Talk:English people/Archive 6

Carleton S. Coon

 * The racial paradigm, which became rooted in physical anthropology at its very beginning, was, for decades, treated as a concept needing no verification. It was only in the mid-20th century that the first attempts were made to question the usefulness of the race concept in describing our species variation. Since then, an ever growing number of anthropologists, particularly in the United States, have rejected the concept (nearly seventy percent in 1999). From "Race"—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings; By Katarzyna A. Kaszycka and Jan Strziko, Institute of Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University, 61-701 Poznań, Poland: American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124 Abstract. Alun 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [Carleton S.] Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity. From “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races, By J.P.Jackson Jr, Department of Communication, Campus Box 270, University of Colorado: Journal of the History of Biology, Volume 34, Number 2, 2001, pp. 247-285(39). Abstract. Alun 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The following statement has been refactored per WP:RPA. Please read WP:NPA. SWAdair 10:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But what it doesn't say is whether this majority think that race exists as a biological phenomenon or a cultural/social one. I mean one can believe that race exists, but also understand that it has no biological basis. Maybe there is some bias against Coon, I don't know and care less, this is not the place for a discussion about him. If you want to discuss Coon in detail then I'd be happy to do it on my talk page. I simply make these points:


 * 1) Coon's views do not represent a consensus opinion in the field of Anthropology, therefore it is incorrect to make the claim that his theories are widely accepted or to use them as the basis for a wikipedia article.
 * 2) Coon's academic impartiality has been called into question, this means that he is a less than a reliable source.
 * 3) Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence.
 * 4) Coon was interested in race, this article is about ethnicity, I included definitions of these above so we can see that ethnic identity does indeed include social, cultural, linguistic and religious elements. None of the definitions state that descent is more important than the other elements, and several maintain that descent includes percieved or a subjective view of descent.

None of this is really serving to improve the article. I suggest we stick to proposals regarding the article. Alun 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wobble, both race and descent (ancestry, presumed and/or actual common origins) are part of ethnicity. This is shown in some of the examples in the internet links you provided above, but also on the ethnic group and race article. "Race" and "ethnic group" are related concepts that also differ. This article seems to be really confused as to whether it means English people in the ethnic/cultural/racial sense or English in the national/political sense (it currently is both I guess). I'd suggest you split it into two articles, with one as English people (ethnic group) and the other as people of England (nationality) or simply include that part into demographics of England. This article gives the wrong impression in many areas and there appears to be a bias and un-resolved POV issue in many sections. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming that  a percieved common ancestry is not a part of ethnicity. What I am saying is the same as you, that it is just a part of it, other users have claimed that we should correlate ethnic identity exclusively with descent, this is why the definitions are there. Alun 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about your suggestion regarding spliting the article into two. It might not be a bad idea. What areas do you think display bias and unresolved POVs? I think you are right, the article doesn't really know what it wants to be. I would like to remove all of the migrationist/genetic material. I think we should have a seperate article specifically dealing with various theories regarding migration to the British and Irish Isles before say 1066. We could then include all material relevant to this. I'm currently reading The Origins of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer and it's very good, it is well written and is impeccably sourced. This is the sort of information that could be used for a good article about who the various populations of the British and Irish Isles are descended from, he also sites many of the original research papers used here. There's also Barry Cunliffe's Britain BC and Britain AD for a more archaeological point of view. We could include all of the various invasionist theories and all of the cultural diffusionist theories, include the various interpretations of the genetic evidence etc. Much of this same information could then be removed from Anglo-Saxons and Welsh people etc. What do you think? Alun 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence."

According to some Wobble, possibly, but then again they've never really been closely analyzed or refuted by anyone with any opposing information or similar work on the subject matter. I can understand why the Anon. would imply that there has been a bias against Coon because there is great divergence across disciplines with regards to race. Social scientists such as those in cultural anthropology, especially in the US, have shown to have a systemic bias on the issue mainly because of socio-political sensitivities or ideological viewpoints on race. Whether or not they match with what has been seen so far from studies in population genetics has also not been documented either, so you can not claim otherwise. From the data I've personally read so far and from what I've read of Coon's works on the internet, there is some striking similarities with studies, especially in his physiologically-based 5-race model (Caucasoid, Negroid, Capoid, Australoid, Mongoloid) since according to Cavalli-Sforza these groups have the greatest genetic differences between each other. I also think you should compare Britain (in the top left corner) in these maps  (1939) of Coon's with this one based on Y-chromosome analysis (2003-2004). I find it it really interesting in Coon's analysis of skin pigmentation and racial classification (based on other parts of appearance) follow a similar pattern to the Y-chromosome map. Coon found that Ireland had the greatest amount of Upper Paleolithic stock, especially in the west, which coincides with Y-chromosome analysis confirming the same thing. He also noted that Germanic-dervied (combined Anglo-Saxon/Danish) "Nordic" stock was strongest in England, especially in the east, which is again in line with the Y-chromosome study. Analyze the maps in your own manner (Epf in particular should check it), but the similar patterns are very interesting given Coon made his findings based entirely on skeletal material nearly 70 years ago. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Coons was a racist segregationist, my link shows that he compromised his academic principles to support segregationism. Coons observations regarding the distributions of human phenotypes may have been detailed and may well be similar to genetic analysis that has been done recently. There is one major difference though. That is that coons was a racist and apparently a white supremacist who claimed seperate speciation events from Homo erectus for all so called human races, with a particularly special descent for Europeans (yeah very objective that one) this multi regional hypothesis is rejected by the vast majority of modern scientists, with a tiny minority of vested interests still clinging on to it. Humans have a very recent common African origin, all impartial genetic analysis claims so. "All of these findings, which are in accord with many other studies based on different types of genetic variation assessed in different samples of humans, support an evolutionary scenario in which anatomically modern humans evolved first in Africa, accumilating genetic diversity. A small subset of the African population then left the continent, probably experienced a population bottleneck and founded anatomically modern human populations in the rest of the world. Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin." This is from Nature Genetics a highly prestigious peer reviewed journal with excellent accademic credentials. Certain editors seem to have a vested interest in distorting the current state of scientific debate by introducing discredited and racialist material that is not accepted by the vast majority of modern scientific opinion. Coons may have well done excellent work at pinpointing the areas of greatest diversity, but he was dead wrong with his conclusions, and his discredited ideas about the different origins of human populations should not be peddled as anything other than contrary to the current scientific consensus. Alun 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever his viewpoints on segregation, his data collected is unrivalled in the world of anthropology and his findings are quite remarkable when compared with the genetic data of today. Many of his conclusions were correct and are supported by many genetic studies, including that done by Cavalli-Sforza. It seems certain editors like yourself in turn have their own vested interest in destroying current scientific fact and corrutping it to support their own ideology of race-denial. Many of his theories have by no means been widely discredited, only by a certain few with political and ideological snesitivities to the subject of race, especially the American Anthropologists Association. That genetic data on the "recent" common ancestor (if you consdier 100,000 - 80,000 years ago recent) does nothing to discredit much of Coons findings. Even if he was wrong about the multi-origin hypothesis (still held by many academics, despite your assertions to the contrary), his findings on the partial origins to archaic human species in modern European and Asian populations is finding increasing genetic evidence to back it up. Coon's own extensive skeletal material showed evidence of similarities between modern European and Asian skulls and those of Neanderthal and Asian Homo Erectus. You are dismissing his finding too rashly, largely because your own opinions are similar to those of many of the cultural anthropologists (especially in the US) who reject Coon's work without question or any analysis of it whatsoever. This is not only ignorant, its unscientific. All facts and amterial should be considered, especially when this anthropolgical evidence coincides with modern genetic studies and in turn can give us greater understanding on the origin of races. No matter how you try to downplay it, Coon's work will always be very influential because nothing even close to its detail has ever been compiled. He never admitted to being a white supremist and never advocated anything of the likes, although is ideas on segregation were maybe a little far-fetched to say the least (although some of it did have some validation in the sense of the preservation of diverse racial features). 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems certain editors like yourself in turn have their own vested interest in destroying current scientific fact and corrutping it to support their own ideology of race-denial.
 * First, if I wanted to introduce my own political biased POV into wikipedia I would do it anonymously (oh, like you), but I always use my user account, this makes me completely accountable for all of my edits. Anyone can check my edit history at any time, I never edit without logging in. Secondly if I had a vested interest I would have edited the pages concerned, but in fact I have never edited any page to do with human evolution or to do with Coons, anyone can check this if they like. So your accusations are groundless. I am a scientist, I know what the current consensus is in the field of genetics, the out of Africa model is the consensus. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Only someone with absolutely no understanding of correct scientific method could think that such a thing exists. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of his theories have by no means been widely discredited,
 * Ah the old weasel words trick, how many? which ones? care to name them? Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That genetic data on the "recent" common ancestor (if you consdier 100,000 - 80,000 years ago recent) does nothing to discredit much of Coons findings.
 * Did anyone say that they did? I just said that it discredits the multi-origin theory, that's all. Don't put words into my mouth. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * multi-origin hypothesis (still held by many academics, despite your assertions to the contrary)
 * I never asserted the contrary. I said the scientific consensus doesn't support it, even a tiny minority may still be many (after all many is a non-specific quantity that depends on context, sometimes one is many). This is what the another Nature article says: A few researchers still support a version of the 'multiregional' hypothesis.....But most now espouse a version of the 'out of Africa' model. Out of Ethiopia Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * anthropolgical evidence coincides with modern genetic studies and in turn can give us greater understanding on the origin of races.
 * I never said his work was bad, I just said that his conclusions are wrong. He obviously thought the physical differences between human populations represented bigger differences that they actually do. This may have been an honest mistake, fair enough. Anyone who disputes the out of Africa model is is the minority now, like it or not it is not me who is distorting science here. Even the Carleton S. Coon article states that he special pleaded for white people Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans. He believed "The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size." and "the negro group probably evolved parallel to the white strain" (The Races of Europe, Chapter II). I have never edited this page, but it's clear that he was implying that somehow white people were special and somehow different from other humans. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the English people article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):


 * Broad range of subtopics; some subtopics received slightly scant coverage.
 * Some sections have excellent cite/reference, others not so good.
 * POV problems; page locked.
 * This article could be class=A without a huge amount of additional work.

You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.


 * -->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner Ethnic groups that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the Ethnic groups template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I've downgraded protection to s-protection, so I really hope you guys have calmed down now. Yesterday was your only collective pass and if I see anymore 3RR violations, personal attacks etc., I will start blocking. If one of you guys has a spare minute, could you please archive this page? I would like it archived so everyone can start with a clean and equal slate and I think getting rid of these rants and personal attacks would be a good start. I'll come back and do it tomorrow if no one wants to do it in the meanwhile. Thanks, --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal
The contributions to and contributions from sections in the infobox were never intended to reflect ethnic groups per se. They were intended to reflect societies/communities that contributed to or had contributions from English people. It was a deliberate tactic to avoid the ethnic tag. Having thought about it a bit, it seems to me that essentially the Contributions to section simply repeats the Regions with significant populations section. So I am revising my position and am now happy to dispense with the Contributions to section. Having said that, I am concerned about the numbers of people given in the Regions with significant populations section of the infobox. These essentially reflect people declaring English ancestry in censuses from the states that are included (rather than English ethnicity). So my compromise would result in the inclusion of the political entities mentioned, but with removal of the numbers stated (as with religions). I think these numbers can be reasonably included in the footnotes, with a statement to the effect that it is just not known whether the people that responded consider themselves ethnically English or whether they consider themselves of some other ethnicity, but that it is assumed that many of these people actually do consider themselves ethnically Engish, which is why they saw fit to include English ancestry in their census returns. Anyone who wants to find out more information need only refer to the footnote anyway. I'd like to get a consensus on this so we can get the page unprotected. It is reasonable that we all make compromises here. None of us is ever 100% correct, and we all have points of view. In the text of an article we can give all points of view, and therefore have a ballanced and neutral article. It is more difficult with an infobox, because information is either included or excluded, we cannot readily apply provisos. So I'd appreciate some cooperation here, especially from Epf and the previous anonymous user, as these people seem to be the ones who most disagree with this section. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

American/Canadian ethnicity
This thorny subject seems to be one which is not relevant to this article. So I suggest we do not attemt to broach it here again. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers ! 69.157.117.116 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comma-splice
This passage is three separate sentences joined together with commas without any subordination; there needs to be some structuring: AnonMoos 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is now thought that the situation was far more complex, some archaeologists also see only limited evidence of immigration in the record, Francis Pryor writes I also can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."

R1b percentages are wrong
it says r1b averages 70% in England, most genetic studies have found it to average 65% in england, brian sykes book blood of the isles used 10,000 people from britain and he claims that england averages 64% r1b, scotland 75% and wales 83%.--Globe01 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephen Oppenheimer claims R1b is 60-75% in England. It's not uniformly distributed though, so the figure is somewhat missleading. I'm still reading his book The Origins of the British IMHO a far superior book to Sykes's, he has a very comprehensive list of sources and citations. He he says none of the samples taken by Capelli has fewer than 58% Iberian types. Or put another way he claims that there is a 15-42% male intrusion (average 30%) from Northern Europe into England since the last Ice Age (10,000 years ago), this fits with the 70% figure. England is far more heterogeneous in it's genetic composition than Wales and Scotland. Possibly we should reflect this in the article. Or we could also cite Sykes and Oppenheimer and put the 65% and the 70% figures in. Alun 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Alun, in favour of Dr. Sykes I should say that while Oppenheimer worked only on samples obtained by other geneticists, Sykes, apart form using also those samples, used his own samples, in fact more than 10.000 samples collected over a period of several years and thousands of miles all across the British Isles, in the largest sample collection undertaken yet. In any case, although with differences as to the time-frame in which the Iberian influence was largest (both speak of different migration waves from Iberia over thousands of years)both come to the same conclusion: Most English people and most Britons descend from the Iberian Peninsula. Veritas et Severitas 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm, they seem to be stretching these haplotype figures a bit much if thats what they're saying, So what if r1b averages 80% in the British Isles and 89-95%% amongst Basques, this does not mean all 80% of the r1b in The British Isles came from the Basque Country, it could have come from anywhere in Europe, r1b is about 50% in the Netherlands, im sure a good proportion of r1b in England comes from the Netherlands with peoples such as the Belgae tribe or anglo saxons. Of course England has other sources for r1b as r1b is 70% there and it is likely that a percentage of the r1b in England arrived before the neolithc and before the iron age.

I have only read Sykes's book [Blood of The Isles] and it was very simplistic and didnt really go into depth enough to support the hypothesis being made. There was no detailed data of haplotype sublineages to give a more accurate story just nicknames for genetic markers such as the oisin clan for genetic marker r1b.

