Revision as of 01:34, 15 February 2016 editPrestopotatoe (talk | contribs)27 edits Undid revision 705019334 by Snowded (talk) Remove unnecessary deletion regarding article by PC thug.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:18, 17 December 2024 edit undoServite et contribuere (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users811 edits →Christianity Traditional Religion among British People: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
(128 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{British English |date=September 2010}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
| action1 = GAN |
Line 5: |
Line 6: |
|
| action1result = listed |
|
| action1result = listed |
|
| action1oldid = 296826494 |
|
| action1oldid = 296826494 |
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
|
| topic = socsci |
|
| topic = socsci |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2 = GAR |
|
|
|action2date = 18:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/British people/1 |
|
|
|action2result = delisted |
|
|
|action2oldid = 1238909593 |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Wales|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cornwall|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Channel Islands|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Isle of Man|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jersey|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Antarctica|importance=High |British=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=High |Anguilla=yes |Anguilla-importance=top |Bermuda=yes |Bermuda-importance=top |British Virgin Islands=yes |British Virgin Islands-importance=top |Cayman Islands=yes |Cayman Islands-importance=top |Montserrat=yes |Montserrat-importance=top |Turks and Caicos Islands=yes |Turks and Caicos Islands-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject South America|importance=High |Falkland Islands=yes |Falkland Islands-importance=top |South Georgia=yes |South Georgia-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=High|Saint Helena=yes |Saint Helena-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gibraltar|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Polynesia|importance=High|PI=yes|PI-importance=top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{old move|date=28 September 2022|destination=Britons|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1113593610#Requested move 28 September 2022}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top|class=GA}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{British English |date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months | |
|
{{Archive box|search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months | |
|
*] |
|
*] |
Line 19: |
Line 42: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
Line 32: |
Line 57: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|7|British people#1|1|#1}}, |
|
|
{{User:WildBot/m03|25|British people#2|2|#2}}, |
|
|
{{User:WildBot/m03|1|British people#3|3|#3}}|m04}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== White British == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is about British as an ethnic group (and nationality), why are British descendants in America, Australia, Canada etc included if it wasn't? So the white British population in the United Kingdom is relevant not just the entire population of the UK. ] (]) 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is another article on that, its not necessary here and its very dubious if it is relevant anyway ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Saying something is dubious doesn't mean anything you need to explain why, I've explained why it should be included you have stated no reason why it shouldn't. ] (]) 22:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Just to support Snowed and rebut the statement in your first post. To me Snowded's point is that you were conflating the terms - nationality and ethnicity which is a flawed (or dubious) thesis and a common trap which some people fall into / profess which we regularly see in these articles. This article is about a 'nationality' not an 'ethnic group' and therefore not as you inimated above. British people - a nationality, are present around the world which this article aims to cover. To avoid you remaining in a fog over this, I will spell out here so you are in no doubt and can stop taking up more time of several dedicated editors who have patiently dealt with your random edits and commentary all over the place recently. There is a dedicated article where the ethnic groups in the UK are described - ] and summary data on the ethnic group 'White British' is provided there. There are sister articles for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. There is also an article ] - the ethnic group used for UK demographic purposes, and contains both headline data plus a breakdown for UK countries and regions. I can only hope this helps!] (]) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== British/Briton is not an ethnic group. This article is stupid and useless. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Confusing == |
|
