Talk:English people/Archive 1

Untitled
'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Dec 2004 and 22 October 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:English people/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Alun 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

195.92.168.173's comments
I know before I begin that some will condemn talk of an English ethnicity as 'racist' or 'xenophobic' or even 'non-existant', but I maintain that such a thing exists, and that it can be positive. The definition of 'ethnic' is:


 * Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

On language and culture: Englishness certainly exists, on nation and religion: there at least is something worth saying, on race: I say English is not a racial label.

Nothing in this article is meant to be derogatory to other ethnic groups, or to say that English people are better, but only to point out where differences exist and (with fear of sounding too 'fluffy') to celebrate them.

Reclaiming the English identity from racists and xenophobes is not easy, but to sit back and claim 'it does not exist' while all about us the Irish and Scots and Welsh and Manx and Cornish celebrate their identity will only serve to prolong the problem.

Please help to sever the link between Englishness and hate, and try not to sweep all talk under the carpet.

--195.92.168.173, 20 Dec 2004

P.O.V.
I have no problems with the notion of an "English identity." However, this article had a bit too much P.O.V. with the comments about political correctness trying to water down the identity--views, by the way, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves. I tried to edit it a bit to give it more of a "neutral" flavor.--MegaSilver 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old talk
Is there a reason for this page to exist? Most of its contents are currently explained, in better detail, under England &mdash; and the only argument I can see for this page would be as a way of fleshing stuff out which there isn't room for at England. I'm sure it must be unintentional, but at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. Doops 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have long wondered why such a page did not yet exist. I am a Swede, and I feel no nationalism in this text. It plainly states some encyclopedic information. I think it is distressing that articles on ethnicities are understood as nationalistic.--Wiglaf 10:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article is trying to establish a racially pure concept of English. There are no 'ethnically' English. We are a mixed bag and one of the names we go by - and the one that happens to derive the given name of our home - is derived from the name one of a string of invaders. There are celtic English in Cornwall and English people descended from the Normans through the land. In Liverpool and Bristol (at least) there are black English who can trace their English heritage back 300 years or more. Strange how the article overlooks that part, eh? The 'article' is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption. Icundell 20:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree that there's not much content yet, but I would keep the page - there are after all articles on the French, Spanish, Swedes etc as people. But I think we should move to English people (which currently redirects to England) - more accurate, consistent with other countries and avoids the suggestion of nationalism. --Cjnm 13:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that this article contains some irrelevant information. Information which should be on the page England or Demographics of England. The purpose of this article is to describe the people of English Culture, their descent, their language (English and possibly Cornish), their history and their religion. The article as it currently is, places too much emphasis on the minorities, which make up about 3% of the population. These minorities are not of English Culture; therefore they are not English (they may be British however). They usually don&#8217;t even regard themselves as English! The Jew regards himself as Jewish; the Rom regards himself as Romany; the African regards himself as African and so on. What about the people of English Culture? This article is about them! Why should the Jewish minority be mentioned in this article? The Jews, as I have mentioned earlier, don&#8217;t regard themselves as English. They are a nation in their own right. They should not be integrated with the other cultures which make up England into one nation branded English Nation. To come to the point, I am concerned with the section that reads: and African elements as a consequence in part of the slave trade and in part of England's long history as a maritime trading nation. For most of its history as a recognisable entity it has also had a significant Jewish population. This is all true, but it should be on the page England, not here, all this is beyond the scope of the article. How can the African, the Jew or any other immigrant become English if they don&#8217;t adopt English Culture? Also, what is wrong with writing: The English traditionally speak the English language? Is it not true? If not, what is the language of the English people? Urdu, or maybe Zulu? REX 20:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the changes was to correct the previous thoroughly POV, empirically inaccurate and theoretically specious attempt at delineating a specifically WASP definion of 'English'. Why do you seek to deny Englishness to those who have come to it by choice, or whose ancestors came to it by choice? There are even those who have had Englishness forced upon them. The Jews I know regard themselves as English Jews, the black people as English blacks. They have not only adopted English culture but enriched it, just like the Asian English. What about my Italian English neighbour? Should we deny those too? Just because they are a minority they are not English? Where should we put them do you think? Icundell 00:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. However, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that people who do NOT adopt English Culture and way of life cannot be truly English. I am not trying to imply that only white people can be English, nor that only Christians can be English. I am stressing the importance of the English language to English nationhood. As I am half Greek and half English I can plainly see that the most important aspect of a nation is its language. Therefore anyone, regardless of race, religion or even citizenship, who speaks the English language and adjusts to the English way of life, is English. Some inhabitants of England however, i.e. Indians continue using their own language and don&#8217;t adjust to the English way of life (for example wearing Indian dress), how can these people be English in the way that the majority are. By doing so they themselves are pointing out that they are not English, but Indian. Note that even the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish regard themselves as distinct nations even though they have a very similar culture to the English. How can the different cultures (i.e. Indian) be