I will have to read Stephen Oppheimers Origins of the British to see if that contains any more useful and conclusional data. No doubt the Basques and people from the British Isles are genetically similar (especially the Welsh and Irish) on the Y-chromosomes at quite a high resolution haplotype map but there is still margin for error unless haplotype maps of higher resolution are created showing yet more sublineages of genetic markers. I suppose its still acceptable to include these geneticists veiws. Im only worried that conclusions made to soon that seem perhaps far fetched that turn out to be wrong could cause people to loose faith in the science of genetics and dismiss it as false in future which would be a shame as its a pretty powerful tool for fighting racism.--Globe01 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might have a good point, but I suppose we need to include the relevant POVs anyway. No one seems to be saying this is wrong as far as I'm aware. Oppenheimer has very detailed maps for sub-groups of R1b to the extent that he shows where the various colonisations of the British Isles occured and when. I think we need a seperate article for this information, something relating to prehistoric populating of the British and Irish Isles, I'm not sure this genetic info fits well on the ethnic group pages and we could include all of this info on a single page, maybe spit a bit off from the Immigration to the United Kingdom article. It seems to me that prehistoric migrations to the Islands do not conform to modern social or political boundaries, these prehistoric settlers knew nothing of Welsh people, English people or Scottish people. It could be argued thet English people (ethnic identity) originated at the time of the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion or indeed later during the time of Alfred through to Athelstan, when these people actually cane together as a unified group. So there is an argument that the article should reflect this more than anything else. This is not to say that these data should be completelly ignored, but we could refer to the "prehistoric migrations" article and include a short section here from that article. Much of the data are replicated here and at Welsh people. I don't edit the Scottish people article so I don't know about that. Alun 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway heres an interesting diagram data showing the genetic distances of populations within the UK and their distance from Basques, north Germans and Danes on the Y-chromosome.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_udi=B6VRT-48PV5SH-12&_image=fig3&_ba=3&_coverDate=05%2F27%2F2003&_alid=339895807&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6243&_qd=1&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=298af546d052683da43420d605615408

I think this could be suitable for now to go in all the british peoples articles and Irish people. Its up to date and reflects current scientific thinking. I also see nothing wrong in stating that 2 groups are genetically similar at all but to make conclusions that group a is descended from group b etc going purely on genetic similarities is wrong. Other evidence needs to be mentioned to support such hypothesises. --Globe01 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I may agree with you, and believe it or not, I am also quite cautious about these things. But we are supposed to add all points of view of authorities in the field, especially if they are among the latest publications. Our points of view are of course interesting for the discussion page, but our points of view are not valid for the body of the article. We must be careful with this. Self-research is not acceptable in Wiki. By the way, Sykes has the detailed data of his research available in internet. Just look in the book and it refers you to it. Anyway, they are analyzing Rb1 finer and finer now and I guess we are in the process of getting more and more detailed information. There are subgroups called R1b1c6, R1b1c7 etc. Veritas et Severitas 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it seems that we have another author that has now written a book arriving at the same conclusions: Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project, by Spencer Wells

It seems that authors are piling up on the same theory and they all happen to be British or American. Veritas et Severitas 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

=Okay so you make believe scientists that likely never studies science decide to take down things when both sides of a scientific argument are presented with citations? That's not very wiki of you. This is what adds to people not trusting this thing. Just let people see that it is, as the discussion above reflects, something that is being debated. People who are interested will read and make their own determinations. Some will also come to the page and read your discussion, that I am sure will leave its own impressions.

POV tag
I have removed this tag which has been in place since the summer. There is no debate going on here over what it means and I suggest its just a hangover from an earlier time. If anyone objects replace it and state your reasons here. Lumos3 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that we now have more authors coming to the same conclusion about the genetics of the British Isles, anyway i am in agreement wiht you now, there is nothing wrong in citing evidence from books written by respected geneticists.--Globe01 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobble's Reverts
About this text:

Nevertheless, a genetic research on European Population Substructure states:

Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group. English is included in "northern" European population group. [25]

1) He claimed irrelevancy first while relevancy was obvious from this line:

"English is included in "northern" European population group. "

2) Now he's saying "This section is about the origins of the English". The link between origin of people and genetic data should have been quite easy to understand.

3) The text also answers to previous claims about most English are descandents of Iberian People. It's important to note that English today isnt in same population group with modern Iberians. So the text has double relevancy as it answers previous claims in the section. I think all these should have been very easy to understand. Lukas19 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wobble for his reasons and for this additional reason: this text is far too techinical for inclusion here. This would be better placed in an article specifically on European Genetics.  So the study concludes "English is in the "norther" European population group...so what?  It doesn't tell us anything that isn't already in the article.--WilliamThweatt 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat myself: "The text also answers to previous claims about most English being descandents of Iberian People. It's important to note that English today isnt in same population group with modern Iberians." Lukas19 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All western Europeans are the descendants of people from three Ice Age refuges, with an additional Neolithic component. No genetic study about the origins of the English disputes this. Indeed the R1b haplogroup is the most common all over Northern Europe. European men overwhelmingly have R1b, I or R1a haplotypes, which roughly correspond to the Iberian (more accurately Basque), the Balkan and Ukranian Ice age refuges. There was a Neolithic expansion out of the Near East that is more prominent in the south and the east of Europe. Not only does your paper express no opinion whatsoever as to the origins of the English, the quote you put in the article is also irrelevant. This information tells us nothing about the origins of the English. This information simply tells us that it is possible to draw an arbitrary line through the middle of Europe and show that people to the south of this line are more similar to each other than they are to people to the north of this line, and vice versa. This tells us nothing about the origins of the English. Furthermore due to the clinal nature of human geographical genetic variation it would be just as easy to draw a vertical line through the centre of Europe and show that eastern Europeans are similar to each other and western Europeans likewise. The data that are used in this test are not even English, they are from the UK, and therefore include people from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, all mixed together. This quote "Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group." has got nothing to do with origins, where does it mention either English people or their origins? It doesnt even say that southern Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to northern Europeans, though this is one of the inferences one can draw from it. Arbitrarily grouping geographically distributed polymorphisms into artificial "populations" and then using a limited sample of genetic material to show that some groups are more similar to each other than they are to other groups doesn't prove anything about relatedness or origins. When we talk about origins we need to use scientific and genetic data that are specifically about the genetic history of a group of people. At best this is just Thulean/Lucas19's opinion, at worst it is original research. Indeed the only reference I can find to any genetic analysis regarding perhistory and origins in the article is this "It is interesting to speculate how the ability to distinguish northern and southern European populations relates to ancient as well as more modern differences in migration and admixture patterns. Archeological and skeletal evidence as well as studies of mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups have provided evidence of upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, and more recent settlement and migrations as contributing to the origin of current European populations [12–18,22,49–52]. Phylogenetic analyses of Y haplotypic groups are interpreted to support both separate migrations from the Middle East 4,000 to 7,000 y ago as well as a more recent “Greek” expansion into Italy and the Iberian peninsula occurring closer to 2,500 y ago [16,18]. The earlier migrations would be consistent with waves spreading agricultural techniques from the Middle East and are supported by some mitochondrial DNA studies [13]. However, there is little consensus concerning the association of any of these migrations with agricultural techniques or trading routes [50,51], or for that matter with the spread of Indo-European languages [22,51,53]. Some studies of specific mitochondrial and Y haplogroups [53] are consistent with the demic diffusion hypothesis suggested by Cavali-Sforza et al. [22], and the work of Sokal et al. [54] and others have provided evidence of different patterns of repopulation from glacial refuges or have suggested a later influence from North Africa in both Italy and Spain [14,15,18]. As recently discussed by Barbujani and Chikhi, the origin(s) of modern European ancestors remains a controversial issue [55]. Other major population events, including the multiple epidemics during the Middle Ages, may also have resulted in genetic bottlenecks contributing to current differences in European population structure." But this mainly concerns the more recent population events that are not concerned with England. In conclusion, not only does this article no actually mention England at all, but it has nothing to say about the origins of the English. It is incorrect to imply that what applies to two general and very large pooled samples from large geographical areas of "northern and southern Europe" can equally be applied to more specific regional populations like England and the Basque country. Alun 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun the majority of people in northern europe are not R1b, sweden is 15% r1b, norway 30% r1b and even denmark combined with germany acording to cavilli's data is 40% r1b. The netherlands and belgium are above 50% r1b though. Having said that spain is 69% r1b (southern europe) portugal is of a similar percentage and france is 55% r1b. So it appears that r1b is of a west european distribuition peaking in the basque country of northern spain and southern france (95%) and northwestern ireland (98.5%). England is 70% r1b. The whole Iberian connection is acceptable as long as the emphasis is made on ancient iberians, basques and perhaps an article about there being a slim amount of neolithic input into england? Someone has also vandalized the english people descent section, someone revert the article please.--Globe01 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct R1b is an Atlantic group not a northern one, this was just a mistake, the paper Thulean/Lucas was using was about Northern Europeans and I suppose I was thinking about that. Anyway this article is not about Swedish people, Norwegian people, Danish people, Belgium people or people from the Netherlands. But it's worth looking at this world haplogroups map, R1b is vey dominant, even in Germany, it may not be in a majority, but it's still the single biggest group as far as I can see, and British men are very different to Scandinavians. English people, and British people are descended from paleolithic people from an Ice Age refuge in the Basque country. Are you disputing this? This is what Thulean/Lucas is disputing. His data are not relevant to this article, they make no mention of English people, they refer to Norther European people and Southern European people, they make little reference to origins, and when they do it is primarily to the neolithic. Thulean/Lucas's edit does not belong here. I suspect that he wants to introduce some concept regarding Nordic theory here, as it seems to be one of his favourite articles, and these data could be used to support such a theory. The R1b data clearly show that English people are mainly of Iberian origin, I know of no study that disputes this. There is also some Balkan refuge herritage in England that may be absent in other regions of the British and Irish Isles, according to Stephen Oppenheimer. There is a Neolithic component to the British population that is smaller than it is in mainland Europe, but still exists. The Y chromosome haplogroup maps also clearly show that there are east-west genetic clines in Europe as well as north south clines, andl also show the artificial nature of clustering large geographic areas into "populations", the genes are clinally distributed, not distributed in discrete populations as the paper cited by Thulean/Lukas would have it. Indeed one can take any geographical region (Wales or England or the British and Irish Isles or Northern Europe or Western Europe) and "prove" that the population is genetically "different" to other regions. It is not a matter of dispute that in general people are geneticaly more similar to those in close geographical proximity to them than to those at a distant geographical proximity. What is in dispute is whether these "populations" (or "races" if you will) are real or artificial biological constructs. I think the other point to make is that England itself displays much more genetic heterogeneity than other regions of the British and Irish Isles, possibly due to its greter area, but there are visible genetic clines even in England. It may be somewhat artificial to give only an absolute figure for the R1b haplotype frequency for England as a whole. It might be better to state that it is heterogeneously distributed in England and give the highest and lowest proportions and state the locations where these proportions occur, and then also give an absolute figure as well. Something like this for R1b, Cornwall 80%, York 57%, Norfolk 60% We may need a cite for the whole of England, I think you have been concerned about this figure in the past? They don't give one in the above map. I'll see if Oppenheimer gives a figure. Unfortunately Sykes for some strange reason doesn't use standard terminology in his book. Alun 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my point when I edited the article. To highlight that Iberian connection is ancient. Lukas19 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

English are not a Germanic people
This article is included in the category Germanic peoples although very few English would describe themselves as Germanic. (No source is given for the claim). I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic". That claim is typically associated with neo-nazi groups, and that seems to be the case in England too.Paul111 11:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if the category is for people who speak germanic languages, then I don't see the problem, but we should also include Scottish people, Irish people and Welsh people in that case. I suppose it depends what the category is for, if it's a lingustic category then no problem. If it's an ethnic or racial category then it is a problem, I agree. Alun 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * English(ethnically) people are germanic, their technical term is Anglo- Saxon, and the angles and Saxons are from GERMANY and surrounding areas! even though most english people whouldn't say they are a germanic peoples, they have to pretty much accept they are since english or Anglo saoxns are germanic! Australian Jezza 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Australian Jezza (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * English people are ethnically English and ethnically British, not ethnically German. English is a Germanic language, that does not make English people ethnically German. German people are ethnically German, English people are ethnically English. By your logic then Swedish people and Norwegian people are also ethnically German, and so are French people because of the Franks. Makes no sense to me. A group's ethnicity is defined by the group, not by the putative origins of the group. Alun 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

British isn't an ethnicity it is a nationality, german and germanic are two different things. Norwegian, swedish and French are GERMANIC not GERMAN. considering i didn't say we are german. All GERMANIC peoples originated from areas in current day germany, i said germany because that is where Saxony was, IN GERMANY. English, Icelandic, dutch, Frisian, Swedish, Norwegian, French, Danish, Faroese peoples and etc. are all realted ethnicities because they originated from places in Germany and surrounding areas. Just like Filipino, Malaysian and Indonesian people, most of their ethnicities( the austronesian ones), are related because they all originated from one known or thought to be known place, Taiwan. Australian Jezza 03:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * British isn't an ethnicity it is a nationality
 * Is there much of a difference? I don't think so, nationality is just a form of ethnicity. My understanding is that nations tend to be associated with specific geographic areas and are generally somewhat larger than ethnic groups, but the difference between a nation and an ethnic group is rather small. The claim that there is no such think as a British ethnicity has been made before, but I think it is simply an opinion held by certain people. There are many people in the world who do actually identify as ethnically British (I am one of them), our existence shows clearly that British ethnicity does exist, like it or not. Alun 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

nationality and ethnicity are different the meanings in the dictionary are different, for example for me I cannot be ethnically 'australian' unless I am an aboriginal, but my nationality can be australian no matter what my ethnicity the same can go for being british you can't be called british unless you are a citizen of Great Britain, butto be called english you hve to be living in england (but then again people would the go agian by their ethnicity) but to be ethnically english you have to have english background. I don't call myself british even though i am PART scottish and English i call my self seperately... here are the definitions of nationality, ethnicity, and british

nationality nationality [náshə nálləti] (plural nationalities) noun 1. citizenship of particular nation: the status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization 2. people forming nation-state: a people with a common tradition, and often language, who form or are capable of forming a nation-state 3. ethnic group within larger entity: an ethnic group that is part of a larger entity such as a state 4. nationhood: political independence as a separate nation 5. national character: the character of a nation of people

ethnicity ethnicity [eth níssəti] (plural ethnicities) noun ethnic affiliation: ethnic affiliation or distinctiveness

British British [bríttish] plural noun people of United Kingdom: the people living within United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland noun 1. language Same as British English 2. language of ancient Britons: the language spoken by the ancient Celtic people who lived in southern Britain  Australian Jezza 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nationality means the same as citizenship, you are thinking of this. I was thinking the British being a nation. Nationality is different to nation, which is a similar concept to ethnic group. Indeed British is not a nationality, a person can be a British citizen, but this is simply the legal relationship between a person and their state of origin. See the Wikipedia article Nation: Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.. Whereas the Wikipedia ethnic group article states An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1987). The concepts of nation and is different to citizenship in the sense of nationality: (Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty.) Find a deffinition of nation and it will not support your claim. Alun 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

please tell me how nation and nationality are not 'related' words.... considering nationality has the base word of NATION... also in your ethnic group section above you are backing up my argument, nationality is sort of the same concept BUT the words  MEAN different things, this is my point.