The term "British" is used to refer to nationality, a citizen of, or a person living in the United Kingdom. If we're talking about the native ethnic groups, those would be English people, Scots, and Welsh people. Honestly, this is as stupid as someone claiming "American" as an ethnicity. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I regard myself as ethnically British. We've been British for ten thousand years. Why do we have to categorise ourselves into English or Welsh? The United States is an immigrant country with people from all over the world whereas we are an indigenous society whose ancestors are aboriginal, the first people in our island. Your view needs to change. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::And, many people (like me) do identify as British. Most of my great-great-great-grandparents were Welsh speakers, in Wales. The other great-great-great-grandparents were born in Ireland of originally Scottish stock. Familes moved around. Three of my grandparents were born in England, as was I. I've lived in England for about two-thirds of my life, and Wales for about one-third. What does that make me? A (fairly) typical British person. ] (]) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just to nail this old chestnut once again. Etnicity and nationality are two distinct and independant descriptors of people. British is a statement of nationality and also has a legal context. Nationality associated with: Scottish Welsh English etc provides a way for people to express their allegiance or heritage to one of the constituent countries of the UK but does not affect their legal status as British. White British or Black British or Asian British are examples of ethnic groups used in the United Kingdom which are applied via self classification and cannot be legally applied / imposed on a person by the State. The belief that there is such a thing as 'ethnic-English', '-Welsh' '-Scottish' etc is today at best an out-dated concept. At worst wll enough said.....!! Above all its not the artical that is useless] (]) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A basic point – what is a 'British' person? – is unclear in this article. The lead defines it with some clarity and the final sentence mentions the diaspora, separating its members from 'the British'. But later there's "Britons – people with British citizenship or of British descent", which redefines 'British', and the presence of a diaspora map in the infobox and a (very long) list of countries implies that the diaspora is also 'British'. I'm confident that there aren't 72 million British citizens (the opening sentence definition) in the US. How we can clarify for readers? ] (]) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
*Not that I disagree with any of the reponses to the OP, but the article doesn't claim that "British" is an ethnicity (though it could). So the OP's complaint is ]. ] (]) 21:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::English people tend to think of 'British' as a term invented to be inclusive of the Scots, Welsh, and Irish. Primarily they take it to mean Celtic people, people with hairy legs. ] (]) 15:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Viedo clip on the origins of the British == |
|
|
|
:The lede should simply make this double-usage clear: it can refer to people of "British descent" (English, Scottish, Manx, Welsh, other historical British Isles) or it can refer to people of British citizenship. ] (]) 02:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of British citizens in the United Kingdom == |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to get into complicated discussions here, but British people in the UK are clearly the entire population, except for those who do not have British nationality. So, according to the House of Commons Library, there are only 6 million people in the UK who are not British nationals. So if we take that number and subtract it from the total population determined by the World Bank (the same source used in the article), we get 61,326,569 British in the UK. |
|
== Infobox images? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
House of Commons Library: |
|
If anyone's able? we need some images for this article's infobox. It looks rather bare, without one. ] (]) 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree ] (]) Lets start listing all those British people whose pictures can be included in the collage . '''Inventors , Leaders , Artists , Scientists , Authors , Musicians , Socialists''' .Lets select 25 greatest British of all time who can be put in a picture frame as similar to this I am Starting with ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] ,] , ] , ] ,], ], ] ,], ] , ], ], ] , ], ], ], ],], ], ] , ], ], ], ] . I don't want ] in this list; even if he ranks number one in 100 greatest British as he was responsible for . --<span style="border:1px solid #0072BC;padding:1px;">] ]</span> 09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::That would be great :) ] (]) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I will confess to not being a fan of info box portrait images. Anyone who patrols the ] and ] etc articles will know they quickly become a venue for adding and subtracting IPs favourite celebs. It becomes also tedious when what is added is a non feee images. I am aware WP policy generally advises in favour of a single iconic image rather than an indiscriminate image gallery of miscellaneous pictures. To the list above we could all add another 500. If it was already there bet ] would have found his way there by last week. If you have to go this route I will not protest but expect those on favour to then patrol it. But why not make use of the ] which at least has some democratic process defining notability going for it.] (]) 17:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, let's not do this. It just invites ''endless'' arguments, & will have little encyclopedic value. A photo of a British crowd might be better; I've added a nice one as a suggestion. Note from a section a little above that a collage has been added and removed in the past. ] (]) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: I Will select 20/25 people from Greatest 100 Britons list . I know about that list. I will give preference to International fame , international reputation than local reputation. However my choice won't be permanent. If someone feels that someone in that list needs to replaced by anyone who is better than he/she can do it.] (]) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The World Bank: |
