Talk:Glossary of names for the British

British

Where does this word come from? One is from Britain and often called a Brit but where does the 'ish' come from. Your either from Britain or not....you can't be sort of!!! Someone please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.147.80 (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Same family as Irish, Danish, Hamish, Jewish, Polish, Cornish, English, Finnish, Flemish, Kentish, Lettish, Spanish, Turkish, Scottish, . . . Doug butler (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The term comes from the first known name for the inhabitants of the British Isles (not the inhabitants of the island of Great Britain). The isles were referred to as the Prettanik Isles, and the people as the Pretani. This was changed by the influence of the Romans, who seem to have changed it from the Greek 'Pret' to the Latin 'Brit'. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Hun" and "Norn Irish"

I'm not going to prove that the sky is blue here. My additions were reverted with an explanation that there were no sources. Two reasons for reintroducing the terms: 1. Very few of the rest of the terms have sources. Why single those specific ones out? 2. A simple web search will quickly turn up results. There is not need to give citations for every single word in every single article. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I took them out again. Not noticing you started a discussion here, but I would have done so otherwise. I am sorry if your upset. I must run off to real life or I would say more.

Here is my edit summary: See WP:BURDEN. You are suppose to produce the citation. I did check the article. If it was in the article and cited there I would have left it. There is also the question of notability. See WP:ONUS. "Hun" seems too obscure to include. "Norn Irish" seems a little more likely, but that is a judgement call made by consensus.

Also see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Most likely the other things on the list are cited in the target articles. But if not, I will happily remove those too. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not "upset" (I am, however, slightly puzzled) and I hope you're not being cheeky with your with your statement and your reference to "real life".

Speaking of "real life", I actually grew up in the specific country in which these terms are not only used, but are very commonly used and widely known. Just because you are not aware of them, that doesn't mean they are not notable.

Here's an example for you: Had I come from South America or Africa, it's fairly likely that I wouldn't know what a "Pom" or a "Jock" was. Considering both terms are quite confined to the English-speaking world, and to Commonwealth nations, I might consider them to be not notable. However, I can tell you (even though I'm not a valid 'source' under Wikipedia rules) that both these terms need no consensus and nor are they "obscure".

I understand the 'rules' of Wikipedia, but I also understand common sense. Frankly, the amount of effort needed to edit articles here is one of the reasons I stopped being an editor. Here is the text of the common sense wiki article:

“ Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. ”

What I'm suggesting here is that combined with a quick websearch, there was no need for you to remove the information in the first place. Once I had re-added the information, then perhaps you might have thought it wise to think, "Hang on - maybe this guy is on to something. Maybe I'll do a quick check and see if these terms actually exist." Instead, what has happened is that you've put quite a lot of energy into removing my supplied information, instead of getting on with your important "real life", and you have also wasted quite a bit of my time. And you may say a similar thing to me, after I have finished writing this.. essentially essay: "Why don't you just provide citations/sources, instead of writing a lot of crap on a discussion page?"

Well, here's the thing.. will those sources be deemed by you to be ample, suitable, worthy? Within the rules? In assuming 'good faith', I have to believe that you only want the best for the article. But sometimes, I get the feeling that some editors are bureaucrats who aren't concerned with anything other than keeping others in line. And yeah - I'm sure you've done a fair amount of work for this place, just as I have. And yeah - rules are needed. But you also need to let go sometimes! And apply common sense. In my opinion, you may have "lost perspective" here. And then there's the other thing: I don't like articles that have too many ^{[1][3][6][11]} all over the place.

"Target article" - I'm not sure what that is. All I see is that, for example, the terms Jimmy, Scotty, Scott, Brummie, Southron and many other either have no article of their own or have no sources. Indeed, the article itself has a refimprove tag. So my question to you would be, are you going to go through all of them to either remove uncited ones, or find sources for each? I would suggest you're probably not because you've been editing since something like 2008, and your first edit to this article was about six years ago. (Incidentally, my first edit to it was over ten years ago).

So here we are, fighting about something that is basically irrelevant with regard to 'real life'. With my first addition of these terms to the article, I simply thought: Oh - there are these two terms which are pretty common here. I'll just put them in the article so I can improve it. Anyway, here are two links to the usage of the words. You can do what ever you like with them because, just at the minute, I don't really care too much.

Hun[1][2] The term is also offensively in Scotland to refer to Protestants

Norn Irish[3] --82.2.5.153 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I found a citation I like and one you suggested as well for Norn Iron and added it with a small blurb. Adding it to the list without a citation or some description to my mind is useless only a bit better than useless. The citation, the blurb and links to other articles gives it some context. Perhaps I will work on Hun tomorrow. I will want to include why Irish are called a name associated with Germans and will want a citation to support it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for adding 'Norn Irish' back in. You restored my faith in this place a little! Also thanks for putting up with my rant!

I will say that the origin of the word 'Hun' as applied to people in Northern Ireland and Scotland who are from a Protestant background is complicated, to say the least. I'm not sure myself. My earliest memory of it having been explained to me was that it was a reference to Nazi Germany, whereby Protestants and/or loyalists were offensively equated with that authoritarian regime. I think the QUB PDF probably explains it best, as it goes through the rationales from each 'side' (particularly with reference to why it is used by Glasgow Celtic football supporters). I hope that helps. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hun is being problematic for me. Huns#20th-century use in reference to Germans and List of terms used for Germans#Hun (pejorative) explain the origins of its use for Germans. Regarding its uses in Ireland I found this:

"What does the word 'hun' mean and what is it's place in society?". The Irish Post. 7 June 2016.

It seems the reason for using the word is vague. So a clean, concise statement to give context as to why this word is used is difficult. While I will not use it all, here is what I have so far:

"Hun" derives ultimately from the Huns of the 4th and 6th century AD. The nomadic tribes that came under the control of Attila were seen as ruthless, brutal, savage barbarians. It is used in 19th and 20th centuries as propaganda against the Germans to depict them as ruthless, brutal, savage barbarians. It was used so during World War I, and less so during World War II, but did become associated with Nazism and oppressive fascism. But the Queen of England is descended from the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a cadet branch of the Saxon House of Wettin. So it is used to tease and/or insult Protestants and/or British people and then by connection and/or loyalty Northern Irish and/or Ranger Fans to imply they are ruled by a descendant of Germans and/or oppressive fascists and/or just plain ruthless, brutal, savage barbarians.

Maybe if the hatred that drove the use of this word was a little more focused, we could eke out a clearer description here. I have been looking at this for over an hour now and am tired of it. I will look again tomorrow.

By the by, I removed Jimmy, Scotty, and Scott because they are unsourced. Thanks for pointing them out. I seem to remember wanting to remove them when they were added, but then thought maybe I or someone else will find citations for them later. That never happen; now I am removing them.

Meanwhile another editor did add a link to the description of "Taffy" to the River Taff, which I thought was nice. Until I looked at the target article (in other words the article the link targets) and found River Taff#"Taffy" as a pejorative mentions a different source for the word and specifically mentions the description given in this article is erroneous. So that needs to be fixed and that is why we do not let uncited material get added to articles. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Limey

the OED and the New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English both state that lime-juicer were first used in Australia, in the sense English immigrant (attested 1888) and who has lately made the voyage from England (1859), respectively, without any nautical connotation, and later in NZ and SA. The nautical meaning craft sailing under the Union Jack or seaman of the Royal Navy seems to have originated much later in the US Navy, around 1918. --89.12.65.211 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Similar articles needed for other nationalities

That we only have one about Britons is an embarassingly clear-cut instance of our usual Anglocentric systemic bias. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)