Talk:Glossary of names for the British/Archive 1

Archive 1

various old comments

Eeks. this system is complicated. sorry for not figuring out how to email someone to look into the following. . .I just wanted to share that there is likely a factual error in the Pommy article regarding origin. it notes that POHM is a false entemology with no evidence. I suggest the photographs hanging in the Melbourne museum of prisoners wearing POHM should be reasonable evidence. Will someone in Melbourne please go to the museum and prove this to the others. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.102 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit/Pomme/rosbif etc... I feel this article is neutral and by no means insulting; in fact it is highly entertaining and informative. My only question is that I have never encountered the usage of the phrase 'Island Monkey' before, are there any refernces to its usage? John Magee 84.68.167.239 08:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Germans call the British "Island Monkeys", I forget the german word for this.

85.210.138.144 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The term is "Inselaffen" and is, of course, meant to be offensive. --24.166.17.187 04:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the term 'british' was originally used to mean 'brythonic speaking' (the welsh and cornish being referred to as british or their languages as the british tongue.) With the later use of british to mean everyone on this island being adopted and encouraged following the union with scotland, and the birtish project, at one point people were encouraged to call scotland 'north britain' and england 'south britain' so the term in its current meaning has been around quite a while. 131.111.8.102

"Ukulele"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! What do you think we are, a nation of George Formbys??? Ee, turned out nice again. Ha ha, never touched me! Lee M 02:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mentions of these words have been around since the early days of the United Kingdom

The early days of the UK are a lot earlier than those of the US... (amused) Martin 01:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Only 69 years. 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, British isn't a demonym. You can't say "A british went into the bar". That's what a demonym is... Martin 01:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Were the terms Limey, Pom, Pommy, and Brit really coined as attempts to establish less ambiguous terms for United Kingdom nationals than the adjective British and the demonym Briton? Somehow I find that hard to believe... -- Oliver P. 05:23, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No they are not. DJ Clayworth 14:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've always thought that "Briton" was a slur on us Angles, Saxons, Normans, Danes and Jutes who also live in Britain....

Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Normans - the descendents of the very few of these people who actually migrated are now spread all over Britain and are Britons. I'm sure that the Danes who live in Britain are well aware that they're not native and can be respective of the term for their ethnic term :) Enzedbrit 09:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the writer of this got his information. We already have a word for UK nationals, as opposed to people living in Britain. It's British. The others are, well, people living in Britain. DJ Clayworth 14:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What's "this" in this context? Martin 19:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I find the section on Proposed Alternatives hard to understand, and what I do understand appears to be wrong. 'British' in modern usage now pretty much refers to Citizens of the UK and its colonies. The colonies are few and far between, and many of them would be insulted if you implied that they were not British. Even in Northern Ireland I have never heard of a suggestion that British not be used to include all UK Citizens. Plus 'British Citizen' is used pretty frequently in official language to mean a citizen of the UK. DJ Clayworth 22:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well I was always told that the word Pom was named after the British Soldiers' hats, which people thought looked like...pom-poms...?! Apparently, something like 'skip, skippy, convict ect' were used as racist terms for Australians... I think it's best just not to use something that might or might not possibly make someone upset! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.176.202.9 (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---Rooinek---

"... (literally 'red neck', on account of the sunburnt skin on their necks).". Actually doesn't it have something to do with the colour of the collars of the English army uniform in the Anglo-boer war?

---

This article is on a UK topic and so should be called Alternative words for British (see List of words having different meanings in British and American English) Andy G 00:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

...Done it. (It was "Alternate words for British"). So call me pedantic. Andy G 18:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pom as offensive

I removed the claim:

Although common, [pommy] is deemed highly offensive, the most offensive term that exists for a British person.

because it certainly isn't true here in Australia, where it is no more offensive than, say "Yank" for Americans. Where is it supposed to be "highly offensive"? Securiger 08:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is "Pom" at all offensive? Anyone using it intending to cause offence would most probably be met with mild ridicule for excessive Australianness. --Greg K Nicholson 05:54:42, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Whover wrote the bit on "Pom" or "Pommy" did not do their homework and most probably has never lived in Australia. First of all, in Australia at least, it never refers to all Britons. It only refers to the English. Second, it is not offensive in and of itself. That is entirely driven by context. Potoroo 12:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In New Zealand, POM is used by the English themselves to identify themselves, for example "POM MUMs" for an online Mothers group. The word is not inherently offensive but like any word can be used in an offensive context Hookway (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The word pom IS offensive. It was coined to be offensive and has always been used to the detriment of British people. Not just English, although chiefly English, but British. In recent times people from elsewhere in Britain, and others, have said that the term only refers to English. This might be a way to avoid being labelled a pom and to escape the insult, and now we have the argument that it is only for English people, but this was not always so and the word remains a slight on all British people and should be avoided. The term is used to put down, bad mouth and belittle English and British people and is often accompanied with an expletive such as bloody, 'fucking', etc. To say now that it is not offensive is to say that when one calls a homosexual a faggot or dyke, one is purely being jovial and 'joking' or in reality levelling a compliment on someone, as I have seen people say with regards to Pom. Try being at the receiving end of the word during the dark days of post-assisted migration and you won't see the word as anything other than a smug reminder that Australian and Kiwi born people can really be nasty pieces of work. Enzedbrit 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added a bit about the word being used during the cricket. I have removed it as it is irrelevant to the debate. The word is used in many sporting events and contexts. Black footballers are called Monkeys at many sporting events too but that doesn't mean that it's used to support them. People can justify their prejudice until they're blue in the face, it's still prejudice. It's a fact that British people ARE quite reserved and polite and will often allow themselves to be thus insulted without raising a fuss. The irony is should one comment on the fact that 'pom' is not a nice word to use, they are liable to then be called a 'whinging pom'. How can a word that has done nothing but belittle people and keep them in their place since its inception now be 'okay to use'? It isn't. If you really need to find a word to refer to an English or a British person and aren't civil enough to use their first name, then try 'English' or 'British'. Enzedbrit 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously you find Pom offensive, but the article should reflect the majority opinion if we can find any sources on this. Yes many British people won't raise a fuss, but I believe most British people aren't insulted by the word Pom, it just gives us a chance to laugh at the Aussies and their funny words. Maybe if British/English people were oppressed or whatever then slang words would be construed as offensive but our relationship with the Australians, in sport or whatever, is one of good natured rivalry. We are both countries that enjoy a joke and having a bit of a laugh at each other and pom is normally accepted as just part of this. As an Englishman I feel more abuse is recieved from welsh and particularly Scots than Aussies.137.138.46.155 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Very few of us Brits find 'Pom' offensive, but it depends who says it and how. Apart from Australians, nobody else on the planet could use a phrase like "How ya doin' you bloody whingeing pommie bastard" to your face as a term of endearment, and get away with it :-)160.84.253.241 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, actually, no. "Very few of us Brits" nothing. A lot of people recently arrived find nothing wrong with the word, as do many of the staid older generation who are so proud and decent people that nothing would phase them, but those of us who have lived through the 60s/70s, or in my case, grown up with the effects on children in the 80s, the term IS offensive, not nice, pretty darn nasty, and shouldn't be used. There is nothing pleasant in using a word which had always been a term of abuse, contained in which is so much power and derision, towards people today. I would have thought that we could rise above racial taunts. Nigger was a common word for black people in the United States and now has been recognised as offensive, when once it wasn't. Pom was always offensive - who now decides that it's okay? Next will I accept that 'dirty little faggot' is okay? I think not. And if an Australian ever called me a bloody whinging pommie bastard to my face, I'd deck the racist little s.o.b. That though is systematic of Australia and New Zealand, which are countries that determine their own worth not so much on how great they are for their achievements, but on how much they can rip down and belittle others. It's very sad and shows great insecurity. I don't like chink, I don't like hori, I don't like bung, and likewise pom just isn't okay. Anyway, the article is good now in that it reflects both viewpoints on the word.

