Talk:English people/Archive 11

Perceived ethnic group

 * For a previous discussion on this issue see Talk:English people/Archive07 and Talk:English people/Archive08 and

Today, the word can be used to refer to an 'English nation' comprising anyone who considers themselves English and are considered English by most other people.[citation needed] The word can also refer more exclusively to a perceived English ethnic group that claims descent from the groups who had settled England by the 11th century, such as the Brythons, Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings and Normans.[citation needed]

The first sentence, needs either rewriting or finding a source.

Why are the English a perceived ethnic group? They ARE an ethnic group. They DO trace their ethnicity to those groups mentioned above. Do people demand the same evidence of Scots, Irish or Welsh? Also, asking for a citation here is pretty stupid when you consider the paragraph written immediately above from the OED:

"With the incorporation of the Celtic and Scandinavian elements of the population into the ‘English’ people, the adj. came in the 11th c. to be applied to all natives of ‘England’, whatever their ancestry. But for a generation or two after the Norman Conquest, the descendants of the invaders, though born in England, continued to be regarded as ‘French’, so that the word English, as applied to persons, was for a time restricted to those whose ancestors were settled in England before the Conquest."[8]"

I'm removing the second 'citation' request. White43 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now included the full citation from the OED including the missing sentence. Also I have included the second definition which does says "Of or belonging to England or its inhabitants" that does not say that the inhabitants of England have to be born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * White43, it is not "stupid" to ask for a citation. The article states "The word can also refer more exclusively to a perceived English ethnic group that claims descent from the groups who had settled England by the 11th century, such as the Brythons, Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings and Normans.'" But the OED definition does not mention the term "ethnic group" at all, it simply states that over time the the word "English" came historically to be associated with all natives whatever their ancestry. This is an historical account of how the meaning of the word changed during the middle ages from meaning only the "Angles" to including "Brythons", Danes and Normans, this change occurred as these people were assimilated over time into a unified identity group, but the quoted section does not claim that English ethnicity is different to English national identity, nor does it even use the term "English ethnic group". So it is perfectly reasonable to ask for a citation that this group is considered an "ethnic group", because as far as I can see what the OED is doing is describing the transition of the English into a nation from various different ethnic groups with different cultures and traditions. I think the whole section "The English as an ethnic group" is a synthesis, none if the cited material seems to actually specifically discuss the concept of an English ethnic group, for example the quote from Sarah Kane's play seems to be irrelevant, the protagonist is not differentiating between an English ethnic group and an English nation, I don't think he means "I'm am ethnically English but immigrants are part of the English nation", I think he means "I am really English because of my ancestry and immigrants are not really English because they do not have the correct ancestry". So his distinction is between being "really English" and being "not really English", it is not an "ethnic group vs nation" comparison, it is a racial comparison. The next paragraph starts by mentioning "English distinctiveness", but there is no evidence provided that this section is discussing an ethnic group, it discusses only the poor reporting of some Y chromosome studies and family name studies, but ethnic groups are not defined by Y chromosomes, nor are they defined by family name. I suggest that what we need is a citation from a reliable source that specifically states that there is a difference between the "English ethnic group" and the "English nation" and that defines this difference. Personally I do not think that such a thing exists, the distinction between a nation and an ethnic group is not easily drawn, there are huge areas of overlap, both are mainly defined by identity, usually the distinctions are geography, scale and cohesiveness, nations tend to be associated with a specific geographical region, ethnic groups do not need to be, nations tend to have more members, which leads to why ethnic groups are more cohesive, ethnic groups are more culturally homogeneous because they are usually smaller. The English are derived from multiple cultural groups, are a large group and tend to be culturally heterogeneous. But whether the English are considered an ethnic group or a nation, or whether two distinct groups really do exist, we need proper sources to support any contention, as it is all we have is a synthesis that is not really supported by the sources used.  I would suggest that the distinction is not between "English ethnic identity" and "English national identity". I would suggest that it is between an exclusivist nationalist group of English people who do not believe that immigrants can be English because of their ancestry, and a more liberal group of inclusivists who believe that "Englishness" is not derived from ancestry, but from cultural norms, and that anyone can assimilate and become English, irrespective of their ancestry. In this sense it's about politics, but identities are always politically motivated to some degree. I also think that there will be English people with English ancestry who think "ancestry is important", and those who think "ancestry" is unimportant. One additional comment on ancestry, it's the perception of ancestry that's important, none of us actually knows our ancestry past a few generations, so we make assumptions about our ancestry that may be confounded by future evidence. I think that tackling it from this point of view would provide many more sources. Effectively the debate is about who is and who isn't English, and not about whether the "nation" is different to the "ethnic group". Indeed the quote from Sarah Kane's play fits this model much better than it does the "ethnic group vs nation" model. Alun (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why Alun, must the English articles go to such great lengths to prove that an English people exist?

"Welsh people are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language." "Irish people are a Western European ethnic group who originated in Ireland, in north western Europe. " "The Scottish people are a nation and an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland."

The English people article spends three sections arguing a nation and an ethnic group. I don't see the articles on the other doing the same. Why must English people come under so much scrutiny? I think both sections should be merged and cutdown on this article. White43 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what you are getting at. This talk page is about the English people article, it is not about the Irish, Scottish or Welsh people articles. You don't seem to have even read my above post. But here's the difference between the Irish, Welsh and Scottish people articles and the English people articles: The English people articles attempts to draw a distinction between the "English ethnic group" and the "English nation", i.e. it attempts to say that these are categorically different things, but the problem is that it does not use any reliable sources to do this, none of the sources that are used make any such claim, as such the English people article does not have three sections discussing the concept of English ethnicity or English nationhood, it has three sections discussing "Englishness", but uses a synthesis to imply that ethnic English identity is different to national English identity. The Welsh, Irish and Scottish articles do not do this, nowhere do these articles claim that ethnic identity is different to national identity as the English article does. The Irish, Scottish and Welsh articles simply state that these identities can be regarded as national identities or as ethnic identities, they do not attempt to draw synthetic inferences from their sources. I thought I had made this point above. By the way, this has got nothing to do with the English people article "coming under so much scrutiny", all articles must be verified from reliable sources, this is how Wikipedia works, currently the English people makes some claims that are not supported. As I said above, this discussion should really be about how Englishness is seen by different groups, is it about ancestry, or can anyone born in England who feels English be English? It's not about ethnic vs national identity. As such I think your suggestion regarding merging the two sections is a good start. If we merge the two sections and have a general discussion about how people perceive English identity, then I think it will strengthen the article. I do think we should have an honest discussion about ancestry and English identity, it is clear that some people feel strongly that to be English one has to have English ancestry, I don't think there would be any problems finding reliable sources to support this point of view, likewise I think it would be easy to find sources to support the point of view that to be English one only needs to identify as belonging to the English group. Alun (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section. "English" will be listed as a subcategory of "White".(2007 Census Test; see p. 6) It seems that at least the civil service and their political masters consider English people can only be "white". It's strange that a right on  politically  correct Labour government would not give the option of the grandchildren of the people on the Windrush to define themselves as English ... but it is a reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the link to the test census form does not list English under the "White" category. Question 12 asks "What do you consider your national identity to be?" and there are seven possible responses including English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Northern Irish. Question 13 asks "What is your ethnic group?" Where one can answer "White English". So clearly one can be English and not white on the proposed census form, though of course it may change. Alun (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have addressed the issue at all. The issue is whether "English ethnic identity" is different to "English national identity". What a non-expert civil servant decides to arbitrarily put on a form is irrelevant. We need a proper discussion about what Englishness means. Civil servants do not represent reliable sources for sociological or anthropological discussions. It is ludicrous to claim that a census form represents the best and most accurate way to identify and define "English identity", you appear to be saying that culture/history/society are irrelevant, it's what a civil servant says that defines identity. I'd say that is an insult to English people. I would suggest that a better place to start would be here, there are several books that appear to give an account of the more strident nationalistic conception of Englishness by a bloke called Tony Linsell. Furthermore this man has a website called "What England means to me" which seems to be in the same vein. It took me all of a few minutes to find a website that expressed this point of view. My main gripe though is the synthesis in the article that attempts to differentiate between ethnic and national identity, and neither of you have even addressed this. have either of you read a word of what I've written? Because as it is nothing either of you have said seems to be remotely relevant to my previous posts. Alun (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun did you read the previous discussions I listed at the top of this article? If so please turn off rant, and please read what I wrote just before your reply "I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section." This is a test census form and as such is very relevant to how the British Government views this subject. It clearly distinguishes between "12 What do you consider your national identity to be" and "13 What is your ethnic group?" with English only as a subcategory of White. I do accept that such a document is a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia. Personally I hope that they change the form for the next census, but unless they do WP:NPOV would predicate that a distinction can legitimately be made between English nationality and English ethnicity. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "[T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." A quote from Max Weber. I think that is the best definition of what a perceived Ethnic group is. (Nebulousity (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Philip, please remain civil, I did not come here for abuse, comment on content and not users. I came to improve the article, currently the article has a great deal of synthesis in the sections about English identity. You cite WP:NPOV while at the same time insisting that only a single point of view be kept, ie the point of view of the Office for National Statistics. Whereas this is certainly a citable point of view, it lacks reliability because there is no evidence that the people who have designed the census forms have an understanding of anthropology. If you want to cite it as the ONS way of calculating demographics, then that's fine, but the ONS is not concerned with academically rigorous concepts of identity politics, it is only concerned with demographics. Surely this article is about English identity, this can't be defined by the whims of a civil servant designing a census form, it is about how people subjectively perceive their identity.


 * Whereas your claim that the Office for National Statistics regards "English ethnicity" as applying only to "white" people seems on the surface supported by the census form, a more detailed inspection of the form shows that anyone can identify as ethnically English. Take a closer look at the form, any person can claim English as their ethnic background, whatever "ethnic group" they choose to identify with, all ethnic groups have a section "any other X background" with a write in. As such there is absolutely no reason why a person cannot choose English ethnicity as, "Black/Black British English", "Mixed English" etc. Furthermore on the sample form neither Welsh nor Scottish are given as sub-categories to "White", are you arguing that these groups are therefore not "ethnic groups" (and presumably not "white" either) but that "other British" and "English" are ethnic groups and "white"? It is clearly incorrect to claim that only "White" people can identify as ethnically English, the form does not support the claim in the article. Likewise there are numerous people who are not white in the UK who are clearly English and who can claim deep English ancestry, these are people with a "White" English parent and a non-White parent, they can claim deep English ancestry from their English parent, but you would claim that the census and ONS denies them the right to identify with their heritage, the form does not do this, the lack of a tick box is a trivial thing. But clearly "Black English" and a "White English" are not ethnonyms, English is an ethnonym. The difference between a Black English and a White English person is therefore "race" and not ethnicity. The UK state claims that it does not collect data on "race" but this is clearly untrue, they simply use the word "ethnic group" when they mean "race".


 * This is what I propose:


 * Merge the three sections "Definitions", "English as an ethnic group" and "English as a nation" and call it something like "English identity".
 * The OED definition would fit better into the "History" section, it is generally discussing the formation of the English nation from the many pre-existing ethnic groups.
 * Discuss  concepts of English identity from the different points of view, both the point of view that anyone who identifies as English can be considered English and from the point of view that only those with an assumed deep English ancestry can be considered English. This should take the form of both discussions of immigration, race and national identity (after all there are plenty of people in England with, for example, one Scottish parent and one English parent). It should also include a discussion of people who have English ancestry who are not "white". This is the honest way to discuss this topic, not with tenuous synthesis and misinterpretation of sources. If we are discussing "race" then let's say it openly or not at all.
 * Not try to draw a distinction between the "English nation" and the "English ethnic group" unless we can find a reliable source that makes this distinction categorically and unambiguously.


 * The point is that if we change the article to the way I suggest, not only will it be more honest, it will be more rigorous and there will be many more citable sources to support the claims. If we want to claim that there is a point of view that to be English then one has to have English ancestry, then I'm sure we can find a source to cite, after all this point of view does not need to be anything other than the point of view of someone as long as we attribute it correctly, we don't need all the synthesis about "ethnicity" vs "nation"


