Talk:English people/Archive 7



Untitled
Note to editors: The page English (people) was created in English English (en-EN). Please refer to:
 * Manual of Style (spelling),
 * Manual of Style and
 * Manual of Style for information on editing.

Definitions of ethnic group, nation, and race
Some definitions:

Definitions of ethnic group

Definitions of nation

Definitions of race

Alun 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Flags and Numbers
All the other ethnic group articles have them, there's no reason for them not to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.202.88 (talk • contribs)
 * These numbers are disputed, there is no consensus on this page to include these numbers in the article "infobox". The numbers occur in the footnotes, and their origin and what they mean are discussed there. The infobox does not explain the differeing methods of calculation of these numbers. It is also obvious that these numbers mostly do not represent ethnicity. Alun 16:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you better go and change just about every other ethnicity article then. Chop-chop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.94.244 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Why? We form consensus here on an article by article basis. Besides which if the numbers in the infobox represent English people, then all of the flags should be George Crosses, because that's the flag of English people, and they are all supposedly English. Please do not engage in edit waring. Try to form a consensus first. You need to make a better case than "everyone else uses unsound data, so this article should as well". Alun 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well on reflection I can sort of see your point. I don't like the flags, but that's probably just my bias. MAybe we should adopt the other style of infobox, like in Welsh people, it seems to be wider, and so the text looks less cluttered. What do you think? Alun 17:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * maybe next to the nation's flag should be an english flag... even though it would be too much hard wrk... maybe just leave it as is... it is fine...Australian Jezza 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the neutrality tag. why?
British immigrants are swamping Spain. Spain is probably one the countries in the the world with the greatest number of English citizens, yet, the information and the links have been erased (it happened several times). It also happened in the Scottish people article. Now it seems that Britons are strange creatures that have nothing to do with the Scots or the English. Or is it Anglo-Arrogance that wants to hide that fact that the British are one of the most important minority and immigrant communities in Spain?. I am not putting it back again (what for?), but this is just an example of the kind of rubbish that these articles are and the kind of people behind them.

Here you have a few links that were erased. Spain is the second place of British emigration after Australia as can be seen in several articles. I have cut and pasted this from one of the articles, but it can be seen in others:

"Where do we think these people are?

Some 41 nations each have at least 10,000 British residents, according to the IPPR's research.

Australia and Spain, as most people would guess, count for the most expats. The big English-speaking economies follow along with some of our European neighbours.

http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1588156,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5237236.stm

And here you have a country list:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm

From here I have cut and pasted this:

Country   	  Full-time  Full & part-time Pensioners

Australia 	1,300,000 	1,310,000 	45,311

Spain 	         761,000 	990,000 	74,636

United States 	 678,000 	685,000 	132,083

Canada 	         603,000 	609,000 	157,435

Ireland 	 291,000 	320,000 	104,650

You can also look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

and click on the Spain map for more information.

So, continue erasing information and go on living in your world of fantasies. But, as said, maybe the English have nothing to do with the British. 65.10.133.118 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you are confusing 'British' and 'English'. They are not the same. --Malcolmxl5 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins
In response to Alun's post:

"It is very disingeneous to make massive edits to a relatively stable article, especially to remove information without giving a reason on the talk page. It is doubly insulting to other editors of the article to then complain that a revert of your edit was done without giving any reason. Where exactly did you give your reasons? I see no evidence of a talk page discussion or even an edit summary. If you demand explanations then I suggest you be prepared to offer explanations of your own. Wikipedia works by consensus, if you have good reasons for wanting to remove information then you need to present those reasons on the talk page and discuss the changes first. This is how we achieve consensus. These articles are not a free for all. Please refrain for making big edits without discussing on the talk page first. Alun 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * Some of this section seems to me disjointed and too condensed. Creating a seperate section for each of the groups listed (Romano-British, Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings, Normans etc) with a summary of each, with links to the respective main articles would help make the article more informative and readable in my opinion. (89.241.239.89 12:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Sorry, my mistake, I thought you had removed large sections of the text, but I see you had simply rearranged it somewhat. I should have looked a bit closer to what you had done. I actually agree with you, your version does look a lot better. Apologies. All the best. Alun 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, no probs. Seems I did omit some text when I re-arranged it, which I've put back in. (89.241.239.89 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Regions with significant populations box
I know this has been mentioned before and I know it's footnoted, but any source that says only 34,000 New Zealanders have English ethnic origin is misleading and useless. Obviously most English speaking countries have similiar cultures to the UK so there is no need for second or even first generation English immigrants to to assert themselves as a seperate ethnic group. For this reason I see this box as conjecture and speculation and the figures should be removed. Honestly most white Americans have mixed German, Polish, English/other British ancestory, trying to categorise them as one or the other is a pretty futile (although often attempted) exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.66.45 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no source that states that 34,000 New Zealanders have English ethnic origin. The source, which is the New Zealand census, says that 34,000 New Zealanders belong to the English ethnic group. It is 44,202 for the 2006 census. The "Regions with significant populations" section should stick to that, significant populations of people who consider themselves part of the English ethnic group, currently there are too many sources that refer to people's descent or ethnic origin, which is not the same thing at all. Indeed the NZ stat is probably the only reliable one in the whole list, including the one for the UK. I don't think we are trying to categorise people as "one or the other", there is no reason why US citizens who identify as English and German (for example) cannot be considered both and categorised and counted as both, there is no reason for exclusive categories when it comes to ethnicity and I don't think anyone has ever said that there should be. The validity of the figures is disputed by many people and I for one would be more than happy to remove them, but another user keeps putting them back in. I would be very happy to remove this misleading infobox altogether, it causes nothing but problems on every ethnic group page it appears on. There is a discussion above about numbers, this comment of yours should really be part of that discussion. Alun 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * by australian census rules you cannot be considered more than two ethnic group haha, so too bad for me lol, this is random eh? Australian Jezza 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it certainly is random. Basically it's down to the whim of the government of the particular place you happen to live in. Alun 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

well now that i think about it i also me is that there might be more than that amound of people that are english because some people may have more than two ethnic backgrounds ( i think they do this in NZ two where they restrcit the number of ethnicities you can affiliate with with) may choose to affiliate with another background instead like my NZ friend she said that she is half english, Maori and Samoan but she only put Maori and Samoan down because thats who she identifies with, so what i am also trying to say is that... CENSUSES CAN NEVER BE TRUESTED 100%!lol... lol i hope that made sense lolAustralian Jezza 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