For the record, it's interesting that Pom is seen so much now to refer solely to English people. By all accounts this has occured in the past few decades, I'd say as a way by Scots and Welsh to disassociate themselves from the word and also get in another blow against English people, in which case the previous contributor is correct, because although there is spite back and forth between England, Scotland and Wales, nobody would jump to defend the English, and everyone it seems would love to support anyone attacking England in such abuse. Again, very sad. I mean, we could be using our time tackling poverty, crime, climate change ...Enzedbrit 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. OK, I'll re-phrase that. I do not find 'Pom' offensive in the least. I've never noticed Aussies ripping-down other people (unless they had it coming). Don't forget that poor Aus/N.Z. was on the receiving end of a tidal wave of moaning surly Brits that we here in Britain were only too glad to see the back of. They moaned continuously about Britain while they were here, then they moaned when they were not met with a red carpet and marching band when they got off the ship in Sydney. Sadly, some of them returned to the UK where they can now be heard whingeing about how much better-off they were in Australia. I think that we Brits got off lightly by just being called 'Poms'. I think that we deserved a far harsher nickname. I find that the best way to 'castrate' a nickname is to use it first to describe yourself, so I am happy to call myself a Pom / Limey / Bogtrotter / Rosbif first, before Johnny Foreigner gets the chance :-) You have had the admirable guts to do something similar on your home page, so why not stick 'Proud to be a Pom' up there too?160.84.253.241 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As for not noticing Aussies ripping down others, that’s of course your perception, as is your embracing of the racial insult which is the course of this thread. The UK is filled too with moaning Aussies and Kiwis who arrive, complain about the crowding, the weather, the food, never leave London and say they’ve ‘done Britain’. I cannot accept your spiel on Britons in the antipodes – it’s really very nasty, buying into the fuel that feeds the fire, and I’m sorry but I doubt that, if you are British, you feel much affinity with your people. I can’t imagine anyone being so self-hating. It’s beyond even the ribbing we’re renowned for giving ourselves. Were it not for stating what you have said about British people, I’d have assumed you quite a positive person. I compare that attitude to queer people phoning radio shows to agree with homophobic announcers that we have already been given too much equality and should learn to shut up and be grateful with what we’ve got. If you remember, or not, for New Zealand at least it was the efforts on the part of Britons in the trade unions that gave rise to so much of the ‘whinging’ association. ‘Pommie bashing’ and Anglophobia were also causes for many people to return to Britain. I read somewhere a few days ago a statistic that about 25% of British migrants returned to Britain in the post-war years and a main reason was discrimination and prejudice against them as people which nurtured greater homesickness. I’d no more state that I’m proud to be a ‘pom’ than I would be proud to be a ‘nigger’ were I a black person, but saying that, if I hear the term from friends when I know that they're joking with me, in a context that I could use similar loaded words, then that's different. Hearing on the sports news well-known anglophobic morons using the word left, right and centre to voice their derision is not pleasant. It’s good that you’re able to brush off criticism, racism, prejudice, but with the life I’ve had down here and having been on the receiving end of what I’ve received, and what I still witness to this day in the media and on the street, I won’t accept complacency in this matter. And the biggest irony? To stand up and state publicly what I've said? I become a 'whinging pom'. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=442420; http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/HistoryOfImmigration/16/en) Enzedbrit 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. To equate the word 'Pom' with a term like 'nigger' or 'faggot' - and thus suggesting the same levels of social oppression and violent discrimination - is altogether offensive in itself to groups with a genuine history of suffering. Calling you guys 'Poms' is just the same as calling us Aussies 'convicts', which I assure you leaves none of us crying ourselves to sleep at night or rioting in the streets. I can only assume you don't have any siblings and that you don't recognise an established family tradition of affectionate teasing when you see it. Poor you. -- Alyssa George, Convict #AG1414

And to treat racial slurs against the English more lightly than all others is also a form of racism. What does it matter what happened in the past. I never owned a slave, so why am I entitled to less protection from racial prejudice of others than non-English people? Mowsbury (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, we'll just have to agree to differ. I have only been to Oz once, and I was made very welcome (although it probably helped that I was in a navy uniform) as long as you can put up with a bit of ribbing and give some in return - it's just how Aussies are. I felt much more unwelcome in Scotland, where the feeling (among a minority) is not so good-natured. As for hating the British - well no. I am one...but I'm just being realistic. Like every other race on the planet: some of us are devils; some of us are saints, and most of us are somewhere in-between. You can't please all of the people all of the time, of course, but I generally find that the percentage of people who like you is in direct proportion to how likeable you are. If nobody seemed to like me, it would be easy to kid myself by believing that it was all only because of my race.160.84.253.241 07:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

While it may have been used that vociferously in say the 50s/60s, using "pom" exclusively as a term of abuse has well and truly died off in the last 30 years. You'll occasionally hear "whining/bloody pom" in NZ, but it's pretty mild - no worse than people saying "bloody English" or "bloody Yanks", and I hear it being used as a vaguely affectionate term much more often. So, while it might be useful to cite the historical use, acknowledging that the meaning is more positive than not these days is also a relevant perspective. Spoken as a born-and-bred kiwi now living in Oz. Trxi 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I added the Cricket Australia ruling, which at least gives us an 'official' verdict to disagree on. ;) --Hammer15 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, The problem is that we Poms in the UK don't actually have a deliberately-offensive term for Aussies. I don't know whether Poms living in Oz have any that I don't know about. We just call them 'Aussies' and their country either 'Oz' or 'Down Under' for short. There are some silly ones on 'Offensive Terms per Nationality', but I can honestly say that in my 49 years living in Britain I have never heard any of them. 'Lebs' is what Australians call somebody else, 'Fosters' is a rather feeble beer, and a 'Matilda' is a tank. One thing that strikes me about Wikipedia is the sheer number of nerds who sit in lonely attics making up this rubbish. I suppose 'Pom' is the same as any other word - there are two ways of saying it. Hopefully by the end of the cricket you/they will be putting "F*****g" in front of it, snarling it between clenched teeth and then spitting :-) 160.84.253.241 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In my logged out opinion Pom is no longer offensive as it is one of those words where the 'insult' is not used in a jocular way. I know an English person who is offended, I also know many people, including myself who would not be. It is similar to the word 'Taff' for Welsh people, As a welsh person I am not offended at all. But some would be. That being said Australians and sometimes British people regularly use insults in conversation to close friends, nothing is meant by it anyway. Kind of like saying 'We are such close friends that we can use insulting words and not be offended'

Anyway the above is not relavent to the artical except to possibly say that there are a lot of differing opinions. so maybe the article should say that the word can sometimes be thought of as offensive, but is regularly used in a jocular manner.