regarded as English? REX 09:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which English are you refering to? The English that includes bangle, bungalow, chutney, cummerbund, dinghy, dungaree, kedgeree, khaki, punch, purdah, thug and verandah. Or bahlti, a style of food invented in Birmingham? The English that includes algebra, assassin, candy, chemistry, coffee, macrame, massage, safari, sherbet and spinach? The English that includes Bagel, Cinnamonand messiah? Or, indeed, the English that has hundreds of words of Greek origin? The thing that makes English nationhood so damnably hard to pin down is that it refuses to be pinned down and stereotyped. So adjusting to the 'English way of life' is, to put it mildly, problematic. Accepting Englishness does not mean rejecting anything else and that some people are capable of being proud of their roots as of their home is not grounds to deny them Englishness. We just don't do it like that. American writer Branda Maddox put it rather well: "When I came to live in Britain in the Kennedy era, I pontificated freely about the superiority of the American way. 'In my country...' I began one day, when a well-spoken young man interrupted me to say, 'In my country, we don't say 'in my country'.' The polite rebuke struck me with the force of revelation. There was an alternative to mindless patriotism. In a tolerant, mature, self-confident country it was not necessary to put your hand on your heart to say you loved it, or even to refer to it with possessive adjectives. Have you ever heard anyone say 'our Queen' or even 'our prime minister'? (Guardian, 28-9-2001)" Icundell 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and I must say that I now agree with it. But now, I am quite confused on what should be included in the article. How should English ethnicity be defined in a neutral encyclopaedia article? You probably know that I first set up this article and modelled it on articles on other ethnicities (i.e. Greeks, Russians, Swedes, Finns). I suspect that my first draft was not approved of. According to Doops: at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. You (Icundell) claimed that: The article is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption. I believe that there should be an article on this subject, as there is for many other nations. I would like to hear all opinions on what should be done with this article, how it can be improved. Please tell me what you think. REX 16:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Now I think we can get to the nitty gritty. I think a useful start would be to move the article back to English people, since this isn't really about nations but about identity (hence my revised opening para :"The English are people descended for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the culture of England (Latin: Anglia).") ie, I think it could form the main article associated with the English identity section of the main England page, as well being as a fork of Immigration to the United Kingdom. It could deal with how the many and varied groups of migrants have shaped - and been shaped by - being in, or of, England. The last few lines of Germans is particularly interesting, since it seems to me to be dealing with issues that the English dealt with a very long time ago, while Ethnic German a makes a good point about using 'ethnic' definitions being problematic. Icundell 16:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea, to move the article to English (people). May also suggest that the Oxford English Dictionary&#8217;s definition of an English person should be included as it is seen as the most accurate guide to the English language, perhaps at the beginning. The OED defines an English person as: one who is English by birth, descent or naturalization. REX 14:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we'll have to ask a friendly sysop, since English people redirects to England. Like the idea of the OED definition - have added it already. I'm off for xmas now. Have a good one. Icundell 14:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You may want to see the English (people) article. Also MERRY CHRISTMAS! REX 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tweaked your inclusion of English (people). It's a bit....um...POV and I would favour merging the good bits into this, or vice versa. Part of the problem is that the term 'ethnic' is being sprayed about with gay abandon in many other articles, when what is really meant is cultural and linguistic. Icundell 15:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge with English (people)
May I suggest that this article be merged with English (people). Both articles describe the same thing and the name of this article (English nation) sounds like nationalism as opposed to the neutral English (people), which just describes a people. REX 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems eminently sensible to me. Icundell 21:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I JUST DID IT! REX 14:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English (Anglo-Saxons) &#8800;English Nationals?
16:22 Monday 14th March 2005: Can'tStandYa(Talk) changed the paragraph: ''The English are an ethnic group descendent for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the culture of England (Latin: Anglia). The OED defines an English person as: one who is English by birth, descent or naturalization to: ''The English are an ethnic group originating in the lowlands of Great Britain descending originally predominantly from Angles, and Saxons (known commonly as Anglo-Saxons), Danes, and Celts. The name is used for those who have descent from these tribes from over 1,600 years ago until the present.'' and justified it by saying: this article is about the english (anglo saxons) not english nationals Can this be explained? This seems to be limiting English ethnicity to White Christians! Does this mean that African, Asian and Chinese families who have lived in England for enough generations so that today they differ from Anglo-Saxon families only by skin colour are not English? This sounds suspiciously like RACISM! It may not be of course. REX 17:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is it racism? The English are an ethnic group, and by ethnic group you generally are referring to the indigenous population of an area. Yes, black or brown people who are brought up in England can be considered English by nationality or culture, but they aren't ethnically English, just as if (hypothetically speaking) I raised my children in Japan, they could be culturally Japanese and even Japanese citizens, but no one would ever consider them ethnically Japanese. --Pearsallhelms 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * See the Wikipedia definition of ethnic group. There is nothing there about "indigenous population", whatever that may mean. A group of people sharing a common language and culture form an ethnic group. Anyone adopting these joins the ethnic group. It is the attempt to exclude joiners that is racism. A person of English descent who lives in Japan and is totally immersed in Japanese culture, maybe not even speaking English, would have a claim to be ethnically Japanese.