numbers
Regarding this edit.diff The text that was removed seems to be some sort of personal essay, it in unsources and therefore does not represent information from a reliable source. I did not actually remove any data from the census as I was accused, it is self evident from the diffs that the census data are still present and sourced. It is somewhat disingeneous to claim that removal of personal and uncited opinion is a POV thing to do. What was POV was the inclusion of the personal essay in the first place. This opinion can go back in if it can be shown to derive from a reliable source. Untill such time it remains little more than the personal opinion of a Wikipedia ediote, and therefre original research. Also unsourced was this "Many respondents may have misunderstood the question and the numerous responses for "Canadian" does not give an accurate figure for numerous groups, particularly those of British Isles origins." Alun 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit diff is simply unecessary. As the article says "This article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation." The NZ census is one of the few censuses to collect data on people who identify as belonging to the English ethnic group. The infobox is for regions with significant populations of people who belong to the English ethnic group. In this ense the NZ data are the most accurate and the most reliable. I see no reason to include data that are over ten years ago and that do not represent ethnic affinity. When accurate data are available why include ancestry data? Alun 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll start an RfC on this because we have been having this discussion add infinitum. If the RfC does not work then we can go to mediation. How about that? Alun 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, the NZ census asks two different questions, each regarding different aspects of ethnicity and with only certain select options avaliable for respondents. Most of the respondents in the 2001 and 2006 questions answered under "New Zealand European" for selected ethnicity (specifically cultural affiliation in these particular cases) which is clearly a broad and ambiguous category. Just because the 1996 ethnicity question specifically referred more to the descent/origin aspects of ethnic identification does not negate the figures or give them any less credence here. I find that your POV is the only thing that is at issue here, and since we are supposed to have an NPOV for articles on Wikipedia, I do not see why both figures can't be included here. Ciao. Epf 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please address comments to the RfC. Alun 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
What data to include in the infobox for the English people article? The New Zealand census produced a statistic in 1996 that had "a tendency for respondents to answer the 1996 question on the basis of ancestry (or descent) rather than 'ethnicity' (or cultural affiliation)" according to Statistics New Zealand. This figure was 281,895. In the 2001 and 2006 censuses the figures for belonging to the "English ethnic group" were ~35,000 and ~44,000 respectively. Should we use a range thus 35,000-281,895 in the info box, or should we just use the ethnic group figures? 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Personally I feel that we only need the ethnic group figures. New Zealand is the only state that actually records these figures, so why not use the most accurate figures available? It is clear from the obvious difference between the 1996 figures and the 2006 figures that in New Zealand there is a big difference between the way people see their ethnicity and the way they see their descent. For sure give figures for descent if it's all we've got, but also make it clear what the figures represent in the infobox. Curreently the infobox does this very well, so why introduce ancestry figures as well as ethnicity figures and complicate the issue unecessarily? Alun 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is clear from the obvious difference between the 1996 figures and the 2006 figures that in New Zealand there is a big difference between the way people see their ethnicity and the way they see their descent." Not necessarily true. It is clear from the difference that the way the census is set out, in terms of boxes available to tick, has a big effect on what people record as their "ethnicity".  It is also clear that there is significant ambiguity as to the difference between "ethnicity" and "ambiguity".  It is also clear that people such as ourselves like to use that ambiguity to our advantage and choose to interpret these stats in whatever way suits our own ideologies.


 * I suggest that whatever we do it is consistent. Sadly countries are not consistent in gathering stats on ethnicity and ancestry, and I have written to our Census Bureau to ask for this to be mitigated.


 * It seems to me that a person has to identify as part of an ethnic group to be counted in that ethnic group. Because of the ambiguity in our census, and the lack of an ethnicity question in other censuses, I think it will be close to impossible to have an authoritative figure on the matter.  Censuses should have questions both on ethnicity and ancestry, with associated definitions to aid the person filling it out.


 * Lets at least not pretend that the stats are tidy. The table should include stats both for "ethnicity" and for "ancestry", and record next to the statistic whether it is "ethnicity" or "ancestry".  We may not end up with a perfect box, with stats on both for every country.  But lets at least publish the info we have, and highlight to our governments the effect of their lacklustre efforts in this area on meaningful information about ethnicity and ancestry.A.J.Chesswas 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate the infobox, as outlined in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. In this particular instance, it's tempting to keep up with the mantra, and suggest pulling the plug on the silly-looking 'regions with significant populations' box. Every single number is measuring something different, and it's hard to see what is gained from such a numerical grab-bag. Apart, of course, from giving the infobox a reason to exist.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about Whigipedia RACISM!
In the "related peoples" section, there is no French (Normandy, Blois, Anjou & Grey/Dudley if counting Jane/Guilford) nor Spaniard/Portuguese/Italian/Jerusalemite and even "Chilean" (Habsburg). I have no interpretation problems on the Celtic connections of the Tudors and Stuarts who added the distinct peoples of Ireland and Scotland to blend with the common English people. At least the French were usually melding with the English, whether by the Norman Conquest or the Huguenots and a constant interaction with them over all these centuries.

Teutonic links are rather exclusively aristocratic and tied to Parliament since 1688, not England (nor Scotland). When have the common English people bred with or even conversed with in passing encounters, the Dutch of Willem van Oranje-Nassau, the German of Georg von Hannover and Eduard von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, or the Danish of the next incumbent Karl af Slesvig-Holsten-Sønderborg-Lyksborg (Prince Charles, but conveniently leaving out the Greek nature)?! If one adds the Teutonic links, then why not the Spanish when such flimsy relationship standards apply? Furthermore, with such low standards of integration, why leave out the French whom have historically been closer to the English than either the Teutons or Spaniards?

This article is Nordicist and rejects my Mediterranean heritage, an article to which I would swear a thousand curse words of hate, while despairing at the intolerance of such intra-European racism. True, it makes me sad. Let's not forget that the last King of England to bear an Anglo-Saxon coat of arms was Richard II, representing Edward the Confessor. I thought you lot were about Alfred the Great and the glory of those Anglo-Saxon days before 1066? Well, continue to disparage the last one to honor their memory in the government of England. Nobody has done so since!

User:Neustriano 09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are getting at. I don't know why you are talking abou things like "breeding", are we horses or something? It's simple really, this article is about ethnicity. English is a germanic language, English people have this linguistic and certain cultural traits in common with people from the North Sea coast. English people also obviously have a close cultural and linguistic connection to the peoples of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. English people do not share many cultural or linguistic characteristics with Spanish people as faras I know, nor do they with the French, though this is at least debatable, lots of French woirds in the English language after all. Cheers. Alun 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

English people have never been on a personal level with the exterior lands of British dynasties since 1688. The Dutch, Germans and Danish are extremely dubious relatives of the English people for this very fact. English culture and people were similarly without significant integration with the Irish and Scottish before the Tudor-Stuart era, but have nevertheless shared common lives ever since. The same could not be said for the Dutch, Germans and Danes no more than for the Spaniards. That is to say, that these remained foreign relations and cultures despite their interaction with our British government. The emphasis on "Germanicism" has only been a factor since the 19th century, when the Georgian/Victorian eras flourished. On the other hand, English people have always maintained close interactions with the French--whether in love or war. The French relationship almost trumps the Celtic, but not quite, when considering the status quo--they are more or less equal. Why exclude the Mediterranean connexions of the English people, in favor of arbitrary Teutonic links that constructively mean nothing except on Stormfront and the bunkers of neo-Nazis in the American Midwest?