 * All GERMANIC peoples originated from areas in current day germany, i said germany because that is where Saxony was, IN GERMANY.
 * Actually all Germanic peoples are believed to have originated in present day Germany, and one has to be careful about what one is talking about. Modern day English people are at least as much descended from the ancient Britons as from putative invading Angles, Saxons and Jutes, if not more descended from ancient Britons. English people speak a Germanic language, much of their ancient culture (at least in parts of England) was related to that of ancient North Sea peoples, they had the same gods as these North Sea tribes, (Woden/Odin etc.) So no one disputes that there were ancient cultural, social and certainly biological ties between all the peopes of the North Sea region. But this article is not about Angles, Saxons or Jutes, it is not about Anglo-Saxons, it is about English people. What is not established is to what extent there was an Angle, Saxon and Jute invasion or what extent there was a replacement of people. It is also somewhat irrelevant to this article. This article is about English people, the English became a people, a nation at about the time of Alfred-Athelstan, late 9th Century-early tenth century. Before this there was no English people, there were Mericans and Northumbrians and Wessexians and Kentish men etc, there had been attempts to manufacture an English identity, but the real impetus for the creation of an English nation/ethnic group were the Norse/Danish attacks. It seems to me that the argument that British people are not an ethnic group but a nation could equally be applied to English people. English ethnicity is as artificial an entity as British ethnicity, both were formed due to political considerations, the only difference is that English ethnic identity is 1000 years old and British ethnic identity is only about 400 years old. So what are you talking about when you claim that English people are a Germanic people? Do you mean that in the modsern world there is a pan-Germanic ethnic identity? I don't think that many English people would support the idea that they are of Germanic ethnicity. English people identify as English and British, ethnicity is about how people identify themselves, oe how they are identified by others, it is not about their putative origins. If you want to claim that the English are in part descended from people who would have considered themselves Germanic, then I think this is spot on. It really does depend on context as much as anything else. Alun 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

thats what have been trying to say.... but you just confuse me and everyone... but even if we don't support that we are of germanic desecnt, you cannot change or deny the truth british cannot be an ethnicity because within britain there is more than one ethnicity, same goes for many other countires, like France, Spain. But how can the mentioning of the Angles, the Saxons and especially the jutes (considering i didn't even mention them) when the proper term for the english is 'anglo- Saxon' Australian Jezza 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also i would say that we are more desendance from the Angles, the saxons and the jutes, than ancient britons, mainly because of facial features, hair colour (germanic peoples {scandinaians, germans, dutch etc.} generally have blonde, light brown or dark brown hair, while i think the britons had red hair (which very few english people have while more scottish people would..), also (this is hard to explain) alot of scandinavian and germans, french and dutch people look 'english' as in if they didn't tell you that they were of their respective ethnicities or nationalities. i still believe that we are desencdance of britons, but we have more germanic blood in us.Australian Jezza 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The_English_people_and_language_are_Romance


The picture should combine Latin and French as Romance languages, just as is done for Germanic languages. It is quite clear that the English language is more influenced by the Greco-Roman Britannia than the Barbarian England. Explain the presence of Greek Ss. George and Andrew in England and Scotland, rather than some other sort of patron. Who can forget the Roman heritage of Ireland's St. Patrick, or Wales's St. David? On the whole, I would say that Anglophonic culture is a more northerly version of the Francophone. That would make us an extension of Mediterranean Europe, just as in the time of King Arthur and Old King Cole. There is nothing comparable in the truly Teutonic countries, where they have a mere culturally imperialistic accumulation of our Classical heritage and not the other way around. The British Isles are more Roman Catholic (and Liturgical, as opposed to Evangelical) in attitude than any truly Germanic nation, including the region of Bavaria or Austria and German speaking Switzerland. Even Mediaeval England (Angleterre) was more Romance than the Holy Roman Empire, which is evidenced in our culture then and now. Even in Offa of Mercia, Alfred the Great or Ethelred the Unready's era, the essence of English culture and ways was decidedly Mediterranean in rejection of the Nordic. England, as in France, was Roman Catholic when Arianism spread like a virus throughout the Germanic world. No Germanic Protestant nation would have founded the United States, a Neoclassical older brother of Napoleonic France--completely rife with Greco-Roman revivals. Does anybody remember the importation of a Germanic Protestant political establishment in the British Isles, from Cranmer and Knox at the expense of native Roman Catholics? America is stereotyped as Protestant and "Nordic", but we are just the opposite. Our country's name (America, Amerigo Vespucci), federal district's name (Columbia, Christopher Columbus), major political parties (Democrat of Greece, Republican of Rome) and government architecture are all Mediterranean. The Federal Government was built on the soil of a Catholic colony (Maryland), although once holding some land of another Anglican colony (Virginia). Even the term "Anglican" is Latin. If we were so Teutonic, our culture would be like Iceland and it is assuredly not. To counter these assertions, you will have to explain the nonexistance of Germanic first names in my family--apart from Norman origins of course. Explain the multitudes of Greek, Romance, Biblical and Celtic names--but lack of others. In World War Two, England had Fascists like Italy or Spain and not National Socialists like Germany or Austria. If we are not Latin, then explain our preference for "Cool Britannia" or "Rule Britannia" instead of some Teutonic equivalent... Rhode Islander 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd thought I'd note that the Pie chart there is only one interpretation or viewpoint of linguists. Several, if not most, disagree as is shown on the English language article. Also, is that chart regarding Syntax or Vocabulary ? The English language was formed from the Old English language, a clearly Germanic language, and yet received further significant Germanic influences from Old Norse and even the Norman language that was brought over in 1066, which was an Oil language that had Germanic influences itself from Old Norse. Epf 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

English is the most 'romancised' (my term for being influenced by romance languages) of germanic languages, and french is the most 'germanicised' (my term for being influenced by germanic languages) of Romance languages, i found this out on a website as i was browsing for swedish words haha, also cool is a germanic word Australian Jezza 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

--

You certainly have a point in what you say. Still, English is a Germanic language:

1. Vocabulary: It is true that more than half of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin, but we have the following situation:

a) Concrete, shorter words and more everyday words tend to be more Germanic:

English: House, man, father, mother. German: Haus, Mann, Vater, Mutter.

Anglo-Saxon was even closer to languages like German in vocabulary and inflexion: German Maedchen. Anglo-Saxon: Maegden. English girl.

b) Abstract nouns are usually of Latin origin: Imagination, limitation, inspection and a long etc. They are written the same in French. In spanish: imaginacion, limitacion, inspeccion. Italian: imaginazione, limitazione, inspezzione. Portuguese: imaginacao, limitacao, inspecao. (well more or less, I do not have all the simbols at hand).

In this respect English is both a Germanic and a Latin language.

But then we have two other important factors: Grammar and Phonology-Phonetics. The English grammar and phonologic-phonetic system is Germanic, not Latin.

In short, English is a Germanic language with a huge Latin influence that does not exist in other Germanic languages in the same degree.

Something different is the concept of race and other cultural influences.

1. In relation to culture, all European nations have been fundamentally influenced by Greece and Rome. Greece and Rome, along Judeo-Christianity are the pillars of European civilization.

2. In relation to race or shared ancestry, the picture is much more complicated, and this aspect certainly does not overlap with linguistic areas Veritas et Severitas 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this calm and well composed response. I understand what you are saying and more or less, I am attempting to describe how there is undue weight given to the Nordic aspect of Anglia.  Too often, the Mediterranean majority of the British Isles is overlooked or made to feel ashamed of their Classical heritage.  I encounter a LOT of Mediterranean looking women from England, whether in person or in film.  My paternal grandmother's mother's family is from the West Country and she looks Spanish, Occitanian or Italian.  My mother's paternal and maternal families are from the West Country and they look similar.  My dad's maternal uncle looks like Jean-Marie Le Pen.  I count the Gallic influence in my heritage to be very high.  All Classical Englishmen would.  Rhode Islander 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Nordicism has played a major role in many European countries and the United states, yet in terms of lineage and ancestry, as I said, the picture is much more complicated. In fact population genetics is telling a very different story from the one that was assumed. Precisely that aspect is dealt with in recent books like Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes and less specifically Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. You can read all that in the genetic section here and the main article. If you are interested in the subject read the books. Amazingly interesting. Anyway, I would use other examples and not Le Pen. He is considered pretty radical in Europe. Veritas et Severitas 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I once thought I fit into that Nordic world--because I was expected to take part of it. Then, my personal genealogy revealed real glories.  I began enjoying wholeheartedly, the Constantinian and Carolingian elements and don't care really all that much for the Aryanistic fantasies.  I'd rather visit the reign of Ramses the Great than the Odinic Scandinavia.  I don't mind Semitic blood, because it is true way back in time.  I certainly don't have blood from India or Pakistan or whathaveyou; not that it could be easily discovered or postulated anyways.  I worship Jesus Christ, Son of Mary in Judea.  Rhode Islander 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think in terms of modern culture I see more in common with the North Europeans (German, Scandinavian) than the Southern and Mediterannean. We are hard working and more against the EU, we have a monarchy, all these things are more like Northern than Southern Europe. Most importantly of all, we have a binge drinking beer culture (sureley the defining English/British culture!) not a glass of wine with a meal culture. We are more uptight and war like, again more Northern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Rhode Islander... english is a germanic language and the english people are most likely a germanic peoples too, but also do you know that the franks (who the french people are) are a germanic peoples to? Also When the Normans invaded they probably would've married the english people already living there, so that would probably account for the reason why you and i look french lol (considering i am part norman french too lol) but also the Spanish are part germanic too, i think spain was invaded by a germanic peoples a few hundred years ago... so that might also explain that part... but all indo european languages are related so the people would also look alike as well...Australian Jezza 08:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the English are a Germanic people, a great deal of English people do indeed know this. The English have Celtic blood but so do Deutschlanders, Austrians, the Dutch and a great deal of Germanic people but they are predominately Germanic, like the English. Saying that English people are not Germanic is insulting and actually rather idiotic. The English are genetically (something I care little about and hate the way I have to mention it to prove a point) and culturally Germanic. Ireland, Scotland and Wales speak a Germanic language and a Celtic one and have a Celtic culture. Saying they are not Celtic is an insult, just as saying that the English people are not Germanic.

The tribes that shaped England (but only a part of Britain) were the Jutes (and possibly the Geats as some evidence suggest that the Jutes are not Jutes at all and are most likely the oft confused Geats from southern Sweden), the Frisians, the Angles and the Saxons...all Germanic tribes. Saying that the English are not Germanic, or Celtic or neither is absurd.

The English are Germanic, I wish all the anti-Germanic racists would just let them be Germanic. King Óðinn The Aesir 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think my English friends of Indian or Carribean descent would appreciate either being told they are "germanic", or that they are racist. Alun 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all they aren't english in the first place, so i think this arguement doesn't apply to them.. you have even admitted that, my friend you have completely lost the point and the debate, english people are a mix of germanic and or celtic peoples, it is time to face this... would this whole argument change if the germanic peoples weren't called germanic (because it seems to me the only reason why you and your belief that your friends would protest this is because the word germanic and german were similar,) perhaps if it was the Netherlandic peoples, the North and north west European peoples, etc., plus have you even taken the time to ask these people about the whole germanic thing? i think notAustralian Jezza 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW*

English people are Germanic

Hi, I'm English and parts of the truth and facts concerning this page have become distorted.

English people are Germanic, just like the Dutch, the Deutsch, the Danes, the Sweedes, the Flemish etc. Germanic people are the great assimilators and the English people are a combination of largely the indigenous celtic population that came here via Iberia and the later Germans that arrived from der Angle, Saxony, Normandy, Denmark and Norway, this is a fact. The very identity of the English and England rests on this. England means Angle-Land, the Angles are german, english is a form of german. If the English were not a Germanic people then there would be no difference between Wales and England and the English and Welsh.

It's about time that people stopped listening to First World War and Second World War propoganda and stop trying to distort things based on racism and anti-germanism.

This article is about the English, not British citizens. Your friends who are Indian or Carribean are British citizens living in England, they are not English, just as if i was to go and live in India i would be an Indian citizen but would still be English, in no way would my Ethnicity be Indian. This article is about the English as an ethnic group.

Other things. In welsh the word for English is Saxon. So the welsh refer to the english as Germans. The very word Welsh is an derives from a Germanic word meaning others or outside the Deutsch, just like the Walloon in Belgium which is a non Germanic part of Belgium. This anti-germanism has gone so far that people have tried to label the Danes and Vikings as seperate entities and not Germanic people, when this was all happening their were only Germanic tribes and no Germany. The Germanic people had first travelled into what is now Sweeden and then down into what is now Germany. People need to realise what Germany and Germanic are. Germany is a unification of some Germanic countries like Prussia and Bavaria that decided to unify themselves, other Germanic countries like the Netherlands like Austria, like England didn't take part in this for various reasons. English culutre and herritage is not celtic, we do not wear kilts like in celtic countries, our folk herritage is morris dancing etc, which also happens today still in Germany.

There are areas in England that consider themselves more English than others, ie Yorkshire and East Anglia, it is no coincidence that the people living in these areas have a higher than average germanic ancestory, even though as in Yorkshire a lot of this comes from the germanic people the Danes. Their are areas of England that are not considered particulalry English, such as Cornwall with it's heavy Celtic herritage and London, which for centuries has had a large influx on none English people, hugonauts etc.

What was one of the main reasons for going to the House of Hanover in Germany when the English needed a new royal house to continue the monachy. Why when England as Britain colonised large parts of the new world and they needed to increase the population more than by what immigrants from England and Britain could support did they turn to germainc countries like the Netherlands and what is today Germany, why did people from these places assimilate and intergrate relatively quickly while later immigrants from places like Ireland and southern Italy were treated as seperate and distinct people.