I think that the word comes from the french word for potatoe anyway, can't be bothered explaining why.

Gosh! As an Australian living in Scotland, during my time in Australia I don't think I'd ever heard the word "Pom" ever used in an offensive context. It think it's all well and good to come up with a black and white answer as to whether it's offensive or not, but when it comes down to it, it's about the context between the utterer and the recipient. Constantly re-iterating that you feel offended by the term does not enhance your argument, it only serves to prove that you feel very offended by it, but only you. I would think that a majority of people I've encountered are not offended by the term. One could argue that I should be offended by the term "convict", since there certainly are no convicts in my ancestry, having chosen to emigrate to Australia. I think the only conclusive agreement we can come to here is that "it can be offensive to some people". To those that are offended, I would hope for your sake that eventually you would come around to a more updated understanding of the word in that it's commonly used in Australia as a term of endearment, and that you can always know when an Australian likes you, as he's probably insulting you as he's buying you a beer. -- Marcus 155.136.80.162 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well we have an official government ruling here in Australia - "pom" is a playful and/or affectionate term and does not constitute racial vilification. The ruling was made by the Advertising Standards Board. (I've posted the link in the main article). Some whinging pom is trying to take it to the United Nations regardless. Manning 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be much more convinced by this if it were a non-Australian government body ruling. As an English person who has lived in Australia, I found that "pom" was used in a way that carried an inherent slur with it, the same way that "yank" does. More often than not, it was used with the prefix of another more direct insult. Certainly, it was never used in polite company or as or with a compliment... my experiences in Oz tainted my view of the word and it definitely, for me, carries a slur. It's the equivalent of "yank" IMO - the respectful term for a Briton is "Briton" (again, having lived in America, I find that many Americans use "Brit" in a similar way that British use "Yank" or Australians "Pom"). Interesting that the British have no corresponding word for Australians. — Estarriol ^talk 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As a modern Aussie, I've only heard English people refer to themselves as Poms. In the current Australian version of the English vernacular, people from England are English, people from Scotland are Scottish (where did that extra T come from?), people from Wales are Welsh and people from Ireland are Irish. People from the Isle of Mann are tax dodgers. Aussies don't see the UK as a United Kingdom, but split up as seperate countries, with much cultural and language diversity. Australia is a very beautiful, diverse and friendly society. It doesn't matter where you come from, as long as you are interesting, friendly and doesn't mind shouting a bloke a beer, then I'm your friend. As to the origins of Pom, well, all true Aussies know that this comes from Pomegranate, a fruit that starts off white, but changes to a bright crimpson when ripe. A person with fair skin has to be very carefull when they answer the sirens song of our bright blue oceans and porcelain beaches.

I find pom offensive, principally because Australians always use it in such a smug way. However, I can accept that "Most people from England find it harmless and amusing" in the article is potentially true -- the problem is that no evidence seems to be given in support of this claim.

It's also extremely unlikely that when originally used it was reserved only for English people rather than everyone from the U.K. If Australians mainly use it for English people now, then that will be for sociocultural reasons (such as lazily targeting all anti-British feeling at the English). Salopian (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As an Australian I think I can correct your lazy "lazily targeting all anti-British feeling at the English" comment. Australians don't target English out of laziness (I've worked in Britain so I know what laziness is). Now, and I would be suprised if it was not for a long time, most vitriol that is directed at the British from Austrlia is aimed squarely at the English. If you, as an English person, cannot see that it just shows your ignorance of people outside your acquaintance. Most Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Northern and South Western English are embraced by Australians as friendly, open, decent people. It is only the minority, self absorbed people who often frequent the SE of England that we feel wary of for the opinions you represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.90.96 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That blanket prejudice against everyone from the south east is also akin to racism. Have you met everyone from the south east, or are you just generalising wildly? The latter obviously. Mowsbury (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not English in fact (to the user above Mowsbury). I'm Salopian first (how did you guess?), then British, then Welsh (where I was born), then European. I don't identify with England as a unit at all. This just goes to show that Australians do use pom against non-English people, because they think they can identify who is English when in fact they cannot. Their use of it to whinge about British sports teams is further evidence. Salopian (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And like all arguments there is truth in both sides...the word pommie can be used offensively.

To sum up:

• In most Australians minds it means Englishman or Englishwoman.
• It only occasionally refers to someone from the British Isles who is not from England.
• It can be used interchangably as a term of offence or affection.
• We enjoy its ability to annoy Englishmen as we all know some of them feel superior to every other country and it kills them that another country calls them a nickname - as calling other countries names is their national pasttime - people who have lived in England can confirn this.
• Most awesome english people who migrate to Australia are not the south east england tossers who enjoy the relaxed nature of australians but want to change them the minute they land (generalising obviously). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.90.96 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The section is downright biased. Using a ruling by an Australian body as the clinching argument that is not offensive is much like using a ruling by the High Court of the Confederacy as a proof that nigger is not offensive. I can't see any reason why the liberal establishment can deem that racial slurs against the English are not offensive, even though it deems any racial epithet used by anyone else to be racist, except for the idea that the English are uniquely evil and deserve all the stick they get - which is pure inverted racism. Australians must have a reason for using a term for English people other than the neutral one - English - and they don't use pom to show respect. Therefore they use to show disrespect. It is an insult, a racial slur. Mowsbury (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like people using any racist term, unilaterally announcing that they are not using it in a racist way and thinking the issue settled. Salopian (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here in South Africa, a lot of Brits or South Africans of British descent refer to themselves as Pommies. I've never heard of it being considered offensive by anyone before. So honestly, what's with all the fuss?--Irish South African (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My word, a lot has been said here! I have removed the NPOV tag, as well as removing the POV by stating that it was previously offensive (which needs a source but seems to be undisputed), but not stating either way how it is considered now, except to explicitly state the ruling of the Australian advertising body. (The wording is not great since it sounds like they are acknowledging a change, whereas they didn't consider its historical meaning, only its meaning today; if someone can thing of a good way to change this please go ahead.)

