdom_and_Colonies.

I entirely disagree with your assertion that there is no British ethnic identity. I am one of many who has expressed that I am of this identity. Rather than disproving it and asking people to justify it, one should be providing evidence or a case that there is no British ethnic identity. Enzedbrit 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think too that the fact that there is even a 'related ethnic group' category gives weight to the fair assumption that this is about an ethnic identity and not a citizenship category. Enzedbrit 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted from my talk page

Just to tell you I have reverted your edits to Briton, the article is about citizens of the United Kingdom that includes people who where not born there. --Barry entretien 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're mistaken. The article is about the modern identity. British citizens are covered by another article. Even then, one should be weary about reducing the number to 60 million as there are millions more British citizens in the world than the 60 million people who reside in the United Kingdom. As an ethnic identity, more than 100 million people are of British heritage, and not all British citizens are indigenous Britons, with about 10% having no native/first nation connection to the land at all. Enzedbrit 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No I think you will find you are mistaken the article deals with natives or inhabitants of Great Britain this includes non indigenous, and just because you say you are a of a British ethnic identity it does not mean its an ethnic group. --Barry entretien 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has always been about the people, the Britons as an ethnic identity, and then a few days/weeks ago, someone came and revamped it, and now I am being told that this article is about British citizens, which would make it redundant as there is already an article about British citizens. The article is about Britons as a people, wherever they reside. I have put forward several points in justification to this, and rather than counter them, you are saying 'no, you're wrong' and reverting without debate. If you want to revert my points, please justify with reasoning as to why you are doing this. I also suggest that you look back at the article in its infancy to get an idea of why it was started and the discussion about it. Enzedbrit 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have amended the opening paragraph a bit, more in line with how the article used to read, which should encorporate better both of our viewpoints. This is a starting point for others too who may like to touch up the article. Enzedbrit 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Enzedbrit. I'm amused my your argument of origin and indigenousness. What of those Angles and Saxons? Or the Scotti? Really, only the Welsh and Cornish have any claim to being "indigenous" Brythons - not to mention Bretons, who I cannot imagine describing themselves as British, carrying French passports as they do! As you will see from the article, non-white (i.e. definitely "non-indigenous people living in Britain") are the only element of modern British society with a majority that assert to be British. All of this is, of course, wholly different from British as a citizenship, which even the hardest nationalist from west Belfast most certainly is (albeit it probably to his dismay), though he could never be described as ethnically British.

• Sony, there are no 'pure' races or ethnic groups anywhere. Angles, Saxons, Scots, they didn't displace the native population but added to it. You're very wrong to say that only Welsh and Cornish are indigenous - this is a misunderstanding of the term, and also buys into the long-outdated view that the 'Celts of England were killed off'. As for the Bretons, they are not entirely derived from British migrants any more than the English are entirely derived from Anglo-Saxons. The Britons who migrated to Brittany certainly took their culture and language with them, but the language as spoken in Brittany at the time was closely related to British and hence that similarity today between modern Brythonic languages. British citizenship is the easier thing to determine as one only needs to look at their passport.Enzedbrit 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK government classes English, Scottish and Welsh as distinct ethnic groups from British as can be seen here. These groups also have distinct WP articles as ethnic groups. British is, of course, a non-exclusive ethnicity. One can, for example, claim to be exclusively British, exclusively English, or equally British and English. And, of course, if one is English, then one is a British citizen. But I cannot understand why you do not want English ethnicity to be said to be related to British ethnicity. 48% people in England describe themselves as British. About the same number again say they are not - although the amount of "dissenters" is kept down (albeit marginally) by the non-white residents of England who in their majority describe themselves as British.

• English, Welsh etc. are all ethnic identities but so is British. I am exclusively British but I could also choose to identify as ethnic English, Welsh and Scottish. As you can see, it's far simplier and in no way non-factual to claim my British ethnicity first and foremost. I also don't wish to imply that English isn't related to British as that would distort how I view the term, because if one is of English ethnicity, then naturally one is of British ethnicity, in the same way that if one is Maori, one is also then Polynesian. One can be Polynesian and not Maori as one can be British but not English or Welsh, but if you are English or Welsh then you are British.Enzedbrit 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous numbers (~28,000,000+ for identity) and (~60,000,000 for citizenship) were sourced and verifiable. Where do the new numbers come from?

• The number of people as referenced in Wikipedia who classify themselves as being of British heritage, that is exclusively British, or English/Welsh/Scottish/Cornish/Shetland/Orkney/Yorkshire, etc. To state the numbers that you've given is very confusing as it bases itself on questions in the census which can be interpreted in so many ways, and then also look at citizenship, which the article isn't relating to as the very same info. box in which this information is stored then goes on to speak about 'related ethnic groups'.