The English people came into existence when Germanic people and culture came to what is now England and fused with the Celts living their, before this time there was no English and out of this over several centuries came the English.

It's interesting that a person thats refuting this is Welsh and not English.

It's about time there was the truth and facts on this page and not bigotry left over from 1st world war propaganda. JIM

One common mistake, the Normans are Germanic, they are Norweigien as their name suggests, they travelled from Norway to Normandy and settled their for 2 centuries before the invasion of England, in which time they had to get along with the neighbours so took up french, but they remained a Germanic people. Even to this day the people of Normandy are considered as distinct, such as having physical characteristics that lean towards Scandinavia and not the average Frenchman, if there is such a thing.

Norman comes from North men, which is a term that was used for the vikings, so you are right technically but you definition is wrong,Australian Jezza 07:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A very general list

It's slightly complicated but here's a list of what people are, generally

English - Germanic and celtic with emphasis on a Germanic identity. Irish - Celtic with a little bit of Germanic Scottish - Celtic and Germanic with emphasis on a Celtic identity. French - Mixture of Germanic: Franks and Normans and Latin and Celtic. Germans - Germanic with bit of Celtic and Slavic. Czech - Slavic with bits of German Italians - Latin with the northen italians having Germanic influx. Sweedes - Germanic with bit of celtic and slavic. Polish - Slavic with bits of Germanic.

Obviously this is generalising and ancestory is ver complicated with individuals having ancestors from all over the world. But when you speak about Ethnicity and an Ethnic group you have to genralise and look at the main components.

It also doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a ancesterel DNA scientis to go and look at people, English people are very like the Germans an share a lot of similarities with the Scots. Polish people are similar to Czechs and Slovaks, Italians similar to those in Southern France and parts of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.241.74.53 (talk • contribs)


 * It's interesting that a person spreading racialist nonsense keeps calling other people racist. How can both of these statements be true?


 * the English people are a combination of largely the indigenous celtic population that came here via Iberia and the later Germans
 * If the English were not a Germanic people then there would be no difference between Wales and England and the English and Welsh.
 * You are contradicting yourself.


 * It's about time there was the truth and facts on this page.
 * You provide nothing but your personal opinion, so where are your "facts"? Your ideas are antiquated Victorian myths that have been dispensed with by modern archaeologists for some decades. I am generally sceptical of anyone claiming they are interested in "truth and facts". What we have are points of view and theories, not truth and facts. It is irrelevant to this and any other article what your personal opinions are. I am really fed up with people comming here spotung their own personal theories and opinions as if they were some sort of established fact. This is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia has well established rules regarding consensus and attribution. What you believe is not important. You need to provide evidence in the form of citable academic studies. You need to understand that all points of view are relevant. Whether you believe English people to be Germanic or not is not the point, the point is that you need to provide evidsence that this is a point of view supported by reliable sources. Regardless of this it is also a point of view that what you mean by "Germanic" has little meaning. Linguistically English is a Germanic language. But what is the definition of a "Germanic people"? The article about Germanic people is vague enough to be unreliable, indeed it defines Germanic people as people who speak Germanic languages, so from the definition in this article it would appear that Welsh and Scottish people would also be germanic The Germanic peoples are a linguistic and ethnic branch of Indo-European peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages that are descended from Proto-Germanic. So if Germanic people aree identified by their use of Germanic languages, then we have little more than a linguistic classification. The introduction to this article goes on Migrating Germanic peoples spread throughout Europe, mixing with existing local populations (such as Celts, but also Slavs/Vends and Romans), forming the future basis of diverse nations. So we have a circular argument, Germanic people are defined by speaking Germanic languages and by having some sort of biological relationship to ancient "Germanic tribes", but the truth is that no one knows if there were any "migrating tribes", there are no facts here, just theory and speculation. The whole "English are Germanic" thing rests largely on what you mean by Germanic, and as far as I can see Germanic is really a linguistic and not an ethnic term, I doubt anyone very much self identifies as Germanic, they identify as English and/or British. This talk page does not exist for you to spout your personal beliefs, odd that they are. This page exists for the improvement of the article, it also exists for people to reach consensus. This article is about English people, these are a diverse group of people, it is racist nonsens to claim that people of Carribean or Asian origin are not considered English or that they do not consider themselves English, this is not about "race", it is about ethnicity and ethnicity is about identity. Whether English people are Germanic or not is a point of view, pure and simple. If you want to contend that it is a legitimate point of view that can be included in the article then I would agree with you totally. If you want to suggest that it is an incontrovertible fact that English people are somehow racially different to other people from the British Isles and that anyone not "purely racially Germanic" cannot be English, then I suggets that you are in the wrong place. The fact that I am from Wales is not relevant to this discusion and I fail to understand the significance you appear to attach to it. Your claims of racism are facile and offensive. It is not racist to claim that English people are not germanic, you are merely calling other users names because you do not agree with them. I am assuming that you are the same user as User:King Óðinn The Aesir. I am also assuming that you are far from a new user, given the fact that the very first thing this user has done is to invent a new award and start to distribute it to users who you/he agree with. This indicates either that you are a sockpuppet, or that you have been contributing with an IP address. The former is serious, the latter fair enough. This article is about English people, the ethnic group, this is a modern ethnic group that has little to do with the various tribes that are called "Germanic" that lived in Europe some 2000 years ago, to conflate the two is to have a skewed idea of British and English history. You do not actually say what you want to change in the article. I suggest you tell us exactly what you want the article to say, then we can form a consensus as to how to incorporate this material. How does that sound? Alun 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would believe the other people before i would believe you Alun considering your overly long an baseless and changing arguement, you bring in Indians and Carribeans..... how are they involved in this argueent... sure they live in england, but they are not of the english ethnicity or RACE, by the way alun you are the one spreading non sense, also you said somewhere before that english people wouldn't describe themselves as a germanic peopls, but then filipino don't describe them selves as Austronesian or Malay, niether do the Indonesians or really any Austronesian/ Malay group also the slavic peoples the too wouldn't call themselves Slavic, the same goes for english, danish, dutch, swedish, norwegian, icelandic etc. peoples, we don't describe ourselves as germanic, but it seems more likely than not that we are  Australian Jezza 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not anybody else,I am a new user, it's not really coincidence that there are alot of people who are concerned with how this page has become distorted, i'll be back. Just read the page and it seemed very distorted. I'll get back to you and present my side of the debate, and what i believe should be on there.

Jim

Genetics: accuracy disputed
The section opens with an assertion about the genetics of "English men" without any source, and continues in that vein. None of the studies which are quoted seem to refer to genetic material of the "English people", but instead to regional, local or national populations. The section contains no reliable source for any genetic information about the "English people", and could be deleted as unverifiable. However a better solution would be to move it to a separate article on the population genetics of Britain (or Britain and Ireland) - not just England, since the migration issues are related. This problem - unsourced claims based on personal interpretations of non-applicable genetic studies - is a problem at several ethnic/national articles.Paul111 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read again because I definately see sources.Rex 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * without any source, and continues in that vein. None of the studies which are quoted
 * Um, so you claim no sources, then say that some studies are quoted. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Alun 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * no reliable source for any genetic material of the "English people", but instead to regional, local or national populations
 * The studies use English people living in England. How would you define "English people"? Aren't English people a "nation"? I think they are a nation, so using regional populations in England is in fact using English people. I don't really understand what your point is. You seem to be saying that the "English people" are not the "English nation", which is clearly wrong. You also seem to be saying that local populations of people living in England do not represent "English people", which is also clearly wrong. Just how do you define an English person exactly? These studies are peer reviewed, none of the reviewers seem to have had any problem with these assumptions. If you can find academic peer reviewed journals that dispute these findings then they should be included in the article as well as per the neutality policy. As far as I can see tis just seems to be your opinion that these papers do not represent English people and you have provided no verifiable reliable source that disputes these papers. I cannot understand your claim that there are no citations, see my comment above, and that of Rex Germanus. Alun 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From the quoted material, the research was not confined to the "English ethnic group" or the "English nation" or the "English people". If the 'population of England" is the same thing as the "English nation", then genetic studies about one are valid for the other. But that is not the case, and would be inconsistent with the rest of the article, which claims that most of the "English people" live outside England. If a study has specifically concentrated on the "English" then it is a valid source for this article. Local populations certainly do not represent the English as an ethnic group, the majority might be recent immigrants. The onus is on the editor who includes the material to ensure a reliable source. For instance... If an editor is convinced that the English are a lost tribe of Israel (some people are), and then quotes statistics from the Israeli census to show they mainly speak Ivrit, the onus is on the editor to show that the statistics (accurate in themselves) are applicable to the subject of the article.Paul111 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How much immigration to England do you think there has been? Do you think these samples were taken from recent immigrants? Have you proof that these data have been distorted? Do you know of any studies that dispute these findings? Are you disputing the accuracy of this work? Do you think that the population is primarily composed of people who are not English? I really don't understand the source of your scepticism. I don't really understand what you are getting at. I do think that these data should not really be in this article. I think we need an article about the origins of British and Irish people, where we can put all of these genetic studies, they don't really fit here. I think the origins of the English as an ethnic group are quite recent, and lie in the unification of the country in the tenth century. I don't think our identity or ethnicity is defined by the founding paleolithic populations of the British and Irish Isles, though they are clearly the ancestors of modern English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish people, and also of the vast majority of the modern population of the British and Irish Isles. I also dispute how "English" self identified "English people" living in North America really are, when they edit here they often display a very superficial understanding of English culture and society, personally I think many North Americans that identify as English have little or no real concept of English ethnic identity whatsoever, and are merely the descendants of English people, and so assume that they are ethnically English, when in effect their society and culture would be alien to the English ethnic group. The data at the top of the page are extremely unreliable, and mainly refer to English descent rather than to English ethnic identity. I do not like them and do not think they are accurate. I do think your edit was excellent and support it. Alun 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul seems to be interested in genetic studies that take into account people of English and British ancestry living in other areas like the United States. I think he can find this interesting:

Saxons, Vikings, and Celts The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland

By Bryan Sykes Narrated by Dick Hill

Saxons, Vikings, and Celts is the most illuminating book yet to be written about the genetic history of Britain and Ireland. Through a systematic, ten-year DNA survey of more than 10,000 volunteers, Bryan Sykes has traced the true genetic makeup of British Islanders and their descendants. This historical travelogue and genetic tour of the fabled isles, which includes accounts of the Roman invasions and Norman conquests, takes readers from the Pontnewydd cave in North Wales, where a 300,000-year-old tooth was discovered, to the resting place of "The Red Lady" of Paviland, whose anatomically modern body was dyed with ochre by her grieving relatives nearly 29,000 years ago. A perfect work for anyone interested in the genealogy of England, Scotland, or Ireland, Saxons, Vikings, and Celts features a chapter specifically addressing the genetic makeup of those people in the United States who have descended from the British Isles.

I have pasted it from here: http://www.tantor.com/BookDetail.asp?Product=0335_SaxonsCelts

There are plenty of reviews now in the net about the book. 70.156.143.221 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think this is the same as the book Blood of the Isles, possibly it has a different name in the US? It's OK, I'm currently reading it. One of the problems with Sykes's work is that he doesn't use standard genetic nomenclature. It's highly accessible to the layman and is well written, though it's light on content and detailed analysis. A much more detailed and authoritative book is Stephen Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. There's much more detail and his list of sources is very comprehensive. Oppenheimer also relies on the previously published work of other academics, which means that it is easy to go and find the papers and works he has used in the book. The drawback of Oppenheimer's book is that it is far less accessible, indeed I think on occasion he goes into too much detail, but he does use standard genetic names, and charts numerous founding events for the British Isles from the Basque and Balkan refugia and from the Near Eastern neolithic expansion. Both these books show convincingly that the modern population of the British and Irish Isles are overwhelmingly descended from these original colonisers from the paleolithic and neolithic (mainly from the Basque refuge, this can be shown using bothe Y chromosome data and mtDNA data,) though there is evidence of a smaller founding event in England of people from the Balkan refuge) and that subsequent invasions were small in scale. These subsequent invasions can be traced genetically, but their legacy indicates that the sort of "mass" invasions/migrations and displacements that were considered to have occured in the past never happened. There was no displacement of the entire population of south eastern Great Britain by "Germanic invaders". Indeed there is a growing idea that the south eastern part of Great Britain has had a  Germanic language for much longer than was previously thought. Oppenheimer thinks that the peoples living in northern France (north of the Seine) and in southern Britain may have been closely related and have spoken Germanic languages even in Caesar's time. Alun 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Genetics section
I mainly agree with Veritas's edit. There's a problem with Paul's edit in that he claimed Genetic statistics about the population of England do not apply to populations outside England, such as those self-identified as English in the United States census. Well for one thing if the "self-identified American English" are the descendants of English people, then the genetic analysis must apply to them, either via their Y chromosome or their mtDNA. If the genetics do not apply to them, then they cannot be the direct descendants of English people, which beggs the question from what source do they claim English ethnic identity?. I will note that if an English woman marries a non English man, and has a son (English mtDNA, non English Y chromosome), and her son marries a non English woman, then their children will not have Y chromosomes or mtDNA from England, but the "English" connetion is quite dilute by this time anyway, the children could belong to at least three, or even four different ethnic groups, and we cannot assume that they will consider themselves "English". Conversely the US census does not collect data on ethnic identity (as far as I can tell). The data are presented here as data for descent rather than ethnic identity, so actually the data listed as "significant populations" (of ethnically English people) are erroneous, they do not display ethnic English people in living in the USA, but rather people of English descent, we don't know if these people identify as ethnically English. The most telling example is from New Zealand. In the 1996 census in NZ the question asked about descent and we get a very large figure for English descent 281,895 whereas in the 2001 census (and 1991 census) the question was phrased to more accurately reflect self defined ethnicity rather than descent and we get a much smaller figure 34,074. So how the data are collected is very important, and I don't really see how anyone can claim, as Paul seems to be doing, that North Americans that claim descent from English people are more ethnically English than actual people living in England, who are exposed to English society and culture from birth untill death. US society and culture is not English, and I find it difficult to understand how people from North America can claim English ethnicity when they have so little experience of what makes English people English. To claim English descent is a different thing than to claim English ethnicity. The UK Office for National Statistics defines an ethnic group as such "“An ethnic group is a collectivity within a larger population having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared past, and a cultural focus upon one or more symbolic elements which define the group’s identity, such as kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group”." Now I don't claim to be an expert on American culture, but I can see that Irish ethnicity is alive and well in the USA, and I can see that Jewish and Italian ethnicities are alive and well, we see them portrayed often on the television. But let's face it there was massive immigration from all of these groups relatively recently, within the last 150 years, so they are relative newcommers who have a solid and recent familial link to their countries and cultures of origin. There has been no recent massive immigration to the USA or North America by English people. People from England that settled in the USA did so at a much earlier date, and were often fleeing religious persecution, they were also instrumental in creating the USA and went to war to do this, society and culture in the USA has little or no similarity to that of the UK or England. There is also a great deal of confusion in the USA as to the difference between the UK, Great Britian and England, this is common amongst foreigners generally, but such a lack of knowledge would indicate to me a distinct lack of any real ethnic relatedness. This may be indicated by the fact that many Americans claim English descent (25 million), but a far smaller number claim British descent (1 million). I can't help but feel that many of these people may not actually know the difference between England and Britain. These figures are also very different to how people in England self identify, with English people identifying primarily as British. When forced to choose a British or English identity people in England choose British (48%) over English (38%). When given the choice of British and English 31% choose to identify as equally English and British (this is a relative majority) with 19% more English than British, 13% more British than English, 17% English not British and 10% British not English. Alun 07:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Genetic statistics apply to the population in question. The self-described 'English" in the USA will have, in most cases, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian and many other ancestors. The population of England has also altered since their ancestors left, which could have been in the 17th century. I reinserted the accuracy tag and again removed the claim about English men, since no source is give. It seems to be from an academic source, so that should be easilt traceable.Paul111 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually genetic statistics apply to the population in question and the ancestors of the population in question. Our genes come from our ancestors. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The population of England has also altered since their ancestors left, which could have been in the 17th century.'
 * I know of no one who claims this except for you. If you want to make this assertion you need to provide some sort of evidence. There is no evidence of any mass migration into England since then as far as I am aware. There may have been some internal migration, but a great deal of the population structure has remained unchanged. You have not addressed any of the points I have asked of you. Your edit is unsupported. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The self-described 'English" in the USA will have, in most cases, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian and many other ancestors.
 * So what exactly is your point? Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * since no source is given
 * Have you looked at the sources at the end of the paragraph? Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have made major and unsubstantiated changes, and have made some obscure and not very specific comments on the talk page. Please be specific about what you have a problem with. As far as I can see you appear to be stating that the US "English" population is more representative of "English people" than the English population in England. I find this reasoning very odd, especially when you also state that the "English" population in the US is more mixed than the actual English population. Be that as it may, this section is about origins, it is an accepted academic strategy to search for the genetic origins of a group of people by studying their genes, especially the Y chromosome. I see no reason for you to unilaterally not accept this when it is done routinely. The English origins of North Americans are England. The origins of English people are not Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, they are English. If your argument (and I'm really unclear about what you are trying to say) is that the article may only include information that concerns people that have self identified as ethnically English, then the article would contain no information at all. Indeed I would remove the section refering to the significant populations section because these numbers do not refer to self identified ethnicity, but to ancestry. These figures are therefore equally unverified. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Paul's position is very weird.