Lumos3 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, isn't the point of multiculturalism that England is home to multiple distinct cultures and peoples?


 * And I'm not so sure what is 'racist' about excluding people with no ancestral ties from an ethnic group; the point of ethnicity is that it is exclusive, that it draws the lines between people. A country is not an ethnic group. America is a country with a common language and common culture, but there is no such thing as the 'American' ethnic group; instead we have a variety of different groups here. Puerto Ricans who grow up in the South Bronx don't become African Americans by osmosis.


 * I guess the main question in regards to this page is, does the English ethnic group exist as a historical entity? If it does, if ancestral and cultural ties make you ethnically English, then there can be a English diaspora. If it doesn't, if the only requirement to be part of the English ethnic group is to be born in England, without even a parent of English ancestry, then there is no diaspora, and the sidebar should be removed.


 * Oh yeah, and in regards to the Japanese, you are flat out wrong; they don't even consider people of Korean or Chinese descent whose families have lived in Japan for a hundred years to be truly Japanese. --Pearsallhelms 18:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is very confused. Ethnicity is not just about language and culture (that's nationality). Pearsallhelms is right, Lumos wrong. English people are technically those having Anglo-Saxon biological ancestry by definition (that's where the word comes from). People living in England are a different matter (should be covered in England, history and demography). From an ancient historical perspective I would venture that "ethnic" groups are best thought of as tribes, and a "nation" as a collection of groups (whole or in part) that embrace the characteristics of all those tribes. The English people are a tribal/ethnic group; England is a modern nation. For describing people living in England today I think this is where "British" becomes a handy term. Wiki-Ed 14:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Identity sections POV?
Does anyone else think that the sections Reclaimed Identity and Lost Identity are a little POV? I think that that could be remedied by merging both sections into one. Also I believe that sentences such as ''However, due to a large increase in immigration in the late 20th century emphasis was placed on making England an "inclusive" nation. Thus, openly displayed English symbols or describing oneself as "ethnically English" became frowned upon. Some felt they were being maligned simply for to not wanting to discard their rich ethnic heritage for enforced government "multiculturalism".'' are VERY POV and sound like something from a BNP member's speech! REX 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree REX and have made some changes please feel free to make more. Bretagne 44

The Cornish
if you are going to include all Cornish folk as being English then you will need to explain why on the 2001 UK census and the 2004 Cornwall schools census you could describe your ethnicity as Cornish as opposed to English. Also why the Council of Europe is requesting that the Cornish be placed under the terms of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I have made a few short edits to make readers aware that it is not a clear cut issue and added links so they can further explore the issue. Bretagne 44 22/3/05

I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment. Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the Talk page of the English (people) article and it began with if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person, what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall.

I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.


 * Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.
 * The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).
 * Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between Anglia and Cornubia. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site Mercators Atlas by walking tree press. I am happy to provide further examples if required?
 * Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a de jure status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.
 * I present the following link to support my points.Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site

So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen.

Bretagne 44 22/3/05

So, what does all this have to do with the article? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Bishopric and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you.

Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000.

1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. Bretagne 44 23/3/05

If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the article, which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the article is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above. You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation"

Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. Bretagne 44 23/3/05

This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. Bretagne 44 24/3/05

I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the article is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate? REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornish ethnicity. Bretagne 44 24/3/05

To sum up: REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Let's ask for a third opinion.
 * In my opinion, how a group sees itself is the minimum requirement for the existence of an ethnic group (a nation). You may want to check the respective pages to see why.
 * In the article the Cornish are only mentioned:
 * 1) Others, notably the Cornish and the Cumbrians have Celtic roots, a minority in Cornwall going so far as to say they are not English but Cornish.
 * 2) The only other language traditionally spoken is Cornish, a Celtic language originating in Cornwall that almost became extinct.
 * 3) The English (along with the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish) found their old identities undermined somewhat in favour of 'Britishness'.
 * I can't help feeling that Wikipedia is being used to promote nationalism and (possibly misleading) propaganda in favour of Cornish Separatism, not in references 1 and 2 above, but in reference 3. Cornwall has not yet separated from England like Wales did in 1955 (before that Wales did not exist as a country but as an English region See Acts of Union 1536-1543). So mentioning Cornwall above like that is like implying that Cornwall in no longer part of England, which is not true. Given that Cornwall was and still is part of England, Cornish identity should have been undermined in favour of Englishness even before the Union with Scotland, so to mention it in my opinion above is not necessary. Personally, I find reference 3 above very POV as there has been No original research. In my opinion it has to be removed or at least changed as that sounds like something from the manifesto not from the BNP, but from the English Independence Party or the English Democrats Party.
 * About Arbitration, as far as I know, they only monitor the behaviour of editors (such as offencive language on Talk Pages, edit wars etc) not the issues. But, there is no harm in asking.

When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall? I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why? How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity". Are we reaching a deal here REX? Bretagne 44 25/3/05

There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. Bretagne 44 26/3/05

English nationalism
Should there be a different page on English nationalism? There seems to be a number of different political and cultural groups now that have an English national back bone. Bretagne 44 23/3/05


 * Yes, I think there should be such a page. I might be able to start one. Could you help me? Articles of this nature are better made by a team in order to maintain a neutral POV and to better defend the articles existence on the talk page, because believe me, such an article will be proposed for deletion! REX 17:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can make small contributions but thats about it, i would say go ahead and create the page and i will feed back on it. Bretagne 44 7/4/05

English -- British
Are all British people English and all English people British? If someone says "British" does this include any other places other than England? Jaberwocky6669 11:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * All British people most certainly are NOT English, me for instance, and others may consider it highly offensive to be called English. The Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, and Channel Islanders are all British and not English, not to mention many people in other parts of the world who have British citizenship of various forms. Until the late 1940s all Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc., were British subjects, before all the countries started developing their own citizenship rules. All English people are British. Whether or not the Cornish people are English is still subject to debate. -- Arwel 12:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am Cornish not English, i have been brought up to think that way by my community and family and i am not alone. The UK census of 2001 and the schools census of 2004 both recorded Cornish ethnicity. Many other organisations and institutions in Cornwall record Cornish ethnicity. The Council of Europe recognises Cornish ethnicity and the the UK and EU recognises the Cornish language as a minority language.

Debate over Bretagne 44 7/4/05

Cornish is not an ethnicity and neither is English. One can subjectify themselves as Cornish as a person associated with that region but that doesn't make an ethnicity. The same applies to being English. If you are Cornish, and as Cornwall is a part of England, then you are English. If you are English, then you are British. If you are Welsh or Scottish, you are British too. People from all over Britain, England, Cornwall, whatever, are descended primarily from the pre-Celtic neolithic hunter gatherers, our first ancestors. How we identify ourselves doesn't detract from that fact. To be Cornish and identify as Cornish and not English is a matter of personal opinion, not of blood. Asian, African, other European people, etc., that live in England can be English but that's not an ethnic classification. Ethnically, we're all Britons; nationality-wise, we're British regardles of ethnicity and if you want to be Cornish, be Cornish - you can of course relate to your region, county, area and the local culture of that place or the culture from that place no matter in which time you have chosen to base it. - User:Enzedbrit

First of all excellent points regarding ethnicity in the paragraph above. Ethnicity is a very ambiguous topic in my opinion and i have to agree that there is no such thing as english ethnicity - what is meant by this would more accurately be described as anglo-saxon ethnicity and the great majority of the British population (minus about 500,000 in Wales and 60,000 in Scotland) are of anglo-saxon ethnicity simply because their language and culture is anglo-saxon. Now people quite often claim to be this that and everything else on the basis of lineage but until a gene which transfers language and culture down the generations is discovered these claims are nothing more than delusions.