The question is whether you will adhere to solid links or tenuous links. The English are thoroughly integrated people with the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. This has never been a fact for England and the other "related peoples". England was even terrestrially connected and interwoven with France, but not the lands of those other peoples. Your theories hold no practical or historic water, but are ideological and political. Besides, you have a Finnish companion and I am sure that is bound to influence your concern for the constitution of the English people. You have a very skewed, ahistoric view of the English people and their relationships with other people. It is all about preference with you, not about official, personal and wholly connective experiences of the English all this time. Myopia and undue weight is what that is. Please, quit the social engineer's revisionism. User:Neustriano 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Big Bad 1066! Francophobic articles need to die.
The Normans were only an extension of the Viking component of England, with the succeeding Angevin dynasty coming into the play because of that bridge. Need I remind you that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles? So, exclusionary articles pushing Whiggish POV are impressive and helpful? No concern for neutrality in the British Isles--it's all hogwash between the Home Nations and "Cornish" who hate eachother and ignore their native minorities "Manx/Norman" while importing foreign minorities to distract them from conflict resolution. This is a huge reason why I am ashamed of my English heritage. It has less to do with "White guilt" about "White Man's Burden", than for the concept of "Union" of common peoples to mean nothing for those who are closer than neighbors in composition. But, keep fighting! I thought I was optimistic when reading the paper the other day. It said Adams and Paisley are getting along. Which press should I listen to, the hateful like this or newsprint? User:Neustriano 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pleas do not confuse ethnicity with politics or government. This article is about English people as an ethnic group. It is not about English history or the English aristocracy or their political affiliations. See History of England for your concerns Alun 10:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They are inseparable. How dare any editor on the character of the English people "gut out" the concept of who we are, by focusing on the convenient tales of English history and its input into making the English, at the exclusion of others? That is not tolerance in the slightest. Nor is it knowledgeable. I will not walk a tightrope and fall, just to please the extremists--regardless of their proportion to the English people or who is in power at what time. Besides, you said you would support a motion for the French. What is this going back on your word?

Must I explain again and again? I have already stated that the Spanish/Dutch/German/Danish relationships were mostly political or whathaveyou (with genetic underpinnings, admittedly), under either English or British governments. I only want the British Isles and France people in the ethnicity box. Leave the polar opposites out and we have a deal. Besides, the approach of the English in an Anglican nation was with Spain. When England joined with Presbyterian Scotland, there was a revolutionary shift towards more northerly concerns such as the Dutch, Germans and Danes. The Scots regularly held interactions with the Danes, but England did not until this point. The Dutch were Calvinist like the Scots, so that is their natural connection. The Germans are through the Dutch element. It is ironic that the Jacobites and Hanoverians represented two sides of the Welf family in their conflicts, which had nothing to do with the English as a people. One could say that the English have continually gotten the shaft in our ethnic relations, since the accession of James. But, the Scottish still complain and blame us for it. Bah!

Do you still refuse to admit the political factor in assigning the English to a Teutonic arrangement, which scarcely existed when Henry VIII married Anne of Cleves and was disgusted with her? You don't actually believe that the English were ethnically intertwined with the Continent in more northerly areas than Burgundian Flanders, or do you? When Henry attacked Martin Luther, he was uncontroversially speaking for all the English and I have not met one Englishman who adored Luther. The Dutch connection with the Orangists has a little bit resonance with the English because of the Duke of Burgundy in the Hundred Years' War and textiles, but that is it. Besides, the Flanders Mare was associated with a part of Spain once called Burgundy. Even if we consider the Dutch, it is through relations with the Spanish. John of Gaunt was born in Flanders but became titular King of Castile. If you don't think these historical factors matter, then you will never make sense discussing English ethnicity in relationships with others.

The fact of the matter is, there has been no common relation between the English with the Spanish/Dutch/German/Danish peoples. It was all aristocratic, so why not explain that? Why pretend that aristocratic apologia for the Whig succession was any more based in solid fact than the Jesuits'? Why give favor, simply because one side was successful in domination of how England and more importantly, Britain, was going to be, rather than how all this was. It all has to do with interpreting history from their perspective, which you apparently find no conflict with. That qualifies you as an unwitting extremist IMHO. I'm not saying it is intentional, but a general atmospheric prejudice.

If you had stood by the Jesuits when William III came marching through, you would be plowed to the ground. So, you toe the line and agree that the new order must be justified by steering the conventions of our past. Indoctrination through public education supported by state-sponsored content is largely how further generations have not questioned the newer establishment and the role their heritage plays as representative of the people in an undemocratic system. They are brainwashed to think that the losers were evil and wrong, or out of place. Well, I thought you were the anarchist here. Where is your agreement with my presentation on the events? Do you think anarchism is cool, or a joke? Please be serious with such convictions! User:Neustriano 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he has a point. If we're connected to the Dutch and Frisians then we're also connected to the French.  My English and French ancestors become inseparable when we get back to the middle-ages, and the fact is English does contain a heap of French words.  I don't know anything about Spanish connections.  But obviously there are also connections with the Danes, the Norse and even with Italians.  Perhaps they should also be lisetd as related ethnic groups.  We do we draw the line in terms of heritage?  Why should the Dutch and Frisians be included, yet not the Danish, Norse, Italian and even simply German peoples?  All of those groups contributed in the form mass mass migrations and intermarriage with the English, to contribute to the COMMON heritage English people have today.A.J.Chesswas 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't personally have a problem including French people as a related ethnic group, but there used to be a lot of people here who were against it. Let's see what the consensus is. I think A.J.Chesswas has a very good point, where do we draw the line? We could even argue for a relatedness to all European cultures ultimately. It's a fine balance between to much inclusiveness and too much exclusiveness, and of course everyone has a point of view and thinks they are absolutely right on this sort of issue. Alun 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look...let's just steer clear of the controversial ethnic groups on two spectrums of Europe. We all know that the English currently have strongest ties with the other British Isles peoples, but that the French people are next closest because of the English Channel (Oceanus Britannicus) and the way England and France were interwoven (Britain and Gaul under the Gallic tetrarch and empire as well). I do not support a focus that evokes either Roman or German imagery as supreme, but perhaps equal recognition of their elements as ambient influences would be better outlined in the article on English history. Keep the Romance and Germanic designations out of the related ethnicities box. Let's not forget that the English have strong ties to Normans, Bretons, Franks, Gascons and Burgundians (inc. Flemings). Where were the Roman or German relationships for a millenium--apart from Empress Matilda or Richard of Cornwall? Roman and German are overplayed accoutrements of the defunct Holy Roman Empire. I do not oppose the HRE, but that institution was less important to England than its immediate neighbors (France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland) during its existance. The Romance (inc. Celtic) and Germanic heritages of England are practically identical to those of France, in comparison to other European countries. User:Neustriano

Regarding the French issue, it seems that the English are not very familiar with their own history: Without even considering more ancient links, just a couple of reminders:

(It is funny how some say that the Normans were Vikings: The Nordicist propaganda in all the articles is incredible. The Normans that arrived in England were fully French when they arrived in England. Spoke French and were fully French in all respects, and continued to live in France in the region of Normandy. Normandy was in France, hello! and continues to be in France, hello! and genetic research shows that these people have very little to do with Scandinavia and have been in that part of France for a very long time)

But going back to the main issue:

1. In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England and established a French Norman dynasty to stay for good.