I agree this does suggest, by omission of an opposing reference, that the term is now acceptable. Let me just sort a few things out (numbered for ease of reference in disagreement!) before giving my conclusion on this:

1. The article explicitly says that it was offensive historically; the implication is that it no longer is today. So any arguments/sources stating its historical meaning, even as recently as the 80s, are not relevant to this issue.
2. The personal view of one person isn't relevant; e.g. if I find something silly like "Briton" offensive that doesn't mean that I can update that page to say that some people find it offensive. Even including the people that an editor has interacted with on the issue (such as people they have seen using it as an insult), we're still talking dozens or hundreds of people out of a population of millions.
3. A consequence of 2: arguments about whether the term "should" (in any sense) be considered offensive are irrelevant, since even if someone's view is changed we are still talking about the personal views of one or a few editors.
4. However, what does matter is if a significant proportion (even large minority) of the population find it offensive. This could be from either the English population (feeling offended) or Australian (trying to offend); either way, this would be of interest in the article.
5. Here's the real point: the only way to prove the previous statement is verifiable sources.

I have objectively tried to find a source that Pommie is offensive, and have failed (Google was my only tool, but I did try). While WP:NPOV is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia, so is WP:Verifiability. Unless someone can find a reliable source that shows that a significant number of people find the term offensive then there should not be a mention of it in the article. Quietbritishjim (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add to my list of obvious statements:

• If a reliable reference is found that shows that a lot of people are offended by an insult that includes the word Pommie, or even are offended by Pommie on its own being said in a particularly aggressive way, this still is not a source that shows the word itself is offensive. For example, just being called "British" in a certain way in a certain context is offensive, as it could imply that there's something wrong with being British; that doesn't make the word itself offensive.

Quietbritishjim (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sassenach

Although now a Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic colloquialism for the English, Sassenach (sometimes Sassanach) was a Pictish word to refer to a Saxon. The Welsh equivalent is Sais (plural Saeson). Anothern Scottish term was Southron from Middle English, also used during the Confederacy to refer to Southerners, and by J. R. R. Tolkien (see Southrons).

I removed that because the Scottish and Irish Gaelic words are not colloquial at all. And the word didn't come through Pictish. All the Celtic peoples call the English "Saxons" for some reason or another.

It doesn't really make sense in the Southron bit that it ever referred to British (people of the United Kingdom as whole), either.. Sounds like it refers to the English from the viewpoint of the Lowland Scots.

And Highlanders too refer to Lowlanders as Sassenachs. Enzedbrit 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No they dont. Lowlanders are referred to as Gall and the distinction between "Gall"="English/non-Gaelic" Scot and "Sasannach"="Englishman" is quite emphasised. siarach 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do! I was married to one. You should hear them, everywhere. My experiences outweigh yours in this argument because to have heard many use the term for Lowlanders definitely strips the view of someone who hasn't. Highlanders call Lowlanders Sassenachs - fact and truth Enzedbrit (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as a native Gaelic speaking Highlander that is indeed news to me. It would also be news to anyone remotely familiar with the relevant languages and Scottish Gaelic/Highland culture which has had the distinction between English speaking Scot and Englishman for near on a thousand years. But don't let the facts get in the way of your personal POV which is based upon nowt but wishful thinking and subjective anecdote - you never have before.siarach (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the Welsh (Sais) and Cornish (Sows). Saesneg and Sowsnek refer to the English language, and not the English people. Saeson is Welsh for an English man, Sows is Cornish for the same. Saeson is the English people in Welsh, but I used Sais as this is coextensive in meaning with the Scottish Sasenach. I also made explicit that these are names for the English, not British as a whole.

Of course a racist would think they're not racist. You can't ask an Austrian if the English find the word Pom offensive. And Pom is not the official name of a British person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.46.97 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives for (Great) Britain etc...

I've written a proposal for an article to give a clarification of terms like (Great) Britain, the British Isles, the UK and England (and whether Ireland has anything to do with any of these), including a section that deals with different names for the peoples of these regions, partly taken from the information contained here, so I thought I should point that out. User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms DirkvdM 17:20, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Pom - Rhyming Slang derivative?

Could 'pom' be derived from 'pommes frites' (rhymes with 'Brits'), just as the Australian term 'seppo' is derived from 'septic tanks' (rhymes with 'Yanks')? (submitted by Ringo Stalin)

It could be derived from many things. What matters is that the word is a term of offence and using it says a lot about the utterer. Enzedbrit 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

it dosent rhyme with Brits if you pronounce it correctly. I'm not offended by being called a pom. Its usually the preceding adjective that I have the problem with. --86.20.247.36 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Les Fuckoff's

I removed this part. Some say that "some french" use it as a derogatory for brittish. They don't. None does. I'm french, i've been living in France for 32 years, I should know. And I never even once heard it. 100% urban legend.

Limey

User:67.81.253.247 added that the term comes from the limestone of the White Cliffs. Since the White Cliffs are not limestone, the phrase grew up in the English-speaking not Francophone world, and I have never come across this before, it seems unlikely; however, if it's wanted, here's a suggested form of words which might be appropriate:

Another suggestion comes from the idea of [limestone rock] - the White Cliffs of Dover is the first sighting of the British Isles by sea from Europe across the Straits of Dover (the narrowest part of the Channel), hence the term "Limey" was supposedly attached to the inhabitants of the British Isles by seafarers. This is unlikely, since (a) the White Cliffs are chalk, not limestone, part of a continnuous stratum of chalk which extends across the Channel to Cap Gris Nez in France and (b) the term appears to exist primarily in the English-speaking world, most of whose major port of entry to Britain would have been Liverpool, Portsmouth or Southampton.

Isn't limestone and chalk the same thing or has the commentator above found some new variation on chemistry

The name of 'Limey' in relation to the English, derives from the fact that the Royal Navy used the fruit lime to prevent scurvy in its seamen, hence English being called 'Limey's'.

I did hear somewhere, but can't for the life of me find a reference now, that to ensure the crew got an adequate supply of limes, the officers used to lock them in a barrel labelled "Officers Only", and rely on the men's theiving nature to do the rest.NeilUK 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Folklaw suggest's the word/name 'Pom,Pommy' is derived from the early convicts, being literally 'prisoners of the motherland'

Alternative names for Britain............ - 'Old Blighty'

Brit and Britisher

'Brit' is not especially American or Australian (except perhaps in origin?). You hear it all the time in the UK too - and I don't know anyone who uses the word Briton much at all (except in writing). The only reason it may be considered less common in Britain itself is that British people would tend to say 'I met a Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish bloke' than 'I met a Brit'. I suppose 'British bloke' might be more common in the singular too, but the plural 'Brits' happens often enough.