User:An Siarach

You both need to check the definition of ethnicity i think. Ethnicity is not a question of DNA or race, It is rather like nationality. The above contributors should be aware that if there is no Cornish or English ethnicity then there is certainly no British ethnicity.

Nationality exists in the minds of men, its only conceivable habitat. Outside men's minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a manner of looking at oneself not an entity an sich. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.

Cornwall Council's Feb 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour. The Assembly petition was signed by 50,000 people, which is the largest expression of popular support for devolved power in the whole of the United Kingdom (and possibly Europe) and according to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. I support my claim with this BBC story

As for Cornwall being part of England then all i can suggest is read this article. Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border

Page move
Is their any reason why this article is 'English(people)' and not 'English people' like the rest of the people articles in Wikipedia? Falphin 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved itFalphin 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

English population of non-UK countries
Who do these figures cover? I don't believe there are that many Americans who have parents who lived in England, and I would be hesitant to describe 3rd and 4th generation immigrants to the US as English. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree . I believe only populations with a registered vote in England should be included, ie expat communities eg. in Spain, Cyprus, Ireland ,France etc. The house of commons library puts these at only 11,000 in 2003 for the whole UK , see table 2 at pdf. Lumos3 13:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The figures given are for self-identification. This page is not about citizens of England, but rather ethnic English. Voting rights and/or country of domicile are irrelevant.

English ethnicity is defined by pre-British nationals
Any subject of the English King apart from Jews if present in that time, were considered English. No need to get into colonial peoples who have a separate heritage that should not be raped of them. Does everybody really want to be an Englishman? LOL, I have Anglo-French descent with minor Germanic/Celtic elements in the descent's periphery. These lines comprise Anglicans, Congregationalists, Catholics and Huguenots by religion. Doesn't this speak for the truth in volumes of identity in my genetic origins? No offence, but some genetic native of Tuvalu isn't English and could never be so. Do they even have ANGLIAN descent?! Cornish people had been English ever since their land had been county status, as Welsh had been English since they became an English principality. Still, it is much like Burgundians or Bretons as French. To be technical here, no Indian was a subject of the English Crown during colonial times...not even Pocahontas. Black slaves weren't subjects, but labouring property to be dispenced with as chattel. Why rob these people of their roots? English as an ethnicity is reserved for the past in which England was a sovereign body. What we have nowadays, are British people. Any non-European who has been a subject of the Crown that uses London as its national capital, would at the very most be considered British or American even as it seems to be. TheUnforgiven 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Numbers of English people
This is a debate that has spilled over from the Cornish people page.

As to the numbers of Cornish people why don't we look at the page for English people to see what solution they came up with to this problem, maybe latter we could look at the pages for Welsh people, Scottish people etc etc.


 * Well oh my me look at what we have here for "English People":

Significant populations in: England: 49 million
 * Total population: c. 100 million (2004)

United States: 24.5 million (2000) 1 Australia: 3.5 million (2001) Canada: 1.5 million (2001) 2 Ireland: c. 105,000


 * How can that be!? For a start let’s look at the 49 million figure. Now is that the total population of England or is it the number of people who described themselves as English on a census? I have a feeling its the total population of England, but what about the Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, Jamaican, Pakistani people etc who live in England are they in this number. What about all the people in England who self designate as British are they included in this number? Now as for the other statistics what are these based on, census results or projects similar to the one that estimated the number of Cornish overseas.


 * Now I am happy to see you are all keen to question the idea of Cornishness and the numbers of Cornish and of course this has nothing to do with your personal feelings on the issue, so let’s expand the issue to all the "people" pages.


 * So if we are going to use total population figures as an indication of the numbers of English people even though plenty of these people are not nationally / ethnically English then surely this is what we must do with the Cornish people page i.e. use the 500000 figure, all these people are Cornish in some way even if it is just residence.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Bretagne 44 26/7/05


 * The figures for the total number of ethnic English people in the world is poor because the question is not often asked. Certainly no accurate figures exist for the United Kingdom. I *believe* that if an ethnicity question was asked of all British citizens, and 'British' was not allowed as answer, then a figure of a little over 40 million for the whole country would likely be English. But this is only a guess!!


 * Also, the total world population is given as 100 million but the five countries mentioned add up to only 80 million. This is not a mistake, as such, but it will come down with better figures as other countries apart from the four listed have English populations. Significant numbers of English *identifying* people do exist in New Zealand and South Africa, maybe a couple of million between them. But who knows? Anyway, the figure given compares well to an alleged Irish Diaspora of 80 million! My view is that the world total ought to be brought down to about 85 million, but with the understanding that we don't honestly know.


 * Estimating such figures for all ethnic groups will always be hard for many people will identify themselves as belonging to more than one ethnicity.