 * Philip, I am trying to be constructive here, and am more than a little surprised by your aggressiveness. I don't think I have said anything particularly outrageous, only noted that currently there are real problems with the article from the point of view of the no original research policy in that there is clear synthesis going on. This is what the NOR policy states is synthesis "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is precisely what the current article does IMO and I can't see that attacking each other really helps, we just need to change the emphasis away from a debate about ethnicity and have one about identity that includes "all points of view". You are acting as if I have claied that we should not include any but my own point of view, but I am saying that we should include all points of view, just within the frame of reference of identity and not try to pretend that there are two different strains of English identity "ethnic group" and "nation". It is more accurate to say that there is English identity (which can be considered an ethnic identity or a national identity), but that it means different things to different people, then include the different points of view. Alun (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun have you read the archive sections I listed? Where am I "insisting that only a single point of view be kept"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be claiming that including the census definition is a question of "neutrality" and that only this needs to be taken into account when considering the issues. You state "I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section." This statement appears to me to be saying that this single point of view is all that is required for the article to remain "neutral". If this is not your position then I have misunderstood, so please enlighten me. I disagree with your analysis regarding the first paragraph of the "ethnicity" section, it is based on a single point of view, that of the UK state, and therefore the neutrality issue is that it gives only a single point of view, which you state you want to keep for "neutrality" reasons. I don't think the census supports any distinction between an "ethnic group identity" and a "national identity", it is primarily a synthesis. I also have not suggested "deleting" any section, I have suggested merging two sections so that we have a single section that covers all aspects of English identity, rather than pretending that "national identity" and "ethnic identity" are separate issues without providing any reliable sources to support this contention. Can't you reply more constructively to my posts? I'm suggesting making constructive changes to the article, but you don't appear to want to be constructive. Alun (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I first step I would suggest going back to the revision on the 12 Septebmer which had been stable for some months before the edit by user:Cenwulf and account that would appear to be a socket puppet account. We can then decide what to do after that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is an excellent idea, the 12 September revision is far superior, it covers the complexity of interactions within the British Isles in a much more ballanced way and doesn't make anywhere near the audacious claims of the current version. Your suggestion has my full support. Alun (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, once again, An English nation/ethnicity seems to be confounded with severe scrutiny of 'does it exist?' In all fairness, comparing to the Wales, Scotland and Ireland articles - this sort of scrutiny does not exist - it is just accepted that these people exist. I'm uncomfortable with the division of 'NATION' and 'ETHNICITY'. Surely an English native people exist? Those which are a white people descending from the usual groups. The Scotland article has one section talking about an ethnic group - native, but that is all, Wales doesn't even have a section and neither does the Irish people article. Too much time is spent trying to justify that the English 'exist'! Of course they do. There's a native population, (like the Scots) and an English nation of non-natives. These large sections should be merged to briefly explain that there is a native group and a nation that includes later immigrants, this would fall much more in line with the other British Isles definitions. Such scrutiny feels like unnecessary stipulation of what it is to be English. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think maybe you have misunderstood what I was trying to say, possibly I didn't express myself very clearly. I'll try to be more explicit in what I am saying. The English people are an ethnic/national group, the article should say this clearly and unambiguously. The English are just as much a group with a common identity as the Welsh or the Scots. I did not mean to dispute this fact, if I gave the impression that I was disputing this, then I appologise. What I am am somewhat concerned with is the attempt to distinguish between ethnic and national identities as if these were proved to be different identities. I don't think the Welsh, Scottish or Irish people articles try to draw a clear distinction between ethnic and national identities (for example there are not sections in the Welsh people article entitled "The Welsh as an ethnic group" and "The Welsh as a nation"). Personally I don't think any clear cut distinction can ever be drawn between en ethnic group and a national group, but of course that's just my opinion and therefore not important to the article. All I was trying to ask for was there to be a reliable source that supports the splitting of national and ethnic identity groups. Regardless of that I think the older version of the article is much more ballanced. I think there has been some confusion about what I am asking for. I certainly do not mean to imply that there is no such thing as English national/ethnic identity and I would never make such a claim. Again I'm sorry if I was not clear enough, the last thing I want to do is offend anyone. All the best. Alun (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun, but that's precisely what I'm saying - this article feels far too ethnic-centric- you suggested way above to merge the sections. That's what I'm saying - we should follow the example of the Scottish People article. We need only one section that deals with a native English people and nation, not labouring the point and heavily trying to make make the distinction - I agree with you. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read the Scottish article for the first time in some months I think that the Scottish article is far too ethnocentric. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again. Why are the English a 'perceived' ethnic origin? White43 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with removal of the word "perceived". Alun (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * White43 What is the reliable source that states that an English ethnic group exists and what are the social science criteria for defining it that makes the English ethnic group different from the English nation? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to get at here is that there is a native English population. a fair few million of them. There is also a nation that encompasses more than just the natives, this being the English nation. You know that and so do I. White43 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also White43 what do you mean by "native English people and nation" What is the difference between "native English people" and non-native English people? or are you stating that only "native English people" constitute the English nation?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not clear about that either. Alun (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Native English - those descended from the first 'English'(Anglo-Saxons), Danes, Brythons and Normans. Simple really or is that not PC? Non-native, well - that should be obvious - any person who considers themselves to be English, not descended from those groups? And yes, I know most of us can't trace back beyond a few generations - but isn't that the case for most people on Planet Earth? Of course, defining English people by ethnicity alone is flawed - what about culture? White43 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem, personally I'd use the word "indigenous", but generally it's not important. As I said above we probably can find reliable sources that state clearly that to be English one needs to have some reason to believe that one is descended from the peoples you list. As a pov it is notable and almost certainly citable. On the other hand it is also true that we can find citations for people who are of recent non-English and non-European origin (migrants and the children of migrants) who also identify as English. These are different points of view, and many people may have strong feelings about origins and ethnic/national identity, but according to Wikipedia policies we really should include all points of view, ie that to be English requires an absolute belief in ancient English ancestry and that to be English one only needs to identify as English oneself, irrespective of ancestral origin. I don't have any problem whatsoever in including both points of view. I agree that to claim that one has to have ancient English ancestry to be considered English is not considered "politically correct" (I personally am unashamedly a politically correct person), but this is an encyclopaedia and I don't think we should suppress a point of view just because it may be unpalatable to some people. A citable pov is a citable pov and we should include it. Obviously feelings can run strong when it comes to concepts of identity and I think we need to try hard to give as objective a discussion in the article as possible. The fact that these two points of view are mutually incompatible is not relevant, indeed it is the point of the neutrality policy to including both. Alun (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your source for claiming that "Native English" can only be those descended from those who migrated before or with the Normans, it seems very arbitrary and it is not supported by the current citations. For example are the descendants of early Huguenot settlers not native English? Of course there will be very few to no family trees over several hundred years that are solely descended from Huguenots. But equally thanks to immigration over the centuries particularly from the home countries there are next to no English people who's ancestors are only from inhabitants who lived in England in the 12th and 13th centuries (this way be dragons like the  nonsense of the apartheid comb test). As you say "most of us can't trace back beyond a few generations" which is why I think "'perceived' ethnic origin" is more appropriate. As for your question on culture that surly is covered by the concept of "the English as a nation." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Phillip - I'm not suggesting that the groups I mentioned are all-inclusive. They would be the source of the English native peoples - of course, further groups will add to that that came a few hundred years afterward. Treading very lightly here - what I'm suggesting is that a native English person will generally tend to be white, like the first English people - with some sort of European - potentially Brython or Germanic background - and identify with being an English native as no knowledge exists beyond 100 years for most. We have only seen mass-immigration(of non-whites with differing ethnic backgrounds) in the last 100 years. As this article suggests, many of them profess to being British, rather than English as they themselves see English as a native or ethnic group rather than a nation. However we have seen that some of these peoples do profess to being English - Andrea Levy being a brilliant example. Most of this is academic, but as I've stated all along, I think the article goes into too much depth about trying to define an English native population and an English nation. The article seems to try far too hard to differentiate the two, when one section would do to talk about a native people and recent immigration. I don't see many other articles going to such great lengths. I think, that use of 'ethnic' is rather shallow and perhaps we should stick to terms like 'native' or 'indigineous'. Perhaps this article should just have a section of the 'English Nation' which refers to 'indigineous peoples' and those relatively new to the country which have no ethnic connection to them. What do you think? White43 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are both right. An ethnic group is a group of people with a subjective belief in a common descent (or if you like the perception of a common descent). To be an ethnic group a group does not have to have an actual common descent, only the belief in a common descent. There's also the meaning of descent, in anthropology descent does not by necessity have have to have a biological reality, some ethnic groups claim a common descent from gods, or totems. So I think that the English certainly are an ethnic group/nation because they have a perceived common ancestry. Alun (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity can be derived from both objective and subjective aspects of descent. Alun, you know this after I showed you examples of this from the Cohen article. In addition, any subjective views of common descent are generally based on certain criteria that can be observed to members and non-members as a possible actual common decent. Any presumptions of it aren't just made out of the blue. They are based on diacritics like history, family, geneaology, physical appearance, behaviour, culture, langauge, etc. that are shared by the group members. As you know it is only in recent decades that we have been able to begin directly analyzing the blood relationships (genetics) themselves. There are various factors displaying some aspect of common descent. One more thing: ethnicity and nation are often distinct concepts and only are the exact same in cases of ethnic nationalism. Many modern European states (in their current entities such as Germany, Italy and Ireland, grew out of ethnonationalist ideologies, but have in recent times since also allowed it to include members not part of those respective indigenous ethnic groups. Epf (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * any subjective views of common descent are generally based on certain criteria that can be observed to members and non-members as a possible actual common decent
 * [[Image:Eng welsh ibd.png|thumb|300px|Y chromosome distribution from Capelli et al. shows that Y chromosomes display isolation by distance and not a sharp discontinuity between English and Welsh samples.]] What? Clearly history, genealogy, behaviour, culture and language are all things that can be manipulated. History has always been used as a political tool, the recorded genealogies of ethnic groups are very suspect, culture is hugely maleable (we have little culturally in common with even our recent ancestors), culture, behaviour and language are learned (and therefore when new groups are assimilated they become culturally/behaviourally/linguistically/ancestorally indistinguishable because that's what assimilation means). The assumption of a common descent is based on these criteria, but the reason it is assumed is because these criteria are so unreliable, none of these things are reliable markers of a shared ancestry, they are only markers for the presumption of a shared ancestry. As for physical appearance, anyone who claims that they can tell if a person is English as opposed to Scots or Welsh just by looking at them should be treated with a great deal of sceptisim. We all share a greater degree of ancestry with people who we live geographically close to (human genetic variation is marked by isolation by distance rather than discrete genetic groups that closely follow concepts of identity or linguistic markers), English people living just over the English/Welsh border will share more ancestry with Welsh people living immediately on the Welsh side of the border than they will with English people living say in East Anglia, that's not only a fact but also common sense, but this does not make them any less English, nor indeed does it make the Welsh people living close to England any less Welsh than people in the far west of Wales. I know you hold the "descent=genetic similarily=ethnic group" equation as a matter of "faith" and you have expressed this personal opinion time and again and have refused to accept evidence that does not support your personal beliefs regardless of their reliability (see below where you want to exclude perfectly good science because you claim it's too early for any conclusions to be drawn, even though those conclusions have already been drawn by perfectly reliable, citable sources, an example of you attempting to subvert Wikipedia by trying to censor sources that don't support your personal beliefs), but your claims are not supported by genetics and are generally quite irrelevant to this discussion. Alun (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some aspects of history, geneaology, culture and history can be or have been manipulated while some aspects can or have not. Who actually manipulates them in a way which would not be beneficial to themselves or would take away from their own identity anyway ? History has not always been used merely as a political tool and you have an ignorant perspective on its importance. Thousands of primary, historical sources and documents exist in libraries everywhere regarding numerous topics (I suggest you look into some), whether they be the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles or the Magna Carta. As for recorded genealogies, they are not just those which are kept (often quite accurately, and we traced our family surname to Norman times) through official and other primary documents (eg. birth and death certificates), but also through people's families themselves. Culture is not "hugely malleable" and no anthropologist would make such an overstatement. Yes, aspects of a culture clearly change through time but you are impying your own personal and ignorant viewpoint on all others. Most of us actually do share varying degrees of culture even with our more recent ancestors, some more than others. Many people have respect for and retain much of their traditions and culture passed down from their family or in their ethnic or cultural community. Language and culture are indeed learned, but from certain sources and where (and how) it is learned varies between different individuals and groups. Aspects of behaviour and personality are both learned (from various sources such as family, peers, community, etc.) and innate or genetic. When new groups assimilate, they do not become "indistinguishable" and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone seriously making that claim. To what extent new groups assimilate varies between groups and individuals as well as over time. Some groups assimilate more aspects than others and it is obviously not straightforward or universal, especially when multiculturalism is emphasized over assimilationism. The presumption (either from a subjective or objective standpoint) of a shared descent is based on those factors, and how reliable these factors are can vary. Genealogical records can be more accurate than other historical records; clearly basing a presunption of descent on cultural aspects alone is difficult; traditions and customs can only be proven so far back as those ancestors still living or through archaeological evidence and those material objects which are passed down by families over time; behavioural and personality differences are more accurate in displaying some sort of actual descent (especially familial) since they are, in part, genetic in origin (as Oppenhemier alludes to as the reason for him writing his book: his personally observed behavioural differences between those peoples of the Isles) and the same can be said about the most obvious aspect in displaying a common descent to most people, physical appearance. It is quite difficult to simply tell an English person from a 'Scots' or 'Welsh' since these groups are quite similar and in such close proximity to each other and overlap. One however can make a presumption based on the most common patterns in appearance in these populations. It would be less difficult however in determining someone's origin based on more distant regions within these groups, for example, between Orcadian Scots and Irish or a Welsh (many who have swarthier complexions) and Eastern English (where the highest blonde frequencies in England are found). Yes, genetic differences to vary over time and is most often marked by isolation by distance. I never diasgreed with such, but this is not the case in some situations. People of more distant geographic origins who move into a certain area will obviously very distinct from those around them for quite some time. The clinal gradations between some populations is more gradual than others. Ethnic enclaves and populations are common in various places, the most obvious today would be in cosmopolitan urban environments. In indigenous, rural regions, the steepness of gradations also varies. The Sami in Scandinavia are an example and have a much steeper genetic gradation from immediately neighbouring Norwegian and Swedish populations than say between the Welsh and English. I should also note that even in the study of Y-chromosome analysis that your image refers to, the researchers note that intense English and other settlement in East, especially south east Wales, which would make the population on each side of the Welsh/English border have even more genetic affinities. It is also worth noting that there are obvious differences between those in Northwest and Southwest Wales and other parts of the country. this is also quite interesting since these are also the regions where the Welsh langauge survives the strongest by far, especially compared to south-east Wales. You need to get past the false accusations that I support some "descent=genetic similarity=ethnic group" as I nowhere make this argument. I only support the fact that common descent (and various associated traits) play a large role in many ethnic identifications, and not simply the genetic aspects of it. In fact, I have often emphasized others factors (cultural, historical, behvaioural, etc.) associated with descent more than any genetic aspects. I have not refused any evidence that "does not support" my views since I can not think of any evidence which does not support the role of descent in ethnicities or ethnic populations that we've discussed. My views are clearly supported by genetics and anthropology as I have showed time and time again, but it is only you who keeps twisting and misunderstanding my points because you personally disagree with them and the evidence. I don't exclude any perfectly good science (further below regarding migrations) at all and agree with much of the findings. I only disagreed with your very erroneous claims that are not associated with the evidence whatsoever. No one is making ridiculous claims or assertions that the migrations were only myths and I was explaining this. I was also shedding some light on the evidence which you had twisted into your own ridiculous statements. I provided some viewpoitns from my own analysis as well as others, including that of Stephen Oppenhemier (which is where I gathered much of the point I made about the difficulty in deciphering the large continental impact in England to pre-Roman or sub-Roman continental and/or Germanic settlement). The problem remains your misinterpretation of my dicussions and arguments, as well as twisting them or other evidence to suit your viewpoints. Try to understand my points more carefully if it is unintentional, but if it isn't, well then please give this a rest. Epf (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, stick to the point, this essay has zero relevance to this discussion or to the article. You are not making any specific proposals or comments on the article. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, it is not a chatroom and it does not exist so you can spread your personal theories. Alun (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't understand your problem with the discussion. I made a response to your discussion above and this information does deal with this article. The origins and aspects of common descnet in the English ethnic group is found in the article and part of what is being discussed on this page. Epf (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should also consider the use ethnic-group/ethnic-minority to describe people of English decent (however it is defined), in other countries such as the USA -- the country from which the term ethnic-minority originates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun, can we use that image in the article? It seems a good way to help explain the results of the 2003 study. (78.149.12.241 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Of course we can. I've released it to the public domain as I do with all my contributions. I'm actually in the process of making a map that includes all data points from the study, and this should give a better idea of the distribution of Y chromosomes in the British Isles. I'm also working on a map of the results of 2002 Weal et al. that drew different conclusions, so we can compare this to the Capelli et al. result. Alun (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good work. That'll be interesting to see. (78.149.4.107 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC))



There is no English Race. the "English" are the people living inside the constituent country of England. The "traditional" people living here are a mix of Celt, Anglo-saxon (mainly Angle), Romano and Viking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.199.73 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no "English race" (indeed there's no such thing as "biological race"), and I agree that people who identify as English have various mixed ancestries (including ancestries from all continents), but I don't agree that anyone who lives in England in automatically English. I lived in England for five years but I didn't automatically stop being Welsh, and I didn't start to call myself English. Generally English people are people who identify themselves as English and who are identified as English by others, whatever their ancestry. A more specific way to identify English people might be to assert that they must have some belief in a shared common ancestry with other people living in what is now England, though this is a subjective belief because all human groups have a demonstrable close and recent shared ancestry. Alun (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Myths and reality of migrations
I think the current shape of the article is ok, but a little unreferenced. That older revision Philip mentioned is no better than the current one however, in terms of references. I just want to point out one more thing: it is far too early in the debate about the migration of both Celts and Anglo-Saxons to the British Isles to make start making audacious claims that they are only "myths". Clearly the culture of these two peoples have had the largest impact by far on the current indigenous peoples of the British Isles. Without Anglo-Saxon elements, there is no English culture and language. Without the Celtic elements, there is no distinct Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish cultures and languages. The uncanny resemblance between Anglo-Saxon language and sepcifically Frisian language is an obvious example that at the very least, some amount migrated from that region. No other language is as similar to even modern English language than Frisian. Frisia is also part of the historical regions from where the Anglo-Saxons supposedly migrated. Whether this association is in line with the Anglo-Saxon migration or pre-dates it (as Oppenheimer claims), that is still very much in debate. The specific affinity between English and Frisian to this day (not shared with any other Germanic languages) shows, to me at least, that clearly there was some sort of migration (of unknown size) that occurred from that region, in either pre- or Sub-Roman Britain. The idea that the Anglo-Saxons could have followed the route of older North Sea migrations, Germanic or otherwise, would not be a rare instance in ancient migratory patterns. Take for example the Mesolithic and Neolithic-seafaring migrations in the Mediterannean, from east to west - these routes were follwed by subsequent groups including the original bearers of the culture of the "Iberians" (possibly the Cardium culture), Bronze-Age migratons of Indo-European speakers, the Phoenicians and then the Ancient Greeks.

In terms of the early genetic studies showing the strong continental impact on especially eastern and central England. One interesting portion of the Y-chromosome census states: "When included in the PC analysis, the Frisians were more “Continental” than any of the British samples, although they were somewhat closer to the British ones than the North German/Denmark sample." So far, Y-chromosomes have been significantly studied and published for British populations, but this has been less the case (so far) regarding other sections of our DNA. No matter how much continental input is found, Oppenheimer's hypotheses conjure up a further problem in that it will be very difficult to decipher whether such input arrived (and how much) in pre- or sub-Roman Britain. Epf (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your post seems to be some sort of essay, it doesn't appear to address any specific content currently in the article. I would point out that Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources, giving all points of view (with the exception of tiny minority points of view) while not allowing original research. The upshot of these policies is that any relevant point of view published by a reliable source can and should be included. You appear to be suggesting that we should break policy so as to exclude a point of view that you do not agree with, the three main policies are not open to negotiation, that is specifically mentioned on the policy pages "The principles upon which these policies (ie WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, V) are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Please don't recomend breaking policy because a source doesn't support your personal beliefs. Alun (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a miniature essay of sorts, but mainly my opinion in respose to some of your inaccurate claims above. Epf (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Alun, I'm not sure what Epf is trying to add to this article. This is discussion. White43 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that Epf at their userpage is discussing splitting this article into 'indigenous English' and 'English nation'. White43 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Hill quote
The quote in the 'Definitions' section currently reads:
 * The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons ... is still perceived as an important and interesting event because it is believed to have been a key factor in the identity of the present inhabitants of the British Isles, involving migration on such a scale as to permanently change the population of south-east Britain, and making the English a distinct and different people from the Celtic Irish, Welsh and Scots.....this is an example of a national origin myth... and shows why there are seldom simple answers to questions about origins.