2. The French language became the language of the upper classes, of the church, the nobility, etc. while the peasants retained Anglo-Saxon.

3. This situation lasted until the 14th century, when the nobility, who was by then bilingual, returned gradually to English for different reasons (It has been said that after centuries they developed their own French dialect and they were teased by the continental French for their accent in French. Sure there were more important reasons).

4. As a result, more than 50% of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin, and this vocabulary entered the language, not exclusively, but mainly through French. In fact in terms of vocabulary English is as much a Romance language as a Germanic language.

Has anyone here ever studied French?. Never wondered why so many words in English are similar to French, especially the long ones (Anglo-Saxon tends to be monosyllabic), and for the same reason similar to other Latin languages like Spanish or Italian, well here you have it, they are actually French. (I hope this does not hurt English pride).

And these French never left, just became English.

If the French are not related to the English I am the Pope. But of course the usual morons can still say that the people of Normandy are not French or that the people of Morocco are Vandals, because some Vandals settled there once upon a time. Or, why not, that the British are Romans, because they were there for 4 hundred years, or that the people of Belgium, Holland or Luxemburg are Spanish, because they were occupied by the Spanish for a few hundred years, and on and on. But let us go back to more serious stuff:

The problem with English identity is that it is a big tall tale that the people of England have been swallowing since the times of Henry VIII and his propaganda that has continued up to the present. But fantasy if free and people can live in lies. It happens all the time. 72.144.248.70 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the French are related to the English. I don't believe anyone is disputing this. The question is simply one of degree. At a basic, emotional level, who do the English identify as their closest kin? I think you'll find that the answer is the Welsh, Scots, and Irish, with whom we share so much (and this is regardless of whether the feeling is reciprocated). In comparison to these, the French are simply foreigners. TharkunColl 08:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins: Recent Contributions
In the section discussing the origins of the English people, there is the above sub-section, which includes the following paragraph:

“Today England as a nation is home to a wide variety of ethnic minority communities. A recent survey by the Sun newspaper claimed to have found at least one native of every recognised country in the world, barring the Federated States of Micronesia, who was resident in the UK.”

I hate to bring up a contentious issue but is this article maintaining that everybody who resides in England is ethnically English? The use of the term “ethnic minority” in the above paragraph suggest that many persons who reside in England are defined as having ethnicity that is distinct from the English. If they are not defined as being ethnically English, then should they be listed as contributing to the origins of the English? It is my personal view would that much of the information within this section should be removed as being irrelevant. Romper 00:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and ditto re certain parts of the Religion section Romper 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they lived in any other part of the world they would be considered from that part of the world. The main problem is with "Anglo" racism. You have a big problem, because if you continue like that you will end up denying English ethnicity to a large segment of people who are actually English. But the same mentality can be seen in other "Anglo" countries like the US (have you noticed that they do not call "Anglo" a Jamaican or a Black American whose native tongue is English and have an English name, simply because they are not white, while they call Hispanic anyone who speaks Spanish, regardless of anything else, and rightly so in my opinion). You have to do something with that kind of mentality (stemming from 18-19th century racist positions that are still haunting and poisoning your brains), or else you will end up ostracized in a rapidly changing world, especially for a country like England, where a high proportion of the population or their ancestors, come from outside England more or less recently. In short, they are English, in the same way as an Indian Mexican or a white Argentinian are Hispanic or a black Cuban and a white Cuban are Cuban or Sarkozy, who is of recent immigrant origins, is French, and has been elected the president of the French Republic. Ethnicity is not race, we should already know that.

Anyway, sometimes I think there is no hope for the people from the English speaking worLd: See this article that is mentioned in the body of the article to speak about Black Africans in England:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/blackhistorymap/arch.html

So, since when are Morrocans or North Africans "Black people"?. You do not see the difference between Zidane and someone from Nigeria, a country where English is official?. You, narrow and ignorant folks (and this is a newspaper article that reflects English mentality, ignorance and stupidity of the sort: "We are white, anyone else is black". To see these types of things is so incredible. Sorry, but you people are really pathetic and do not be offended, because some people will have to start calling things by their name. 72.144.17.219 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the article clearly states that these are ethnic minority communities and therefore are ethnically distinct from the majority (the English). I have thus removed the said section. Romper 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest single population resides in England?
Surely this is, at best, unproven? All authorities appear to agree that the American figures are a very serious under-estimate, and that the true figure is at least 50 million or perhaps a great deal more. Even on the lowest estimate, however, this would place more English people in the USA than in England. TharkunColl 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RED
Why are all the links reddish? it's very confusing

Not Celts
Regardless of genetics, the English are not Celts. This article should not appear under the Celtic category. This is getting out of hand. King Óðinn The Aesir 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The term Celt means a people who speak a Celtic language, or formerly did so. This makes the English just as much Celts as the Welsh, Scots, and Irish. Indeed, a Celtic language still survives in England - Cornish. Others include Cumbric, which is now extinct. TharkunColl 08:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Three of my grandparents come from Wales,Scotland and Ireland respectively(With the fourth being from England) Am I Celtic?Am I Anglo-Saxon?Or am I neither? --Rcseng2005 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Celtic is a linguistic term. If you speak a Celtic language you are, ipso facto, Celtic. TharkunColl 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing "spoken by a people" and "spoken on the territory". By Tharkun's logic, all Australians could be considered Aboriginals and all Canadians "First Nationers". (Stpaul 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Eh? That is almost the exact opposite of what I said. The vast majority of Australians speak English, and are therefore speakers of a Germanic language. The vast majority of Canadians speak English or French, and are therefore speakers of a Germanic or a Romance language. TharkunColl 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jamaicans speak English. does it make them English? 72.144.221.103 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It makes them speakers of a Germanic language. Please read what I said. TharkunColl 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

King Odin, many Cornish people or Cumbrian people may well consider themselves English and Celtic and see no contradiction. "Celtic" and English ethnic groups are inextricably intertwined on the island of Great Britain. The origins of all of our ancient customs and culture are lost, who knows what is "Germanic" and what is "Celtic" in origin? If you can be English and Germanic, why not English and celtic? English people are a culturally heterogeneous group, both historically and in the present day. You are entitled to your POV, but you are not entitled to claim that your personal opinion constitutes some sort of incontrovertible "truth". This is not about genetics, obviously many English people do not see themselves as Celtic, but obviously many English people do not see themselves as Germanic either, why do you insist that one identity is correct and another is incorrect? Alun 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually many are making this about genetics. The English have historically been seen as a Germanic people (due in a large part to liguistics but also culture, the founders of the country (who were like it not members of Germanic tribes), traditions, identity, folklore...etc...) however it is true that the Cornish and Cumbrians can be considered Celtic as their culture does derive from the Brythonic culture...however many consider the Cornish and Cumbrians to be a different ethnic groups to English, rather than being of a different nationality. So depending on what criteria we are using some English people (in a national sense) can be of a Celtic ethnicity.