(Also, please don't bring issues of genetics into questions of ethnicity, instead see Rwandan genocide for how little genetics has to do with ethnicity.) --sony-youth^talk 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Even keeping blood out of it, there is still a common feeling of pertaining to Britain that goes back to the first people. We're all Britons, long before we were English, Scottish and Welsh Enzedbrit 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article still needs further classification. We should think about the best ways to accommodate the different viewpoints or meanings of the term, that is Briton as an ethnic term, a nationality, a cultural viewpoint, etc. It seems to be incorporating many different uses and is doing it badly. There has to be a simple solution to this, albeit one that will require a lot of writing!! Enzedbrit 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think the modern identity and the ancient Brython are one and the same well they are not, and your claim that all of the current ethnic groups in Great Britain decend from them is wrong also, yes there is a simple soultion leave the arctile as is describing the modern identity. --Barry entretien 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this at all. Although we are the direct descendants from these people, they spoke a language and had a culture which is entirely different to our own today. They were called Brythons because of the island on which they dwelt, and we are likewise called Britons and we share the same affinity with that identity that is that we are their descendants, they are our ancestors, and Britain is our island home. As I think is now perfectly clear, the article as it stands does not simply speak about the 'modern identity' but is highly askewed and goes off in many tangents. Enzedbrit 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Enzendbrit, on your last points above (re: keeping blood out of it and what broadening the article), I wholeheartedly agree. From the introduction, the article describes Britons as inhabitants of Great Britain. Certainly, being a British means sharing that "common feeling." Other, "Britons" may disagree, preferring other identities (which they might say better describe them going "back to the first people") or while feeling that commonality shirk at the word "British" (I am among one of these). That issue needs discussion also, butthat commonality is certainly an aspect of what being a Briton is. I added the section on "Britishness" with a mind to this. Its easy to see the ways in which the people of Britain are divided, but an article on Britons should describe how they are united also. This is, in my opinion, the core value of the identity. What would you say being British means as a "cultural viewpoint"? How can we integrate these?

On you other points, there is simply too much to mention in detail.

1. The ancient "Britons" are simply an unrelated people to the modern "Britons" - except in terms of political myth-building since the time of Athelstan, with the modern myth dating from the Tudors. There is about a much of a link between the two as there is between the Romans of their time and the Romans of ours.
2. "... if you are English or Welsh then you are British." The majority of these people and the facts described on the page disagree with you (in terms of identity, what this article is about, not in terms of citizenship which another article deals with). To insist otherwise is simply POV.
3. It is wholly improper to count the number of Britons today in terms of the number of people who identify themselves as English/Welsh/Scottish/etc. This page is about people who identify themselves as British (and cursorily mentions British citizenship also) please stop postulating the POV that all English/Welsh/Scottish/etc. people are British. As an example, the British American article shows that in the 2000 USA census, 1 million people recorded themselves as being of British ancestry. Those who did recorded themselves as such as being distinct from English (24.5m), Scottish (4.9m), Scots-Irish (4.3m), Welsh (1.7m), or Irish (34m). This article is about those who identify themselves as British.

--sony-youth^talk 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we're clearly on different pages as what I'm saying is not what you're hearing Enzedbrit 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article used to have a section that read as follows -

Common usage The word's use in an historical context refers to: Brythons, the indigenous inhabitants of most of Great Britain in the times before the Roman occupation. Native speakers of the Brythonic languages. In a modern context it is also used as a synonym for British, in the following senses: A resident and/or citizen of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or one of the Channel Islands. People who list their ethnic group as British. A person native or indigenous to Great Britain.

This has now been removed and has clearly shifted the focus of the article. As such, I will, when I have time, create a new article pertaining to the second and third points of what used to exist in this article, before the focus changed.Enzedbrit 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These were collapsed into the opening paragraph. The information is still there. How did it shift the focus? The "original" opening paragraph was "A Briton is often referred to in broad terms as being an inhabitant of the geographical region of Great Britain or British citizen." Then a dictionary-like usage section as you describe. A version of the current "Sensitivity around use of term" followed by a "Famous Ancient Britons" which belonged in the Ancient Britons article. How did it shift the focus? Where would you like the focus to be? --sony-youth^talk 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really is it in the opening paragraph. It now implies that Briton is a citizen of Britain and that historically they were indigenous to Britain. It completely omits the British ethnic category. The focus has shifted to encorporate many facets, as I say the inclusion of related ethnic groups for what is termed a citizenship article. I hold to it that the whole article is very askewed and fractured. I would like to see an initial breakdown of the uses of the term Briton and then a dedicated explanation with history and examples of each, from citizenship, ethnicity, historical interpretation, and so on. I'm happy to work on it, but I know that it will be continually reverted Enzedbrit 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)