1. This is about English people, not about Americans.

2. What do you imply that the majority of people in England descend from the 17th century?

3. Are some "white" Americans going so far as to imply that they are more European than the Europeans or even more English than the English? I would not be surprised.

I will just leave it here for other people to judge, but believe me, your position is among the most weird ones that I have seen up to now in this article and obviously show a complete lack of knowlegde of the latest books published on the subject, Blood of the Isles, by Brian Sykes (In the US Saxons, Vikings and Celts), The Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. Of course we cannot cut and paste the enitre books here, you have to read them yourselves, but they have been protrayed in the press. See: 12 3 4

Obviously the press always has a special way of presenting information (often in a yellowish way) to draw more attention by the readers, but those articles are very much in line with the books. Some people do not want to leave them as references to the books (probably with reason) but then we have people like you who claim that there are no sources. Veritas et Severitas 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been mass immigration into England since the 17th century. Inferences on ancestry drawn from the current population can not be retroactively applied to the population of England in say, 1700. So even if you could find a village in New England where they had intermarried since migrating from England in 1700, it would still not be comparable to the present population of England.Paul111 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been mass immigration into England since the 17th century.
 * This is simply untrue. If you are going to make ourageous claims like this I think you really need to provide a source. By your reckoning the population of England would have to have been massively replaced by people from the Basque country within the last 300 years. That is about 85% of the entire modern population of the British Isles would have to be of recent (less than 300 years) Basque descent. So why don't we speak Basque? The other scenario would be that 64% of the population of England is of recent Irish descent, this is again untenable as an arguement, and would still place the modern population of England (that is people that identify as English) as being descended from the western Ice age refuge population. Isn't it odd that there are no historical records for mass migration from Spain to England over the last 300 years. Indeed both Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer claim that the current British population is primarily descended from paleolithic and mesolithic populations that migrated there between about 12,000 and 6,000 years ago. They can proove this by showing that certain differences in the mtDNA and Y chromosome of people from the British Isles only occur in the British Isles, and no where else in the world. Because these differences (mutations) can be dated, we can show when exactly the "ancestral" DNA fragment left it's origin (in this case the Ice age refuge in the Basque country) and settled in the British Isles. This gives a date of ~ 12,000-8,000 years ago for the ancestors of the vast majority of the people living on the British and Irish Isles today. More recently (about 6,500 years ago) there was a significant migration of neolithic peoples into Europe, these also settled in the British Isles and have left their genetic legacy as well. Their genetic markers in the modern population occur at a lower frequency, but it is still significant. So two eminent geneticists (Oppenheimer ans Sykes) have both produced books recently that show clearly that the modern British population (including the English one) is overwhelmingly descended from founding events thousands of years ago."The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language....Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix." So where is your evidence of "mass migration" to England within the last 300 years? I don't believe it, it would be documented and I see no documentary evidence for either mass migration or population displacement anywhere in England over the last 300 years. Indeed it is becoming increasingly apparent that the "mass migrations" of the past were myths. This modern one of yours is supposed to have happened recently, so where is the evidence? Alun 13:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So even if you could find a village in New England where they had intermarried since migrating from England in 1700, it would still not be comparable to the present population of England.
 * Yes it would. Your claims are without foundation. Alun 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is becoming increasingly apparent that the "mass migrations" of the past were myths - hahaha, what an idiot you are Wobble because there is nothing claiming this or supporting this. The Bronze Age and following migrations haven't been proven/disproven you fool and there is nothing becoming increasingly apparent as to if they didnt happen. Get a life, honestly. 69.156.88.156 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources (or none)
The cited website does not include the claim made in the article that 70% of "English men" had a particular genetic marker. It is a genealogy website containing pseudoscientific claims based on a persoanl interpretation of genetic research. It is wholly unrereliable as a population genetics source. The linked haplogroup map does not include a diagram for England or for the 'English people', however defined. As it stands, nothing in the opening paragraph of this section is given a reliable source.Paul111 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isnt about english speaking americans paul, its not about the genetics of americans in a new england village and how they might differ genetically to uk english people, its about people who claim citizenship in england, not people who speak english but live abroad.

Are you denying the iberian link to the british isles paul? are you claiming that there has been a mass migration from the Basque country to england since the 17th century? thats nonsense, there has been small immigation to england ics has NOTHING to do with ethnicity, ethnicity is based purely on percieved ancestry to do with culture, history but it has not affected the genetics of people who see themselves as english, there has only really been migration since the 1950's to england that is on a large scale and thus most people of immigrant acestry are first or second generation in england. And most of these immigrants came from the carribean, west africa, south asia, NOT the basque country so if immigration had changed the genetics of the english since the 17th century you would expect to see west african and south asian dna amongst the english who have no knowledge of foreign ancestors. But there is no such thing, For that to happen there would have had to been an enormous migration of peoples many hundreds of years ago long before the 17th century. Genetic marker r1b is virtually non existent in south asia, and doesnt appear at all in almost all sub-saharan african countries, so no immigratns to england could increase the percentages of r1b unless they were irish, welsh, scottish or Basque. Here is evidence of r1b percentages in england http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm After wales, ireland, scotland, the basque country and northern spain in general, england has the higherst percentages or r1b in the world. The english who invaded america would have also been 70% r1b unless there was not an even distribution of people from certain regions of england as the percentage of r1b varies in england (only 60% in norfolk but 85% in cornwall).

also brian sykes claims that 64% of english are r1b and cavilli that 70% are r1b. read origins of the british by stephen oppenheimer for more evidence.--Globe01 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, but your weird position sounds to me like the one that we all know: Greeks are not The Greeks, Romans are not The Romans. Are you going to start it now with the English?Veritas et Severitas 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The onus is on the editors who want claims in the article, about the genetic composition of the 'English nation' or the 'English ethnic group', to provide sources. Since there is no scientific definition of these two groups, there is no data on them either. At most there are data on the population of England.Paul111 10:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This reasoning applies to the whole article. It especially applies to the section regarding "Significant populations". As far as I can see there is no evidence that 25 000 000 US citicens claim English ethnic identity, merely that 25 000 000 US citizens claim some English descent. Be that as it may, there is no reason to assume that people in England do not identify as ethnically English Can you explain why you think English people are not ethnically English? To extrapolate this point would be to apply it to all ethnic group articles on the whole of wikipedia. There are no data anywhere in the world that are collected about the English ethnic group. Therefore every piece of information in the article remains unverified according to your criteria. Should we AfD the article? Unless you can provide evidence that the English people that participated in the study do not identify as ethnically English then I see no reason not to accept that they do. Ethnically English people live in England, therefore England is the main source for DNA samples when investigating the origins of the English. There is no evidence that the modern population of England is not ethnically English. You have made the claim for massive immigration to England within the last three hundred years. There is no evidence for this claim. I wonder what your motivation is for doubting these data? I can see no reason for you to be making these claims. Indeed you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your argument above is little more than sophistry. Be more specific, provide some evidence for what you claim. Then let's see if we can come to a consensus. I am hoping to start an article about the origins of the population of the British and Irish Isles soon (when I get time), and possibly one about the origins of the European population. The information about the origins of the English can then be removed from here and we can have a coherent article about population origins. I think this is far more satisfactory. Alun 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

cavilli's data shows r1b average for england to be 68.8181'%, i worked it out from the percentages given in the data he used and added it to the main article.http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm --Globe01 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for immigration
''In 2001, 4.9 million (8.3 per cent) of the total population of the UK were born overseas. This is more than double the 2.1 million (4.2 per cent) in 1951.'' Source: UK Census 2001,. They are concentrated in England, especially London, see the maps here: 8% non-white in UK For that reason alone, it is accurate to speak of large-scale immigration. Whether you call it "mass" immigration is a question of taste. It is certainly enough to make the population different, in terms of ancestry, from the population in 1700. The immigration is accelerating, but labour migration to England from Ireland, Scotland and Wales was underway by the 18th century.

8% of UK population are non-white, primarily resulting from recent (post-1950) immigration. That alone is enough to make the population ethnically different from the population of the British Isles in 1700 or 1800. Net migration into the UK has risen (over the last 15 years) to around 600 000 annually. This inflow alone is enough to alter the population composition.

The 2011 UK Census may include a question on national identity, which would settle some of the debates around this issue. See the consultation:. It is however curious to deny that millions of immigrants have entered the UK, and concentrated in England, and it is not clear exactly what the political motive is.Paul111 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So what paul111, None of these immigrants came from the Basque country!!!!! I'll say it again, There has been no large scale migration from northern spain or western france or from the celtic isles !! HENCE the r1b figures would have been lowered if changed at all since the 18th century. Stop ignoring alun's and my own comments about genetic markers, go and learn a bit about genetics and [haplotypes] before you just ignore evidence concerning genetic markers please!! Its frustrating, ive said several times now that firstly all english are aware if they have had an immigrant in theri family in the last 2 generations which is when mass migration started and thus would not be included in genetic surveys, see here paul, this bbc article states how only men whos grandfathers could be traced to the local village were chosen for the dna smapling of wales , ireland and basque countryhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm It states the gnetic link between the irish and the welsh and the basques. PLease read some books on genetic studies, they are highly accurate and for obvious reasons make extra care not to choose people who are of recent immigrant ancestry.

Again you claim that the genetics of england has changed dramatically since the 18th century, but genetic studies have shown this not to be so as there is no recent african or asian dna found amongst ethnic english people but mainly genetic markers mainly [r1b] at 70% which is found at highest frequencies in the west of ireland (985) and the basque regoin of spain and france (95%) as well as markers i1a  and i1b (north european) e3b north african berber marker found in all north european countries at low percentages and j2 which is similar and r1a which is a typically norwiegen viking haplotype. Explain this please paul! Obviously you are wrong about your theory of genetic change in the british isles.

PLease do some learning on the field of genetics before you make outlandish claims, it makes you seem suspicious some how, perhaps politically motivated towards something about the english being less english than americans who claim english ancestry.--Globe01 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Paul, we have said it all. Most English people have been in England for thousands of years. The new immigration is a new issue. These new immigrants have not been taken into account and they certainly do not come from The Basque country, Iberia, Northern France or any other place where this population group is large. So, please, be a bit rigorous, just a bit, for God's sake. Veritas et Severitas 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If genetic studies "make extra care not to choose people who are of recent immigrant ancestry" then they are valid for the selected population. Research can exclude recent immigrants. But if it does not, then it does not. That is why genetic statistics for the "population of England" do not equate to statistics for the "English people". If the source relates to specifically selected populationsm, then put that in the article, but it can not be assumed that researchers have gone looking for one. Further discussion of this point seems futile, the best thing to do is simply to stick to Wikipedia guidelines about sources, and preferably to original publications in scientific journals.Paul111 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Genetic data use indigenous populations. If you read the sources then you would know this. Indigenous populations are populations of people who know of no known recent immigration for any ancestors. Furthermore they collect both maternal grandmother information and paternal grandfather information for sourcing the sample, this is to minimise the chance of recent internal migration skewing the data. This is because grandparental place of birth is more likely to be close to the source population of any genetic origin. The populations studied would include some quite exotic Y chromosome and mtDNA signatures if they included recent migrants, indigenous European mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA are quite distinctive, most recent immigration to the UK has been from distant sources and not from Europe. It is also true that these genetic markers can be dated, and have been indigenous to the UK for thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of years. It is somewhat odd to claim that populations that can be dated to thousands of years at a specific location are not representative of the ethnic group of the region. I still don't really understand what your original point was. You claimed massive recent immigration the England, I wonder what you base this assumption on? You have provided no evidence for this assertion. I think we are sticking to wikipeda guidelines, do you have some sort of specific point to make about English people here? The English population defines the English ethnic group, the English population is indigenous from the point of view of being descended from founding events in the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic. There is nothing in this source that does not conform to wikipedia guidelines regarding sources. This is about the origins of the English, all ethnic English people are derived from England, so they must have the same origins as the English population. Your reasoning is not supported by any sources so what evidence do you have to doubt this source? Alun 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the genetic data refer to the indigenous populations, then the editor can put that in the article, and say which indigenous population it is, and add the source in a footnote. That's all.Paul111 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Be more specific. What specific information do you mean?.