The reason I removed the highlighted phrase is that the quote (as it stands) doesn't 'show' anything of the kind. I presume it does in the context of Hill's essay, but when extracted out of context, the quote simply describes the English origin myth without showing it to be simplistic. Either the quote needs reworking, or a different quote should be found. Or perhaps the highlighted phrase should simply be moved to the end of the "Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons" section?Cop 663 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hills is a reliable source and she is claiming that the origin myth does show that origins have no simple answers. We have evidence in the article that English people are descended from many different groups, so the quote supports claims made in the article. On the other hand I've been thinking that the quote might be better if it were included in the section about the English as an ethnic group because it's about a belief in common origins. I think the point is that this is the only quote I have seen that states clearly that the "Anglo-Saxons" are an important element in the formulation of English identity, but it is also important not to over egg the claim and to include her own disclaimer, so we need to state that actual origins are complex and are not as simplistic as "creation myths" would have us believe, which is what Hill is saying. Alun (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, it's a useful quote in that regard, but it just looks odd when you read the page from top to bottom. I'm sure there must be alternatives; I'll try looking at Krishan Kumar's book, which is quite useful on this kind of thing. Cop 663 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity'
Some anonymous user has split the article into 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity'. Can someone explain how these are not the same thing, 'cos I'm baffled. Why, for example, is the section on immigration perceived to be about ethnicity but not identity? I think this is a spurious distinction; ethnicity is one part of English identity and can't easily be separated out. Am I wrong? Cop 663 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I did that was because the section as it was, was a mesh of information on history and on ethnicity without being informative enough on either one. I think it's wrong to put it under history because of that imo. There is actually a main article dealing with English history (which I linked to in this article), so there was no need for an article on English history anyway (again imo). I believe that 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity' are two seperate subjects. The ethnic groups is a general overview of how each group is defined. The history of English identity is about how Englishness as a identity came into being through a historical perspective, but if you think the difference is too subtle to warrant it's own heading, then maybe it could be added as a sub-heading under Ethnic groups? (78.149.12.81 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Wouldn't it make more sense the other way round, with the ethnic groups as subheadings of 'identity'? Ethnicity is one part of what constitutes identity, not vice versa. Cop 663 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That would make more sense, but it looks like it's already been changed (Nebulousity (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC))


 * It's been changed to sections on 'English ethnic groups' and 'history and politics of the English'. Hmm. Still weird: for example, why does the 'history' section include the Danelaw but not the Norman Conquest, while the 'ethnic groups' section describes the Norman Conquest but not the Vikings? I still think it made more sense as a single section. Cop 663 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I decided to restore the general structure of the article before the changes by 78.149.12.81. As I've noted above, dividing it into two sections has resulted in some lapses of logic, and if we did fully write two separate sections entitled 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of the English' there would be too much repitition, since the concepts cannot be easily separated. I have retitled the whole section "History of English identity", which I think helps deal with some of the issues that 78.149.12.81 was concerned about. The aim is for each subsection to be about how the idea of 'Englishness' has evolved and developed over history, rather than simply being another 'history of England', as 78.149.12.81 feared. Obviously it still needs a lot of work, but this revision is, I think, more logical. Cop 663 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that's better now as it is. (Nebulousity (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

English nationality
"and the waning of a shared British national identity as the British Empire fades into history." Should we add to this the centrifugal force of the constituent nations of Britain joining the EU as independent sovereign states? It was after all primarily the economic imperative that drove Scotland into bed with England and within the EU that imperative no longer has the force it once had. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed the discovery of oil in the North Sea has significantly influenced Scottish nationalism, it's one of Salmond's main arguments for the economic viability of Scotland. On the other hand could it be a bit too political and a bit off topic? I'm ambivalent, could be worth a mention. Alun (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also should some mention be made of Britain and "North Britain" as was the fashion after the Union in the early 18th century and is reflected in the name of "British Army" and British Army regiments like the The Royal North British Dragoons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As part of British identity? Alun (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice paper about Anglo-Saxon "apartheid"
Here's a nice paper giving an alternative view to the "apartheid like social structure" paper. Is it necessary to assume an apartheid like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England? Alun (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Needs a subscription to view though. (78.149.5.209 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Shame, it's a nice paper. They dispute that there is a need to claim an apartheid like social system. For example they claim that the Law codes of Ine can be thought of differently, like this, being "Anglo-Saxon" or "British" was an identity, and people could change their identity very easily, they could change the language they spoke and their style of dress. "Anglo-Saxon" culture was already a hybrid culture of British and continental German cultures. By imposing unbalanced laws on the "Britons" he was encouraging them to identify as "Anglo-Saxons" rather than as Britons, the paper claims it was a tactic to encourage a homogeneous society and culture within the kingdom. There are some other excellent observations in the paper, that Germanic tribes had been moving into Great Britain from well before the Roman invasion, that many of the tribes in eastern Gaul were already cultural hybrids of Celtic and Germanic peoples before the Romans came. That we shouldn't get too wrapped up in Victorian romantic ideas of Germanism. I'll have to read it again to give more detail, I can't get access at home, but I can see it at work. Alun (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, you can read the abstract here. Alun (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the English have been building their identity on the Anglo-Saxons since the times of Henry the VIII and the Reformation. Now, serious people are publishing entire books and not just petty articles (Brian Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer)demonstrating that the majority of the English (about 60%) descend from the same people as the so-called Celts (Irish, Scots)although they are not so pure Celts as the above peoples, who may trace their ancestry to this same people in terms of 80-90%. If we take into account that much of this identity was at the expense of the so-called Celts, the English will have a hard time to swallow up that they are also mainly "Celts" in ancestry. The Anglo-Saxon thing seems to be a tall tale. The interesting thing is how quickly they assumed this idea. No one assumes that the Spanish are descended mainly from the Romans because they inherited their culture and language. Why did the English assume this same fact, which is historically identical to the Spanish case? Well, a bit of history about Pan-Germanism and Nordicism, bred since precisely the times of the Reformation would help a lot for people who really want to stop being ignorants. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.21.75 (talk • contribs)
 * I can imagine nothing more ignorant than the claim that anyone is "pure Celt", or that such a thing as a "pure Celt" even exists. For example a proper analysis of modern archaeological perspectives shows that there has been just as much recent criticism of the idea of an ancient "Celtic" identity. The idea that all of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland (and the rest of continental Europe) would have recognised each other as belonging to a homogeneous "Celtic" cultural group is as modern as the idea that English people are all descended from Anglo-Saxons. Simon James has much to say on this issue, and makes a convincing case, see "The Atlantic Celts, Ancient People or Modern Invention?" ISBN 0-299-16674-0. For some brief essays go here. I am sceptical of all of these biological claims, there are no fundamental divisions to humanity, the land mass that became the islands of Great Britain and Ireland were initially settled before anyone could possibly have claimed any "Celtic" or any "Anglo-Saxon" identity, and the peoples who now live on these islands are overwhelmingly descended from these original settlers, who would have been totally bemused by the modern cultural and linguistic groups "Celt" or "Germanic". Indeed Oppenheimer makes this case strongly, but you don't appear to have actually read his book, he cites Simon James a great deal and his book generally supports the notion that the idea that Iron Age Britain was ethnically "Celtic" is a myth. We need to separate the idea of a Celtic linguistic group (i.e. languages that are related) from the modern invention that all European Iron Age peoples formed a single Celtic ethnic group. Modern genetics not only shows that there is no fundamental division between any of the peoples of Europe, but that the gradual clinal genetic variation that is seen in Europe as a whole is also seen on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, i.e. that there is a gradual and small east-west genetic cline. That means that people in the far east are a little different to people in the far west, but that people in the middle are a bit of both, there is no difference between groups, there is a small gradual change with distance. In genetics we call this IBD, or isolation by distance, and it is very apparent throughout the whole global human population. "Celtic" and "Anglo-Saxon" nationalistic identities are modern national identities that have more to do with the merging of small regional groups into larger nations and states. Let's keep racialist ideas where they belong, in the fantasies of the ultra nationalists.Alun (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I used the term Celt in the sense Sykes uses it, as the people who were in England before the Roman invasion, regardless of other considerations. Of course they were there since pre-historic times and the Celts themselves came later. Pure is a way of talking. The "Celtic" areas of Britain are made up of this ancient population group by 80-90%, in some cases even more. The English about 60% according to these experts. In any case the English are much more "Celtic" or pre-historic, as you wish, than they thought and although they have had more recent admixture from other peoples, among them the Anglo-Saxons, they are still majority "British", like the rest of the people in the Islands, including the Irish and it is a fact that this contradicts the Anglo-Saxon myth, the almost anihilation of the native population. The English are in fact very little Anglo-Saxon (Oppenheimer says about 5%) in terms of ancestry. They just took their language and culture, or I should say part of their language, because many an Englishman tends to ignore the simple fact that more than 50% of the English vocabulary is actually of Latin or Romance origin and their religion was itself brought to them by the Romans. In short, the Anglo-Saxon myth is really embarassing to support for any illustrated person, but well, fantasy is free, but this is supposed to be an Encyclo. and most users here have been just using selective evidence to prove a point that is falling out of favour while deleting all the information regarding much more important work that points clearly in another direction. Just look at te articles related to genetics that they have left. I have introduced some new information that was deleted instantly. I have added it again. I bet it will not last long. The Saxonist propaganda does not like facts, just propaganda. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.82.14 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But look at it the other way: it also means the Scots, Welsh and Irish are no different from Englishmen after all; plenty of national embarrassment there too, methinks! Cop 663 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)´

You just nailed it. Jan.


 * First of all, sign your posts. Second of all, I have not been involved in any of the edits, but I do know an inaccurate claim has been made about them. You earlier claimed "I have introduced some new information that was deleted instantly. I have added it again. I bet it will not last long. The Saxonist propaganda does not like facts, just propaganda. Jan. ", which is just untrue. The reason the information was removed was because it was unsourced. You need to conform with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE for facts that are contravesial. So, the material was removed not because of some supposed "Saxonist propaganda", but because it was not suitably verified by means of a citation to a reliable source. If you reinstated the information, along with the suitable citations, this allowing it to be verified by others, there would be fewer grounds for removing it if the reported facts were accurate. That you have misinterpreted the reasons for removing the material you added merely adds to the need to check the facts you are reporting.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point DD, but let's not "bite the newbies" (me included). Alun (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging 'ethnicity' section
The reason Jan is cranky, I think, is that the 'ethnicity' section is mostly about the conventional 'Anglo-Saxon' theory, which is increasingly questioned by Oppenheimer et al. Of course we DO discuss Oppenheimer etc. later on in the article, but this isn't apparent to those who don't read that far down. I had a go at reworking the 'ethnicity' section therefore. It still needs more work; its basic problem is that most of its info is repeated in much better detail in the 'history' section of the article, so parts of it may simply be redundant, but I'm not sure. Indeed, it might be worthwhile ditching the whole 'definitions' section and feeding everything into the 'history' section as there's a lot of repetition. Cop 663 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs referencing in every place a claim or fact based on it occurs in the article. That is why there are ways of naming references so that a short form of reference can be made on a number of occasions (e.g., and so on). It has no bearing whatsoever on whether I or any other editor has or has not read "that far down" in the article,–the references should be included at any point a controversial claim is made. It is a basic requirement for writing an encyclopaedia like wikipedia.   DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was actually fully referenced; the point is that it wasn't giving the full picture. But point taken. Cop 663 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus about the "Anglo-Saxon" invasions started to crack at some time in the 1960s, it was initially archaeologists such as Francis Pryor that started to question the lack of any evidence supporting any invasion. Previous generations of archaeologists had interpreted any change in material culture as evidence of "invasion" and population displacement. So when farming was introduced in the neolithic it must have been immigration and population displacement, when metalworking was introduced in the Bronze age it must have been population replacement, etc. etc. The last of the so called population replacements were supposed to have been the Iron Age "invasions" of Celts in the ~6th century BC and the "Anglo-Saxon" invasions in England in the ~4th Century AD. They questioned the assumption that changes in material culture needed to reflect population movements, people can learn new languages and they can learn how to farm, there doesn't need to be population replacement, though there does need to be some population movement. So the idea of cultural diffusion was born, this has subsequently become the dominant way of thinking in by British archaeologists. People on the east coast of Britain speak Germanic languages because the people they were in cultural contact with spoke Germanic languages, people on the west coast spoke Celtic languages because they were more in contact with people speaking Celtic languages. There may even be evidence that Germanic languages have been spoken in at least parts of Great Britain for as long as Celtic languages have been spoken in other parts. The "Anglo-Saxon" invasions may have been just part of an ongoing internal power struggle between a largish North Sea cultural community that may have formed a powerful political-cultural unit after the Romans left. This is Catherine Hills idea anyway. All this rethinking of Great Britain's pre-history is speculative and it does not "disprove" Anglo-Saxon invasionist ideas. The genetic evidence, when viewed in some ways, supports the cultural diffusion model, but one should not take any of these ideas as "proven". Archaeologists are more interested in keeping the idea open to interprtation, the "invasionist" ideas were ripe for criticism in the 1960s, they were based on some assumptions that did not really represent sound academic thinking, strip the assumptions away and the whole question becomes open again. No one knows what happened in pre-history, it's all guesswork. Furthermore we shouldn't get too bogged down with modern ideas of nation, the origins of English identity are probably the Viking attacks of the later first millenium, and it probably has more to do with the Christian identity of the "English" kingdoms unifying and fighting against the pagan Danes, they were fighting for their faith. Alfred used this to bind the people together by calling himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons". The unity and sense of commonality was borne out of facing a common enemy, that's what made people English, before that their identities were "Mercian" or "Kentish" or "Wessexian" or "Northumbrian". We are discussing identity and not biology, English identity is real, the myth of mass Anglo-Saxon migration may be a recent invention, but so what? So is the myth of mass "Celtic" invasion. Our identities are important to us because they tell us who we are, but we should not confuse this with academic history or archaeology or genetics, the purpose of these disciplines is not to define modern political or cultural groups, it is to understand how people in the past identified themselves, and in the case of (mtDNA, Ychromosome) genetics to understand ancient population movements. The past  truly is another country, we should not try to impose our ideas of identity and origins on the past. Alun (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The past is very much the present, when the people of the past continue to be the people of the present. The fact that they have been fooled into believing that they are something they are not, does not change reality, just the perception of reality, which is a very different issue. Anyway, those points are now very well referenced, so do as you like. I have other articles to see. Bye and good luck. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.85.122 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Resurgent English nationalism
I think the bit about London in the first paragraph needs to go as no one sees London as a regional assembly like those in Wales, NI, or Scotland, they see it as a replacement for the Greater London Council. As Ken Livingstone acknowledged, when he began his victory speech with the words: "As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted 14 years ago".


 * The English nationalist movement has had mixed results. When given a referendum on devolution in Northern England the electorate overwhelmingly rejected it.

The attempt to split England up into regions was a strategy developed by the Labour party to try to work around the West Lothian question. They hoped by introduction regions in England they could say to the English see you have the same devolved powers as Scotland, and to the Scots see you have a devolved government. Given the Conservative majority in England, the last thing the Labour party wants is an English devolved parliament because they would be in a minority in what would be a very powerful institution (if not by law then by democratic mandate). So if you are an English nationalist the last thing you should have done in the "referendum on devolution in Northern England" was to vote for it.