Much like Belgian, they are all Belgian however some are of a Germanic ethnicity (Flemish, Dutch...etc...) where as others are of a Gallic (Walloon) ethnicity.

So it seems most people are getting nationality mixed with ethnicity. - Sigurd


 * The difference between a nation and an ethnic group is quite small. I don't think there needs to be a contradiction between being English and celtic any more than there needs to be one between being English and germanic. I think English ethnic identity is mature enough for most people not to feel it's an either/or situation. Some people may well identify Cumbrian and Cornish as distinct from English, but I'd bet that the vast majority do not, even those who claim to be both celtic and English. But I agree to a great extent with Sigurd, it is true that the English ethnic group was founded mostly by Germanic peoples, and also that, whatever the genetics of England, it is the Germanic language and culture that has predominated in England, but I don't personally think this means that there was necesarily a huge invasion of people from across the North Sea in the fifth century. But it remains true that English ethnicity undoubtedly has some celtic influences, just as celtic ethnic groups have strong English influences. We have been sharing the same group of islands for thousands of years after all, there must have been a considerable degree of cross fertilisation, and I do think, nationalists aside, that there is more to unite us on these islands than there is to divide us. But then maybe I'm just hopelessly old fassioned. Alun 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Famous English women
As with most ethnic groups, there are two types of English people: 'men' and 'women', each of whom make up 50%. Yet this article illustrates the English with a picture of four men. I suggest the illustration needs a couple of women. If the project members had to choose two women to represent the English, who would you choose? And which two men would you boot off - Hawking, Newton, Byron or Shakespeare? My personal choice would be Elizabeth I and Helena Bonham Carter, and I would boot off Hawking and Byron for being underachievers compared to Newton and Shakespeare. I realize any selection will be totally arbitrary, but it's something that needs doing and it's an interesting thing to discuss. This list of English people may be useful. Cop 633 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, somebody added Mary Shelley and Margaret Thatcher. Shelley is a good idea, but Maggie is too politically sensitive (I don't want to be represented by her...) I replaced Maggie with Elizabeth I, another strong English woman.Cop 633 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No monarchs please. They are not representative of English people. I don't like Maggie Thatcher, but at least she is incontrovertible English (Elizabeth I was as Welsh as she was English, House of Tudor, ie a descendant of Owain ap Maredudd) and at least her achievements were her own. I don't want to be represented by an aristocrat or royal who was responsible for some of the worst repression of actual English people ever conducted and was responsible for mass murder, if anything Lizzie was a tyrant. Think of someone else please. Alun 06:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion, how about Nigella Lawson? We have a CC licensed pic of her. She must be relatively uncontroversial, is English and is not from centuries ago. Alun 06:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- Nigella Lawson is of English-Jewish heritage, not jsut English. 69.157.105.165 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't want some minor modern celebrity - and in any case, just like an aristocrat Nigella has inherited her fame, or at least an advantage. I think Elizabeth I is an obvious choice. As I've said before, her mother was English, and her father's mother was English, she was born and raised in England, and strongly identified her nationality as English. Under her there was a flowering of English culture, and she laid the foundations of English naval greatness. She may well also have been a repressive tyrant, but she must still rank as one of the most famous and influential Englishwomen in history.


 * As for the other choice, that's more tricky. Victoria is obviously very famous, but we don't really want another monarch (and Victoria's role in government was much more circumscribed than Elizabeth's). There are 19th century social reformers such as Florence Nightingale, Emily Pankhurst, or Annie Besant. Unfortunately. Margaret Thatcher must be a serious contender. Even worse would be Diana, Princess of Wales, but no one can deny that she's famous. And if we are going down the pop culture route, how about Posh Spice?


 * Well I could go with Posh, I don't have a problem with pop culture. We need people who have images on the commons that we can use though. Most people don't have a commons image. I think you make a good point about Elizabeth I. I don't like her mainly because she's a royal and I would avoid using royals as much as possible, but of course this is just a personal opinion. I don't really see the problem with Thatch. I used her image on the Briton article. I don't like Thatch very much at all, but I fail to see anything controversial about her. Her unpopularity does not preclude her image from being used IMHO. There are several strong reasons for using her image.

I don't like her politics and deplore the way she buggered up the UK, ut personal political opinions aside I don't think there is anyone in the modern world to beat her. I could suggest one of the plethora of 19th century female authoresses the English produced, including Jane Austen and any of the Brontës, but we already have Mary Shelley and I don't think two writers from centuries ago is the way to go. If there is a general consensus against Thatch then I could go with Elizabeth I, but I'd prefer Thatch. Never thought I'd ever make such a claim!!!Alun 11:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) She is undoubtedly very English
 * 2) She was the first woman to lead a major political party in the UK
 * 3) She was the first woman to become Prime Minister of the UK
 * 4) She won three elections on the trot, two of which were landslide victories (even if she weren't a woman this would be a major achievement)
 * 5) She was PM for over ten years (longer than Blair for example)
 * 6) She is still internationally recognised, even after 17 years out of power (take it from me, I live in Finland, no one here knows who John Major is for example, and he was in power for 7 years and was more recent than Thatch)
 * 7) Her achievements are her own, no one would claim that she got where she was by nepotism