Americans of English ancestry
I have in the notes the likelihood that 24.5 million is an underestimate of the number of Americans with English ancestry. Actually it is a certainty. 281 million Americans cited 287 ethnicities, implying that they are nearly all pure blooded descedents of one immigrant group, which is obviously not the case. I suspect that English ancestry was one of the most under-reported of all, as it seems to the only hythenated American identity which is not valued by the American establishment. Bhoeble 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that English ancestry is not particularly valued by citizens of the United States when compared with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German and so on. But, we can only say that 24.5 million citizens gave their ethnicity as English, we can not make any statement about whether this is true or not (too high/too low). Ethnicities are hard to define and understand, and there is no test or exam to 'pass', and that includes blood. Oswax 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In the US Census, 2000 was the year of the 'American'. The number of respondents calling themselves 'American' in the section on ancestry rose from 13.05m to 20.63m.  Meanwhile, the number of respondents calling themselves 'English' fell from 32.66m to 24.52m.  Surely, assuming that a large part of those 'Americans' are lapsed Englishmen, the actual number of Americans of 'English' ancestry should be given as at least the figure for 1990.  The German peoples page claims 65m Germans in the US (compared to a peak in the Census of 52m in 1990), the Irish people page claims 44m (peak of 39m in 1990), and the French people page claims 16m (peak of 10m, plus 3m Franco-Canadians in 1990).  Could anyone explain, without referring to the traditional British bashfulness, why the Germans, Irish, and French take the Census figures to be underestimates, whilst the English take them to be overestimates? Bastin8 21:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can add a source for a higher number to the article, then do so. Elsewhere on this page the population figures come under fire for having little or no proper basis. That is why I think it is better to stick to the figures backed by evidence. I do think the figures are great underestimates, for as I said above, Englishness is not particularly valued by Americans, or by any group when compared with Irish/Scottish and so on. One only needs to look on pages for actors to see they list their Irish/German/Italian/Scottish/Hispanic/Hawaiian/Navajo/Senegalese/Tagalog blood, but seldom English. (I'm ranting now so I'll stop.) Sadly, or maybe ironically, we cannot even find a figure for the number of English in England! Oswax 10:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply. I'm not sad in the slightest that Americans don't feel English, although I'm exceedingly disappointed that most don't value their British roots.  That's entirely a different matter.  The figures that I cited are from the US Census site; for 1990 figures, see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en.  For 2000 figures, see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false.  The majority of the major specified ancestries dropped, with an increased proportion of non-respondents, a decreased proportion of multiple ancestries, and a vastly increased proportion of 'Americans'.  Post 9/11, I can only imagine that the number of 'American' respondents will sky-rocket, further skewing the census results from what they are supposed to illustrate: Not nationality, but ancestry. Bastin8 22:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are British louts
Why is it that the British act in such a vulgar and Loutish manner when abroad?...They travel in same sex packs, drunk, violent and out of control. They ruin every place they visit. whatis wrong with their culture??


 * You are making these statements based on just a few isolated examples. I'll have you know that most British people are on their best behaviour when abroad. REX 10:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Scots a related ethnic group?
I have removed the Scots from the listing of related ethnic groupings. Unlike the other peoples listed the ethnic Scots are not Germanic but a Gaelic,Celtic people and should no more be listed than the Welsh, Irish or any other non-Germanic ethnic group.
 * Can you clarify a point for me? Do you believe that the Scots (and Welsh and English) are or are not an ethnic group? This comment, and the one further above, seem contradictory. At one point you say we are all ethnically Britons, and now you say ethnic Scots. I'm confused. Oswax 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well actually Lowland Scots are a Germanic people, are of Germanic culture, speak a Germanic language and are of Germanic descent (the English Kingdom of Northumbria was up to the Firth of Forth including Edinburgh and we know that the Anglo-Saxons practiced ethnic cleansing). REX 23:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have said nothing about us all being ethnically britons - i believe you are confusing a point made by someone else. The Scots existed as an ethnic group (the name 'Scots' or 'Scotii' was the nomenclature used by the Romans for the gaelic speaking peoples) before the creation of Scotland. People too easily confuse 'nationality' with ethnic grouping. It is possible to be of Scots nationality (i.e. being born and brought up of Scotland) but Scots ethnicity is a seperate thing - in the same way that being English does not in itself make one anglo-saxon.

As for the Lowland Scots it depends entirely on how you define it. If you do it in terms of language (which is how i would define ethnicity )then 99% of Scots are english/anglo-saxon but using the same rationale the Welsh (about 80% of whom are english speaking/anglo saxon) and Irish (of whom about 95% are anglo-saxon/english speaking) should also be listed. However this article seems to define ethnicity in terms of lineage in which case the Scots (whether lowland or otherwise) should not be counted. The only part of Scotland to have been Anglo-Saxon throughout history is the Lothians which constitute a VERY small part. The great, great majority of the Lowlands and consequently Lowlanders were gaelic speaking/of gaelic lineage. So basically all i want is consistency. If you are going to include Scots of any kind then the Irish and Welsh should similiarly be included.

User:An Siarach


 * I have said nothing about us all being ethnically britons - An Siarach, just now
 * Ethnically, we're all Britons; - An Siarach, in the English -- British section above, earlier
 * ??? Oswax 23:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a post left unsigned by someone else. Did you just think i was being rather egotistical in describing my 'own' points as ' excellent' ? ;-D

User:An Siarach


 * Please accept my apologies. I believed that both paragraphs were your post, and the 'excellent point' bits referred to earlier posts. Without looking at the edit history in detail, there was no way of distinguishing one post from another. Just to clarify one thing though, you are a believer in ethnicities? and not one of these people who dismiss them as 'bourgeois constructs designed to divide the workers'? Oswax 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont think theres any denying that ethnicities are relevant and exist. I do, however, think that the concept is one that is hugely misunderstood and widely abused by those who wish to be something they are not - a common phenomenon in the USA from what i gather where everyone will describe themselves as being 'Irish' or 'Hispanic' or 'Scottish' etc etc despite speaking only english and being totally american in culture and upbringing. Another example is one of which i have direct experience. The vast majority of those living in Scotland are ethnically english (bear in mind i define ethnicity primarily on the basis of language) - however if you suggest this is the case most will be greatly offended despite the fact that they cannot speak the Scottish language nor will they have any great experience of Scottish culture. Few things are as abused or open to delusion as the ethnicity of a person or group of people.