So I think the paragraph "The English nationalist movement..." needs to be re-written. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A good points. Any suggestions about how to rewrite it? Alun (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we simply remove mention of the London Assembly and mayor from the first sentence. I think we need a citation for this sentence though. This is only a recollection on my part, but I remember the resurgence of English identity starting well before the advent of devolution, in the early to mid nineties, obviously my memory could be playing tricks on me. Still if we're going to claim that the cause of this was devolution then I think we need a cite for such a bold claim. Similarly the claim about devolution for the north east is not relevant in this section, devolution for the north east has no bearing upon national identity, though it does have a bearing on the question of devolution and the so called "West Lothian Question", and it may have some bearing on regional identity. While we're talking about the West Lothian Question we need to give the converse point of view, which I heard someone express recently, which is that all MPs to Westminster are equal, they all have the same voting rights wherever they come from, for example MPs from Scotland don't have the right to vote on Scottish affairs that are under the proviso of the Scottish Parliament. I'm not sure it's a convincing argument, but it has been made, I'll try to find a decent citation for this point of view. I'll go ahead and remove the references to London and the referendum in the north east and if anyone objects they can revert me. Alun (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done Alun, it fixed what I thought were problems. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On a different note a book by Krishnan Kumar is cited as "The Rise of English National Identity" (Cambridge University Press, 1997). When I google this title and this author I don't get any hits at all, except for this Wikipedia article and some of it's spinoffs. I think this is supposed to be "The Making of English National Identity" isn't it? Alun (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAICT user:Cop 663 introduced the citation into this article with this edit at 17:13, 19 August 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, my cock-up. Alun's correction is right. Cop 663 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglo/Saxons
Who are you people? Really!. How come some people here continue to delete good edits (see history) while they leave bad interpretations of authors. In relation to Oppenheimer, that part of the article reads someting like "Oppenheimer suggests that English people may have SOME genetic relationship to the prehistoric people etc. Then, at the end, it reads again "Sykes says that.....the Iberian Peninsula" Come on!, Oppenheimer says it even clearer. Read it yourselves. In short, the history of this article is the following, if you know it. First people just erased again and again any reference to Sykes and Oppenheimer, now they interpret them wrongly. Sorry, I do not have any respect for the kind of people who are writing this article. I think I kid can see what is going on. But at least I have the right to quote those authors here, so the attitude of the people behind this article can be seen.

Well, here you have some exact quotes from both authors, in case you have not even read the books or have some problems reading. By the way, the "some" part is hilarious, and let see who is clearer about the Iberian part, Sykes or Oppenheimer?

For beginners here, just one reminder, these two authors are the only ones that have published two entire books about the origins of the English and the British since genetics is being used, so please, if you use them, say what they say.

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):


 * By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory …


 * … 75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia … Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples …

In page 367 he also states in relation to Rossers's pan-European genetic distance map:


 * In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, East Anglia and then northern France"

Bryan Sykes, in his book Blood of the Isles (2006), states (p.280):


 * … the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic sea board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Pages 281-82.


 * The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.


 * The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus … This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Page 283.

''':Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.'''

Jan the crazy man who is tired of manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.42.163 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Friend. It looks like somebody went too far in reverting you. As far as I can tell your edits are good. You should proofread your entries before you hit 'submit'. If you submit badly-spelled material it's likely to get mistaken for something incorrect, which I think is what happened today. If you'd like to contribute more, here's some friendly advice.
 * Stop being rude. No one here fundamentally disagrees with what you're saying. Relax.
 * Create an account and a username. It makes your edits easier to recognize.
 * The quotations you give above are very interesting. Why not add some into the article in appropriate places?
 * Regards, Cop 663 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will not add those quotations myself because I have done it before and they are always erased. So, I am tired of adding them. That is one of the reasons I am pissed off. Anyway I am a little cranky by nature, I cannot help it. The quotations are there anyway. I think very well referenced and very interesting, so If there are people like you here, who are interested in encyclo. information and not just agendas, you have some material here. Jan the crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.22.241 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I fundamentally disagree with what Jan is including. These quotes do not have nay bearing on the article because this article is about an ethnic group and not about genetics or ancestry. If Jan wants to contribute to an article about the Genetic history of the British Isles then we have an article about that. This article is about an ethnic group and that is a social construct and not a biological one. Jan keeps complaining of pov-pushing by other editors, but I think that's unfair, I think Jan is confused about anthropology and genetics and does not understand the difference between social and cultural identity (ethnicity) and biological descent. I urge him to read the Ethnic group article so he can understand why there is opposition to his contributions. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Damon Albarn? Famous?
Of the eight people pictured in the collage of portraits, the only one I didn't recognize was the fourth man. Having followed the link underneath to D. Albarn, I found it was someone called Damon Albarn. I'm afraid I hadn't heard of him, and having read about him I don't think he's going to stick in my mind. Is this unusual, or is Damon Albarn out of place here? Xn4 ( talk ) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He may not fall within your sphere of interest, but rest assured Albarn is extremely well-known and consistently successful in the field of popular music. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're ever going to find people that everyone has heard of. Albarn is very famous, and what's more he became famous making a style of music that is 'very English' (like this), so he's exceptionally appropriate here.Cop 663 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't think you're ever going to find people that everyone has heard of"... well, for a start, how about the other seven in that collage? I guess William Shakespeare comes as near the one hundred per cent score as anyone could. If the pop star in there were Mick Jagger or John Lennon, either of them might be scoring somewhere in the high nineties, but where does Damon Albarn come on that scale? Above ten per cent? Xn4  ( talk ) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you don't like it, here's what you do: find a more famous contemporary person who is uncontroversially English (Jagger would be good, Lennon perhaps iffy given his Irish heritage?), find an uncopyrighted image of them that shows their face clearly, create a new version of Image:8FamousEnglishPeople.jpg, stick it into the article and see if anybody complains. Cop 663 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I cannot see why Kate Winslet is on the list. John Lennon, however, sounds like a great replacement for Albarn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.172.29 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Except that John Lennon is only a quarter English. He's half Irish and a quarter Welsh.--166.66.116.254 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And Jagger is half Australian, though I suppose its possible that his Australian family were ethnicaly English. --129.234.4.1 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick Jagger's Australian-born mother's parents were both English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes no odds, John Lennon is still English, I'm English - the sheer fact that many English have Irish blood doesn't take away from our nationality. Should American people only list native americans? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most people, myself included, consider John Lennon to have been English. His image (or Mick Jagger's) should definitely replace that of Damon Albarn; the image of the latter isn't even a good one!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Go with Lennon, it will actually represent the many millions of English whom like Lennon have an irish background - yet are still English. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Genetics again
The above quotations refer to the genetic affinities between Britons and Iberians. It should be noted though that this is not exclusive to the British Isles. It is typical of Western Europe, although the Celtic parts seem closer related. It is not in contradiction either with the fact that Britons are also closely related to other Western European populations, even closer than to the Spanish. All this comes from a common Iberian background plus other genetic contributions, etc. Here you have another map of Spanish genetic affinities in Europe. The more intense the yellow, the closer the relationship to the Spanish. In fact, as can be seen, most of the French are closer related to the Spanish than the British. In this article they (most French) are even called Spanish genetically speaking (hope does not hurt French chauvinism).

See: http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-spanish.pdf

I hope this helps clarify that there is no contradiction between the connection to Iberia and the connection to other parts of Western Europe, at the same time. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.19 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain what Oppenheimer means by this, on the back of his book (which I am about to read): "There is indeed a deep divide between the English and the rest of the British. But as this book reveals the division is many thousands of years older than we ever knew." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.17.39 (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When did this become an Oppenheimer essay?
Large section now dominated by Oppenheimer extracts, highlighting sections that seems to be very much POV. White43 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem like a fair bit of weight is given to Oppenheimer's theories. Is there solid evidence to back up his assertions? (78.149.1.146 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I have removed them. Quotefarming is not an acceptable way to write an encyclopaedia, we are not a repository for interesting quotations. Furthermore the genetic evidence is given more space than it strictly should. The problem is the conflation of "ethnicity" with "biological descent", these are not the same concepts at all as any basic anthropological text will verify. We already have an article called Genetic history of the British Isles, which was specifically created to deal with this problem of confusing beliefs about identity and origins with biological descent. We should only require a short section regarding genetic research and link it to the article about the genetics of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland. Alun (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that most research point to the fact that most ancestors of the English and the British were Spaniards or Iberians or Basques, choose the term, and their chauvinistic feelings are having problems swallowing it up. Well, it seems that chauvinism is affecting this article, but it is not only Oppenheimer, all major genetic research points to that, so take it however you want. There are still people who think that the earth is flat. In the article about the earth the possibility of the earth being actually flat should be mentioned indeed, because there are people who think that. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.232.147 (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's completely incorrect to claim that "most ancestors of the English and the British were Spaniards or Iberians or Basques". To claim that you'd have to prove that the people who lived in Iberia during the LGM identified as "Spanish" or "Iberians" or "Basque". These labels are modern social constructs, they represent ethnic groups and identity constructs that we cannot assume peoples of the LGM accepted. The peoples of LGM Iberia certainly did not speak Spanish, and they almost certainly did not identify as belonging to the group we call Spanish today. Even many peoples living in modern day Spain don't identify as Spanish, e.g. Basque people, Catalan people, they don't speak Spanish either. Try not to confuse ethnicity, a social construct that is about how one identifies oneself, with ancestry, which is about one's biological descent. Furthermore there is evidence that a majority of men in Great Britain and Ireland have male line ancestry they share with modern Basque people, but one cannot confuse a single line of descent with the entire ancestry of a population, to give an example, 10 generations ago I have a single ancestor with whom a share my Y chromosome, but I also have 210-1 ancestors who's DNA I carry in my autosomes but with who I do not share a Y chromosome (especially considering 50% of these ancestors are women!), that makes 1023 ancestors who are ignored in Y chromosome studies, and that's only 10 generations, or about 250 years ago, the number of putative ancestors I have from the LGM is so large that it is bigger than the entire number of people ever to have lived in history (~2600 if we assume 25 years per generation and 15,000 years, and my male line ancestor represent one of these people). Incidentally it shows just how much ancestry the human species really does share when you think that during the LGM there may have been as few as tens of thousands of people living in Europe. We all share ancestry from all over Europe and beyond, and that's just a fact. I really does depend how far back one wants to go. After all, all ancestors of all of us were actually from Africa, choosing the LGM population of Iberia is just arbitrary. Furthermore there is direct evidence that in the past the distribution of mtDNA in Europe was significantly different to that of today, and that drift may have had a role to play, for example see Ellen Levy-Coffman (2005) "We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans" Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1: 40-50  mtDNA suffers from drift much less that Y chromosome DNA, considering these caveats it's just plain wrong to claim that "British people are the descendants of Spanish people or Iberian people of Basque people. We share ancestry with these people, undoubtedly, we may even share a significantly greater amount of ancestry with this group than with any other group, but this is not an established fact because we don't know how much ancestry we share with any group, it is not scientifically valid to use single line markers such as mtDNA or Y chromosomes to estimate the contribution of a certain region to the ancestry of a group. But all that aside, the main point is that this article is about English people, an ethnic group that identifies itself based on shared social and cultural practices. This group does not identify itself with Iberian origins, it does not share a great deal of it's social or cultural heritage with the peoples of Iberia, they speak different and relatively unrelated languages, they have a different religion, they are not perceived as belonging to any part of English or British identity. On the other hand English and Scottish and Welsh people do often identify as belonging to the same group, that of being British, when and how they identify as either English or British probably has a great deal to do with circumstances. Our identity is usually made in opposition to the identities of others. An English person may feel English when they live in Scotland, but British when they live in France. Or as a Finnish diplomat said to me the other day, "When I'm in Sweden I'm Finnish, but when I'm with a Swede in Brussels we're both Scandinavian." I find it offensive that you label people's identity as "chauvinism", insulting a whole nation's identity is not a constructive or civil thing to do. Please stick to substantive points and not resort to insulting editors, thanks. Alun (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you make a few mistakes. Of course, the fact that I am Rb1, for example, only proves that one line of descend is Rb1 in my ancestry, while all other lines may be represented as well. But when 70 per cent of a entire population is made up of Rb1 lines, to continue with the same example, we all know, and that is basics statistics, that the average ancestry of an average individual, not an exception individual, of that population is 70% Rb1. In fact the Y/Crhomosome is much more reliable than anything else for ancestry and again, let us not confuse a single individual with an entire population. In fact, the average ancestry of a British person or whoever, is the one of the average Y/Chromosome map for the population he belongs to, and we are talking of the rule, and not of the exception. Secondly, the terms Spanish, Iberian and Basque are being used increasingly by all geneticists in this field for one single reason, becasue that is the way language works. If these populations would come from Scandinavia they would use Scandinavian and if they came from Germany, Germany, even if the people of those territories had never heard those terms before, that is simply senseless, in fact the people of Germany do not even know anything about the term German itself unless they know english, becajse they call themselves Deutsch. In short, those people were Iberians, Spanish ort Basque because they came from these lands and that is the way we call these lands in English, anything else is again the desire to try to obscure the ancestry of said people. And finally, we are in a genetic section that deals with ancestry, so do not repeat the identity argument over and over again. The section is about genetics and genetics about real or biological ancestry and I can see a whole section in the article related to that issue while mentioning the Iberian issue, which is a central issue since it represetns the majority of ancestor of the British, as a marginal point by Sykes. Oppenheimer is even clearer on that and all major genetic work. So, I would start calling things by hteir name and if said people or some come from Germany we use the wrod Germany, if they come form Frisia, we use the name Frisia and if they come from Spain, we use the term Spain, like the authors discussed here by the way. And I am still waiting to see a book published dealing with the British and the English that contradicts Sykes or Oppenheimer. I have not seen one and according to the amount of evidence aat hand I doubt that will happen. In any case, the genetic section is biased, just look at the quotes that you have deleted and at the section right now. That is all. And what is more, these findings are based on the comparison between modern populations, and although these populations have changed a little, the basic issue is that genetically speaking they are still very close to those people, both in the UK and in Spain.