|
:::I agree with {{u|Johnbod}} and {{u|Tmol42}}. A collage of thumbnails will have little encyclopedic value and be continually contentious (note for example that {{u|CosmicEmperor}}'s list above includes only white British and represents fiction authors with Agatha Christie, or see the exhausting discussion at ]). Take a look at the tiny thumbnails of ] and that article's contribution history, or look at ] as it now is and a few months ago, before editors agreed to drop the infobox images completely in discussions (] and ]) which cited this article as a good example of doing fine without such infobox images.] (]) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=GB ] (]) 00:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::Why this page has pictures of afro arabs then ? . https://en.wikipedia.org/Afro-Arab .Do We have a restriction against White People . So a Pakistani Women with no international fame will represent thousand years of British culture and History. If any non-white British citizen is equal to the persons I have mentioned (in terms of contribution to society and international reputation) then He/she deserves to be in that list . You can name them who are as great as Shakespeare and Darwin . I am am ignorant of such great non-White British who are greater than Shakespeare and Darwin . And I never said my list is permanent . Editors can change it afterwards .] (]) Don't accuse me of favouring White people as that was never my intention . I am not even White and I always hated British rule in India ] (]) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: Logical though this is, we can't do it. Please read ]. You can't use numbers from two different sources to calculate a new number that is not in a source. If a published source has done some calculation, you an cite that. ] (]) 07:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is simple math ]? The chart doesn't show this because a chart showing what "100%" looks like isn't very helpful, so the number is the British diaspora (e.g., includes Australians of British descent living in Britain, but excludes British citizens of non-British descent.) ] (]) 03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The calculation is simple, the contention behind it is not and is unsourced. ] (]) 10:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This is a mess == |
|
:::::{{ping|CosmicEmperor}} I didn't accuse you of favouring white people. I used the fact that your list only featured white British to illustrate how contentious such a collage would be. I'm sorry that disturbed you. Sadly, we've just demonstrated how discussions about who to include would often become fraught very quickly. <small>I've indented your response a little more per ] to make it clear you were responding to my post, not GoodDay's.</small> ] (]) 12:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
No thanks. Infobox image collages are pointless, subjective trivia. Whatever the result of selection, no-one will will happy with it. ] shows how divisive this will be. ] (]) 15:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole article is in need of a complete rewrite. It is way out of date on recent Archaeological discoveries and on modern DNA research. |
|
:I agree with the points made by {{u|Daicaregos}}, {{u|Johnbod}}, {{u|Tmol42}} and {{U|NebY}}, and am glad that attention has been drawn to the discussions at ] and ]. I favour getting rid of the images in the infobox completely, essentially for many of the reasons set out in those discussions by {{u|Secondplanet}}: |
|
|
|
There is too much reliance on books by TV presenters rather than historians in the references. ] (]) 05:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
:# It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space. |
|
|
:# Selection of the images inevitably reflects personal bias and leads to an absence of consensus, and conflict |
|
|
:# Images of ''famous'' British people are barely relevant to the wider topic of British people. |
|
|
:# The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers. The images are ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article. |
|
|
:So, I propose that the mosaic be <s>removed</s> not reinstated (oops...). ] (]) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Er, well we don't have one, it having been removed a while back (see a couple of sections up). A consensus seems to be emerging to keep it that way. ] (]) 16:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<small>Obviously too much sun has been getting to me. Sorry! ] (]) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::I support the very well-summarised reasons set out by {{u|Ghmyrtle}} for retaining the status quo and tentitively suggest we might aim to promote what I hope is an emerging concensus here by initiating discussions which encompass the 'British diaspora-related' articles which have collages which seem to endlessly evole as a whole bagatelle of preferences and dare I say it prejudices are played out.] (]) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
