Talk:Welsh people/Archive 1

Ideas
I have been thinking about how to do this article for a week or so after a number of us were disambiguating Welsh everywhere. I am now an expert on the pages that link or will link to it :( I have just found out about this collaboration of the week thing, so here's a quick overview of stuff I thought worth including:


 * Differing tribes, not necessarily allies (Romans invaded Britain after hearing British tribes were in disarray), we only have Roman names and descriptions of them;
 * Gododdin;
 * When did Wales as a country/nation start? Some Very Famous People have asked this question, so it's worth including some of the discussion;
 * political but probably needs a mention: the distinction the language draws between Cymry Cymraeg and Cymry di-Gymraeg;
 * Grannygate! Sinkinson and Howarth and whether one grandparent qualifies you as Welsh :)
 * there's a bunch of pages which start "So-and-so is a Welsh actor/soldier born in London/California/somewhere". You can't just say "born inside Wales", or the ghost of Saunders Lewis will be very cross. So.. that doesn't work either :)
 * Flemings, Landsker line (similarly parts of Gower?);
 * ABO blood groups: can't find a reference, but I was sure that the proportions were different in Wales.

I hope someone else has better ideas, or I shall start doing some of this, and I'm not exactly qualified on the matter :)

--Telsa 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The related-wikiproject for this is WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups, I guess it might have some ideas about what to include and some best-practice. As for your suggestions, I don't object to them :P -- Joolz 18:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the UKCOTW on the main page instead of the talk? Falphin 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question
Since this article suggests that there are more Welsh people in the U.S. than in Wales, to what extent have Welsh people who are descended from Welsh emigrants in the U.S. (and elsewhere) maintained their Welsh identity? Do they feel "culturally" Welsh, "ethnically" Welsh, nostalgically Welsh or something else? -- The Anome 22:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting point. I'm guessing they don't speak Welsh, and won't have just married Welsh people - so surname only? Does that count? Secretlondon 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

religion bit
"Wales continued to be Christian when England was overrun by pagan German and Scandinavian tribes, though many older pagan beliefs and customs survived among its people. " - this is a strange second sentence for the article. I've removed and stuck it here. Secretlondon 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is valid, but it's not clearly-put. What it's getting at is that there is something in Welsh history called the Age of the Saints, about which Wikipedia seems to have nothing (yet). Dyfrig, Illtud, Padarn, Teilo and (of course) Dewi/David. Whilst the Angles and Saxons were busily ignoring Christianity,  these saints were active in Wales. The nearest of my history books to hand suggests dates of 425 to 505 for Dyfrig, the earliest of them; somewhere I have stuff about some of the others. These Celtic saints tended to be hermit-like, creating enclosures (llanau) which acquired their name: centuries later, Llansomeone means Church of Saint Someone, but originally it was Someone's Enclosure. Llandewi Brefi is really important in Wales not because of "Little Britain" but because it's the site of St David's best-known miracle.


 * This Christianity was a continuation of Christianity in the islands; I think there was a certain amount of evangelism from Ireland into Wales, but it was not introduced to the Welsh by St Augustine and his ilk, who was a century later, and who evanglised in south-east England.


 * So I think that is what that sentence is trying to say. But it may need some expansion! Perhaps the best bet is to find or write something in another article about the Age of the Saints (because it needs doing), and then reinsert the sentence with a link to that to elaborate.


 * --Telsa 17:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read it as folklore that people's ancestors were "better" than the other lot - a sort of feel good story for welsh christians. I think that we probably need a paragraph on this as well as an Age of Saints article. Secretlondon 18:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is Welsh?
We need to decide what counts as Welsh. Most of the article seems to talk about an "ethnic" welshness - which may or may not be valid. If Welshness is cultural then is it likely to have survived in the US? Under religion we have "Other religions Welsh people may be affiliated with include Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism." which seems to define Welshness as residency. Secretlondon 00:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ok - from ethnic group - "In the United States, the collectivity of immigrants from a region of the world and their descendants are called "ethnic groups" despite their lack of internal cohesion and common institutions and their inability to transmit language to the next generation. Immigrants are socialized into identifying as a member of one of the list of "ethnic groups" provided by the US Census Bureau and with various "traditions" which, although often of recent invention, appeal to some notion of the past. Thus Mexican nationals, upon crossing the border, become Hispanic ethnics.". If this is correct this is our problem. Do we write about what Welsh-Americans believe to be Welsh - or what people in Wales do? Are invented traditions valid? Secretlondon 17:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As a Welshman, I have to say I don't really see how on earth an American of some distant fourth-generation Welsh extraction could be considered Welsh. I actually find it quite offensive. Proto 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the concept of welsh-american needs bringing up somewhere in the article. I certainly don't consider them to be the same thing at all but we need to cover it. We should cover Patagonia too. Secretlondon 18:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions to add?
I know relatively little about Welshness, but it would be interesting to see two paragraphs, or links to other articles, by those more knowledgeable: one on famous Welsh people (however that is defined), and one on the idea of Welshness within wider (British, presumably) culture. BrainyBabe 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, the list just grows and grows. I have spent the day in the library today and as a result have a series of things to change in this article (and in the articles that some of the pastes come from). However, some of what's currently in the article is making me realise that I am far from unbiased in this and possibly not the one to write things.