2. This is about people in England. They are the English people. If other people want to call themselves English or not it is up to them. But English people live in England. People who live in America are Americans and so forth, not English people. When we mean English people we mean exactly that, because there is no other meaning. People who claim English ancestry etc, that is another matter, but they are certainly not English people.

3. Your comments are not very coherent. I find myself repeating obvious things. Veritas et Severitas 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the English all live in England, then the figure of '85 million English' has got to go. The article is full of this sort of inconsistencies, like many other ethnic group articles. That is why a rigorous attitude to unsourced data is necessary.Paul111 11:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The English do not all live in England, but neither are people who claim English ancestry/descent necessarily part of the English ethnic group. Claiming English ancestry does not automatically make a person ethnically English, isn't this obvious? Ethnicity is social and cultural, it seems absurd to claim that 25 million US citizens are "ethnically English", not just because they have no connection to English society or culture (though this should be enough), but because they have not claimed to be ethnically English on their census forms. There are no data available for how many US citizens are ethnically English, just as there are no data available for Australia etc. Census data are not reliable because they do not represent "ethnicity", but "descent". The UK census does collect ethnic identity data (but not data for descent), but in this case they only collect data for British ethnic identity. I suggest you look at the footnotes, it's clear from these that the data presented are not ethnic data, but data for descent. I have made this more obvious in the infobox. I am strongly in favour of removing this infobox altogether, it has ben nothing but a source of contention since it was included in the article. It seems imposible to include accurately any information there, for the simple reason that no country in the world ever seems to collect information regarding the English as an ethnic group, and so for nearly all sections data are not available. At best all of the figures in this infobox are guesses. Alun 11:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is another point. Then discuss that point. I agree that probably those numbers should only refer to the people in England. But that is a different discussion. Veritas et Severitas 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographic distribution
Some users here insist on calling Americans, Canadians, etc, who have been Americans for generations and who have mixed among other Americans for generations, English people. How long will need the Americans (or others) to be just what they are: Americans. One thousand years?.

Another most worrying attitude is that the history comments, some seem to imply that these Americans, Canadians etc, can me more English than other English people, simply because those English people may not be considered "white". Veritas et Severitas 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific example? In many cases these American/Canadians/Australians will have responded to a question which asked about their ethnic origin, ethnic group, or ancestry - often questions which are designed to measure self-identity and affiliation. They answered English. This does not preclude other identities. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The weird usage of ethnicity in some countries does not make people either English or anything else. There are English people around the world, but only those who are or were English citizens and were raised in the culture of England and have emigrated and now live in other countries can be considered English people. I may be French or Polish and have some Italian ancestors several generations back, but no one in Europe would say that I am Italian because of that. In the first place because they would be now French or Polish and in the second place because in most cases those people have very varied ancestry. Or do we think that those Americans who call themselves English or whatever and have never been to England and whose ancestors have been in America for generations have only interbred among English people? Even if it was the case, which is obviously not, they would not be English anymore. Again, the weird way of using ethnicity in some countries should not dominate articles that are conceived to be universal, not US-centered or whatever.

I am not going to make changes myself, but this issue should be clarified in the body of the article.Veritas et Severitas 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be your opinion but it is certainly not "US-centered" and is held by people everywhere, including those in Europe, who understand the importance of descent and resultant traits in ethnic identification. Also, many people carry on the customs, language etc. when they emigrate outside their ancestral homeland. Nationality or location of residence is distinct from ethnicity. The majority of humans recognize that your heritage is part of who you are, some more than others. Clearly LSLM, you deny this, even if others recognize it, but that is your own minority opinion and you should not claim it is the "worldwide" view when this is obviously not the case. Epf 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is relevent and important to mention these Canadians/Americans/Australians/etc, as long as they are credited as being of English ancestry rather than actually being ethnically English, which they are not. Static Sleepstorm 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know whether they are not ethnically English ? What are you basing "ethnically" on ? They are consdiered ethnic English (or for example English-American) by many, both by themselves and others, if they are of significant English descent. You seem to be confusing nationality and ethnicity. Epf 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

More genetics
back to the genetics again for abit (sorry i know it can be very dull for some people but factual accuracy is important), in oppenheimers new book 'origins of the british' he mentions that there were migrations from a ukranian and a balkan refuge to england and scotland (aswell as scandinavia and germany), this is currently not mentioned in the article, we need to formulate a way of presenting or citing thie info in the article as it only mentions the iberian refuge to the british isles as a whole. If any users could make the time and take the effort to source out all the data concerning english genetics otherwise this article will be biased or not neutral. --Globe01 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think you have read the book by Oppenheimer well. Please go ahead and do it. Veritas et Severitas 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

British Basque Link Alternative theory
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/abs/5201482a.html

heres is a link from the european journal of genetics basically saying that at least the irish basque link is paleolithic and there may not hasve been re-expansions from the basque country, i have only read the abstract. --Globe01 13:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Muslims
"An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986)". This is the reference definition of ethnicity in Wiki.

"Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry." . More "The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine." 

So as you can see jews share a different ancestry than ethnic English. And common ancestry is the most important variable of ethnicity. Besides, jews have cultural traditions that are distinctive though they integrate quite well into the society. Therefore, most jews are not ethnically English and shouldnt be included here. Migrants from Asia are totally not ethnic English. Lukas19 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree, but this information should (if nobody objects) be worded to reflect just this (using strict terms like ethnic-english, and providing the research context). Undoubtedy if the content is changed to say these people are not English (in the broader, perhaps policital sense), this will fuel controversy, and no doubt be removed. Jhamez84 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * [To Lukas] What part of presumed ancestry do you not understand? Do you think that English people actually know who they share an ancestry with? Presumed ancestry is not the same as real ancestry. If you want to use this racial/descent definition then you cannot claim that an English ethnic group exists at all, for the simple reason that English people are a diverse and heterogeneous population, with descent from Angles, Saxons, Brythons, Danes, Normans, etc etc etc. The English ethnic group does not share a common ancestry and is not a homogeneous entity however far back you go. Read the article, there are many and numerous different ethnic groups that have contributed to English identity. If you want to claim that only those with descent from Anglian invaders (English means Anglian) then you can only claim that about 2 million people who identify as English have descent from the Anglian invaders of the 5th century. This is the nub of this "d, escent" nonsense, no one knows who they are descended from, England is a very genetically heterogeneous place, with indigenous people in the east of England being genetically different from people in the west of England, they clearly do not share a common descent, but they clearly have a percieved common descent. England has developed as a socio-cultural entity over time and ther eis no point in time when it will cease to develope and the English ethnic group will become a static entity. Ethnic groups are social and cultural entities, they used to be religious as well, but England is generally secular and so the religious differences mean less.  I personally know muslim people of Pakistani descent who identify as English people, and are identified as such by other English and British people. Take it from someone who actually knows something about English society and culture, which you obviously know nothing about. Indeed as a Welsh person I recognise my English muslim friends as far more English than me, and I have English ancestry, but I am not English because I do not share the same cultural and social context. You have also conveniently overlooked the full definition of ethnicity, which has nothing at all to do with race and is only about perceived descent. Please stop introducing your distorted racialist POV in articles you clearly know nothing about. I really am fed up with having to change your biased edits. See the part you didn't quote Ethnic groups are also usually united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community.....Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although some historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993). No one is able to distinguish between a Jewish or Muslim (or indeed anyone from the Indian subcontient) English person and a non-Jewish or non-Muslim English person based on cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic traits. If they claim they can, then they are liars. There is a list of definitions of ethnic group at the beginning of this page, which I placed there so people like you, who think that ethnicity means race, and who are hopelessly confused by the concept of a common culture and society not reflecting racialism, can read and understand. Please don't try to introduce your racialist ideas to articles where they do not belong, and please do not assume that English people agree with your incorrect analysis that Jewish people and Muslim people are not English, and are not recognised as English by others. Definitions of ethnic group
 * A group identified on the basis of religion, color or national origin.
 * A group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns.
 * A group of people who hold in common a set of traditions that distinguish them from others with whom they are in contact. Such traditions typically include a sense of historical continuity, and a common ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs and practices, and language.


 * Indeed by your definition the Queen would not count as English and neither would most of the English aristocracy that has descended from William the Bastards hangers on, and not from the mythical "common ancestry" you quote. Indeed here are some English people who do ot count as English by your strange definition:
 * Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Prime Minister in 1874
 * Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel, Home Secretary 1916
 * Rosalind Franklin, Crystalographer, helped discover the structure of DNA
 * Gustav Holst, Composer
 * Peter Ustinov
 * Alan Sugar
 * List of British Jewish politicians
 * List of British Jewish scientists
 * List of British Jewish entertainers, including Sid James, Joan Collins, Leslie Howard (actor), Rachel Weisz
 * Leon Brittan, Baron Brittan of Spennithorne
 * Nigel Lawson
 * Nigella Lawson
 * List of English monarchs post 1066.
 * I suggest you look at this user's talk page User talk:80.195.226.94 regarding Jewishness and POV pushing.
 * Alun 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Alun raises very valid points and concerns. English is a broad and even ambiguous term, and understood in different ways by different people. A sweeping statement to change the article to only include "ethnic English" could compromise the wider encyclopeadic integrity of the article and the research contained within in. That said, Lukas19 does raise an alternate point of view which, if sources are found, does warrent at least a mention in the article to broaden the remit and understanding contained. The topic is clearly a difficult one to define, thus I think fair representation of views (WP:NPOV) in conjunction with proper sourcing, terms and context would be most beneficial in this instance. Jhamez84 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But I think you misunderstand what I mean by "ethnic English". I tried to be as detailed as I can in my earlier post, but obviously I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. So here goes again. It is totally incorrect to try to imply that English people have any sort of common ancestry or descent. I do not mean this in a bad way. I am of English ancestry, but enough is enough. Engand, as it is today, is culturally and biologically heterogeneous, this is a good thing. English people were always the descendents of Brythons, Saxons, Angles, Danes, Norwegians, Romans, et al. Indeed the case has been made, time and again, that England was created as a political entity before it ever had a cultural/ethnic identity. It's all there in the article, if you actually read it. England was unified under Athelstan, but he unified the celtic kingdom of Cumbria (no coincidence Cumbria is like the Welsh name for Wales Cymru) with the Saxon kingdoms (mostly already unified under Wessex) and the Anglian kingdoms (which had been mostly absorbed by the Danelaw). There are some theories that the eastern (that is Danish) areas of England had always been ore afiliated with the North Sea, rather than the rest of the Island. So there are at least three ethnic identities in England, the western Celtic, the eastern "anglian/scandinavian" and the south-eastern "saxon/Belgae". I take this line: The English have always been an assimilationist entity, and to a large extent I attribute their great success to their assimilationism, to then try to claim some sort of "racial" identity for them is not only an insult to English identity, it's an insult to their achievements, which have included many "English people" from assimilated cultures. The perception of common descent is a strong motivating phenomenon, but no one knows their origin, and perception is different to actual. Look at this bloke and tell me he's not English. Because it's bollocks, this bloke obviously is English. Ethnicity is not about descent, it's about how a person sees themselves, and how others see them. Alun 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One's ethnic identity is independent of one's religion (or descent), although they may be related in in appropriate circumstances. One belongs to a particular ethnic community by choice and being recognized as one by other members of the group. No ethnic group can claim unbroken descent from an ethnic group of the past (be it Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Slavs or American Indians). Jews and Muslims can definitely be ethnically English if they so choose. The way I see it, most Jews in England are ethnically English, but many Muslims are not. The only reason for this is the choice of the communities; many Muslims consider themselves foreigners in a foreign land when in England (especially newly arrived immigrants), however once they've integrated and consider themselves English, they are English.--Rudjek 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% Rudjek.Wiki, wiki, wiki p'wom, p'neeewom. Alun 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with alun, saying jews are not english because of their genes is stupid. How can you tell the difference between an e3b englishman and an e3b jewish man. or and r1b english man or j2 englishman from an r1b jewish man or j2 jewishman. Genet, language and other things.

The english are heterogenous anyway,Genetically the people of southwestern england are closer to the basques of northern spain and southern france than to people from eastern england while people from eastern england are closer to the people of north germany than to the people of south western england.

Many people who identify themselves as ethnically english will have some jewish ancestry as there have been jews living in england since the 14th century. Genetics has no place in defining ethnic groups nor does racial appearance. --Globe01 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are some really unfounded claims. An "E3b English man" and an "E3b Jew" ? What ? Are you kidding ? There is almost no way that an indigenous English person and a person of full Jewish heritage could share the exact same Y-chromosome, but thats the thing, the Jews are a very heterogenous ethnic group. They have mixed with varying other European elements from wherever they have resided since the beginnings of their main exodus from Palestine nearly 2000 years ago. The native ethnic English are much less so, reamining to this day prmarily of ancient Briton, Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking heritage. You need to realize that current classifcation of Y-chromosomes from a few samples and studies obviously does not automatically resemble a whole peoples origins. A person has alot of genetic inheritance apart from the Y-chromosome or MtDNA. I would also point out that the people of Southwestern England, mainly Conrwall and Devon, may have more Y-chromosomes siimilar to Basques, but overall are of course more gentically related to other English people, espcially due to massive internal population movements (i.e. from rural to urban areas) over the past 500 years. Epf 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not "race" (a Jew is not of a different "race" as any other Englishman, by the way). English, German, French or Spanish people can be of very diverse origins and even ignore it. A Spanish gipsy is as Spanish as any other Spaniard, and often considers himself more Spanish than many Spaniards. An English Jew is as English as any other English person and can consider himself more English than some other English people. Only extreme racialist and blind positions can claim otherwise. Veritas et Severitas 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion LSLM, but many people obviously disagree with you and the native people of those countries do not share as diverse of origins as you enjoy believing. The fact Spanish Gypsies, or Gitanos, see themself as a distinct group from other Spanish is itself obvious evidence of that. Common descent does not equal "race", but it is an integral part of ethnic identification, and for many groups is clearly a direct association with it (eg. Germans, Italians, Greeks, etc.) Epf 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * quote "No one is able to distinguish between a Jewish or Muslim (or indeed anyone from the Indian subcontient) English person and a non-Jewish or non-Muslim English person based on cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic traits. If they claim they can, then they are liars."