 * But when 70 per cent of a entire population is made up of Rb1 lines, to continue with the same example, we all know, and that is basics statistics, that the average ancestry of an average individual, not an exception individual, of that population is 70% Rb1.
 * So you are denying the existence of genetic drift? That's odd. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondly, the terms Spanish, Iberian and Basque are being used increasingly by all geneticists in this field
 * Provide evidence please. As I understand it we are discussing geography and not ethnicity. What we have is a theory that says that there may have been a Iberian refuge during the LGM, and that the predominant Y chromosome Haplogroups of western Europe probably arose within that refuge during the LGM. What this tells us about how English people identify as a group is obscure to me. Oppenheimer doesn't claim that the peoples of this Iberian refuge were Basque or Spanish, and quite frankly it is a fallacy to claim that they were. The paleolithic Iberian refuge is not genetically identical to modern day Spain, Portugal or the Basque country, and no reliable geneticist would make such a claim. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * becasue that is the way language works.
 * I don't understand the relevance of this comment, it appears to be a non secateur. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If these populations would come from Scandinavia they would use Scandinavian
 * There is no such language or language group as "Scandinavian". Scandinavia is a geographical region. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, those people were Iberians, Spanish ort Basque because they came from these lands and that is the way we call these lands in English
 * No they weren't. They were peoples for whom we have no ethnonyms, but they happened to live in a geographical place we now refer to as the Iberian peninsula. To give modern ethnic identities to ancient peoples in clearly an anachronism. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And finally, we are in a genetic section that deals with ancestry,
 * No we're not. There is no "genetics" section and there is no "ancestry" section. There is a section that discusses the history of English identity. Some genetic data are relevant because one English origin myth claims that the English are the descendants of "Anglo-Saxon" invaders. Most archaeologists do not now believe that this myth has much basis in reality. They argue that the archaeological evidence might support an "elite takeover" of certain parts of eastern England during the sub-Roman period by peoples with a Scandinavian origin. Oppenheimer does a good job of showing that the genetic evidence may also support the archaeological view that there was no "mass migration" of "Anglo-Saxons" into England that completely displaced an "indigenous Celtic" population. This has a direct bearing on English identity because English identity has always been ambivalent about it's origins. For example English people identify with pre-"Anglo-Saxon" leaders such as Boudicca (and also Arthur) and claim them as their own, but also claim a "mass migration", which would mean that Boudicca and Arthur were not "English". The recent archaeology and genetic analyses might be putting this to rest, together showing that English people are not the product of a "mass migration". But this is a deeply embedded part of English ethnic identity, so it is relevant to the article. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * while mentioning the Iberian issue, which is a central issue
 * I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the so called "Iberian issue" is far from a "central issue" when it comes to English identity. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * if said people or some come from Germany we use the wrod Germany
 * Well the state we currently call Germany didn't exist before 1870, so it would be incorrect to claim that anyone "came from there" before 1870 because it didn't exist. If you want to say where people come from that's fine, but a person can't come from a place that does not exist in their world. For example Karl Marx did not "come from Germany" he came from "Prussia" (Karl_Marx). Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I am still waiting to see a book published dealing with the British and the English that contradicts Sykes or Oppenheimer.
 * I've read both Sykes and Oppenheimer, they are both excellent books. Oppenheimer especially does a masterful job of supporting his genetic data with proper archaeology, unlike Sykes' book which is rather light weight and nowhere near as well researched. I think Oppenheimer is spot on and agree with all of his analyses. But the fact is that before 937 there was no such place as "England" and there were no such people as the "English". The nascence of English national and ethnic identity was probably the Viking invasion of the Great Army of the 860s. There were many Kingdoms then in what we now call England, and the people who lived there did not identify as English. There were Mercians and Wessexians and East Anglians and Northumbrians and Kentish, but there is little or no evidence that they saw themselves as "English". The unifying factor was their Christianity, Alfred was able to bind these disparate groups to him due to their shared religion against the paganism of the Danes. Oddly enough I myself am I1a and I had it checked agains Oppenheimer's database, I am I1a-3 (you can check I1a-3 in his book) according to Oppenheimer's database, which probably means that my patrilineal ancestor came to Great Britain at the time of the Vikings from Denmark. I know that this does not make me "Danish", and I know that this tells me nothing about the vast majority of my ancestry, which is almost certainly not "Viking". On the defeat of Guthrum the Old, Alfred was able to check their advance and expand his region of influence further and further. His descendants continued the expansion of Alfred's nascent "English" kingdom, his son Edward the Elder and especially his grandson Athelstan who finished the consolidation of the new "English" kingdom at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. That is the origin of the English. Like all ethnic groups, the English required a creation myth to achieve unity this is probably the origin of the "mass migration" myth, like all myths it probably has some basis in reality, a half remembered "elite takeover" during sub-Roman times, and Oppenheimer provides evidence that there may well be Y chromosome types that derive from Scandinavia at about that time that exist in England. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * the genetic section is biased
 * There is no "genetic section". Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * so do not repeat the identity argument over and over again
 * If you want to contribute to an article about the origins of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland then I suggest you go and edit Genetic history of the British Isles where these contributions correctly belong. If I were as you claim trying "to obscure the ancestry of said people" why have I added so much information in that article to the Iberian origins of Y chromosomes in Great Britain and Ireland? Why have I defended Oppenheimer so much here? The point is that mesolithic settlement of Great Britain and Ireland occurred tens of millenia before English people ever existed, or even thought of existing. That's why we have a separate article about it, that's why we don't include it here (though we do have a link to the other article here), that's why Oppenheimer called his book Origins of the British, his book is about the origins of the populations of Great Britain, it's not about ethnic groups, although he does discuss ethnicity a bit. You will find his discussion of ethnicity in the book and see that he does differentiate between ethnicity and biological descent. Alun (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jan, you are clearly a very good contributor to the encyclopaedia, but really you are barking up the wrong tree, I really think you are confused beteween ethnicity and biological descent. You clearly know something about genetics, as I do, after all I have a BSc in the subject, so i urge you to put your talents undoubted to better use by editing the article with deals with the genetics of people from Great Britain and Ireland rather than arguing here about something that is not relevant to this article. At least think about it. I think you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia, I just think you are trying to include the material in the wrong place. By the way you remind me of a user who used to be called User:LSLM, he was blocked for a years but now his block has expired, he hasn't come back to edit though as far as I can tell. Take care.

See this article about Spain.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n10/full/5201225a.html

And again, genetically speaking both the British Area and the Iberian area are two areas in Europe noted for their population continuity since Pre/HIstoric times, although it is true that in the case of the English admixture with other populations has been greater in more recent times than in the rest of the British Isles, but still, the Iberian element is in the majority according to most authors. And to finish, the terms Iberian, Spanish or Basque refer to the same thing. The Basque issue has been exaggerated. Oppenheimer stateas in the book discussed here that they are very similar to the rest of the Spanish, although with signs of even more isolation, and anyone who really knows Spain can tell you that. In relation to that issue this article states>

(Furthermore, Rosser et al18 found that within Western Europe, only a minor barrier separated the Basques from their neighbours. Consistent with these results, our findings indicate that Iberian populations, Basques included, have a reduced genetic structure. This means that the linguistic differences of this area arose after a common Y-chromosome pattern was established, or that there has been sufficient male gene flow to eliminate past differences. In particular, the results from Hurles et al39 suggested recent male gene flow between Basques and surrounding populations)

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.237.93 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See this article about Spain.
 * This article is about the Iberian peninsula and nor Spain. Don't confuse ethnic groups, nations, states and geography. Alun (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * still, the Iberian element is in the majority according to most authors.
 * Not according to Seldin and Bauchet. Don't confuse Y chromosome data with autosomal data. Autosomal data disagree strongly that there are close ties between the populations of the Iberian peninsula and Great Britain. Alun (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And to finish, the terms Iberian, Spanish or Basque refer to the same thing.
 * Really? That is clearly original research and personal opinion. So You're gong to tell Portugese people that "Spain" means the same as "Portugal" then? That's just incorrect. Alun (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, there is no dialogue possible when one does not want. You want to present your own opinions against said experts and works. Sorry, either you do not know what you are talking about or you are really suffering from an intense chauvinistic seizure. I am out of here. And get used to the idea of being of Spanish ancestry, as much as you dislike the fact, because this article is just nothing. I am not ready to continue with this type of sophism. Bye, bye and be happy. Write the article according to the way people think in your neighbourhood and continue struggling to look for articles, cherry pick ideas and so on,that suit your dreams and try to ignore Sykes, Oppenheimer and all the main stream of genetic researcjh. And by the way, I am going from here directly to the doctor, becasue I can see an important genetic section in the article, but since you deny it so vehemently I must be suffering from some type of perception illness. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.237.93 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been along time since I read such a long ad hominem attack. Insulting me may make you feel better, I don't know, but it certainly doesn't make you "right" or strengthen your case. I suggest you try to understand the difference between an ethnic group and a population. There are a great many expert anthropologists who have written about ethnicity and what it means, you can't dismiss this body of work. English people are not defined by their LGM origins, they are defined by their beliefs and customs, and their identity cannot be dismissed by claims that they are "Spanish", they clearly are not "Spanish", they do not identify as "Spanish". You have not properly presented Oppenheimer's work and have synthesised it and taken it out of context to draw irrelevant and unfounded conclusions. For example Oppenheimer never calls the LGM populations of the Iberian refuge "Spanish", but you want to. I'm fed up with this sort of pov-pushing, you can't claim to have the right to "tell" English people how to identify. English people are not "Spanish" and it's simply not true that Oppenheimer says that they are. Alun (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish origins of Britons, including the English.
Well, I resist the idea of not responding to Alun. He does all he can to avoid the word Spain and Spanish in relation to the ancestry of Britons, including the English. On the one hand he says above all that sophistry that you can read yourselves and then he says that he has read Oppenheimer, to continue saying all those things against the use of the term Spanish, arguing that it is my original research to use it. Well again you have some quotes here that clearly speak of the Spanish origins of Britons, including the English, quotes that can be completed with the ones that he has already erased. Read his comments and tell me if this contributor is sincere.

The Origins of the British. 2006.

Pag. 88.

However, the anachronism can be addressed by replacing the southern Germanic homeland theory, for which there is less and less evidence, with a Spanish homeland theory..for which there is ample genetic data and even archaeological evidence of cultural connections.

Barry Cunliffe gives parallel archaeological evidence for such an early cultural spread up the Atlantic coast from Spain to Britain and Ireland.

Pag. 90

There is a recurring theme in Irish tradition that the ancestors of the last two invasions arrived from Spain.

Pag. 91.

Ancient literary evidence points to their early presence in Spain…

108.

There is general agreement and good evidence that Western Europe was largely recolonized from south western refuges in southern France and Spain.

109.

The main western Ice Age refuge, which was northern Spain.

116.

As to who and what were the main British ancestors, we can say they were largely Ice Age hunting families from Spain, Portugal and the south of France.

117.

I have labelled the clusters R1b/1 to R1b/6,. All clusters are descended from one of the two main gene types from Spain.

And very interestingly, in relation to the article in the body of the English people article that makes reference to the similarities between Frisia and England, here is what Oppenheimer says ( I mean if you can see it, because Alun says that there is no genetics in the article)
 * Where did I say there is no genetics in the article? That's simply a lie. I have never said there is no genetics in the article. I did say there was no genetics section, which is quite true. There is genetics in the article relating the so called "mass migration" of "Anglo-Saxons", which is directly relevant to English ethnic identity. You haven't actually read my posts above at all have you? Alun (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pag. 131.

This scenario does not seem to be borne out in the pattern of Ruisko gene types found in Frisia and England. The apparent similarity between Frisia and eastern England results, largely, from a similar broad mix of shared gene groups and Ruisko gene types which were derived independently from Spain.

And of course it would be exhausting to continue and this is only from Oppenheimer. We could continue with Sykes, Cunliffe, Wells and a long etc.

In any case, most Britons seem to be of Spanish origins and that is how experts call it, Spanish, Iberian or Basque. Jan.


 * Please see Ethnic group and population. Alun (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He does all he can to avoid the word Spain and Spanish in relation to the ancestry of Britons
 * No, I'm talking about ethnicity and not ancestry. If you don't understand the difference then you are in the wrong place. See Genetic history of the British Isles. There you will find discussion of the Iberian origin of the peoples of the Atlantic facade of Europe. I don't use the word Spain because it's the name of a modern state and ethnic group that did not exist ten thousand years ago. I prefer Iberian peninsula because it is a geographical region that did exist thousands of years ago.
 * The Iberian origins of the population of the Atlantic facade of Europe are not under discussion in the article. The article is about the English ethnic group, it is not about the population of England or it's so called "origins". We are all well aware that there is evidence that peoples from the Iberian refuge repopulated the west coasts of Europe during the mesolithic. This tells us nothing about English ethnicity. You clearly have some sort of weird pov to push.
 * English people do not identify as "Spanish", the Iberian "origins" of the peoples of western Europe are not disputed. You have claimed that I have denied this "origin" but I have not, I have only stated that this discussion does not belong in this article. This article is about ethnicity and not deep ancestry. Why not claim that English people are of African origin? It's just as true as the claim they are of Iberian origin.
 * The fact is that English identity derives from a much more recent social identification. No English people at all existed during the LGM, and no Spanish people either. If you want to discuss the ancestry of the population of Great Britain and Ireland we have an article for that.
 * You've called me names, insulted me and claimed I have made comments I clearly have not. I have never denied the Iberian origins of the population of western Europe, as you claim I have. I have stated that ethnicity is not ancestry, and I have provided evidence that the Y chromosome data are not the whole story.
 * Frankly you appear to be ignorant of the difference between ancestry and ethnicity. Ethnicity is about identity. Portuguese people are not Spanish, English people are not Spanish and Spanish people are not African, although all of these groups share a significant ancestry. How can I put this? OK English people do share ancestry with Iberian peoples, and they share ancestry with the Balkan peoples, and they share ancestry with Middle Eastern peoples, and they share ancestry with Indian peoples, and they share ancestry with Asian peoples, and they share ancestry with Native American peoples, and they share ancestry with Native Australian peoples, and they share ancestry with African peoples. Quite frankly all humans share all of their ancestry. Big deal, you're just trying to claim that somehow English people are "Spanish" and that's still not true.
 * You're confusing ethnic identity with ancestry and that's a fallacy. I do not hold that ancestry is the same as "ethnicity", that's what racialists believe, well racialism is not supported by biology or anthropology. All human groups have interbred with each other throughout their history, human genetic variation is defined by isolation by distance (for example see Witherspoon 2007 Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations) The only human groups that have any meaning for society are ethnic groups and they are defined by identity and not by genetics.
 * There are plenty of English people who come from India and there are plenty of English people that come from the Caribbean and there are plenty of English people that come from from Pakistan. What makes these people English is the identity they share with other members of the English ethnic group. Ethnicity is not about genetics and it is not about ancestry. Ethnicity is about identity. That's a citable fact. Oppenheimer says it, and just about any anthropologist you would care to mention say it. Why you want to make English people a "race" is beyond me, they are not defined by "biology" but by identity. This is not a difficult concept but you seem incapable of understanding it.
 * The English ethnic group is no more than a thousand years old, but you are claiming that a migration that occurred over 10,000 years ago is somehow linked to English ethnic identity, give me a break. English people have ancestry from all over the world, and that's a fact as well.
 * Your pov is just irrelevant to this article, I didn't say you were wrong, I just said that Englishness has go nothing to do with a migration that occurred over ten thousand years before the first person ever claimed to be English. That's like claiming that all people are African because our ancestors were Africans when they migrated out of Africa during the Recent African Origin. Alun (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but I seem to be talking to a wall. All that I had to say is there, I am not going to repeat myself. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.237.93 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. You don't seem to have read any on my posts and it is impossible for you to have answered coherently when you don't read what I am saying. You have several times accused me of saying things I clearly haven't said and have not addressed any of the substantive points I have raised, merely made the same irrelevant comments again and again and subjected me to a barrage of personal attacks, which I have found most offensive and uncalled for. Here's another quote from Oppenheimer as you like his book so much "Since the 1950s two other words have crept into the vocabulary of anthropologists and others: 'ethnic group' and 'ethnicity'. Although there is no more clarity between the user and the hearer, these terms carry rather less of the spurious implications of genetic difference and purity implied by 'race'. In anthropological usage, 'ethnicity' stresses an individual's own perception of identity and group membership in addition to the externally imposed cultural or genetic definition. An example of the former would be 'I am 'Welsh' because I see myself as Welsh'... The subjective view of group affiliation may still help us to see how speakers of Old English, the new Anglo-Saxon rulers, saw themselves ethnically. Oppenheimer (2006) Chapter 10 'Old English perceptions of ethnicity: Scandinavian or Low Saxon' p. 331-332."Likewise we have several exemplary sources that support what I am saying "The term 'ethnic group' is given cultural meaning by anthropologists and sociologists to clarify the idea that groups are identified by cultural beliefs, not by biological differences. Lieberman, Littlefield and Reynolds (1999) 'The debate over race: Thirty years and two centuries later' in Race and IQ Ashley Montagu (ed.)""Ethnic groups define themselves, or are defined by others, according to their perceived differences from other groups. While inheritance is always claimed as a defining factor, the role it plays may in reality be less than that of current political and social forces. If it is difficult, and often controversial, to define ethnic groups in the modern world, it is even more difficult to do so for the past. Hills (2003) The Origins of the English. p 93. ISBN 0 7156 3191 8" "Ideologies of ethnicity also base collective identity on shared descent, usually relating to a common regional or national origin. Language, dress, occupational specialization, and religion, among other things, may also be part of an ethnic identity. Since ethnic groups are always defined vis-a-vis other ethnic groups, the mere fact of difference is what is more often important than anything else. Thus the specific content of ethnic identities may shift wildly with time, and what may really be at stake is not any profound differences in culture or world view, but how a particular ethnic group membership allows access to scarce resources or how it can be used by leaders to further their political goals. Monaghan and Just (2000) Social and Cultural Anthropology: A very short introduction. pp 93-94. ISBN 0-19-285346-5 " "As any anthropologist knows, ethnic groups are categories of human invention, not given by nature. Their boundaries are porous, their existence historically ephemeral. There are the French, but no more Franks; there are the English, but no Saxons; and Navajos, but no Anasazi. Moreover, since we have very limited access to the Franks, the Saxons, or the Anasazi (through classical physical comparisons or the new methods of amplifying trace bits of DNA), we cannot really know the nature of the actual relationship of the modern group to the ancient one. Marks (2003) What it means to be 98% chimpanzee p. 202 ISBN 0-520-24064-2 ""Viking attacks, and increased settlement, imperiled all the many kingdoms of the archipelago to an almost unprecedented degree...and indeed several Anglo-Saxon royal houses were wiped out. The military threat was demonstrably grave, but it is notable that, once again, it was religious difference which received most attention: for the Northmen, rapacious alien others, were above all characterized as pagans... It is no accident that this period saw the formation of the three nations of Britain which are with us still: the unpredictability and ferocity of the Viking assaults - exemplified in the horrific martyrdoms of several Anglo-Saxon kings - constitute the kind of environment which one might expect to foster mass engagement in ethnogenesis. pp 116-117 Ethnicity and nationality depend on self-identity, on being aware of larger groupings and their interactions, and feeling involved in one of them. I would argue that, until the rise of the four historic nations in the medieval period, and even long after, a clear sense of large-scale ethnic or national identity - of belonging to an imagined community like the Scots, Welsh, Irish or English - was usually weakly developed among the mass of the people, who rarely had to deal with such issues on hills or farms or in island fishing communities. Among the bulk of the populations of Britain and Ireland, it seems to me that at least until the sixteenth century any adherence to wider 'imagined communities' beyond their immediate district was more likely to be to religion than to a major ethnicity or nation. p.133 James (1999) The Atlantic Celts, ancient people or modern invention? ISBN 0-299-16674-0 Alun (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * So as you see, rather than my responses being my "personal opinion" as you claimed, I have numerous authoritative source to support what I am saying, including incidentally Oppenheimer. An ethnic group is about identity and not ancestry. The English are an ethnic group who's ethnogenesis occurred some 15,000 years after the re-population of Europe from the LGM refugia, these post-LGM population movements are not relevant to the enthogenesis or modern identity of English people. Here I have quotations from two archaeologists, a geneticist and three anthropologists, all well respected academics. Alun (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My friend, I agree with all that. So, what is the point. The point is that there is genetic information in the article and it is absolutely incomplete. Either there is genetic information or there is not. If there is genetic information it shall include all this information clearly. That is the point. We are not discussing ethnicity here. If Britons happen to be of Spanish or Iberian deep ancestry, it does not turn them into Iberian or Spanish people, that is ridiculous and I have never said that. To know the origins of people is important though. The Japanese may be of Chinese origins to a great extent, but that does not turn them into Chinese people, and they hate each other a lot, on top of that. Those are not the points we are discussing. As said, if there is information of genetic work, it must be updated and complete or maybe there should be no genetic information at all, but not double standards.