 * No-one can deny Maggie's accomplishments, but I think putting her image there will simply be a lightning rod for edit wars. People hate her guts in a way that few other politicians have achieved (well, until Blair anyway...). Also, she was Prime Minister of the UK, so I see her as a symbol of Britain, not of England. I do understand the argument against Elizabeth I too - although she is a symbol of England, she's also a symbol of anti-Catholicism. It would be good to find someone who is admirable without being loathed in equal measure. Here are some ideas:
 * Agatha Christie.
 * Kate Winslet (star of highest-grossing film ever made)
 * Vivien Leigh (star of the other highest-grossing film ever made)
 * Kathy Burke. I'm not joking, she's as English as fish and chips, and everybody likes Kathy Burke.
 * Virginia Woolf. We probably don't want another novelist, but she's famous for other things.
 * Cop 633 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why there necessarily has to be two men and two women (that practice is not adhered to on other ethnic groups' pages, some of which are exclusively male), but people like Margaret Thatcher definitely have no place here; while she did well in the Falklands, she messed up Britain. Tory propaganda can go on their own website. As for Mary Shelley, she's hardly notable and she didn't really contribute much to the world; if we include her, one might as well include J. K. Rowling (who I think is even more famous nowadays, but still shouldn't be included). We have Shakespeare; he's at the top of the writer pyramid; further writers are unnecessary. The criteria looked at should be notability, not positive discrimination based on sex.--89.241.161.225 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks weird. It looks like women don't matter. It looks like English people spring out of the earth without the need for sex. Any choice of pictures will be arbitrary and it's impossible to choose 'the four most famous and important English people'. But we can at least try to choose images that are vaguely representative of the English. Mary Shelley isn't a bad choice - she wrote Frankenstein, one of the most famous novels ever written. I agree that J.K. is probably more famous, but she's also more popular than Shakespeare, so why do you want to exclude her? And if you think it's wrong to have two writers, why does your favored selection include two scientists? Cop 633 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying I oppose including women, I just oppose those particular choices. If you must include a women writer, then why not go for someone like Jane Austen who is more well known? The way I see it, that section should be reserved for people who one would associate with the English. For this reason I think that Elizabeth I should also have not been removed. Claims by Alun that her Welsh ancestry disqualifies her are misleading when read in the light of his claim that "ethnicity is about identity and not descent". I think we all know how Lizzie self-identified...--89.241.161.225 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, one of the reasons I oppose including J. K. Rowling is that it would be like advertising her currently copyrighted work.--89.241.161.225 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments! Jane Austen is a great idea, I can't believe I didn't think of her. She is a good example of somebody who represents something about the English, rather than just being English. Cop 633 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I mentioned Jane Austen much earlier, but then you have two 18th century female writers. As for Elizabeth I being Welsh, well it was obviously tongue in cheek. But I don't know if it is true that "we all know how Lizzie self identified". She was the monarch of England at a time when Wales was politically unified with England anyway. We know she was the monarch of a state called England (that was differnet to the entity that is now England), but that is not the same as her ethnicity. Besides I've already said I will accept her if there is a consensus to have her. I'm still perfectly entitled to think that monarchs shouldn't be included. I don't think Elizabeth is specifically associated with the English, she's just a monarch, no more or less associated with the English than any other monarch. I like the idea of Kathy Burke, but do we have free use images? That's the real killer, it's no good agreeing on a person only to find that there is no free image available. I still think Thatch is the obvious choice though. Alun 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we had somebody reverting Thatcher after only a few hours, so I think she's just going to cause havoc if she stays. But I really believe we're getting there. Here's the current state of play:
 * Newton (very important guy, doesn't exactly make me 'think of England', but let's leave that for a later date...)
 * Mary Shelley could be replaced with Jane Austen, who is more famous and represents better a certain type of Englishness (irony, manners, repression)
 * Shakespeare (v. famous and often seen as representative of the English language)
 * Lizzie the First seems 'natural' to some users, but is disputed and certainly has a few problems with representing the English people (like being partly Welsh and murdering Catholics a lot). Could be replaced with a famous contemporary Englishwoman who seems particularly 'English' for some reason. Kathy Burke seems popular, but we'd have to find a free image. Kate Winslet has a free image, though - any opinions on her?
 * We can do this! Cop 663 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher has Welsh blood from her father's side (like Elizabeth). I don't think she would last long though because she's very divisive. I think Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria would be good, they were very famous Englishwomen who defined their eras and shaped English national identity for their time. Mary Shelley is obscure by comparison to them and some of the other suggestions are a bit celebrity-centred. For the men, well Churchill and Lord Chatham are both national heroes, as are Drake, Marlborough, Nelson and Palmerston. Perhaps Cromwell.--Johnbull 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! The Welsh get everywhere. Maybe we're all Welsh...! Victoria and the war heroes like Churchill would be great, but they tend to be symbols of Britain rather than England (British Empire, Battle of Britain...). If some readers are unhappy with Elizabeth I, what we need is somebody who is (1) Female (2) Famous and somehow 'very English' (3) Ideally twentieth century (to avoid making the image too slanted to the early modern era) (4) Has a free image available. (5) Will not cause many readers to reach for the 'undo' button. Cop 663 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah we do get everywhere, we're omnipresent, like bacteria....but only the good sort of bacteria obviously. Alun 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be wrong to include people only from the recent past. And this montage is surely about fame - whether good or bad. Also, why must we have two woman? Surely there are far more famous men in English history? Why instead don't we have one member from each of the classes? TharkunColl 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm just trying to make it more representative. It was only an idea. No-one's stopping you from bringing class into the equation. See if you can figure out an alternative. And if you can get 2 women AND representatives of all classes, it would be even better. It's like a Rubik's Cube. Cop 663 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, two women, someone from each class of people, and someone from the arts, sciences, politics and entertainment. Not too difficult then!!!!! I could go for Kate Winslet (an image of that is). It seems that Thatch is too controversial. So I would suggest two from: Kate Winslet, Jane Austin and Elizabeth I. There's the opposite problem for men, too much choice. As a scientist I could go for Charles Darwin, Joseph Priestley, Isambard Kingdom Brunel or George Stephenson (Stephenson is a great example of a working man made good, he was self educated) I think all of these are better than Newton, but then that's just personal opinion, I don't have any problem with Newton if there is a consensus to keep him. Politicians are easy, Disraeli is a possibility, given that he famously signed his name "Prime Minister of England" to the annoyance of many non English citizens of the UK!!!! But what about Red Ken? He's obviously English, is the first directly elected mayor of London and I read somewhere that he was elected with more personal votes than any other politician in Europe. Well, just some suggestions, I'm quite easy really, we all have our personal preferences but I'm not going to fight to the death for or against anyone, I'd like to see two men and two women though. Alun 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Alfred the Great? TharkunColl 10:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of the other ethnic group pages appear to have no women at all. Does this indicate that the English have been historically more open to female advancement? As an aside, I also note the absence of a certain Bavarian rabble-rouser from the German page, which seems at the very least a bit disingenuous to me, since he is far and away the most famous German who has ever lived. TharkunColl 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that most of the 'ethnic groups' pages are all-male. I find this really weird. I mean, the whole point of ethnic groups is that people breed with each other and pass on DNA! Cop 663 P.S. Hitler was Austrian. Although the Austrians aren't letting on. Cop 663 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, not that long ago some users were arguing with Austrians telling them they could not consider themselves an ethnic group, they said that Austrians are ethnically German, whether they like it or not. Amazing that some people feel they have the right to tell others how they can identify!!!see here. Besides you can't really blame them for not wanting his pic, would you want to advertise England's greatest monster, and Georgians don't have Joseph Stalin either? Alun 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An ethnic group is cultural and not just about DNA. So people can be culturally English but have genes that may have originated anywhere in the world. See Ethnic group. Lumos3 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by definition ethnic groups are a racial category. (89.241.226.202 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