I reckon I could are you calling me a liar? It is easy to distinguish Muslims on ritualistic grounds by the rituals of their religion. The same for a practising Jew. And linguisitically many people of Indian Subcontinental origin (even those born in England) have distinct accents. Now this doesn't mean they are any less part of this country. But it can mean they are part of a different ethnic group. That doesn't exclude all Jews and Muslims from the English ethnic group (although a significant number of Muslims in particular would choose to be excluded). I certainly think though they would choose to identify as British and ethnically Pakistani or whatever. Segregation is the cause of a lot of racial tension in this country and pretending it doesn't exist and we're all identical for PC reasons won't solve these problems. 137.138.46.155 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above poster, that a person might be ethnically Pashtun or Arab or Ashkenazic or Pole, but still be British and/or English, in every sense other than the ethnic one. If you are going to dismiss views such as mine as racist or Nazi (as has been implied in some posts) then you are preventing proper discussion on the topic. Just because I say that a black English person is not ethnically English, it doesn't mean I am saying they don't belong in England, or that they are inferior, or anything like that. As a matter of fact I have strong anti-Nazi feelings.
 * Back on topic, I think that people whose ethnicity as English is questionable should not be discussed in detail in the wiki page on ethnically English people. Static Sleepstorm 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that, after the invasion of Normans, British Isles was pretty stable for almost a millenia. That kinda time can create a new ethinicity even if there had been contributions from various European peoples before. On the other hand, muslims arrived quite recently in masses to UK, after WW 2. To equate Viking influence 1500 years ago to muslim influence 50 years ago is kinda silly. So I'm gonna remove the part about muslims but I wont touch the part about jews for now since it goes back to 17th century...Lukas19 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "He stresses plural identities and in both speeches quotes the example of a Cornish person who is "Cornish, English and British - and may be Muslim, Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean, Cornish, English and British."" Like it or not many if not most first and second generation immigrants identify as English. Would you consider Michael Portillo English? He is the descendant of an immigrant Spaniard (who incidentally was escaping Franco's CEDA/Falangists) and a Scott. Can't detect either a Scottish or Spanish accent there. Odd that. I suppose being "White" he's accepted as English more readily. The point is that being a Muslim, or indeed a Catholic (and Catholics are one of the most persecuted religions in British history) does not preclude one from being English. These are religions, any indigenous English person can become  Catholic, Jewish or indeed a Muslim. Are you suggesting that they lose their English identity at that point? I think you are confused between ethnic identity (how one identifies, and a person can have multiple identities, English and Scottish, English and Pakistani, Welsh and British) and indigenous people. No one is claiming that recent immigrants and their descendants are indigenous people, though of course with interracial marriages becoming more and more common, many people in the modern world are the descendants of both indigenous English and non indigenous English people. If someone is indigenous it is also a question of time, no one would claim, for example that people descended from Danes in the Danelaw are not indigenous, but their ancestors at one time must have been considered non-Indigenous. Alun 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just would like to point out here Lukas, Alun and others make good points, but I agree more with Lukas in this particular issue due to some similar opinions on descent and ethnicity as a whole. Shared descent (and resultant traits, either biological or those which are socio-behavioural and passed down via upbringing) is a very important factor in ethnicity and ethnic identification. By saying so also does not mean you are "racialist" since "race", a taxonomic definition of humans, is not being discussed here. One's heritage and family background is obviously a very important part to many people's identities and I think Alun and some others here would be wise to take this into account. Descent alone does not equal ethnicity, but neither does ones society, culture or location of residence. Ethnic English people, despite what some may argue, do indeed have a shared common descent to a combination of Anglo-Saxons and ancient Britons. Romans and Normans left a very very negligible demographic impact and were absorbed into the population; the Vikings in England did have a very significant impact mainly confined to eastern England and the vast majority were "Danes" (in the 8th - 10th century context), not Norwegians. Also, "perceived" descent of course does not mean it is not actual and most aspects of it are most often based on reality and factual accounts, especially in the more modern context of it (i.e. more recent ancestry to a specific location or region). I notice that the definition of ethnic group was quoted extensively here, but you must realize that the article does not state where the religious, cultural, behavioural, linguistic, etc. traits originate (i.e. from a person's descent/family, cultural community or national community). In addition to this, the definition clearly states how the basis for the majority of groups is the perceived (both what is fact and assumed) common descent, displaying its overall importance in the factors that make-up ethnic identity. Although you may disagree Alun, there are clearly many English people in England or elsewhere who acknowledge this as part of English ethnic identity. This is rarely debated in other European ethnic groups who acknowledge the importance of descent as directly associated with their own ethnic identifications, but because of a few users, this seems to be a feature of debate for the English people article. The most astounding thing is that many - if not most - people born in England of foreign descent and culture themselves recognize this and still identify with their own ancestral/indigenous homelands just as much (and some even moreso) than they do with England. I believe that the distinction between nationality, ethnicity and culture (itself including various aspects and sources for people) needs to be made (eg. possibly leading to separate articles) if there is to be any resolution to this issue. Ciao, Epf 08:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, I think you are missing the point that there are more than one ways that one can be "English". A second-generation immigrant to England could consider himself English, and by all accounts would be. But they would not be in an ethnic sense, and I think that they would not identify so. In my experience, someone of recent immigrant descent from, say, Scotland, would say they are "Scottish by blood", and I think that equates with "ethnically Scottish". As for religion's rôle in the matter, I think that religion is a completely separate concept to ethnicity (though the two are of course related); an ethnically English person can convert to any religion without affecting their ethnicity. I think that one of the few universally-agreed ideas about ethnicity is that one cannot change their ethnicity (through immigration, religious conversion, or cultural assimilation). I am not denying that someone can have multiple identities, e.g. Welsh, black, Afro-Caribbean, Caribbean-British and British. I am saying that (if we exclude the idea of mixed ancestry for the moment) someone can only have one ethnic identity. As for your example of Michael Portillo, it would be I think sufficient to call him "a Hertfordshire-born British person of Scottish and Spanish descent" or "born in England to a Scottish mother and a Spanish father" or any similar sentence that explains his Englishness, Scottishness and Spanishness. Ethnically, he would be half-Spanish and half-Scottish. Static Sleepstorm 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bottomline is that "ethnic English", "English" and "citizen of UK" are all different things. And this article is for "ethnic English", like Queen Elizabeth, not for muslim immigrants from Asia. Thats what Demographics of England is for...Lukas19 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The royal family ethnic English??? The royals are notoriously mongrel - they were commonly referred to as Germans, and remember that the Queen's children are all half-Greek! -- Arwel (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may reflect on English better if Princes Harry and William were to be considered ethnic English and not Prince Charles...Lukas19 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah Queen Elizabeth is pretty much the worst example of someone who is ethnically English. For the royal family ethnicity is a confusing thing, as they can trace their ancestry back so far, and it's from such a wide variety of places, but somehow still pretty inbred. I can't work out if Prince Phillip is ethnically Greek, or ethnically something else. Static Sleepstorm 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * someone can only have one ethnic identity.
 * Eh? Where did you get this from? This does not appear to be anything other than a personal opinion, it is certainly not any sort of normal interpretation of ethnicity. I consider myself ethnically Welsh and ethnically British. According to you I cannot do this. Alun 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A second-generation immigrant to England could consider himself English, and by all accounts would be. But they would not be in an ethnic sense, and I think that they would not identify so.
 * This is just your opinion isn't it? Do you actuall know what ethnicity is? I don't think you do. I suggest you go away and read a bit about this. Ethnicity is about identity, I see no evidence that only "white" English people have an English identity. I have personal experience of Pakistani Muslim people describing themselves as English. Being English is only an ethnic or national identity, ther is no English stste, or Englishy citizenship, one can only be ethnically English, how would you define someone who is English but not ethnically English? What is the actual word you would use to describe this mythical relationship (which I think you just made up) a person has with English identity that is not called ethnnicity? I want you to put a name to it, because saying they are English but not ethnically English does not make sense to me, it is an evasion. Alun 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * someone can only have one ethnic identity
 * It is my understanding that it is accurate to say that "Welsh" is a sub-ethnicity of "British", if you will. Thus, using your logic then you can go on to expand that you have numerous ethnicities: Welsh, British, Celtic, North-West European, European, white, etc. When I said you cannot have more than one ethnicity (without mixed descent), I meant that you cannot, for example, be ethnically English and ethnically Scottish.
 * A second-generation immigrant to England could consider himself English, and by all accounts would be. But they would not be in an ethnic sense, and I think that they would not identify so.
 * I will cede that there is no name for the non-ethnic sense in which one can be English. And if, as you seem to be saying, there is no sense that one can be English other than an ethnic sense, which one assumes upon (for example) integration into English society, then the people of recent immigrant history would be ethnically English. But, I believe that most people would agree that there is more than one way that one could be British (i.e. a 2nd-generation Chinese immigrant could consider themselves English in one sense, but be ethnically Han Chinese). However, as there is no standard definition of ethnicity (as the concept is not scientific) then it would be pretty much impossible to prove either of our viewpoints. Any evidence would be anecdotal (opinion polls and whatnot) but this would be jaded by poltical opinions and the fact that many people quite frankly don't care.
 * I would also like to add that I am not trying to create my own definition of ethnicity, but rather apply the definition of ethnicity that I believe to be best. If you provide some source stating that, undeniably, the most widely-used and accurate definition of ethnicity is the one that you use, then I will happily accept that definition. But, as I said before, there is no consensus on the definition of ethnicity.
 * If we were to use your definition, then there would no need to use the qualifier "ethnic", as there would be no non-ethnic English. Static Sleepstorm 09:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that it is accurate to say that "Welsh" is a sub-ethnicity of "British", if you will.
 * I would agree with this statement, though it does not mean that they are the same thing. Many people may be Welsh and not consider themselves ethnically British. Many people may not consider Welsh to be a sub-ethnicity of British, and still consider themselves both. Many people consider British to be a synonym for English ethnicity. There's no hard and fast rules. Still, even assuming Welsh is a sub-set of British, it does not make them the same thing, and so still allows for multiple identities for an individual. Like Welsh, British, European etc. Alun 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * there is no sense that one can be English other than an ethnic sense
 * I don't mean this, one can be English by descent for exapmle, or consider themselves "indigenous English". This is what I said above, it is not incorrect to claim that Pakinstani/Indian/West Indian English people are not English by descent, it is not incorrect to claim that they are not indigenous to England. I would point out that it is also not incorrect to claim that West Indians are not indigenous to the West Indies, though they are West Indian by descent. So we do actually need to differentiate ethnic English identity from English descent or indigenous English. We can see by this article that many North Americans feel strongly that they are English by descent, and often conflate this with English ethnicity.Alun 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh ? If they are English by descent, "indigenous" to England, then they ARE English by ethnicity. How do you know how many of them have other English ethnic feautures and how many don't ? If they are of English descent, they will automatically have other things of being ethnically English. They already for sure have many things on that list for being English: English language, religion, descent, and who knows which do or do not have other parts of Englishness. You gotta be more open-minded on this. Ethnicity isnt confined to a political or national boundary. Where you live/where you are born or your nationality does not equal your ethnicity. English descent and other things of "Englishness" = English ethnicty. Got it ? I hope so cause if you don't, then you need help, honestly. 69.156.88.156 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If we were to use your definition,
 * I don't use any strict definition of ethnicity, as you point out, there is no standard definition. I take the attitude that a person's ethnicity is partly is self defined, that is it is what they tell us it is, and partly defined by their society and culture, that is that they are accepted as part of a specific ethnic group, and are percieved as part of that group by others. In this sense I would argue that some people of Pakistani/Indian/West Indian people recent origin will identify, and be identified as English, other's will identify as British, yet others will not identify as English or British. So I do not propose that all recent immigrants are automatically English. I do propose that we cannot exclude people descended from recent immigrants automatically just because they are the wrong skin colour, or just because they are not indigenous English. It's worth reading what Bhopal says in Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate. This is a valuable document because it is written from a British perspective, and is specifically about social constructs like ethnicity and race. This comment is particularly relevant The characteristics that define ethnicity are not fixed or easily measured, so ethnicity is imprecise and fluid.....The measurement, or assignment, of ethnicity is problematic despite much research and debate. Presently, self definition of ethnicity is gaining favour. The problem is that the self assessment changes over time and with context, though this fluidity also has strengths. He defines ethnicity as The social group a person belongs to, and either identifies with or is identified with by others, as a result of a mix of cultural and other factors including language, diet, religion, ancestry, and physical features traditionally associated with race (see race). Increasingly, the concept is being used synonymously with race but the trend is pragmatic rather than scientific. One of the problems with ethnicity a multi cultural society like the UK is that for many ethnic groups (including Welsh and Scottish people), the society they grou up in is British (and English in the case of ethnic groups in England), but their culture is a mix of English and that of their parents. They cannot help but have very English cultural experiences from their indigenous friends, while also having different cultural experiences at home (that is different to their indigenous friends). I think this makes it vital that we recognise that these people do in fact often identify with two ethnicities. I think of my mate Sajad, who is an avid sports fan (and who identifies as English and Pakistani, I think of him as English mainly, certainly he is more English than me, he needs to explaim football to me for example). He is fervent in his support for England in football, but only supports England in Cricket if Pakistan are not playing, if it's Pakistan playing England, then he support's Pakistan. There's nothing odd about this. As a Welshman I would not dream of supporting England in Rugby, whoever they are playing, but I am happy to support them in football and cricket. The UK is a complicated place, and we all sometimes have divided loyalties and uncertain identities, irrespective of whether we are "indigenous" or descended from recent immigrants. Alun 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence for dual ethnicities in the UK for minorities here. Alun 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An addendum to this discussion. Probably most British people here are aware of the sacking of the Conservative Party's Homeland Security spokesperson Patrick Mercer. This is a bloke who is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and was an officer in the Army with the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, so he is unlikely to qualify for the label "bleeding heart liberal". He was sacked (or told to resign, depending on your perspective) because of supposedly racist remarks he made. Irrespective of whether the remarks were racist or not, he did state that he had worked with Black British NCOs. This is what he said If an ex-Army Tory MP can identify Black people as as English as you and me, then I fail to understand why this article should give a racist point of view. Alun 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

About the people who claim that one or more of their ancestors was English
I am confused about the inclusion of the United States, Australia, Canada etc. under "Regions with significant populations" in the infobox of the article. No doubt, many people in those countries have some English ancestry but what does it say about their ethnic identity? Not much. The overwhelming majority of those people are certainly not English anymore. They do not see themselves as such. Are not seen as such by the English who today visit or immigrate to their countries.