For example, this part of the article:

Geneticists have explored the relationship between Anglo-Saxons and Britons by studying the Y-chromosomes of men in present day English towns. In 2002, a study by Weale et al found genetic differences between test subjects from market towns in central England and Wales, and that the English subjects were, on average closer genetically to the Frisians of the Netherlands than they were to their Welsh neighbours. This study hypothesised that an Anglo-Saxon invasion had replaced 50-100% of "indigenous" men. A 2006 study led by Mark Thomas used computer simulations to find a possible reason for the divergence between these finds and the archaeological record, which does not show evidence of mass immigration. They postulate that a small Anglo-Saxon elite could have operated an apartheid-like system, preventing intermarriage between male Britons and female Anglo-Saxons (therefore increasing the proportion of "Anglo-Saxon" Y chromosomes in certain regions), depriving indigenous Britons of essential resources (leading to higher population growth rates for the elite), and asserting political dominance. Eventually the dominant group would have grown too large to be an effective elite, and the "indigenous" group would have been assimilated.[35]

Is responded directly by Oppenheimer with the following:

Pag. 131.

This scenario does not seem to be borne out in the pattern of Ruisko gene types found in Frisia and England. The apparent similarity between Frisia and eastern England results, largely, from a similar broad mix of shared gene groups and Ruisko gene types which were derived independently from Spain.

So, the article is clearly biased, taking into account all the information that is available on the subject, and one has to be no genius to see that. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.188.248 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But the article is not biased because you have only quoted a small fraction of the article. The article actually does give the other point of view, and cites Oppenheimer in doing so:

"Other geneticists tell a different story. A more comprehensive follow-up study to Weale et al in 2003 by Christian Capelli et al, which analyzed Y chromosome samples across a wider range of the British Isles, complicated the picture and indicated that different parts of England may have received different levels of intrusion: they theorise that while central and eastern England experienced a high level of intrusion from continental Europe (the study could not significantly distinguish Germans of Schleswig-Holstein from Danes or Frisians although Frisians were slightly closer to the British samples), southern and western England did not, and the population there appears to be largely descended from the indigenous Britons (the scientists acknowledge that this conclusion is 'startling')."


 * These are the conclusions of Capelli et al.


 * Then the article discusses Oppenheimer in some detail actually:

"In The Origins of the British, Stephen Oppenheimer concludes, based on a meta-analysis of the data collected during both the 2002 and 2003 studies, and data from other sources, that the majority of English ancestry is from the original hunter-gatherer populations that settled Britain between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the last Ice Age.[37] He also suggests that the relatively high levels of northern European Y chromosomes (mainly I1a and R1a, 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Viking' markers) detected in eastern and central Great Britain (both Scotland and England) may have a far older signature than they would have if they had been introduced during an 'Anglo-Saxon' invasion - they appear to have been in Great Britain much longer. According to Oppenheimer, there may have been ongoing migrations between North Sea regions (eastern Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Northwestern Germany) as far back as the palaeolithic, and it is not conclusive that all Y chromosome types usually associated with Anglo-Saxon invasions actually derive from colonisation during this period, since many may have come to Great Britain during the initial colonisation of the land after the Last Glacial Maximum. Thus he theorises that there is no necessity to postulate either a mass 'Anglo-Saxon' migration or an 'apartheid-like' system to explain the differences between the far east and far west of Great Britain, the differences in Y chromosome frequencies vary gradually and are not clearly defined, and that they have always been there."


 * Now these studies directly address the "Anglo-Saxon" mass migration theory because thie has a direct relevance to English identity.

Suggested compromise
I suggest this, Catherine Hills, in her book Origins of the English says that we can think of the English as having at least three different origins, (1) the colonisation of what became England after the LGM, (2) the so called "mass-migration" of Germanic speaking peoples during the sub-Roman period and (3) the creation of the English "state" and possible ethnogenesis after the defeat of Guthrum by Alfred. Simon James also has a fourth "origin", that of mass engagement of ethnic identity, he postulates that most of the population were probably excluded from mass ethnic English (and Scotts and Welsh and Irish) identity, and probably only had local identities, except possibly religious identities, untill as late as the seventeenth century, with mass engagement of peoples in a pan-national identity occurring with greater and better modes of mass communication. I suggest we have a similar discussion, where we mention the colonisation after the LGM, the evidence for and against mass migration and the historical events that lead to the creation of a unified English kingdom and identity in early medieval times etc. This would allow us to have a brief discussion of the settlement of the land that became England during the mesolithic. But you should bear in mind that Oppenheimer does claim that there was colonisation during this period from the Balkan refuge as well as the Iberian refuge, and he postulates that this is where most I1 type Y chromosomes derive. I'd be happy with that and it would allow the inclusion of the Iberian origins and the Balkan origins of many of the earliest settlers. Would you agree to that? I think it should satisfy us both. Alun (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the article should really go too deep into genetics discussions. That may as well be kept for the Genetic history of the British Isles and Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland otherwise we just end up repeating a lot of material here. (Nebulousity (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree, I wasn't really suggesting that we go deeply into genetics. What I mean is that we have a very brief (a sentence or two) discussion about what "origins" really mean, and say that we can think of them in several ways. Does it mean "population origins", or "creation myth" origins, or "ethnogenesis", or "mass engagement in collective identity". All of these can be thought of as the "origins" of the English as a collective group. In a way they are all the "origin" of the English, and in a way none are. It is also a device to briefly mention that, well the earliest colonisations of northern Europe after the LGM were from Balkan and Iberian refugia, and yes, there were settlers in the eastern part of what was to become Britain who were the descendants of Balkan refuge peoples, not just Iberian refuge settlers. Alun (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually thinking about this as a way to structure part of the article could mean that we are able to remove most if not all of the genetics that is currently there there. Personally I think there is far too much genetics already in the article and would much prefer to see an anthropological perspective where we discuss identity and the factors that caused these peoples to forge a collective identity where none existed previously. Thats the genesis of English identity, not what peoples colonised what regions after the LGM. Alun (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article is still a bit unfocused at the moment. (Nebulousity (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Does everyone approve of the changes I made to headings in the "History of English identity" section? (78.150.131.147 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Ethnicity and identity
"An ethnic group is about identity and not ancestry." - Alun

Actually, no Alun, that seems to be largely your take on the pre-selected material you entered above. As you state yourself, it is about identity (or recognition by oneself and others), but your sources themselves clearly state it is identity which is based on various diacritics such as culture, language, history, religion and other traits, such as (and most often) a degree of common descent which is either presumed or actual. Ethnicity is mainly a cultural identifcation, yes, but one which is not entirely cultural or environmental, but tied to biolgocially-based or 'related' factors such as the shared descent, where as "race" is solely classification or categories of strictly biological criteria which also involve aspects of shared ancestry (itself ultimately down to the common descent of all organisms).

This all seems to me to have stemmed from discussion about the importance of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic era settlers in Britain (the original British indigenes) which form a major part of the descent of modern British ethnicities. Considering the descent of these people is still a large part of the modern groups, I think it is foolish to say this element has no role in modern Insular ethnicities considering they form an important part of the genetic composition (again ethnicity isn't based on 'genes', but it is based on shared descent, which includes various factors that are associated with it, mainly cultural but also to a much smaller degree, biological). Whatever very little cultural or other influences (eg. behavioural) remain from these earliest settlers is difficult to establish but clearly this descent is a part of the identity of British peoples since this element has a specific and isolated association with these Isles for almost 12,000 years (or more). The complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors over that period of time again is difficult to analyze but if you look at modern populations who trace even longer descents to their indigenous homeland, such as Aboriginal Australians who have inhabited that land for 50,000 years at the minimum, cultural traditions and other ethnic traits have been continuously retained over that time.

One other thing: to claim these Paleolithic era settlers were 'Spanish' is really a gross anachronism. Iberia (which includes other groups besides the Spanish) has had different ethno-cultural influences and population movements since those times just as Britain has which not only affected the cultural composition of the Isles, but also the genetic. This is clear to even the average person when you consider the obvious differences in physical appearance between Iberian popualtions such as the Spanish and British Isles populations such as the English. Populations in Britain which even have somewhat darker features in physical appearance (though still distinct in other aspects of appearance) are mainly confined to 'Celtic' fringe areas, especially Wales and Cornwall (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Jones (singer), Chris Coleman (footballer) and Ryan Giggs are a few obvious examples, all Welsh). This is more likely resultant from Neolithic-era Mediterranean seafarers who settled along the Western areas of Britain and southeastern Ireland rather than Paleolithic or Mesolithic settlers. This especially makes sense when you consider areas there are areas with the highest frequencies of Paleolithic markers (such as Castlrea, Ireland) which contain populations which look very distinct from Iberians. The genetic data from Y-chromosome and MtDNA studies ultimately still needs more time to be properly understood. For example, one potential fallacy in the analysis of some of these studies is the assumption that markers highest in the Basque country are the most characeteristic of Pelolthic-era settlers merely because of the fact that their language is the only one in Europe which is pre-Indo European. One potential theory I am working on currently is that the the link along the Atlantic facade may not be only Paleolithic or Mesolithic in origin, but also a result of Neolithic-era Mediterranean seafarers who had darker or olive skin complexions which still manifest today in some British poplations (especially western Britain and southeastern Ireland). These seafarers are historically known to have traded and travelled along the edges of Western Europe and could have followed the route of previous migrations which seems to occur oftern (eg. Oppenheimer's theory that Anglo-Saxons and Danish-Vikings may have followed migratory patterns of earlier North Sea popualtoins which settled in eastern England, perhaps since the Bronze Age). These seafarers also are the bearers of the great megalithic culture which left important sites in the western regions of Britain, western France, the Basque country, and Sardinia that stand to this very day. The sea-routes of these people may in turn have been followed by subsequent groups such as the great seafaring Phoenicians who are also historically known to have travelled to Cornwall to trade for tin (this may even be related to the mythological origin of the Cornish people which claims some origin in Troy and the eastern Mediterranean). Ciao, Epf (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Epf I don't agree with most of what you have written for example in the first paragraph you write: "yes, but one which is not entirely cultural or environmental, but tied to biolgocially-based or 'related' factors such as the shared descent" No it is not tied to "biolgocially-based or 'related' factors such as the shared descent" it is tied to what people in an ethnic group believe to be their shared descent to be, not their true biological decent. The rest of your points seem to be base  on the same idea that "truth" about decent is more important than commonly held beliefs by an ethnic group, whether true or not, and as such I do not see what your 818 words (5,325 bytes) added to this page do for the development of this article. Please see Talk page guidelines "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." and Talk page "Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you don't agree that's fine but I don't feel it is supported. Yes, the shared descent is often biologically based or related sicne the whole concept of "descent" is based on biological factors (i.e. that which is inherited from your ancestors; even when its mainly cultural, its still based on a biological descent from your recent or fairly recent family tree). The identity is based on cultural, linguistic, behavioural, traditional, historical etc. factors which stem or are associated with a common descent, perceived or real. Even when it is perceived (not merely just some random belief), it is based on diacritics such as those or others which reveal a descent (either objective or subjective) such as physical appearance. Indeed, I will explain more specifically how this is important to the article. Cheers, Epf (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What Epf means is very simple. 1. The Pre HIstoric inhabitants are very important for English Ethnicity but they have nothing to do with the modern Iberians because they have changed. This is a very funny fallacy used by people of a narrow intellect who think other users are also of the same category. Why. Because all these comparisons are made using genetic data from modern populations. The Prehistoric thing is in fact the theory. Why. Because we have no recorded records in history to account for these genetic similarities, therefore the Pre Historic theory arises. People like EPf take it and try to manipulate it the way it can be seen. By the way all Europeans are closely related, those who are geographically closer a bit more, as it is to be expected. What Epf still tries to deny is something now widely accepted. Europeans, mosto of them, come maily from Southern Europe, and in the case of Western Europeans, mainly from Spain or Iberia. They have changed very litle and with the only exception of the Finns, who are just a little more separate, genetically speaking, all other Europeans are very homogeneous (and even the Finns are very close. If non European populations were shown, they would be much further away), although with some distinct features if we analyse them by smaller and smaller regions. Here you have a very recent study>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It again speaks of the Southern origins of all Eurpeans. Still the Y/Chromosome is the best way to trace ancestry, and here we have another map that shows clearly the Western lineage.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

(And yes, they took the samples from modern populations. They did not trav el back in time to Prehistoric Europe) Sorry for this childlike observation.

But I am not going to repeat myself. In short, if real ancestry counts, then the article is biased. On the other hand if real ancestry does not count, then the genetic information in the article should be deleted. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.110 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's interesting about the NYTimes article you link to Jan, is that it does not show the population of the British Isles to be closer genetically to the population of Iberia than to any other group. Indeed the original papers that this article is based on don't indicate an exceptionally close genetic relationship between the population of Iberia and the population of the British Isles. That undermines your claims. This is what I think the problem is; you are not factoring into account the likelihood that the population of Iberia is actually paraphyletic to that of the British Isles. Yes when we look at genetic markers that are transmitted from through a single line of descent, such as Y chromosomes, we see that the overwhelming majority of British Isles Y chromosomes derive from the Iberian peninsula, but this is not prima facie evidence of a close genetic relationship between these two populations, as you seem to believe. All it does is tell us that the derived population (British) was founded from a sub-set of the "parental" (Iberian) population. A paraphyletic group is a group that is the source population of a derived population, but paraphyletic groups can be significantly genetically different to populations derived from them. This is because of processes such as founder effect, population bottleneck and genetic drift, in statistical terms we'd say that the paleolithic British population is a non-random sample of the paleolithic Iberian population (founder effect). Although most British Isles Y chromosomes are derived from Iberia during the last glaciation, they only represent a small subset of the diversity that existed there, and are not representative of the parental set. There is indeed much evidence that the diversity of Y chromosomes in Iberia is far greater than that of the British Isles, at least for diversity in R1b types. One should note, however, that R1b is most diverse in eastern Europe, which indicates that this is it's source. So essentially R1b derives from eastern Europe, moves into Iberia sometime before the LGM, where a sub-set of R1b remain over the glacial period, developing new diversity, then a sub set of this set of R1bs colonise what will eventually become the British Isles. This applies even more to autosomal markers. Think of it this way, the population of Africa is a paraphyletic group to all non-African groups, but all non-Afrcans are much more similar to each other than they are to Africans, and the genetic difference between Africans and non-Africans is the greatest difference that exists is the human gene pool because non-Africans are derived from a non-representative sample of Africans. There is about twice as much genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. It's the same with the population of the British Isles, they are derived from a non-representative sample of the Iberian paleolithic population. There are other factors that also produce genetic differences, different selective environments, more recent migrations during the neolithic, and the fact that the population of northern Europe is more of an admixed population, for example the population of the British Isles has a far greater degree of ancestry from the Balkan refuge than the Iberian population does. Alun (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you 100%. Still, most British people come from Spain (Like most Western Europeans). It does not mean that they are identical after, maybe 15.000 thousand years.