I see no good reason of why a crowd of (all white) British people at an event in Kent adds to anyone's understanding of the article topic. I certainly do ''not'' want to have a mosaic reinstated - but I don't want some random photo of people waving flags included either. ] (]) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Seconded. ] (]) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sigh! Does one need to set out the advantages of illustration in general? I hope not. I'm getting rather tired of this page, but I will just say that a lead image is a good thing, and people ought to propose a new one before removing one that's there. ] (]) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A wide-ranging (and occasionally contentious) topic like "British people" does not lend itself to a single image. We are not here to make the article look pretty - we are here to provide useful information. A picture of a random crowd doesn't do that, and nor does a selection of "noteworthy" people. ] (]) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well I think that's complete nonsense, but I'll leave you all to it here. ] (]) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think being overly utilitarian in this may be unproductive. I agree in principle with what I think is Jonbod's underlying point: that a "British" crowd scene has a general (aesthetic) illustrative benefit even though it might fall short of being instructive. I don't think the flag waving scene he chose fulfils that aesthetic requirement though. (Btw, the gallery/montage of "famous" people are always a problem in all the X People articles and should be done away with in general.) I think it could work if a good photo of a "British" crowd scene could be found - which isn't necessarily "representative" but is in some way, <u>in itself, notable</u>. I thought, perhaps, that a photo of the stadium audience at the Olympic opening ceremony could fit the bill - but, surprisingly, I couldn't find anything of suitable quality. But I think something of that nature would potentially benefit the appeal of the article without ''strictly'' increasing the readers' "understanding of the topic". ] (]) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::With sincere apologies for deflating your balloon but any image of a crowd at the Olympic opening ceremony will certainly be an international one. A GB & NI team image meets the nationality test as would one of British MPs as seen assembling for the Queen's speech but be beware of the 'reluctant British' who appear in such a photo but have self declared themselves to have a preference to be Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or English. Then why not Britannia or the British Royal Family? But Republicans and others may not sign up to them as representative. So perhaps we should look for an image of a 'stiff upper lip' and post it up there on 1st April and at least we can have a good laugh about our confused identity!] (]) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Don't worry, any balloon I once had has long gone floppy. My point is that the "representive" objective never works. Better to go for an aesthetically pleasing crowd scene at a notable "British" event (eg sporting, cultural, even political). Only problem is I just can't find one. ] (]) 08:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GA concerns == |
|
We've got images for ], ] & ] (we should have images for ] aswell), therefore it shouldn't be ''too difficult'' to choose pictures from those articles. ] (]) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below: |
|
::] is absolutely right. Northern Irish needs one. I also agree with ], a collage is required for British people. As for {{u|Daicaregos}}, {{u|Johnbod}}, {{u|Tmol42}} and {{U|NebY}}, seen that Britain is a multiethnic territory, certain people believe that there should be few spaces for Asians or Blacks on the collage, but I think that the solely foreigner we can include would be ].--<span style="border:2px solid black;font-size:115%;background:blue">]</span>] 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Best not to have any images . Last time this page had images they were so small that they were pointless, GA articles of this nature no longer have the kid images. --] (]) 12:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*The concerns about the out-of-date research mentioned above do not seem to have been addressed. |
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
*There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs and almost the entire "Chile" section. |
|
|
*The demographics and statistics need to be updated, with the infobox using 2005 sources and some sections using sources from the 90s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should it go to ]? ] (]) 17:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/British people/1}} |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629025706/http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southeast/halloffame/public_life/gwynfor_evans.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southeast/halloffame/public_life/gwynfor_evans.shtml |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070809154930/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca:80/site/english/maps/reference/anniversary_maps/terr_evol to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/anniversary_maps/terr_evol |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100617043450/http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk:80/Catholic-Church/The-Church-in-England-and-Wales to http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/Catholic-Church/The-Church-in-England-and-Wales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Christianity Traditional Religion among British People == |
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{moved from|User talk:Bazza 7#Christianity Traditional Religion among British People |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
}} ] (]) 13:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to talk about you reverting the edits I made to the page “British people”. If you look at research of Religion in Britain statistics, you will find that Religion is declining and Traditionally is more appropriate. Here is one page to look at: Https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/5457/the-uks-atheist-strongholds/ |