User:An Siarach


 * Language is certainly a big part of ethnicity, but I don't think it is the main thing. I believe that ethnicity, like language, is learnt in the first few years of life, and never forgotten. Hence, both genes and culture (liking operas over folksongs) are irrelevant. Although, were ethnicity to be determined mainly by language, I would rather be in your situation (a small but clearly defined group), than my own (every third person speaking my tongue). Oswax 00:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would consider Culture to be one of the most important defining factors in determining ones ethnicity although it is obviously a rather less tangible concept and harder to 'measure' than language. As you say though genes are totally irrelevant.

User:An Siarach

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?
Added the following link
 * Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border

Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

English population of the UK
The CIA World Factbook seems to indicate that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. That would amount to 50,529,058 individuals, wouldn't it? Why then does the article say that there are 50,000,000 English people in Great Britain? Isn't that a gross inaccuracy? Where did that figure come from? Rexhep Bojaxhiu 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * At the 2001 census, there were 49,138,831 people living in England. I think the figure in the article is related to this figure, but like the other figures isn't referenced, and it isn't clear what is represents. I don't think the CIA figure is much better. zzuuzz (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the population of England may be less than the number of English people in Great Britain. There may be English people in Scotland or Wales. I know that it sounds a bit far-fetched, but at least this figure is verifiable. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 07:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The figure does sound credible, but is it verifiable? Has anyone verified it? Why is it not referenced? It appears to be referenced (as the population of England) in a footnote. The sources for figures for ethnicity has been discussed on the Cornish page. zzuuzz (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you read WP:V you will find the following: Isn't the CIA World Factbook a reliable source? All I want to know is where did that 50,000,000 figure come from. Is it original research, or is it to be found in the work that has already been published by a reputable publisher (sic.), such as the CIA World Factbook? Anyway, it't up to you obviously, all I'm doing is making a suggestion. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
 * The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.
 * One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.
 * It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.


 * In the absence of the relevant official UK government statistics, I have added the CIA figures as a source. They are ultimately based on the UK census, but I don't have an original reference. Using the CIA figures I calculate the English total to be 45,265,093 (58,789,194 * 92.1% * 83.6%) but please note that this group is clearly marked as a subset of the 'White' ethnic group. I think this is conceptually wrong, but it is how the UK government appears to have allocated English (and Cornish) people. It is so controversial that it needs to be clearly identified. Feel free to reword my reference, but please try not to lose some reference to this important qualifier. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.  zzuuzz (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it makes any difference. At least we cas say that we got this figure from somewhere. Personally, I don't think that anyone actually reads those figures and those who do don't believe them. The CIA World Factbook's statistics appear in almost every country's demographics page. So using it here as well won't really make any difference. If you are not 100% sure, then maybe you should enter it as an estimate. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My replies highlight the importance of verifiability and verification. zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

English population of Ireland
According to the CIA World Factbook there are two ethnic groups in the Republic of Ireland: Celtic and English. We know that the people who have some English background will be Anglicans (ie Church of Ireland). Ireland's population is 4,015,676 and 3% of those are Anglicans. Thus, there are 120,470 people in the Republic of Ireland who have an English background (I am excluding the Anglo Norman settlers, as they were Catholics and they will no longer have any knowledge of their English ancestry as there is nothing to distinguish them from the Celtic Irish, so they don't count). I will leave Northern Ireland out as that will be included in the UK figure. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is wrong to count followers of the Church of England as ethnically English. Unfortunately the CIA factbook does not gives figures for ethnic English. The Irish census did not ask about ethnicity on its census form, but only asked for nationality, and previous country of residence . I think some numbers could possibly be used from that but only if it is made clear they represent nationality. zzuuzz (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is what makes me doubt the accuracy of the CIA Factbook - classifying the Irish population as either Celtic or English ignores various factors such as the Norwegian Viking foundation of Dublin (confirmed recently by genetic comparisons between Ireland and Norway), or the fact that most of the Protestant setlers in Ireland came from Scotland, not England. -- Arwel 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, the Scottish settlers were Presbyterians whereas the English settlers were Anglicans. All we want is a verifiable figure. The Irish certainly are not Anglicans or Presbyterians. They are Catholics. Religion, in this case, is a very good way of distinguishing the origin of the population of Ireland. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. Don't forget the English settlers who went over with Henry II, went native and ended up more Irish than the Irish - ethnically if they'd avoided intermarriage (extremely unlikely after 800 years!) they'd be English, but Catholics. -- Arwel 18:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My dear Arwel, I am not referring to the Anglo-Norman settlers; I am referring to the Plantations of Ireland, where Plantations of English Anglicans (now adherents of the Church of Ireland) and later Scottish Presbyterians moved to Ireland and are now today's the protestants of Ireland. The Anglo-Normans will undoubtedly be ethnically Irish now, totally oblivious to their English ancestry. I am not trying to call them English, now they are Irish. Race has nothing to do with it; it is the knowledge that the Anglicans in Ireland have, that they have an English background, just like the Irish and the Welsh in America. I know that the figure may be slightly inaccurate, but it is an estimate. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I am sorry but these figures are ridicules, it is not acceptable to us total population figures for England as numbers of English, even a very brief review of the situation will reveal that. As to the other figures well what can i say. where are the numbers from, what census provided them, are you really trying to say 30 million people in the US think of themselves as English? I just hope it is not some form of English nationalism that is behind these outrageous figures.