Also, is 'Britisher' really only restricted to India? I'm pretty sure I read that it's common enough in the US too. But that may not be true any more, I suppose. garik 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Britisher" is not unusual in the United States. "Brit" is also commonly heard. "Briton" is rare because people would tend to confuse it with "Britain". But (alas) the most frequent synonym for "Briton" in the United States is "Englishman," used out of ignorance of the distinction between England, Scotland, and Wales. Paul 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the Herald Tribune uses the word "Briton" frequently. "Britons were shocked to hear....", etc. The word English is used by them hardly at all. On one occasion the main bit of the newspaper had a reference to "Britain playing Australia at Lords cricket ground", whilst the sports section referred, correctly, to "England playing Australia". Generally, the Americans, in common with most of the world, seem to think that Britain is synonmymous with England. I even heard a Scottish Australian claim that "the Scots don't like the British". When I pointed out that the Scots were British, I was met with angry disbelief. Talk about the results of a bad education! Millbanks 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brit'is a racial slur, a word I never heard here in England until the 1970s, coined (or at least popularised) by the Irish Republican Army (a paramilitary terrorist organisation, funded by Americans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.52.24 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Roast beef

I thought Anglais was the culinary term for roast beef. Is this another false etymology?--Joel 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Anglais" is a slight on English coooking used by French chefs. In French cuisine, anything cooked simply is called this, such as Sauce Anglais, which is custard. --Chefrob4655 10:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Goddams

Amother french term I thought but not mentioned GraemeLeggett 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Brit

I don't mind pommy, redneck, limey, rosbif, fuck-off etc but don't like 'Brit'. Lots of people don't like being called Brits. I know the British press uses the term a lot but that doesn't mean that everybody likes it. Lots of black rappers use 'nigger' but most black people don't like it.GordyB 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. In twenty years living in the USA, that was the only word/phrase i disliked hearing with regard to my origins (other than the people who simply didn't care about telling the difference between England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Isles). It still rubs me the wrong way, though i don't know why, just as Pom obviously does Enzedbrit. So i return here, home, and still hear and see it; oh well. Lindsay H. 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but what alternative do we have if we want to refer to a citizen of the United Kingdom? As most of you live on the island of Great Britain, it becomes a term through lack of an alternative. I accept that calling you a "Brit" is equally unfair to the denizens of Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands). Calling you "UK-ers" is ungainly, and no other candidate term is apparent. (The USA also provides this difficulty, as the term "American" rightfully belongs to all inhabitants of North and South America, but efforts to popularise terms such as "usian" etc have failed utterly.)

From speaking to UK people I've heard that you'd prefer to be referred to by your "country" (eg - England, Scotland, etc) but that involves a usage of the word "country" which isn't really shared by anyone else. To me (and probably most non-UK citizens), England, Scotland etc are not "countries" in the sense we understand it (as we tend to treat "country" and "nation" as synonymous) - in other words they are distinct but subordinate territories within a single federated nation (UK) much like California and Florida in the USA, or Victoria and Tasmania in Australia.

So while I appreciate you don't like it, what alternative do we have? Expecting us to be sensitive to the distinctions within your nation is unrealistic, as in general citizens of one nation will lump all citizens of another nation into a single group (after all, citizens of the UK aren't particularly attuned to the divide between the North and South of the USA, or between Queensland and West Australia, and Americans may not be aware that other countries even exist [1]. Manning 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, while you might not like it, there are plenty of people - including all my English friends - who use it quite happily. It's the most common self-reference term I've heard from the English travelling abroad, and it was also the most common term I heard when living in London (other than when people wanted to make a particular point about being "English" as opposed to, say, "Welsh"). Lots of kiwis don't like being called "kiwis", but that doesn't take away the fact it's a common term used by many (if not utterly everyone).Trxi 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it that ferring to all of Britain as England as is commonly stated by Americans, is the same as referring to the entirety of the U.S.A. as Texas. It is simple enough to deperate that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are seperate parts of Great Britain, a vague geographical term which is also referred to as the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.50.51 (talk • contribs)

In so far as it refers to us all (Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, English), "Brit" is 100% okay, simply an abbreviation of our nationality. Does it even deserve to be on this list?--Timtak (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's easy. Call the English English, the Welsh Welsh, and the Scots Scots. OK?Millbanks 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. siarach 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Divisions between the constituent nations are not that clear cut. Tony Blair, for instance, spent a good deal of his formative years in Scotland, whereas other people will insist on being called Scottish despite not now, (or even having ever), lived in Scotland. The constituent nations of the UK have been in intimate contact for so long, that sectional distinctions are more or less meaningless. Furthermore, although I was born in England, and have spent all of my life living in England, I do find it quite offensive when I am called 'English' - our language is full of vaguities and even the most inoccuous word can carry negative connotations to certain ears, and 'English' is a word that's connotations I don't like, and refuse to have applied to my own identity.

As for 'Brit'. I'm afraid I must admit it depends on what side of the Atlantic the speaker saying it comes from. IMHO, there's just something unpalatable about the way Americans pronounce the phoneme /t/... My prefered word would be 'Briton', (although it could be argued to be quite inaccurate), and I would advise people to use this word. By refering to someone by their constituent nationality, you are in effect supporting the separatist position, this violates the sovereignty of the British State and goes against the spirit of the Peace of Westphalia. Ninebucks (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese "beef"

As far as I know, the term "bife" - literally steak in portuguese, was spawned in the southern touristic beach region and it refers to Anyone that sunburns easily instead of tanning to brown. It therefore refers to the northern european ethnicity in general and its widely used to refer to germans and the Irish more than to britons. Tony Blair , Cathrine Zeta Jones or Rohan Atkinson would never be refered to as "bifes" in Portugal, despite being british while Wayne Rooney and Emma Bunton would be considered stereotypical "bifes". Also, contrarily to its french origin, I don't think the portuguese word refers to their diet, but to the looks of the sunburnt skin of northern european tourists, similar to that of a raw steak. The term "cámone" on the other hand, is used to refer to Britons in portugal. "camone" (plural "camones") is the one alternative word for British in Portugal, although there is an extension to some level to other english speakers, as the word derives from the english expression "Come on!".

Derivation of Firang

I'd always assumed that Firang derived from the Arabic farang = "Frank" (from the Crusades) Richard Gadsden 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Five O'Clocks?

Is this due to the 1 hour difference between GMT and European time as any fule kno that afternoon tea is at 4 o'clock.