- Lumos, people can be culturally English in some ways if they are from non-English heritage, but they are different from full or native English. 69.157.105.165 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And then there were 8
Whoa! I just looked at Irish people. The Irish have got it right. They have a montage of 8 people: 4 men and 4 women. This makes it much easier! OK, based on the above discussion, here's a suggestion of 8 people to represent England Cop 663 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alfred the Great (Dark Ages, upper class, founder of nation!) - I guess there aren't any known pictures of him though?
 * Shakespeare (Renaissance, middle class)
 * George Stephenson (19th century, working class, used to be on the back of the fiver)
 * Red Ken (20th century, working class) - probably too politically dubious? Damon Albarn (20th century, middle class but pretends to be working class)! You can't get more English than Blur, right...
 * Queen Elizabeth (Renaissance, upper class) - still a bit debatable - know any famous medieval women?
 * Nell Gwyn (Restoration, working class) -
 * Jane Austen (19th century, middle class)
 * Kate Winslet (20th century, middle class)


 * Nice list. I can support that list no prob. Nice on Alfred the Great, my personal favourite monarch!!! I personally don't go for any monarchs after 1066 very much myself, but I'm all for Anglo-Saxons. Damon Albarn is a good suggestion as well. Alun 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. The only contemporary pictures of Alfred would be on his coins, but there's no reason why we can't use a picture of one of his statues, which are well known. TharkunColl 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I uploaded an 8-person version. I think it looks good. Albarn's image is a bit cruddy, but I think you can tell it's him. Let's see how long this one lasts. Cop 663 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Alun 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removel of peice on Immigration
Have removed a priece on migration as it seems very POV and actually misquotes / misrepresents study by UCL as another peice of work - see UCL DNA study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimberWeald (talk • contribs)


 * You cannot remove a cited section because it gives a POV, all wikipedia articles give different points of view, as long as these points of view are cited then it is good to give as many different points of view as possible. Take a look at neutral point of view, it does not mean "no point of view", all significant points of view need to be given. In this case we have both points of view given, the traditional one about mass migration and displacement, and the current academic consensus that no actual mass migration and displacement occurred. If you feel there is a bias here then please make constructive edits rather than deleting cited material. I know the Capelli paper very well, it clearly states that the level of "Anglo-Saxon" migration seems to be significantly smaller than previous estimates.
 * Indeed the genetic data simply support what archaeologists have been saying for some time. This is not about whether the people of eastern England in the sub-Roman period were Germanic or not, there is no doubt that these people spoke Germanic languages and had a Germanic culture. It is not about whether there was some sort of military conquest. It is about whether a mass migration occurred that completely displaced the "indigenous" population, which is the "traditional" view, that English people are somehow fundamentally genetically different to other British people because they are all descended from "Anglo-Saxon invaders". Many archaeologists have been saying for some time that the eastern parts of Great Britain may not have been particularly "celtic" (by that I mean that the material culture they left behind is not similar to that of the west coast of Great Britain where "celtic" languages were spoken) in the first millennium BC. The east coast of Great Britain was more like a "North Sea" zone, with archaeology more similar to other North Sea regions than to the west of Britain and Ireland. So in this case the genetics is simply supporting the archaeology. Your explanation above does not explain why you dispute the text you removed. The Capelli paper certainly supports the sentence that you removed (note that the edit claimed that the data contradict this view "somewhat", this is far from an unqualified statement) and you give no reason at all for why you removed the quote from Francis Pryor. So you have removed two sentences, each of which was supported by citations. Alun 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an ethnic group but a nation
I would like to delete "'n ethnic group and", so that the opening sentence reads "The English a nation primarily associated with England and the English language." this is because the opening sentence of ethnic group starts "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry ...", but it is quite common in England for the children or grandchildren of immigrants to be considered English (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck). Either the terms "ethnic group" and "nation" are synonyms in which case they do not need to be in the same sentence or they are not in which case how does ethnic group differ from nation, other than by the old fasioned ideas of national blood lines and purtiy of race? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the operative word here is "presumed". It doesn't have to be an actual common ancestry, only a presumed common ancestry. Besides the first sentence of the ethnic group article goes on ".....or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits.", this second section of the opening sentence certainly applies to English people who are not "indigenous English". Ethnicity and nationhood are very similar concepts. I read somewhere that the real difference is that nations are usually associated with a given geographic area, but ethnic groups don't need to be and that nations tend to be larger and ethnic groups smaller. I tend to think that nations are a type of ethnic group, but I don't know how this conception of mine fits with academic thinking. By the way I should say that I tend to agree with you. I think I removed mention of "ethnic group" some time ago, but it got imediately added again. All the best. Alun 14:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

With nations like Germany it is true that the geographic area and the nation may differ, but we are not discussing this in general but specifically the English nation and the country of England matches the area in which the English nation lives. Philip Baird Shearer 17:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the whole I agree with you, I wouldn't say it "matches where the English nation lives" so much as it "matches from where the English nation derives", but I think this is just nit picking by me. I think it is more accurate to think of English people as a nation rather than an ethnic group. A nation is a sort of ethnic group anyway, and it's just more specific to call them a nation. Personally I don't see the need to have both "ethnic group" and "nation" there. I am actually agreeing with you. Alun 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you agree with me. This discussion is to prepare the way for a potential revert if I removed the term as you say happened when you removed mention of "ethnic group" some time ago. This is a chance for anyone else who regularly contributes to the page and watches the talk page to object to such a change before it is made. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think ethnicities and nations are separate. A nation is a human group who self-identify as one nation, regardless of ethnicity (e.g. the United States which is made up of many ethnic minorities but all are part of the American nation). There are ethnically English people (England was quite homogeneous until the 20th Century) but this ethnicity is not exactly the same (due to the influx of ethnic minorities) as those who self-identify their nationhood as English.--Johnbull 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity and nation are related concepts yet different. The way both ethnic groups and nations are defined is varied but obviously the English are both a nation and an ethnic group with each relating to different populations, both inside England and around the world, and to many different parts of culture, traditions, common ancestry and heritage, etc. To Philip, theres obviously nothing "old fashioned" about blood lines unless one is conceived in a test tube and raised without a family. Theres so many different parts of culture and ethnicty that people identify with, and heritage and ancestry is obv one of them. Read the article, it involves most of these different aspects of English heritage, identity, nation and ethnic group. 69.157.105.165 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 69.157.105.165 as you are doing more than just a casual edit of Wilipedia, why not get an account. All so please read Three-revert rule