populations in: Great Britain:
 * 50 million

United States:
 * 30 million (est)

Canada:
 * 15 million (est)

Australia:
 * 12 million (est)

South Africa:
 * 3 million (est)

South America:
 * 2 million (est)

Ireland:
 * c. 105,000

Bretagne 44 17:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bretagne 44. These figures are total nonsense, there can be no proper justification for someone more than a generation or two removed from the migrants to count themselves as "English" - this sort of thing really pisses off most of the Irish people I know - people whose ancestors got off the boat in the 1840s and 1850s still calling themselves "Irish" and presuming to have an interest in contemporary Irish politics. As far as the UK goes, the BBC's "Born Abroad" analysis of the 2001 census figures shows that 7.53% of the UK population, 4.3 million people, and all but about 250,000 of them in England, were born outside the UK and Ireland (and just under 500,000 people were additionally born in the RoI).-- Arwel 21:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that what you are saying may not necessarily be accurate. I you check the entries on most other ethnic groups: Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Norwegians, Italians, Jews etc you will see that they have figures on people of the same ethnicity who now (and maybe for generations before them) may have had lived in other countries (in America, Australia etc). Why aren't their figures being opposed? Why are the English being singled out from all other ethnic groups? Are they the chosen people or something? I think that given that consistency should be shown throughout Wikipedia and that double standards displayed until now be scrapped. You cannot deny that Americans of English descent (or partly of English descent) acknowledge their English origin, just in the same way that Swedes who have lived in America for generations still acknowledge their Swedish background. I'll have you know that they do. George W. Bush accepted that award from The Queen by virtue of his English background. That doesn't mean that he, or any other American or Australian of English origin, owes allegiance to the UK. Certainly not, just in the same way that Chinese people who live in England now, who have not renounced their Chinese background, but do not profess to be loyal to the Chinese government. And the accusations of English nationalism! You're the one to talk User:Bretagne 44, you who claims that Cornwall is not legally part of England!!! What a load! And then you come over here and make accusations of English nationalism, which is virtually inexistent on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. That may be the explanation for the poor electoral performance of English nationalist parties. Quite simply because the vast majority of English people couldn't care less for English nationalism, just the same as in Cornwall, which would explain the poor result (from the Cornish nationalist perspective) of the 2001 census. How much was it again? Oh yes, 7%. Arwel, why don't you explain the American figures on Welsh people? You don't seem to be objecting there, double standards? I admit that certain figures in this report are unverifiable and an investigation is required (which will be undertaken by me) to find out what the real figures are. We know that the websites, , and  do state reliable figures and therefore the figures for the UK, USA, Australia and Canada are verifiable. It remains to be seen what I shall find for the other groups. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Double standards? Not at all, I just wasn't aware of that bit of Welsh people, and I've just put a note on it about its claims - www.euroamericans.net says 1.75 million put themselves down in the US Census as having Welsh ancestry, but how long ago is the connection, and what proportion of their ancestry is Welsh now? The Canadian census recorded 28,000 people who put their ethnicity down as solely "Welsh" (and that was the figure quoted on Welsh people) but another 320,000 included "Welsh" as one of multiple ethnicities. My gut feeling is that 28,000 Canadians is a realistic figure for the number of people who have a direct connection with Wales. www.euroamericans.net uses official census figures, but what conclusions it draws from them are purely their own - I nearly fell off my chair when I saw who it offers as Famous Welsh-Americans - Bob Hope, Thomas Jefferson, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones! Hopkins and Zeta-Jones, yes - they were born in Wales and now live in America, but Hope was born in London, just having a Welsh mother does not make him Welsh, and he had no other significant connection with the country or its culture, and Jefferson was a Virginian; there is no way any Welsh person would ever consider either of those two people to be Welsh. As far as I'm concerned, the proper limiting definition for a person to be able to claim a particular ethnicity is whether or not they could represent the country concerned in international sport if they were of the appropriate age, sex, and ability, and maintain a reasonable connection with the country i.e. usually no further removed than having a grandparent born in that country. -- Arwel 16:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you are saying that total population figures should be used for numbers of English in England? Great that means i can use the total population of Cornwall for numbers of Cornish. Your argument is a straw dog and you are showing the most incredible double standards. I suggest people to read what has been written by GrandfatherJoe on the discussion page of Cornish people. the fact remains that the 50 million figure for England is wrong and totally unsupported, it should be removed and replaced with a "?" Try and stay on the subject as opposed to launching inot personal attacks (which are oh so brave over the internet) Bretagne 44 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bretagne 44, I think that you should know that the figure of English people in the UK should come from the CIA World Factbook, which says that a certain percentage of the population of the UK are English. That is how that number should be calculated. The current number is guesswork. As for Cornwall, I do not know. You will have to wait for the People's Republic of Cornwall to be established and once it has gained recognition from the USA, then you can go to the Cornwall entry of the World Factbook and you will find a percentage there. Where are the double standards? There is a figure for the English quoted by a reputable publisher. Can the same be said for the Cornish? I would also refrain from making personal attacks yourself, before telling other people what to do. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just added the 50,529,058 figure from the world factbook (I've discussed that above) and the figures from the census websites provided by Grandfatherjoe . Enjoy! Rexhep Bojaxhiu 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So now we have to copy the CIA world fact book or what ever? Don't think so! Why don't we write to the UK census people for the numbers who wrote English in 2001, surely you would agree to that?