Maybe it should be made clear that these countries were colonized by English immigrants (over the course of many centuries), whose descendants later developed their own cultural and/or ethnic identities? -- Mathieugp 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read through the talk page and it's archives. I agree with you completely, but it seems that many North Americans (most of whom seem to have a limited grasp of even the basics of English culture and society) seem to think that having an English ancestor makes them ethnically English. It's got to the point where many people seem to be claiming that a person's ethnicity is dependent on nothing more than a belief that one might have an ancestor from a certain place, and according to these people one's upbringing, societal norms, culture, language, religion, country of origin etc. are all apparently irrelevant. It's nonsense I know, but it keeps being stated here over and over. Alun 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have interjected to the discussions from time to time, perhaps ambiguously, and indeed I added many of the footnotes about these numbers, so will just make it clear that I take a position in the middle of the two extremes. The people in New Zealand clearly claim to belong to the English ethnic group (as opposed to ancestry or origin etc). They belong to the English ethnic group. There is a significant population of English in Spain. The people in the US and Australia have English ethnic origins. In terms of a perceived common ancestry they are worth mentioning in this article as very closely related, if not in fact ethnic English. The number in Canada is of particular interest as a significant number claim English ethnic origins but do not claim Canadian ethnic origins. There are many English people who have settled in these countries in their own lifetime. I do not really think that counting all these people among the English is applicable, but they are worth mentioning and their reported numbers are worth reporting in this article. Equally, there is no basis for reporting the number of English in England. The total number of English (everywhere) cannot be reliably reported either. I am not a fan of this infobox. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Replying to Alun) Right, I noticed it too. That old problem of the ambiguity of words... Maybe we can help to resolve the issue by clarifying that ethnicity is socially transmitted, unlike "race" which has to be passed down biologically. One common, probably the most frequent way a person will come to identify and/or be identified as a member of a given ethnic group is to be brought up as a member of that group. A confusion arise I think because a great deal of people (this would be my case for example) are both member of a given ethnic group and also member of the main community(ies) of biological descent that make up the bulk of the said ethnic population. Do you think that could help? -- Mathieugp 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replying to zzuuzz) Naturally, the colonization of America and other continents by the Europeans gave birth to new nations that are closely related to the original ones (by language, legal heritage, religious heritage and other). For example, the French and the Quebecers, speaking of their relation, popularly say that they are "cousins" (Nos cousins les Québécois, nos cousins les Français). -- Mathieugp 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can fix the infobox by replacing the figures of people who claim ancestry in the US, Canada etc by the figures of people who are native English speakers born in England in those countries? We would then be counting people who are very likely to be ethnic English. There are for sure stats on this. It just requires a little bit more math. :-) -- Mathieugp 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the infobox for French people has separate cells for "French citizens", "French speakers", "French ancestry claimed". Maybe something along those lines? -- Mathieugp 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think something like that would be an improvement, but with some changes. The most important thing is to distinguish those with English ancestry from those claiming English ethnicity. The citizen column for France is there because of their peculiar Republic philosophy - the English equivalent for England would be resident population, and for the rest of the world it would be emigrants or passport holders (however you can't call all the people in England - even those who were born there - English, and I would be surprised if there were emigrant statistics for those claiming English ethnicity or even previous English residency). The number of English speakers would not be useful for this article. I would prefer to see a solution which meant the footnotes went into a section in the article which could properly present and explain these crude numbers. The main problem we have is that the only statistic we have for people claiming to belong to the English ethnic group is for those in New Zealand. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to distinguish between ancestry and ethnicity, likewise I agree that we should mention people with an English ancestry here, while making it clear that English ancestry is not equivalent to English ethnicity. I removed the numbers for significant population from the infobox for this very reason, but left them in the footnotes section. I do not like this infobox either, I think the problem is that it inherently violates WP:NPOV because only a single POV can be included, but maybe that's just my opinion. I like the "cousins" analogy, it seems more accurate. I am not a big fan of the "related ethnic groups" section in the infobox because it generated such heated debate between "germanists" and "celticists", no one could decide just exactly which groups are really "related", nor indeed could anyone decide just what a "related ethnic group" is, I searched in vain for some sort of definition of this vague concept, and without a proper definition how can we properly decide what constitute "related groups". I personally feel that wikipedia needs some general standards for this sort of thing, that are applicable for all articles related to ethnicity, so that we can all have an agreed upon standard definition of what ethnicity means for Wikipedia. With such a standard it should become easier to decide if two populatons form a single ethnic group, or whether they form related ethnic groups, or whether they simply have a common descent with divergent social/cultural norms. I's also like to point out that places like Australia and New Zealand (and to a certain extent British South Africans) are not really equivalent to places like Canada and the United States of America when it comes to sharing social and cultural norms with British ethnic groups. English people (and British people generally) are much closer ethnically to New Zealanders and Australians than they are to North Americans. Many English people will recognise the closeness of the bond with our antipodean brethren, and also recognise that such a bond does not exist, or is much more dilute with any North American groups, though it's probably true that most British people feel closer to Canadians than they do to people from the USA, again it's because Canadian society is so much like our own, even if Canadian culture is more like that of the USA. So I think that it is more reasonable to accept claims of English ethnic identity from places like Australia and New Zealand than from places like the USA, but agan this is just my opinion. Alun 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Alun, I haven't been editing in weeks, but I just felt I'd comment on your latest paragraph/discusson here. You make some good and interesting points, but I have one issue with them: You're not distinguishing between national culture/society and ethnicity/ethnic origin including one's culture at home (that from your family or descent). You can't say that ancestry or descent is not necessarily synonymous with ethnicity on one hand, then say that it is synonymous with culture or society on the other. Its really a combination of both. Ethnic English people in England have the ancestry and other ethnic traits associated with that, as well as having the culture and societal aspects of living in England. Outside of England, some still have this same identity because they live in an English or British cultural community or simply because their family only recently immigrated and/or has maintained the cultural aspects very strictly, no matter where they live (eg. the Welsh-speaking Welsh communtiy in Argentina is just as "Welsh" as many in Wales, even more so). Those descended from English emigrants outside of the UK who have lost many of the cultural/societal aspects will only be able to identify with parts of English identity (i.e. language, descent and associated traits), while those born and raised in the UK, but descended from immigrants and of non-English origins/ancestry will in turn also only be able to identify with part of English "ethnic" identity (language and national culture/societal/community traits). As you know, ethnic and cultural identification are both broad concepts encompassing many aspects to how peope identify themselves. The "true" Ethnic English would be considered by many I'm sure as those with English language and culture/society, usually in England but also in places outside of it, as well as having primarily native English (Anglo-Briton) descent and resultant traits. This would exclude both those of English extraction outside of England who have lost many cultural aspects, as well as those with many English societal/cultural aspects in England itself, but withouth the English descent and resultants traits (behavioural biological, familial/cultural etc.) However, even those of more distant English ancestry in the Anglosphere who may have lost many of the more distinctly English customs, still for certain retain two integral markers of ethnic identification: language and common descent (and resultant traits). Anyways, the current format of the article seems fine and I'm glad you helped create a separate article for population genetics of British and Irish populations since it really causes less clutter on the ethnic group articles themselves. Ciao, Epf 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To the joy of many
I'm fucking off from wikipedia. This proves that these "admins" are not interested in "neutrality". If you want proof see that User:LSLM (good not racist bloke) has been blocked but Alun 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)against,,,,,,, Alun 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Genes found
Ha Ha ha, new studies just showed that English people some thosand years ago have much dna from Iran, Syria and Israel. God has a sense of humor. We need to add this. I need to find the source.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * heh :) God has nothing to do with it, with respect.  Our genes tell their own story.  By all means add this, but it will upset the ethnic purists on this page. Hakluyt bean 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those studies exist but if they do they are not considered fact by anyone. Its already known about the ancient briton, celtic and anglo-saxon heritage of english people.

Genetics
I removed both paragraphs and gave a link to the population genetics of the british isles articles. It was totally unbalanced (it only mentioned an old outdated and now doubted amongst the scientific community of anglo saxon invasion only).

Either include all the genetic info to make it balanced or have none of it, keeping one veiw point of the genetics of england is not a summary and the paragraph that was included was a one sided veiw of the genetics of england. --Globe01 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian Jezza 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)== Contribution to Humanity ==

I have removed the following ''England has also been responsible for the colonisation of much of the world. Many negative contributions to humanity have come with this, such as the invention of the concentration camp, the promotion of a mercantilist slave-trade and massacres in places as widespread as India, Kenya, Malaysia, Ireland, Dresden, and many others''

These points need citations. Incidents since the 1707 cannot be linked to England but rather the United Kingdom. The invention of the concentration camp should be linked to that article and proven. The comment on the slave-trade should be balanced with the dates on when it was abolished. Comments on massacres should be referenced with the build-up and aftermath of these, what caused them, etc. Nobody has any business making the English feel guilty for what happened to Dresden or Germany during a war which the Germans started. Enzedbrit 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Germans didn't start the war, the British declared war on Germany. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shoudn't have(indeed the UK should have acted much earlier), but to be accurate, we gave them an ultimatum which they ignored, so we declared war on them. It was the fault of the UK leadership really, the Nazis had every reason to assume that their ultimatum was not serious, we had let them get away with so many annexations and invasions over the previous three years or so (we all know "Peace in our time"), in this the Nazi leadership miscalculated badly. The policy of appeasment of the British government meant that what might have been a small conflict had they acted in 1935 (say) became a major war by 1939. Anyway I digress, there's no doubt that the British state declared war (and therefore "started it"), and there's no doubt that we commited war crimes, especially the bombing of civilian targets. I don't take the view that just because the crimes of the Nazi state were worse, it means we should gloss over the crimes of the British state. Alun 11:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The English have been responsible for most of the advancements of humanity. This should be reflected in the article.

i wouldn't say many i would say most

Dead Link
"'Archeological discoveries suggest that North Africans may have had some presence in those parts of Britain that were to become England at the time of the Roman Empire.<ref)The Black Romans: BBC culture website. Retrieved 21 July 2006.</ref)'". This External Ref (currently Note 18) is dead. === Vernon White (talk)  14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ethnic
The English are not an ethnic group, at least they haven't been since the Victorians and their cooked-up ideas of racial difference, which fed into all kinds of nonsense about divisions between races in the 20th Century. Nonsense which genetics is revealing to be myth. One might be excused for thinking that one hazy cultural practice has been replaced by another; the celebrating of pseudo-ethnicity among North Americans of European origin. See article Irish people for example. It's cultural practice to draw ethnic boundaries coincident with political borders; it may accommodate political sensitivities, but it's not scientifically accurate nor encyclopaedic prospect magazine eg. Room is also going to have to be made for Black Britons. Here's a Black British MP discussing same (when she references the surprise she encounters that she is British I'm pretty sure she's referring to the standard North American reaction) BBC. Hakluyt bean 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that,I agree totally with what you said.I am confused by the terminology people use when they interchangeably use the words race,nationality,ancestry,ethnicity etc. It does not help when they start saying "I'm a quarter German,half Irish and a quarter Italian" I know they are not being literal in most cases but then some people may use it to mean I have "Italian blood" like its any different physiologically from any other nationalities blood, or DNA for that matter. In my own case, in terms of Grandparents,I am a "quarter" English,a "quarter" Irish,a "quarter" Welsh and a "quarter" Scottish,but I describe myself,rightly or wrongly, in terms of my nationality as British,or English.I know some people would take issue with both English or British being a nationality. I don't harbour romantic notions of being three quarters Celtic based on the birth countries of my grandparents. Then there is my unborn daughter who wil have dual British/American citizenship,but her maternal grandparents were second generation Jewish German-Americans and Polish-American Catholics.Which brings the incidental fact of religion into it all.


 * haha, give ma a break Hak. The woman in that article clearly has some bent opinion on Britain being some "multi-racial society" which has always been sp. She doesn't know what she's talking about and even says: "But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles.", herself talking about how there was and is racial differences between groups. Your own quotes you reference from disagree with alot of what your saying and do talk of differences between peoples that are there of course. There is no "pseudo-ethnicity" of Euroepan-Americans and their identities are ethnicities and you aren't even understanding what parts make up an ethnicity. I'm pretty sure English people woudl disagree andsay they are an ethnic group and have distinct differences and ancestry.

"like its any different physiologically from any other nationalities blood, or DNA for that matter."

well I don't know about nationalities, but there are of course genetic differences between different ethnic groups or races that also happen to be linked to states, nations or regions. Every person and group is different. I think if anyone read your statemnets here, they would want that minute of their life back. 69.157.100.164 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure English people would disagree and say they are an ethnic group and have distinct differences and ancestry" Are you saying English people have distinct differences and ancestries from each other individually?Or are you saying everyone who is English does not share any ancestry with anyone else except other English people?Like they all came over together as Anglo-Saxons on the boat from what is today Germany and did not interbreed with the other inhabitants of the British isles such as the Celts,the Picts etc? I am English and I don't share the same ancestry as any people I know except my parents and my sister.And of course my grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousin etc.And thankfully my parents don't share the same recent ancestry as each other. Of course there are genetic differences between different ethnic groups,as there are between all living creatures,but there are also genetic similarities otherwise the "human race",with all its diversity would not be capable of continuing.Its called evolution. What is ethnicity?Its not all about genetics is it?I am not stating this as a fact,I am just asking the question.

In fact, the English and Britons are an increasingly diverse nation. That is covered in the article, but I think it is underplayed a little bit. Here you have these data from 1991:

http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/em_fs.pdf

And that was 25 years ago, with a population of about 54 million. Now the population is more that 60 million in the UK and these minorities have increased more than the majority of the population, making up a very significant proportion of English people. This fact about the diversity of English and British people should be elaborated a bit more. This is objective information. Subjectively speaking, I can tell you that London, the capital of the English and British, is a very diverse city indeed. 65.11.114.127 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. The above user (User:69.157.100.164) is a banned user who used to be called Eoganan. He has a long history of tendentious editing and POV pushing (see the edit history of this page and that of Recent single-origin hypothesis or indeed the personal attacks on my user page from this editor for proof of the lack of good faith this editor has displayed). He has a strange obsession that ethnicity is the same as race, and a firm convicton that race is a biological construct, despite the obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He dismisses all evidence that does not support his point of view as biased, however impeccable the source, but uses sources with no accademic credentials to support his POV. He also has a very long history of aggressive personal attacks. He persists in editing through IP addresses and has shown no interest in formuing a consensus. His IP address usually begins with 69.157 or 69.156 (but not always), which is how I know who he is. This seems to be an IP associated with Bell Canada (see here), but that's all I know about it. Alun 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)