Dyaimz 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pom

This word is used to describe the English, not the British (ie not Scots or Welsh people). It's no longer pejorative, and it's interesting that lots of Aussies are keen to claim English ancestry, and some Aussie born people even describe themselves as "English". But there's still a degree of leg pulling: ie phrases such as "full as a Pommie's complaint box" or "dry as a Pommie's bath towel". Millbanks 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, so because it's for English people and not British - stated by you because you're an oracle on what the use of this word entails - that makes it okay. Regardless of being an insult for English people or for British people in general, it's an insult. If you want to call British/English people poms, great! People will look at you as an ignorant bigot, but smile to encourage you for being able to dress yourself in the morning and pass the day without drooling consistently. A civilised person would use "English/British" or simply address the individual being attacked-slash-complemented with the jocular name 'pom' by their first name. Enzedbrit (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pom is fine by me, a Pom.--Timtak (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and you were raised in Australia or New Zealand and so have FULL experience with the power behind this word, meaning that your opinion is COMPLETELY relevant. Okay. Enzedbrit (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Millbanks comment that Pom is used to describe the English rather than the British (whether right or wrong) was suggesting that the word does not belong in this article (being Alternative words for British) rather than that it made it ok. 129.67.20.57 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what it is with Enzedbrit's crusade against 'Pom' is all about? As I mentioned further up on this talk page, a lot of English people over here in South Africa refer to themselves as 'Pommies'. It's not considered derogatory in the least (in fact your whinging about the word perfectly fits the Aussie's stereotypical views of Englishmen). Here in South Africa, people know what it's like to be referred to by terms that are actually insulting, Pom isn't one of them.--Irish South African (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder: if you were to call a black person in South Africa a "kaffir" and they complained, would you then be justified to say that they are a "whinging kaffir"? For an Australian to feel somehow vindicated in their insult towards a person they call 'pom' because that person takes offence at the term, reprimands them and thus by their standing viewpoint is a 'whinger', really doesn't gel with me. I insult you and you take it or vindicate my insult. I don't see the logic. Sorry. 124.185.196.137 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With regards to "This ruling conveniently ignores the fact that most Englishmen consider the expression somewhat offensive and some consider it racist." From my experience i would hardly say that MOST Englishmen find it offensive. Most people reallise it is just a nick name and bit of banter. - 1 Englishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.221.69 (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gora

" The word "Gora" is also commonly used amongst South Asians to refer to Britons. Though the term when literally translated means fair skinned one, and would apply to all individuals of fair complexion, Europeans or south Asians, however in Britain it has incorrectly come to be associated with being a reference to Britons, whence its evolved into a racial slur. The feminine of the term would be "Gori" "

I was under the impression that it is interpreted as a slur - or at least as a potentially divisive term - because people believe it to mean Caucasian, rather than believeing it to mean specifically British. Any opinions? Or even better, any sources? Hadrian89 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This wiki page confirms my thoughts actually so I'll change the article. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Gora used as a noun is not incorrect

The article stated that "the adjective was incorrectly used as a noun." This, in fact, is incorrect. In Hindi and most other North Indian languages, adjectives can also be used as a noun, especially if preceded by a demonstrative pronoun. There is nothing incorrect in this usage. I have changed "incorrectly" to "also". Interlingua 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

it´s very different of the case of America

All the countries of the Britanic Island possuem a name fixo; England/englishs, Scotland/scots, Walles/welshs, etc..., because USA not possui/tem a term of "american" and mesmo possuindo a name for the country, usam propositalmente a denomination "America"!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.77.13 (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Is that bad Portuguese or terrible English? What I think you are trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Britons at least have demonyms for their constituent countries, but there is no proper demonym for the United States itself at all. Well, the Americans (in this sense) at least have proper demonyms for each of their states; I believe a few academics have tried (and failed) to bring the term 'Usonian' into current use, so as not to insult, to suck a random example out of my thumb for no particular reason, the Brazilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.122.175 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Britfag? Tea-lover?

You should include these as well.--Open24HrsMotorwayStop (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find proof that these terms are widely used then put them in. Never heard of them myself so I wouldn't put them in Cls14 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Britons

No mention of Britons yet. 92.24.117.20 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Spain

"In Spain, in spite of growing domestic nationalist and Celtic cultural movements and the resulting complex Spanish territorial stresses, the distinction between the English, Scots, Welsh and their mother countries are, as in Latin America, completely non-existent. This is reflected in the media where the British government, the army, etc., are all referred to as Inglés[English]." Nonsense. The reputable Spanish media are well aware of the difference; see El Pais for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.62.195 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

'The British' is wrong.

'The British' on its own is gramatically wrong in English. British is an Adjective and if preceded by 'the' it should be followed by another word, otherwise it doesn't work. Its like refering to Americans collectively as 'The American' and thus the title of this article should be changed to something like Alternative names for British peoples or Subjects or maybe Alternative names for Britons, but as it stands it doesn't work.(188.28.145.77 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

"The British" is used to refer to the British people in the same way as "the French" or "the Spanish". --Joowwww (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the person claiming that it is incorrect to use "The British" as a noun have any reliable sources to back this up? Some of the most prestigious writers in the UK freely use "the British" as a noun even in the most formal of contexts: check out Orwell, the London Review of Books, books published after peer review by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press among many others. Interlingua 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is gramatically wrong everyone still uses it. Indeed the chap who suggest British is wrong states "Britons" as an alternative name when in fact, as far as I am aware, Britons is used almost exclusively for pre-mediaeval people from the isles. Cls14 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Orang Deringgi?

As far as my memory goes, I've never heard of orang deringgi. The first contact with europeans were probably when the Sultanate of Malacca was still around (though there is a legend involving a Roman Prince and a Garuda, probably a phoenix-like bird dated hundreds of years earlier before the establishment of Malacca). In the 15th century the Portuguese arrived in Malacca and was known as Feringghi. Probably Deringgi is really referring to Feringghi or Feringgi. They were also known as Benggali Putih, literally, White Benggalis. I suppose since hundreds of years, the people of the Malayan peninsula have always mistaken Punjabis as Benggalis (to this very day). Certain features of the Portuguese probably was quite similar to Punjabis (being within the Aryan group) except that the Portuguese were much fairer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmihamid (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

POM as acronym

The following is interesting, although apparently untenable, unconsidering that the Acronym HMS has been in British use since 1789 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS). "One of the simplest ways to refute the "POM as acronym" theory is to cite that the word Pom predates the use of Acronyms in the English language. In fact, the widespread use of acronyms and initialisms is a relatively new linguistic phenomenon, becoming increasingly evident since the mid-20th century." --- comment by User:38.99.163.50 2010-08-13

I always get confused over what acronym means. Clearly it means using the first letter of each word, but some people insist that it is only an acronym if it forms a (possibly invented) word overall. So for instance, those people would not consider DOJ to be an acronym (since it's pronounce "dee oh jay" not "dodge"), whereas they would consider NASA to be one. I think! Anyway, this would need a citation, in any case. Quietbritishjim (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To clear up confusion on the second point the Wiki page on acronym uses CEO as the first example on one and that does not make a word overall. Cls14 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've gone ahead and reverted it. If someone disagrees, they could give their reasons here (or a citation on the page!) Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ang Moh should not be in this category

Ang Moh which used by South East Asian countries (Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, etc) hokkien speaking Chinese is used to refer to Caucasian and not British. Partly due to the fact that they couldn't tell the them apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeechoong (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct it was probably originally used to refer to English people who colonized those areas but today is used to refer to all Caucasians. Why do you not simply remove it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Engrez

"Engrez is of Slavic origin and is sometimes used to refer to British people."

Any reference for this? 'Engrez' doesn't sound particularly Slavic and it is not clear which Slavic people(s) should use it.