REX your figures are for people with English ancestry that does not mean they are English people. They quite probably have ancestry from other ethnic groups so does that mean they have multiple ethnicity and can be counted in Irish, Scots etc etc peoples stats? That and it is one source so according to you it is original research. Oh by the by these figures don't come from Britannica or Encarta, like you have said in the past therefore we can't use them. Finally REX, grandfather joe and rex thing a me bob, is it possible to debate with just one of your sock puppets at a time. Joe at work REX at home what confusion. Bretagne 44 19:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have updated that figure, as I mentioned elsewhere on this page. The CIA is a reputable publisher(!), though not the first choice, and they even quote the UK government statistics for once, so it will do as a stop-gap. Yes, we should get the original statistics from the UK census from the ONS. They are probably published but I can't find them anywhere. If someone can get the same figures for the Cornish, then they are obtainable. zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV because the figures are now fully verifiable and referenced. If there is some other problem then please be specific, and preferably suggest a solution.zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

FAO: Jean-Guy Laframboise 
Rather than reply to your email I thought I would post it here so that others may judge you for themselves (or at least have a good laugh). My comments (above), by the way, referred to the old English Nation article.

From: Jean-Guy Laframboise  Subjeck: You ignorant little twat

My dear little Ian,

I happen to be the primary author of the wikipedia page on the English people that you seem to find so erroneous and hate-filled.

As both an avid student of European history, as well as someone with eight letters behind my name, let me direct your attention to something called "the facts".

The "English people", as with virtually every ethnic group spanning this planet, represent a composite ethnic profile, meaning that they are a single unit derived from multiple sources. To make the issue a tad more manageable for you young Ian I've come up with a simple analogy. Imagine one were to combine the colours blue and yellow; would the colour derived from such combination (a certain shade of what we call "green") be any less a distinct color to the human eye? Of course not. And nobody would dispute this, because absolutely nothing is at stake with defining the colour green, magenta, taupe or fuscia.

When it comes to ethnicity however, and especially when one (very slightly evolving) group has laid claim to a part of this earth for thousands of years, it leads those other groups seeking both its "dis-establishment" and displacement, to kick up quite a storm when such group defines itself in an exclusivist sense.

To those who engage in hand-wringing over this issue I simply say "tough titties". There IS an indigenous ethnic group in England, who are culturally, religiously, and genetically very distinct from the recent tidal wave from the third world that swamped the island in the past 50 years.

As to your comment regarding supposed black Britons who have been in England for 300 years, I can't help but laugh at how someone with even a quarter of a brain could ascribe to such a ridiculous belief. There were at most a couple of thousand blacks who settled permanently in Britain in the pre-world war II era, almost all were male, and of those, very few ever found willing indigenous English mates to intermarry with. (try to imagine the stigma) As a result, very little admixture ever occurred, and any that did take place led to the rapid genetic assimilation of a handful of non-Europeans. (which incidentally would explain Cavalli-Sforza's findings on the genetic placement of the English within the world's populations.

Apart from a few thousand Normans in the years immediately following William's conquest, a few hundred dutch tailors in the early modern period, a few thousand Huguenots in the wake of the French crown's repeal of the Edict of Nantes, and a few thousand Polish soldiers post WWII, there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years. Only a simpleton, ignoramus or person acting in bad faith would see otherwise.

As much as it might pain you to accept it, the English are, heretofore, a fairly homogeneous, endogamous, north-western European ethnic grouping that is quite naturally defined in opposition to other ethnic groupings around the world. Just as the Estonians, Poles, Germans, Dutch, Romanians and Greeks represent distinct groupings, so too do the English.

-TW

P.S. Don't bothering replying to this email, as I have decided that your lack of knowledge regarding this issue makes you categorically unqualified to debate me on it. Listen and learn. That's all you should be doing for the time being. Posted by: Icundell 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

''there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years.''

What rubish!

1) The English who ever they are have mixed with the neighbouring ethnic groups, the Britons and Gaels.

2) Genetic research shows that most modern UK citizens carry a majority of DNA from the pre germanic population of Britons.

3) A self identifying English ethnic group has not existed for thousands of years. For a long time people regarded themselves as Wessaxons, Angles, Jutes etc etc. Bretagne 44 16:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we know who that e-mailer is (so we can revert any edits he ever makes)? His "lack of knowledge regarding this issue" could potentially damage the page. Wiki-Ed 09:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Religions
Um, I think that those references to the religious minorities may be a bit POV. They may belong in the article Demographics of England, but I'm not sure that they belong here. This article is about the English ethnic group, not every inhabitant of England. With that approach one could say that whoever moves to England automatically becomes English. In that case if, say Qatada took British citizenship, would that make him English? It would make him British, but English? A question is do those people view themselves a English? I know that they view themselves as British and thay are British, but why are we mixing the recent immigrants with the indeginous population? As far as I know, ethnic minorities in the UK all call themselves British; not English, Scottish, Cornish or Welsh. REX 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My experience of assimilated minorities is that if you ask people they will say they belong to the dominant cultural group of the area in which they live. People with well assimilated immigrant ancestors are as likely to say English rather than British as any native. I would hold that it is POV to try and exclude assimilated people from the English ethnic group. Look at the definition of Ethnic group, it is not exclusively genetic. Lumos3 15:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that we can call the European immigrants to America indigenous peoples of the Americas? It sounds like it. REX 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Again see the Ethnic group article:-
 * An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source. Members of an ethnic group are often presumed to be culturally or biologically similar, although this is not in fact necessarily the case.
 * I see this to mean that Ethic groups may have considerable diversity within them but can still be considered to be an ethnic group as long as they can be distinguished as such by an outsider. This is a position I agree with. If you disagree with this then its better to argue this on the Ethnic group article before it’s applied here. Lumos3 20:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is that if an immigrant from say India does not become assimilated, but behaves exactly like Indians behave (Indian culture), how is he/she English if he/she is of foreign culture? That is why noe can call a black person whose family have liven in England for three or four generations English, but recent immigrants from Hong Kong who have not adopted English culture are not English, they are Chinese. REX 14:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)