I disagree with you (69.157.105.165). If a person identifies themselves as part of the English nation and others identify them as English, they are English no matter what their blood lines are, or are alleged to be. Are you really saying that some one who can all their ancestral lines trace their back to before the Norman conquest (if such a person exists) are more English than someone who's ancestors came from Normandy with the conquest? The truth is that since the start of the industrial revolution, (and probably before that) nearly everyone who claims to be English will have one or more close ancestors who came from somewhere other than England and to try to argue that one person is more English than another based on blood lines/ancestry is silly because one ends up with the silly conclusion that Prince Charles is not as English as his sons. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but it does not mean there is alotta basis for it. There are many different ways to identify or be part of both the English nations and ethnic groups. Someone can be part of the English nation, like being a citizen or resident, but might not identify with parts of their ethnic idnetity as English (ancestry/heritage, parts of their culture, traditions, religion/philosophy, etc.). No one in England is exclusively descended from the Normans since only about 5000 settled there in the first place. Read that article. There is nothing much that supports your claim that "since the industrial revolution nearly everyone will have one or more close ancestors who came from somewhere other than England". First of all, at some point thousands of years ago, even all the ancestors of the native/ancient British came from somewhere else otehr than this island. Probably because of the industrial revolution though, the numbers of people with ancestry exclusive to pre-1066 has increased (cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow are all in western Britain), which is why the recent genetic studies show ancient/native Briton ancestries are still really strong and predominant in Britain compared to the amount of Anglo/Saxon and Danish ancestries/lineages. I dont know much about the royal family's ancestries and dont't really give two craps because royal families ethnicity never really entirely refelects that of the population they represent in most places. Blood-lines isnt just about someones genetic/"blood", its about the culture, traits and traditions passed down from their family/ancestors, both recent and distant. The majority of the English of English or British heritage in Britain do trace the vast MAJORITY of their ancestries to the populations pre-1066 (with some probably even capable of tracing every bit of it if they are from remote, rural places for example like Cumbria, parts of Wales or other places), its as simple as that. This group IS about BOTH the ethnic group and nation of the English, especially since it includes info. bout the English origins and the English and English descendants outside of England. Peace out. 69.157.101.194 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you "I dont know much about the royal family's ancestries" how are you qualified to argue so strongly about whether the English are primaerily a nation or a ethnic group?


 * One can not be a citizen of England and no one is claiming that all residents in England are English. Blood-lines isnt just about someones genetic/"blood" .... All the other things like "culture, traits and traditions" are part of the national heritage not an "ethnic group". Many of them when examined closely tend to evaporate into national myths even if they have a kernel of truth. For example the teaching of the Roman empire in English primary schools seems to revolve around Boudicca. The views on the Battle of Waterloo are taught to the nations that took part from their own national perspective and the English perspective is that it was Roastbeef that beat the Frogs with a little help from the Prussians. See football and rugby fans dressed up as crusaders, to them the English participation in the Crusades was a noble adventure that they hope will be mimicked on the pitch. Another example: much of what is now a traditional English/British Christmas are things that have been adopted in the last 200 years. It is also very difficult for immigrant families in Britain to resist things like a "traditional Christmas", they may not adopt all of the paraphernalia, but unless they are in a hermitage they would have difficulty not participating to a lesser of greater extent. It is sharing things like this that build a nation such as England not blood lines. This by the way is a two way street, as what is preceived to be the shared traits of the English nation changes over time: I used to have fun with an expatriate friend seeing how many Indian words we could get into a sentence "When we returned to Blighty to wear our pajamas in our bungalow and eat a curry and chips". (see also Mohammed to be Britain's top boys' name) --Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick note about the User who's IP begins with 69.157, this is a banned user who used to edit under the sockpuppets of User:Eoganan, User:Not eoganan and User:Pan-ethnic. He is very aggressive and is an inveterate POV pusher. This user may also be a sock of User:Epf as they edit with the same IP address from the same location (St Catherines, Ontario), often at the same time and also with the same POV. I had hopped this user had got the message that they cannot ignore consensus on Wikipedia and that their POV does not represent "the truth". Take a look at some of the evidence I have amassed. As for the difference between ethnic group and nation, I don't think that there is any great difference between the two, but certainly English people can be considered both. I don't think this is a particularly important subject one way or another. I certainly don't think it detracts from the article if we say that the English are a nation and an ethnic group, neither do I think it detracts from the article if we just say that are a nation. Let's try to focus on relevance to improving the article and how important any change is. Let's think about whether this change will improve the article at all, is it important in this regard? I personally don't think it is. If anyone has strong feelings for keeping both nation and ethnic group then I don't want to change it. Alun 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an important issue because if one says that the English are an ethnic group it plays into the hands of extreme right. It means that the children of immigrants from a different ethecticity can not be English. This I think is wrong the English have since time immoral either voluntarily or not taken in immigrants who' decedents consider themselves and are considered by tje majority of other English people to be English. To take two examples English men, who's parents immigrated to England and have articles on Wikipedia: Michael Portillo and Lenny Henry would consider themselves English and would be considered English. Take another example Tony Blair he is considered to be an Englishman, and there is no mention in the English daily national papers that his is not English, but it is considered a political issue in England that Gordon Brown is Scottish. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * if one says that the English are an ethnic group it plays into the hands of extreme right. It means that the children of immigrants from a different ethecticity can not be English.
 * I don't think this is a correct analysis. I can see no evidence that an ethnic group is the same as an indigenous group. Ethnicity is fliud and has no firm definitions, but essentially ethnicity is a social and cultural identity. Effectively anyone who identifies as belonging to the English ethnic and/or who is identified by others as belonging to the English ethnic group is ap part of that group. It has nothing to do with African Caribbean English people. I would say that Lenny Henry is ethnically English but it's obvious that he's not indigenous English. He's ethnically English if he identifies as such, he's certainly recognised as such by the vast majority of British people (with the possible exception of a few tired old BNP racists) I would say. I think there is some misunderstanding about ethnicity here, ethnicity is a cultural and social construct, it has some relationship to descent, and certainly descent is important for some people, but I can find no definition of ethnic group that claims that biological descent is the only or fundamental component of ethnic identity. Alun 10:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although an interesting point, but as we are agreed that in the case of the English ethnic group maps on to nation closly enough that they are describing the same thing (you say "essentially ethnicity is a social and cultural identity", and I say so is national). I think that this is better debated on the nation page, because AFAICT the OED does support a racial interpretation as well as "social and cultural identity". The OED definitions for ethnic used as an ajactive are:
 * Adj:
 * 1. Pertaining to nations not Christian or Jewish; Gentile, heathen, pagan.
 * 2.a. Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic.
 * 2.b. ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity.
 * But the third dedinition as a noun is "A member of an ethnic group or minority. orig. U.S." So  the English are an ethnic group when they are being described as a constituent part of in different nation (for example as part of the American nation) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)