One of the biggest Slavic peoples, the Poles, uses (amongst its yobbo-classes, rather) the derogatory term 'Angol' for an Englishman and then also for any Brit. (British=English in popular perception, like everywhere else.) I would not recommend it to anyone, but for philology's sake this word ought to be recorded. ~~ Wojciech Żełaniec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.118.79 (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

pom

Pom in NOT a derogatory word used on its own in new zealand and Australia, its more affection than anything, saying it is derogatory when it has already been deemed as not should be removed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.109.231 (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that it was deemed not offensive by NZ and Australian organisations (and it actually sounds like they decided it was not offensive *enough* to bother worrying about).

Most English people I know in Australia and New Zealand DO find it offensive (although admittedly at the lower end of the scale, and not-necessarily-so depending on the context). But the fact that it is so often preceded with negative terms such as 'whinging' and 'bloody' means it is (or has come to be) a pejorative word even when used without the terms. It reminds me of Prince Harry thinking it acceptable to call an army friend from Pakistan "Paki" as it's "just a shortened version of his country". Same applies to Abo[rigine]s.

Another clue is that (unlike "Aussie" or "Kiwi" for example) English people do not generally refer to themselves by the term, and when they do it smacks of ownership - in the same way that 'queer' and 'nigger' were reclaimed by the target groups to reduce its effectiveness.

It certainly doesn't have quite the same strength or connotations as most nationalist slurs, presumably as it's not also associated with historical repression and discrimination of the English/British, but I have never heard it used as a term of genuine endearment!

It is generally least-negative in the context of sporting rivalry, and the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "often derogatory" sounds spot-on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.112.176 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Red Coats

Removed the following:

This colour was chosen by the Canadians because Native Americans in the Canadian North West were more comfortable dealing with police officers in red uniforms, which they associated with the British Empire, rather than the standard police blue, which was negatively associated with the United States Army.

The above might or might not be true, how can we know when no citation is given?

In addition, the comment looks suspiciously like anti-American propaganda I believe one of wikipedia's objectives is to keep articles civil and objective; after all Native peoples have faired worse in Canada than in the United States (many Canadian Aboriginal people are living in 4th-world conditions lacking proper sanitation, toilettes, clean water, basic heating in subzero winters).

If a citation is given, then the above comment can be re-added, otherwise it sounds like a petty anti-American fable. 173.177.9.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names for English

Sais/Saesnes are the Welsh words for Englishman/woman, not alternative names. I'm removing them, otherwise the list would be endless, as I assume each language have differnet words. --Rhyswynne (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Brit

It's completely ridiculous that "Brit" is not listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:E953:818A:61C9:44B (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rework

This page was very poorly written, I've redone it to fix some major issues, but there's still a lot of missing sources, particularly in the South Asia section. I tried to find sources for as many terms as possible, but there's a lot and google didn't turn up anything for several of them. Can anyone confirm that these terms are actually used? If not, removing these sections entirely might be better than leaving them, but for the time being I'm leaving them for the sake of thoroughness.

I also suggest removing any words that don't add anything to the article. Things like Pom, Limey, and Rosbif are interesting from an etymological standpoint (i.e. they have cool stories), whereas things like Brittuncili, Engrez, and Pākehā are just there.

I've removed the "weasel words" tag; I didn't really see any gratuitous examples of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.217.2 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the "East Asia" section

All of the terms given are official and proper names for England/Britain, and are not alternative names, which is what the article is about. If we're talking about derogatory or slang terms for the British, Cantonese Ang mo ("red haired") comes to mind, but so far everything in that section seems off-topic, as far as I see it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

By alternative names, it means names not derived from English/Latin word "Britain". These characters 英國 are not derived from the word Britain, but are independent etymologically, and hence they are an alternative name (Yīngguó, Eikoku, Yeongguk, &c). RGloucester (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"英國" derives from "England" in the English language. It is a shortening of 英格兰 (yinggelan, transliteration of "England") and 王国 ("kingdom"), and the term eventually grew into common usage for the country of Britain. The Chinese (?) were the first to engage in contact with the British, and the term was later introduced to Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. I wouldn't say that the etymology is unrelated, because it ultimately comes from the English word "England", as a shortening of a transliteration. By comparison, France (法国 faguo) is a shortening of 法兰西 (Falanxi, transliteration of "France" (French pronunciation /fʁɑ̃s/)) plus 国 (country), Germany (德国 deguo) is a shortening of 德意志 (Deyizhi, transliteration from "Deutschland") plus 国; meanwhile Scotland (苏格兰 Sugelan, transliteration from English) and Ireland (爱尔兰 Aierlan, transliteration from English) maintain their original, old-style forms.

My original point was that, unlike terms such as "Pom", "Rosbeef", "Limey", etc, these East Asian terms are proper, non-casual terms for the British, and hence are not really "alternate names". It's just like how the proper Russian word for "British" isn't included in this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because it is "official" does not exclude it from being "alternative". This article deals with words that are used to refer to British people that are not etymologically connected to "British". While yes, the Chinese characters derive from a phonetic approximation of the word England, this has nothing to do with Britain from an etymological standpoint. The Russian word for British isn’t included because it is derived directly etymologically from the English-Latin word British (британский, or in Latin script britanskij).

Japanese, for example, has a phonetic word for British in kana, it just doesn’t use it frequently (ブリティッシュ, Buri tisshu). That word is not included.

I understand your point, but the scope of this article is large. Just because some of the terms included are slang, doesn’t mean that so-called "official and proper" terms can’t be included or considered "alternative". RGloucester (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Racist slang terms for the English

The articles currently states "deemed as racist slang terms for the English are" only if one consider the English to be a race. It may be a ethnic slang term if one considers the English a ethnic group of it may be a national nationalist slang term if one considers the English to be a nation. So what reliable sources claim that the English are a race? -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Per https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/race "a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group." This citation from this article mentions "anti-English racists" in its title:

Gilligan, Andrew (7 September 2014). "Anti-English racists terrorising the No campaign in Scotland". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 9 December 2016.

The phrase "anti-English racism" gets a lot of hits at Google News. However, if you google "english race" you will find debates about race vs nation. The article English people starts out saying they are both. That would be the place to argue about it if you want Wikipedia to not treat them as an race. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestion but as you can see I have over the years been active in discussion on Talk:English people and the current wording of the article. The article "English people starts "a nation and an ethnic group" there is no mention of "race" in the article (apart from a title in the external links section). There is a large difference between ethnic group and race, to equate the two is plays into the hands of racists. What it says is "An anti-English racist group linked to Scotland..." the group is anti-English that it is a "racist group" is coincidental. Actually the article states the group describe themselves an "ultra-nationalist organisation" and that they attack English people in Scotland as “white settlers” -- so by that definition English people have to be white (and making such a claim makes that Scottish group a "racist" group), this is something that is not true if the English are "a nation or an ethic group" because you can be English and have racial origins from elsewhere.