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Here is another one: |
|
|
https://humanists.uk/2021/04/01/latest-british-social-attitudes-survey-shows-huge-generational-surge-in-the-non-religious/ |
|
|
And another one: |
|
|
https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/4902/religion-is-on-the-decline-in-the-uk/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you read them all, you will find that Christianity is on the Decline in the UK, and if you look at pages about Australians Born in England, Scotland and other British Isles countries (Via ABS), you will be able to notice that among the British Diaspora, (Look in ABS for people Born in England, Scotland and Other British Isles countries) in the 4 Major Former British Colonies which are White Majority (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), Christianity is on the Decline in pretty much all of these regions among the British Diaspora, and out of these regions, Christianity among the British Diaspora (British Ancestry) (Particularly younger generations) isn’t a big thing in any Region but the Southern United States. I recommend you read the page “Decline of Christianity in the Western World” (At least the page name is something like that). Come back and tell me what you think ] (]) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Multicultural, diverse, multi-racial??? Really? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:When I said Religion is declining, I should have said Christianity is Declining ] (]) 11:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
You guys are aware of the fact that 90% British folk can trace their ancestry back for hundreds and thousands of years? How on Earth does that make it a multi-racial, multicultural or diverse society? Despite the fact that a couple of areas in London resemble slums in Nairobi, the vast majority of Britain is uniformly white and uniformly of a single English scots irish or welsh culture. I invite you to go down to Kent or Margate and see how diverse British culture is.--] (]) 00:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:See ]. Despite the supposed decline of Christianity in the continent, an estimated 77.8% of the European population were identified as Christian in 2017. In ], the article states: "According to the 2019 ] survey about Religiosity in the ], ] is the largest religion in the European Union accounting 64% of the EU population, ] are the largest ] group in EU, accounting for 41% of EU population, while ] make up 10%, and ]s make up 9%, and other Christians account for 4% of the EU population. ] account 17%, ] 10%, and ] 2% of the EU population." In other words, Catholicism is still thriving in Europe even when Protestantism keeps dwindling in importance. ] (]) 14:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::We are not talking about Christianity in Europe, we are only talking about Christianity among the British people and the British diaspora ] (]) 00:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
A basic point – what is a 'British' person? – is unclear in this article. The lead defines it with some clarity and the final sentence mentions the diaspora, separating its members from 'the British'. But later there's "Britons – people with British citizenship or of British descent", which redefines 'British', and the presence of a diaspora map in the infobox and a (very long) list of countries implies that the diaspora is also 'British'. I'm confident that there aren't 72 million British citizens (the opening sentence definition) in the US. How we can clarify for readers? EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to get into complicated discussions here, but British people in the UK are clearly the entire population, except for those who do not have British nationality. So, according to the House of Commons Library, there are only 6 million people in the UK who are not British nationals. So if we take that number and subtract it from the total population determined by the World Bank (the same source used in the article), we get 61,326,569 British in the UK.
This whole article is in need of a complete rewrite. It is way out of date on recent Archaeological discoveries and on modern DNA research.
There is too much reliance on books by TV presenters rather than historians in the references. Panama1958 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concerns about out-of-date information brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. There is uncited text, including the entire "Chile" section, and the demographics section needs to be updated, as it uses sources from 2005 and the 90s. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
If you read them all, you will find that Christianity is on the Decline in the UK, and if you look at pages about Australians Born in England, Scotland and other British Isles countries (Via ABS), you will be able to notice that among the British Diaspora, (Look in ABS for people Born in England, Scotland and Other British Isles countries) in the 4 Major Former British Colonies which are White Majority (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), Christianity is on the Decline in pretty much all of these regions among the British Diaspora, and out of these regions, Christianity among the British Diaspora (British Ancestry) (Particularly younger generations) isn’t a big thing in any Region but the Southern United States. I recommend you read the page “Decline of Christianity in the Western World” (At least the page name is something like that). Come back and tell me what you think Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)