By the way, here you have another autosomal map:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/uploaded_images/nature07331-f1.2-774974.jpg

Different European populations are clearly distinct (by the way, here the Spanish come up as the most "Western". In the previous article it was the British)

In any case, this is not in contradiction with the fact that a comes from b. It does not mean that a is the same as b. Anyway, it should never be forgotten that the sex genetic markers are much more reliable for ancestry. Autosomal markers are strongly influenced by adaptation to the environment, as you know. Bye. Jan.
 * I'm concerned that you link to "Gene Expression" (GNXP), it's a well now racist website with zero scientific credibility. Alun (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the link was wrong, here is the map that I mean. I think you are right. I have found many racist-like comments in that web page. These studies attract a lot of flies. Still, this piece of study I think is good. Probably these studies will be able to pinpoint the area that we all come from even within counties. We will have to wait and see. Still, they say little about lineage. Jan.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/08/genetic-map-of-europe-again.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep linking to gnxp? That is a totally unreliable website occupied by racists. I also noticed that you linked to another racist website, "racialreality" on the "Genetic history of Europe" talk page. Do you have some sort of agenda here Jan? Frankly anyone who links to these sorts of websites has zero credibility in my book when it comes to discussions about genetics. The people who run these websites are not interested in genetics, they are interested in racism, and they are interested in distorting science, in lying about what science tells us, so they can pretend it supports their twisted agenda. Is it so difficult to actually link to the original paper, where you can read what the scientists who publish the work say, rather than sites like gnxp where everything if distilled through a racist filter? Here are the two papers Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe" and "Genes mirror geography within Europe. I notice that you make a big deal that the Asian influence in Europe is greater than the African influence in your post at Talk:Genetic history of Europe. I think you need t be very careful what you are saying Jan. I'm suspicious of people making claims like this, especially when they link to and defend white supremacist websites. Alun (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW of course they don't mention lineages, this is a study using autosomal genes, autosomes do not form lineages, only Y chromosomes and mtDNA do that. We cannot infer migrations or time depth from autosomes. Whereas Y chromosomes and mtDNA give the impression that there are discrete groups of people in the world, this is misleading because they only trace a single lineage. A man's Y chromosome represents only a single ancestor out of thousands, ditto a person's mtDNA. Autosomal analysis shows us just how mixed up we all are. These papers are instructive because they show that humans in Europe do not cluster into discrete groups, but that diversity is isolated by distance. This means that one's cultural group is not a good indicator of one's genetics (ie French or German or English), but the geographical region one comes from is a good indicator of one's genetics. These papers provide evidence that researchers like Seldin et al. and Bauchet et al. were wrong when they conducted clustering analyses on genetic data from Europe. Genetic diversity does not cluster into groups, it is distributed along gradients, as anthropologists have been telling us for decades, there are not "races", there is a smooth continuum of change. I expect your friends at "racialreality" and "gnxp" have managed to pretend that these papers say the exact opposite. Alun (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry for the links. I could not find the other links. The funny thing is that I agree with you on most. Race is just an arbitrary term. Where do we draw the line to call it race?, at an individual leve, family level, village level, and so on, or just continental level?. It is all just arbitrary. Anyway, I think we are drifting away from the main issue here and you know what?, I am tired, so whatever. Jan.

edit by me
This was me. Sorry must have logged out by mistake. Anyway I think it's good to keep this info in, but we cannot claim that these people identity as English because they clearly identify as Canadian, though we can of course say that their ancestors probably identified as English. Alun (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing mentioned there which discusses their identity as Canadian, I only mention how many who previously listed their origins as English now listed it as Canadian, that is all. There is no issue here and I am merely stating what is said by the source. For someone who is (wrongfully) claiming I am disagreeing with valid sourced material on other articles (I only wished to enter what the sources actually claimed), you yourself are hypocritically doing the same right here. Epf (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also stated what the source says, but in a different way. Alun (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just scrolled down this page and saw too much of the word "English". I don't even know why I'm on this page I'm Irish!!!!!! (Emmie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.77.2 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cont'd: Suggested compromise
"Hi, I've been thinking about how I see the structure of this article, specifically the identity vs population origin sections. I think I'm getting a bit bogged down with it. I've been working on a sandbox in my userspace User:Wobble/pa, it's far from ready and it's not going anywhere near as well as I thought it would. Maybe if you have some time you could leave some comments on the associated talk page? I've left a basic outline there of how I see the structure. I think I'm getting bogged down with too much detail at the moment though, especially about founding populations. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Cheers. Alun (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)"


 * I had a quick glance and it seems like there are some valuable contributions there, though I think it's important to make clear that the "Atlantic zone" in the diagram is a theory proposed by Oppenheimer to account for genetic and linguistic evidences (though this is outlined in the text). I think the meandering nature of the article has something to do with there never being a clear idea what the article was supposed to convey (race, genetics, ethnicity, identity, history, culture etc). It would be a good idea if we could have a consensus on that, it would cut out a lot of potential future confusion. P.S. Sorry for late reply. (Nebulousity (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The Atlantic zone is not a theory proposed by Oppenheimer. Atlantic Europe was used originally by archaeologists when discussing the perceived the similarity of prehistoric material culture from regions bordering the Atlantic ocean. The archaeologist Barry Cunliffe discusses the Atlantic Zone, the Central Zone and the North Sea Zone in his book "Iron Age Britain" and I based my map on a map from this book. The theory is that from very early prehistory it is possible to see similarities in material culture between peoples occupying these zones. The contention is that the material culture of North Sea Britain, for example, is more similar to the material culture of other North Sea zone regions than it is to the material culture of the Atlantic Zone, even from early prehistory. Archaeologists are essentially claiming that the cultural contacts between the peoples of the North Sea Zone predate any "Anglo-Saxon" invasion. Likewise the cultural contacts between peoples of the Atlantic Zone seem to be very ancient, and have been called a "long duree" by Barry Cunliffe. Oppenheimer synthesises a great deal of archaeology into his book and does draw parallels between the arguments of archaeologists for these long term contact zones and the genetic patterning we observe in the British Isles. Alun (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I haven't read his book, so I can't comment too much on it, though as I understand it Oppenheimer uses the Atlantic zone as a way to explain the results of the 2003 y-chromosome survey, and also proposes that the English language has more ancient roots and both of these challenge the conventional view that they arrived with the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th Century. Do these ideas have widespread acceptance among people in those fields (i.e. archaeologists, geneticists, linguists etc), or is it only Oppenheimer that has proposed them? My opinion is still that the aim/point of the article has yet to be firmly established. In my opinion it would make structuring the article a lot easier if it was. (Nebulousity (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Oppenheimer draws on archaeological and linguistic evidence. I think it's fair to say the the linguistic sources he uses are not mainstream, but I'm not a linguist. I think the general consensus amongst linguists is that southern Britain was Brythonic speaking prior to the Roman invasion, though this view is not monolithic. On the other hand there is a great deal more support for the idea that Germanic languages really do pre-date any Anglo-Saxon invasion, and may have been introduced during Roman times, even to the extent that there may have been Germanic speaking auxiliaries with Claudius' original invading armies. So there is certainly more support for Germanic languages predating any Anglo-Saxon invasion by several centuries. Archaeologists have been sceptical of mass Anglo-Saxon migration for some time, and there really does seem to be a consensus, at least amongst British archaeologists, that any Anglo-Saxon invasion was probably an elite takeover. Few archaeologists doubt that no invasion at all occurred, although Francis Pryor is certainly a good example of a notable and reliable scholar who really does come down strongly for no invasion whatsoever. Oppenheimer actually disagrees with Pryor on this, although he does cite him, he rejects the zero invasion hypothesis, and claims that his evidence supports a small migration from Scandinavia during late antiquity. Oppenheimer believes that this invasion was an Angle and not a Saxon invasion, and draws a big distinction between Angles and Saxons. He believes that the invasion of Angles followed a similar pattern to that of the Danes during the formation of the Danelaw, but believes that the genetic signature of the Danish invasion of the late ninth century was actually larger than the Anglian invasion of four centuries earlier. He believes that this was a pattern of contacts that may well go back for several millenia, with invasions and counter invasions (moving genes and culture) from both sides of the North Sea an historically ancient and ongoing process, not a single massive event. Although he believes that the Angles have a Scandinavian origin, he does not believe that the Saxons do. He thinks the Saxons had a similar close contact with Belgium/Northern France and formed part of the Central Zone, which is culturally distinct to the North Sea zone. I don't know how much distinction mainstream archaeology draws between Angles and Saxons, though there is clearly heterogeneity in the archaeological culture of different regions of Great Britain going well back into prehistory. I don't think any well respected archaeologist would claim that southern Great Britain was ever culturally homogeneous, either during the pre-Roman Iron Age or during late antiquity, and it's just impossible to know how these peoples thought of themselves. Alun (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I was thinking about the aim/point of the article. I think that's a knotty issue. Essentially the article is about English people, but English identity is heavily invested in the Anglo-Saxon origins of the people. I suspect this is a case of historical contingency, the heavy identification of Englishness with the Anglo-Saxons is a relatively modern phenomenon, and I might add that I think the same is true of say the heavy identification of the Welsh with Iron Age "Celtic" societies. The origin of English identity and it's relationship to Anglo-Saxon times is of considerable importance to Englishness. On the other hand I'm not so sure that we should devote too much of the article to discussion of Anglo-Saxon mass migration. In my estimation it would be better to discuss the formation of an English identity from the point of view of how and when the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and their peoples started to identify with each other as a single group in opposition to other groups. Personally I think the weight of evidence would suggest that the initial catalyst for this ethnogenesis was Alfred's defeat of Guthrum's and the subsequent unification of England under the Christian monarchs of Wessex. The biggest difference between Danes and Anglo-Saxons was the paganism of the Danes in opposition to the Christianity of the Anglo-Saxons. In my estimation research into the origins of the Anglo-Saxons more correctly belongs in the Anglo-Saxons article, and discussion of the origins of the population of the Great Britain and Ireland more correctly belongs in the article Genetic history of the British Isles. I think that way we cover all the bases. After all, this article is about the Englishness and not what the origins of a population are. In this way we can more or less ignore the period of late antiquity, which seems to be at best tangential to the idea of Englishness. Alun (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. The article is about a psychological concept rather than anything that has a scientific basis, in my opinion. The whole concept of any national identity is nebulous and as such it will have different meanings for different people, so we ought to focus on the facts, like which group identified as "English" at which point in history, and what were the historical factors that led up to that. I'd agree with removing the Genetics material as well as it doesn't really belong here. Hopefully other editors can weigh in with their opinions. (Nebulousity (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I've had an idea about this. How about renaming the article as "English identity" or "English ethnicity". English people is too vague and ambiguous as a title in my opinion, because as it is, it could mean any one of many different things. (Nebulousity (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Okay seen as there's not much in the way of discussion on the subject, I thought I'd be bold and perform the merger, following the correct merge procedure. I've added a link to this discussion page so it'll be easy to carry on this thread. (89.243.1.25 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Btw Alun, some of the material in your draft article might be more appropriate in the Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland article. (Nebulousity (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I agree with you. Much of the material deals with population genetics and with "Anglo-Saxon" mass migration, and I think we are slowly forming a consensus that these subjects don't belong here. I'm happy about that.
 * On a different note I think a better title for the article would be English (ethnic group). There are several suggestions for how to name articles about social groups here. In brief they can be named thus:

{|
 * valign=top|
 * What do you think? Alun (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think English (ethnic group) would be better, and it follows the pattern of other polymorphic terms where the specifier is put in brackets. (Nebulousity (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, I've moved it under the new title. We'll see how that goes. (Nebulousity (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I am not convinced by the arguments presented here that the new name English (ethnic group) is a better name. If you do then I suggest that you take it to WP:RM as a controversial move -- AFAICT English nation would be preferable to English (ethnic group). --PBS (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For my part I think "English people" is just fine as a title. My above comment about "English (ethnic group)" being better was referring to the move to "English identity", i.e. I think "English (ethnic group)" is better than "English identity". On the whole though I don't really think it's a big issue what the actual title of the article is, as long as it's clear that the article is about that group of people that holds a common, shared English identity. Any other possible titles for the article can simply be redirected. So you can count me as a "not that bothered" on the title front. Alun (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

not demographic or genetic article
Are we agreed that this is not an article about the demographics of England and the UK, and that this is about ethnicity and not genetics? Based on this assumption I reverted this edit. Alun (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is. This was the whole point behind the name change, because some people are confused (hence the edit you mentioned) about what aspect of the English people the article is supposed to talk about. (Nebulousity (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

English not ancient Britons
I am assuming this question and edit is referring to this. The reason is simple, we're talking about how the mass media portray English origins and get it wrong. Articles that discuss Englishness are relevant, articles that discuss ancient Britons are not. At least that's my reasoning. If there is a good reason why I'm wrong then I'm happy to read it. Cheers. Alun (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why you are wrong?. I invite readers here to follow your reasoning and how you erase certain articles and nouns and adjectives. Your typical English anti-Spanish nationalistic bias is more than obvious. But what the hell! Who takes these Wiki articles seriously!. So, continue with your manipulation creating your own world of fantasies and cherry picked information. It is absolutely impossible to reason with someone who is so biased. So, goodbye. But that information that you seem to hate so much is out there. So you must be suffering a lot. What an English wannabe! Sorry, but you deserve little respect. There is the entire discussion page for users to see. You English people should cut your veins, since it is clear that the fact of coming from the Spanish is killing you (after so much propaganda it must be hard to swallow. But I agree, never tell a Spaniard, he will laugh you out in the face). But, well, sure all those crazy people like Sykes and Oppenheimer are crazy. Ha, HA HA!. Shall I paste the following again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.155.133 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Origins of the British. 2006.

Pag. 88.

However, the anachronism can be addressed by replacing the southern Germanic homeland theory, for which there is less and less evidence, with a Spanish homeland theory..for which there is ample genetic data and even archaeological evidence of cultural connections.

Barry Cunliffe gives parallel archaeological evidence for such an early cultural spread up the Atlantic coast from Spain to Britain and Ireland.

Pag. 90

There is a recurring theme in Irish tradition that the ancestors of the last two invasions arrived from Spain.

Pag. 91.

Ancient literary evidence points to their early presence in Spain…

108.

There is general agreement and good evidence that Western Europe was largely recolonized from south western refuges in southern France and Spain.

109.

The main western Ice Age refuge, which was northern Spain.

116.

As to who and what were the main British ancestors, we can say they were largely Ice Age hunting families from Spain, Portugal and the south of France.

117.

I have labelled the clusters R1b/1 to R1b/6,. All clusters are descended from one of the two main gene types from Spain.

And very interestingly, in relation to the article in the body of the English people article that makes reference to the similarities between Frisia and England, here is what Oppenheimer says:

This scenario does not seem to be borne out in the pattern of Ruisko gene types found in Frisia and England. The apparent similarity between Frisia and eastern England results, largely, from a similar broad mix of shared gene groups and Ruisko gene types which were derived independently from Spain.

But of course, who is this Oppenheimer to say those iditic things, like Sykes and the like. Here is Mr. Woble to correct them all, the supreme authority of Wiki. The must be crazy, right? Ha, Ha, Ha. Jan the Crazy Too.

By the way, loo at Sykes crazy theories. Interestingly so similar to Oppenheimer.