One of the sources that was used in the English people article sums it up "I am English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons.)" (Andrea Levy This is my England , The Guardian 19 February 2000).-- PBS (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary (a dictionary from England) says race can be taken to mean an ethnic group. That you have had this argument at Talk:English people for over 10 years convinces me that it is your pet peeve and I am not going to enjoy discussing it with you so I am will to just change it. In fact, looking over the sentence I see it is poorly written, unsourced specifically and does not say much that the next 2 paragraphs do not already say. So I have removed it completely. The next two uses of racist in the article are mentioned in context to skin color. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been involved now an then with the wording of the English people by no means all of it is about race, an it is not a "pet peeve". There is a tendency for some editors to use words like "race" when they mean something else (usually species, ethnic group or nation depending on context), or genocide when what they are describing is something else (usually a crime against humanity). While journalists and blogers interchange such usage I think it is misleading for a an encyclopaedia to do it. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that people use the word this way and I have pointed out the the dictionary supports using it this way and you admit you do not like it and your continuing an argument after you have gotten your way, but it is not a pet peeve. Well . . . I apologize for saying it was a pet peeve; if you say it is not then it is not. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"People from the United Kingdom"

This is misleading and grossly inaccurate. The term "British" either refers to a person from the island of Great Britain, in which case many regions of the United Kingdom would be excluded from such a definition; or it is a political term in which case several million people within the island of Great Britain itself could not be considered "British" in any meaningful sense. The article should be updated to clarify which sense is being used here (as several of the terms refer to one useage only, whilst several others refer to the other only), and then the rest of the article should reflect and be consistent with that useage. To have an ambiguous term simultaneously used in two different ways in the one article is frankly ridiculous. Foolish Child (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well for a start, citizens of the United Kingdom have British citizenship. Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement between the governments of the UK and Ireland, people from Northern Ireland have the right to choose if they want British or Irish citizenship. Also, the term 'Great Britain' has 2 meanings; (1) the island (the geographical term) and (2) England, Scotland and Wales (the political term). Anyone from the islands of England, Scotland and Wales, such as the Isle of Wight, the Isles of Scilly, Portsea Island, Anglesey, Holy Island, Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, etc. can all be called British because they are within the political term of Great Britain. Also, the UN considers British to be the correct demonym for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ezza1995 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "British" doesn't refer to a person from the island of Great Britain. Historically speaking, the term refers to everyone from the British Isles. With history having its quirks, there is a large part of the British Isles that don't like to refer to themselves as British. While this doesn't mean they aren't British - in that historical context - the term became political at some point. Without intending to offend, the people of these islands are all British. People from the Republic of Ireland are not British politically, however. They are Irish. Of course, perhaps confusingly, all the people from Northern Ireland are also Irish (again, whether they like to refer to themselves as such or not). They're just not necessarily from the nation state of the Republic of Ireland. They can choose to take part in, and as, a citizen of the Republic if they like (and this really has been the case since well before 1998).

The upshot is that the term is not ambiguous when referring to the UK. The only exceptions are the preference of some people in Northern Ireland who would prefer not to be labelled as British; and those who are of the Republic of Ireland. But the term most certainly is not confined only to the island of Great Britain. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pom

No one refers to Scots, Irish or Welsh as "Poms."

It's used for English or "British" (as in "I'm British, not Scots/Irish/Welsh/etc") persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? *confused* Is your definition of British just the English? (in which case, I guess you are saying Pom just refers to the English exclusively)? How is a Welsh or Scottish person not British? 90.211.164.212 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"How is a Welsh or Scottish person not British?" Ask a Welsh or a Scottish person that question and see what they say.

Unless they failed geography or history and have no idea of what country they live in or passport they hold, or are so nationalistic that they can't wear anything that's not made out of their flag, of course they'd admit that they're still British. Or, should I say, WE would admit it. 211.27.181.163 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"British" in common useage is a political term, not a geographical one. Some people in the north of Ireland insist on describing themselves as 'British' despite often not having been born in the island of Britain or in some cases even having visited said island, and I'm informed that this is also true of the Fawkland Islands, Gibraltar and Saint Helena, amongst other places. In light of this, and last I checked the results of the vote here, a full 45% of Scots do not consider themselves "British" as a political identity. Regardless of what London may or may not have to say on the issue. Likewise there are a very large number of people in Wales who feel exactly the same way. Either you can use it as a geographical term, in which case all English, Scots and Welsh who are not from the Hebrides or Anglesey would be "British", but anyone from other regions of the United Kingdom would not be; or you can use it as a political term, in which case it would be entirely up to an individual's political leanings whether or not they were to be considered "British" and a very significant number of people in Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland (counted in the millions for each country) would not be so considered. However, back to the issue at hand, as I understood it the Australian useage of the word "pom" would only apply to English people or "British loyalists" and that certainly follows the way I've heard it used by Australians in Scotland itself, paralleling useage of the term "Hun" in Ireland to mean explicitly a "British loyalist" as a political term rather than being a geographical or ethnic term. This should be reflected in the article. Foolish Child (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

People from "the north of Ireland" (in fact, usually only people from Northern Ireland specifically) "insist" on describing themselves as British because that's what they are. In fact, conversely, I could say that people in the North of England insist on describing themselves as British despite not having been born in Northern Ireland. That would make equally as much sense.

You do not have to be born on the island of Great Britain to be British. Until around 1922, if you were born in the British Isles, you were British. With the result that a large amount of land went independent and became the Republic of Ireland, that is more complicated. It is further complicated by the fact that a large number of people in Northern Ireland would prefer not to be connected with the United Kingdom.

So there are indeed different rationale for using the term. One is 'political', in the sense that some people reject it; one is 'political' in terms of national (or international) boundaries; one is geographical, and that includes the whole of the British Isles - not just the island of Great Britain; and one is ethnic, in that everyone who is native to, or descended from those aboriginal people who inhabited the British Isles are ethnically British. Being British and English/Irish/Northern Irish/Scottish/Welsh is not mutually exclusive. However, I accept that subjectively some people feel it is. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course Wales and Scotland are British. So what if some people in those parts of the UK don't want to admit it? There are some men and women who claim to be neither gender at all. That doesn't make it a reality. There'll always be a loopy minority of strange folk for whom facts and reality are scary things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.15.138 (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: No one refers to Scots, Irish or Welsh as "Poms." I agree absolutely. I've been living in Australia for the best part of ten years and every time I hear the word: Pom = English. Very rarely the word = British but only when the speaker's geo-political ignorance prevents them differentiating English from British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.103.146 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that you will find that here in New Zealand we call all Brits Pom's, even the Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.54.18 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pommy - origin

On another tack: during the Napoleonic Wars the French sometimes referred to the English as 'sacré pomme de terre', potatos. Unfortunately I can't find an on-line source and so won't add it to the main article, though I remember reading it somewhere. Any suggestions? Cheers! Shir-El too 18:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)