[T]he presence of large numbers of Jasmine’s Oceanic clan ... says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic seaboard north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. ,,,The mere presence of Oceanic Jasmines indicates that this was most definitely a family based settlement rather that the sort of male-led invasions of later millennia.[5] ” “

The Celts of Ireland and the Western Isles are not, as far as I can see from the genetic evidence, related to the Celts who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene...during the first millennium BC...The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles. (...)

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus.... This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland. (...)

They [the Picts] are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.[6] ” “

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantis chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes...I can find no evidence at all of a large-scale arrival from the heartland of the Celts of central Europe amongst the paternic genetic ancestry of the Isles... can[7]

Yeah and the British regions include England. Go back to school. Jan the Crazy Too Again.

But I forgot, tis article is not about genetics. Never mind if genetics tell origin, right. But I can see genetic stuff there. Weel, I understand. As long as it does not mention Spain like these too thugs it is all right in the eyes of the supreme inquisitor Woble. Jan the Crazy Too Again and Again. (Of course I do not take you seriouly anymore). Sorry for my spelling, I have no more time to waste with idiots. Jan for Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.150 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.121 (talk)


 * I've issued an immediate final warning to this anonymous editor for the highly inflammatory language used in the above message. It runs counter to every requirement and expectation that wikipedia has of its editors, and the same points could have been made without the generalized insults. Unless editors wish to also receive similar warnings, I suggest that they use acceptable language in future.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow im surprised to see this kind of senseless debate here, i thought the british anti-spanish nationalists already knew that about 70-80% of them have Iberian (mostly northwestern spanish) genes, i guess i was wrong... --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please lay of the insults. This article is about ethnicity and not genetics or prehistoric population movements. The correct article to include theories such as the Iberian refuge recolonisation of northern western Europe after the LGM is at Genetic history of the British Isles. That is the point Jan refused to acknowledge. The point is that Jan was never interested in taking considered views into account. Whenever anyone pointed out to him that the colonisation of the British Isles after the LGM occurred ~14,000ybp and that the English ethnic group came into existence about 1,000ybp he always started insulting editors and making grand claims about chauvenism. No one here has ever denied that the recolonisation of northern western Europe from an Iberian refuge is a well accepted theory. But that's not relevant to English ethnic identity. Jan constantly commented on editors rather than content, made accusations regarding their motivations in ad hominem attacks, and routinely ignored the actual very real issues regarding ethnicity and identity. You might like to reconsider your own assumptions about the motivation of other editors. You could start by assuming good faith. That means that you could assume that contributors here are not being chauvinistic, or indeed ignoring any relevant theory about the colonisation of the British Isles. We are rather interested in English identity and not the origins of the peoples who colonised what became the British Isles some 11,000 years prior to that. We have absolutely no idea how these early colonisers identified, or saw themselves. I am absolutely sure that the people who lives in the Iberian LGM refuge did not speak Spanish and did not identify as Spanish. I'm also absolutely sure that the earliest colonisers of the British Isles also did not speak Spanish or English (or indeed Welsh or Gaelic) and did not identify as Spanish or English (or Welsh or Celtic or any similar modern social construction). Indeed the very idea of being Spanish is much more recent than even the idea of being English isn't it? Wasn't it Ferdinand and Isabella, by unifying the Crown of Aragon and the Crown of Castille by their marriage in 1469, who created the modern Spanish state? (see Spain). Whereas England was unified by Athelstan after the Battle of Brunanburg in 937. So the idea of an English identity actually existed some 530 years before the idea of a Spanish identity. Alun (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article should have been deleted a long while ago. It's not scientific or encyclopedic, and full of biased, useless trivia to boot. (78.145.119.166 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Ethnic Welsh women in the image
Elizabeth Tudor and Nell Gwyn are ethnically Welsh people, with Welsh surnames, who were born in England. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Florence Nightingale, Lady Jane Grey, Margaret Thatcher and Beatrix Potter are probably better represenative of actual English women. The infobox also lists the numbers of English people in disapora (especially in the colonies), Audrey Hepburn was born to an English father (she also attended school in Kent) and is descended from English royalty. Jayne Mansfield and Katharine Hepburn could also be described as ethnically English women. Of course we should not descend the article into Hitlerian ethnic puritanicalism, but two people whos surnames are so blatantly of an other British people (the Welsh) prob shouldn't be used. - Fishedgill (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth I had an English mother, and her father had an English mother. She was born and raised in England and self-identified - very strongly - as English. She was, in other words, English by any criteria. ðarkun coll 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right Thar. Who says that just because someone has a supposedly non-English surname they are not English? I've never heard that argument before, and I've heard some ripe ones. So is the claim that no one called Jones can ever consider themselves English? That doesn't make sense. Elizabeth Tudor obviously was English, she certainly had Welsh ancestors, but then that probably applies to a very large number of English people who remain unaware of their Welsh ancestry. But it's well known that Owain ap Maredudd deliberately anglicised his given name to Owen, and actually took an anglicised version of his grandfather's name as a surname. So he want from Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur (Owain son of Maredudd son of Tudur) to Owen Tudor. He was her great great great grandfather (if I've counted right), so it's a bit tenuous to claim her as Welsh. Alun (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about 'ethnic English', it is about British people born in England, no matter whether they are of 'Anglo-Saxon' descent, South Asian descent, Black or Irish!!! Also, Katherine Hepburn is NOT English, as she wasn't born in England, she is American through and through! She is categorised as English because her ancestors came from there many decades of not centuries ago! In the UK, you are English coz you are born there, not because you are descended from the original inhabitants who lived there before mass immigration! There is not such thing as an English identity, if it excludes Asian and Blacks!!!! Coz white English don't have a culture like Blacks and Asians do and no identity seperate from them. English people have Black culture with a bit of Asian! The white culture is European culture from France, Italy, Germany and Russia!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.107.81 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Utter tripe. I'm English, I'm a white European. If I was born in China - am I Chinese? Of course not. And I think you'll find most of these 'English' people that you claim to be English would not identify as English at all. Actually, a census records that most ethnic minorities prefer to call themselves 'British'. Why? because they recognise an indigineous English population. 80.195.146.94 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * England, Wales and Scotland have such mixed ancestory over the centuries its not as easy to tell as in china. Ofcourse the people shown in the image that people seem to have a problem with are not from a few decades ago so i fail to see how the point that TODAY ethnic minorities consider themselves British is a problem. We should only include people who clearly identitify themselves as English. If we want to include more people then the safest bet would be one that plays for an England team like football. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth I was one of the first English monarchs since King Harold to possess a sizeable amount of pre-Norman, English ancestry through her mother Anne Boleyn, whose actual surname was Bullen. Anne's father's paternal line was of Anglo-Saxon origin, and her mother's family, the Howards had remote Anglo-Saxon ancestry from a Hereward, who was the family's founder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

50%+
"Genetic studies have shown that the modern-day English gene pool contains more than 50% Germanic Y-chromosomes."

I don't see this information in the two citations given. What is the English gene pool? Does it include people who have emigrated into England during the last 500 years and consider themselves to be English? --PBS (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sentence has recently appeared in the England article as well. White43 (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added by user Poetaris on the 18th December, claiming it was a revert. White43 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what a "Germanic Y chromosome" is. I mean I did a degree in genetics and I don't remember any discussion of any sort of chromosome claiming national and/or linguistic status. I mean what next? A Frankish centromere? It's just nonsense, a reliable source is at least required, and I can't see any reliable source using a nonsense term like "Germanic Y chromosome". Alun (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess they mean y-chromosome most likely to have recently resided in the present day country of Germany. (MJDTed (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC))


 * There's the rub. The word "Germanic" is an ethno-linguistic word, it relates to people who speak Germanic languages. There are no genetic markers that are associated exclusively with any specific ethnic or linguistic group. Indeed the Y chromosome types (haplogroups) that occur in Germany are the same as those that occur all over Europe (primarily haplogroup I, haplogroup R1a and haplogroup R1b). Furthermore the frequencies of these types vary even within the populations that speak Germanic languages, showing the same clinal variation that they show throughout Europe, with R1b associated strongly with western Europe, I associated strongly with central Europe (never greater than 50%) and R1a associated strongly with eastern Europe. Because of the clinal nature of this variation, all of these types of chromosomes occur over the majority of Europe, but their frequencies vary by geography, and not by ethnic or linguistic group. We need to be careful when we edit about this sort of thing, it is all to easy inadvertantly to introduce a synthesis if we confuse ethnicity with genetics. Alun (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Islam and Hinduism is not a major religions amongst the English
Even though Islam and Hinduism is present in England in large numbers, it is not practised by ethnic English people but by British people of Middle Eastern and South Asian origin born in England. Even so, 3% and 4% is still a very small minority, Roman Catholicism with 14% percent would be a major religion, as that is practised by people who identify solely as English.

This article is about the English as group seperate from the Asian Britons or any other Britons. Being born in England does not include you in the 'ethnic' English group, especially if your cultural practises and beliefs are different from those particular and predominant in the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.107.81 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are major world religions. That's a fact, there are thousands if not millions of people living in the UK who practice these religions, a significant number of these people identify as English (as the article actually says, and that is cited form several reliable sources), live with it.
 * 2) Whether 3-4% is a very small minority is relative. 3-4% can, in some circumstances, actually represent a relative majority, that depends upon what one is measuring. For example if we measure actual attendance at a place of worship, then in the UK the numbers of people who weekly attend a Church is about the same as the number of people who weekly attend a Mosque. Besides 3-4% of ~50 million is a significant number (~1.5-2 million people).
 * 3) Who says this article is about "the English as group separate from the Asian Britons or any other Britons"? Obviously some Asian Britons will also identify as Asian English and some will not. The article does not make the claim you make, and as far as I can see on this talk page only you are making the claim. Can you find a reliable source that states that to be a Muslim, Hindu or Jew means that one can't be considered "ethnically English"? If you can, then feel free to add this to the article. But without a reliable source this remains simply your contention. Furthermore, even if such a source were forthcoming it would represent only one point of view of many. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote The Truth as it is espoused by any individual editor, or indeed any vested interest. We provide all reliable points of view. We already say in the article that many people of Indian or Pakistani descent identify as English, and are identified by others as English. We already say in the article that not all people think this is a valid point of view. But that is a separate question to the religious one. Currently you seem to be confused between ethnic identity and religious affiliation, they are not the same thing. Alun (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For PBS and other article hogs
You really spend a lot of time controlling the content of this page, I can see in the article history! Why not explain your actions of cybersquatting, removing other people's edits and always doggedly pushing your own?


 * After the Norman Conquest, the English Royal Family's only pre-1066 chosen English names given to male newborns, were Edward (for Edward the Confessor) and Edmund (for Edmund of East Anglia), but also Arthur (for King Arthur of Britain) and Brian (a common enough Celtic name) accounting for their Welsh connections. Otherwise, the majority of given names reflected those more popular throughout mediaeval Europe, whether Biblical (like John and Adam) or saints' of Classical origin (like Stephen and George) and especially Continental Germanic names (like William and Henry). The House of Beaufort became disconnected from the monarchy when the Tudors took over England (in the Beaufort name, no less) and have since diversified their naming convention for children, but the Tudors themselves did not change established practice upon assuming the throne, although their male line previously held to Welsh practice. These onomastics do not include any of the numerous Tudor heirs to the present, which show an expanded choice of names that don't adhere to old royal tradition. At present, general English male names do not on the whole, differ so much from the post-1066 mediaeval pattern, although Anglo-Saxon names such as Alfred and Albert are more common than they were, but so have the Norman names been stretched to include Charles and Lewis, while religious choices such as James and Alexander have become popular.

All right now, who other than the article hog PBS or perhaps the other cybersquatter Alun/Wobble, doesn't think the commentary is relevant to the nature of the heading, about the differences between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons and their Norman lords of the period? Surely, it is important to note how the royals didn't highly value Anglo-Saxon or Briton names, even when their subjects did? The subheading already discusses this division between the "French" and the "English"; perhaps the English subjects also only respected a reverse minority of French names, probably such as Robert (e.g. Bob) or William (Bill), but the commoners don't have this kind of public identity to critique so well with. The article section already mentions the disestablishment of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy and their being supplanted by apathetic foreigners. This is about the day to day cultural differences which you apparently cannot understand, or else you are just being difficult, because it is "your article". Fine, operate against Wikipedia rules and I'm just going to revert you anyways. Have fun trying to control cyberspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, where are the citations? 80.195.146.94 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to see some citations. I'd also like to understand how this text is supposed to be relevant to the article, the edit doesn't even attempt to establish the relevance of this information to the subject of the article. Are the names of pre and post conquest monarchs particularly relevant to English identity? Why are they? Who has said that they are? Provide the notable studies where this point of view is expressed. The names of pre- and post conquest monarchs might have some relevance in a study about any difference in how the monarchy/aristocracy perceived itself between these two periods. That might have some relevance to an article such as History of England or Kingdom of England, you'd still have to establish the reliability of that pov though. All in all it simply appears to be original research with a bit of soapboxing thrown in. Oh, and Brian is an Irish name and not a Welsh name, the Welsh name is Bryn. And it's really strange to claim that Arthur and Brian are "English" names, and then immediately contradict yourself by saying that they are Welsh. Alun (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

South America
Chile and Brazil, The given source does not say English it says British. is further is http://typepad.galeon.com/ a reliable source? No source if given for Argentina. As they are misleading should the entries be removed? --PBS (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Chileans do not make the pedantic distinctions between British and English as people do in the UK! The Scottish do not identify with Britain anyway! Where are the Union Flags in Scotland? Nowhere!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly I'd point out that it is exceedingly offensive to call people's sense of ethnicity and group identity "pedantic". If I were to say that "it is pedantic to say that Chileans are different to Spanish", then I'm sure any Chilean would take umbrage at that. Secondly this is about identity. Many English people may not identify as British. Many British people certainly don't identify as English. Thirdly I don't think anyone can claim that there are significant populations of English people in South America. Now there may well be a great many people who are English who live in South America, but then this applies to almost any region of the world. That's not what significant means. There is no significant cultural or ethnic relationship between England and South America, with the exception of Guyana which used to be British Guiana, and I'm not sure one can claim that with any great assurance. Alun (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Damon Albarn?
Why exactly does Damon Albarn represent musicians? why not say, John Lennon?, any other suggestions? Sir Richardson (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. For the one part, Albarn is an inlfuential and well respected musician for whom we have a decent head shot. His music is also notably English in a number of sense. Lennon has fairly immediate Welsh and Irish ancestry and also spent a long period of time living outside of England. That doesn't necessarily exclude him, as has been noted previously with ethnicity in this article, but if anything it would be the extended residence outside of England that would put me off. I do agree that we could find someone who has stood the test of time more than Albarn, as much as I like his work. We could include: Ringo Starr, Edward Elgar, Elton John, Charlie Chaplin, Sid Vicious? To keep it a relatively modern person, I suggest Elton or Sid. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I say we go for Sid personally. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go for Terence Stamp, Mick Jagger or Steve Harley of Cockney Rebel.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a little something
I noticed this line "The largest single English population reside in England, a constituent country of the United Kingdom"

isnt that stating the obvious a bit? You could say the largest population of americans live in america, and chinese people live in china... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.253.231 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. It sounds simple enough but if you think about it, thats not always the case. There are more people with Scottish ancestory, or Irish ancestory in the United States than in Scotland or Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the ip's point is that we don't call it a Scottish or Irish population in America. As you say they are from Scottish and Irish ancestory. The largest single English population do reside in England, which is indeed a bit obvious. Jack forbes (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is about English people not people who live in England. Im not fussed about the wording, just its not always as simple as the IP made out. You couldnt say the largest population of those who identify themselves as Scottish people is Scotland, because theres more in the USA. According to the Wales article (not sure if is accurate) but theres more Welsh people in England than in Wales. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry BW, I'm not really stalking you, they just happen to be on my watchlist. :) I still question the sentence as being a little irrelevent but I wont argue over the wording. Jack forbes (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * lol i agree with you on it being irrelevant on this page. I think weve agreed on 3 different things now in the past half an hour.. rather worrying :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's something strange going on here. Did you ever watch Tales of the unexpected? Wierd. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never saw that no. Im sure we can find something to disagree on later, but ill take a break for now. Is nice to leave on a positive note =) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good stuff! See you later. Jack forbes (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)