 * On the matter of famous Welsh people, we already have a List of Welsh people. In addition, there has recently been a "100 greatest Welsh heroes" competition, complete -- and replete -- with allegations of fixed votes, ballot-stuffing and all the rest, but its results would be a start. See http://www.100welshheroes.com/ for the list. -- Telsa 22:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statistics
Ok, looking at the stats box at the top right.

It says Population is 'approximately' 2.908 million. Now, approximately would be 2.9 million, but never mind that. It then reports that there are 1.13 million people who are Welsh and living in Wales. This is garbage. There are 1.13 million Welsh speakers living in Wales. This does not mean those who cannot speak Welsh aren't Welsh. And I very much doubt that there are 1.75 million Welsh speakers living in the US.

It seems that some idiot has got his wires crossed; the population of Wales is 2.9 million. I've altered the statistics to make sense. Proto 13:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah this comes back to the "what on earth is welsh" question. Are Welsh people different from Population of Wales say. The US figure comes from their census which makes everyone tick a box. There appears to be no-one who is plain American. This is internal to that country and I'm not sure how much attention we should give it. It needs mentioning certainly - but they are not the same as far as I am concerned. Secretlondon 18:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The total number of Welsh speakers is, according to Welsh language is 610,000, so you're completely and absolutely wrong to suggest that this is where the figure comes from. The figure was used was from the 2001 census (see Demographics of the United Kingdom) - this is the number of people which self-identify as welsh in the UK. Similarly, the US and Canadian figures are also those which self-identify as having welsh ancestry. The infobox had absolutely nothing to do with the Welsh language. Furthermore, the infobox is the same one used on English people and many other articles on peoples - see the wikiproject (link is posted above) -- Joolz 19:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups -- Joolz 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Joolz, I'm afraid you're not quite right. That figure of 610,000 represents fluent Welsh speakers.   Just over 20% of the population.  They identify themselves as having Welsh as their first language.  You have confused speaking Welsh with being Welsh. The number of Welsh people who speak some basic Welsh far exceeds that figure of 610,000, and is approximately 40% of the population.   40% of 2.9 million is 1.13 million.  This is where that number comes from.  The population of Wales identifies itself as being Welsh - you don't have to speak a word of the language.  You cannot equate these figures with the number of Americans with some distant Welsh ancestry; surely you can see that? Also, IMO, 'Welsh people' is people who are from Wales.  Not people whose great-great-grandparents were from Wales.  But that is a different issue.  The issue here is the incongruity of the sets of figures for 'Welsh people' that are being fudged together.  As being Welsh does not mean being able to speak Welsh,  then you must count the whole population of Wales (2.908 million).  And I don't have a problem with the infobox as such, just that it isn't necessary. Proto 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 40% of the population of Wales speaks some Welsh? Wow, seriously? Can you provide a cite for this? If it's true, it's the best figure I have seen for a long time. The numbers I have seen most recently are more like 590,000, or 21% over the country as a whole, and that 21% is for speakers (who may not be able to read/write it). That's the figure on the Welsh Wikipedia too. There's certainly more people who can understand it but not speak it: perhaps that's what you're referring to with the 40% figure? I had a bunch of spreadsheets from the last census with the figures somewhere; I'll try to dig them out. --Telsa 15:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll hunt up a cite, I may have to chase the Welsh Language Facilitator here where I work, who had the figure from somewhere. Bear in mind that figure is for people who speak/understand some Welsh, at a basic level (GCSE, maybe even lower). Proto 15:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done no such thing that you are accusing me, I have not confused speaking welsh and being welsh, you've provided absolutely no evidence to support your accusations. I did make a mistake when I cited the census, I should have cited the CIA Factbook. The census had 418k people identify as welsh as a write-in choice. The census also states that 797k people have 'One or more skills in Welsh language'. So far you've accused me of putting 'garbage' and 'gibberish' onto wikipedia, and called me an 'idiot'. Are there any further personal attacks you'd like to add? -- Joolz 16:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Of the tons of stuff on the ByI site, "2001 Census - Main Statistics About Welsh" is particularly handy: it's .doc format and is 228kb and you get it from http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/en/cynnwys.php?cID=6&pID=109&nID=173 --Telsa 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no interest in getting into a squabble, and so I think what I'll do is leave all this alone and let someone else spot how wrong the information is. They can try and explain it to you more clearly, I guess I'm not very good at this, but here's my last attempt.  If 418k people (presumably in Britain) identified themselves as 'Welsh' as a write-in choice of nationality, then most of the other people born/living in Wales identified themselves as 'British' (a label which incorporates English, Welsh, Scots, Northern Irish, etc etc).  For the american figures, they were asked to state their ancestry ... this is entirely different.  To be honest, Joolz, at the time I described those figures as gibberish and used the term 'some idiot', I didn't even know who had been responsible.  Those attacks were not intended to be personal, but if I offended you, I apologise.  I just can't think how to explain the wrongness of adding dissimilar figures any more clearly than I already have. Proto 08:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, you two, before you get any further, something which might be important. Between you, you have reminded me of something very relevant here which I had entirely forgotten, and which doesn't seem to be mentioned in that demographics article the original numbers for Wales came from: the census tick box and write-in campaign. You're both sort of right, I think.


 * What happened was that in all the long list of possible nationalities/ethnic groups/origins on the 2001 census, there was no tickbox for Welsh. So people who felt strongly about it had to write it in. Or download the PDF of a new "improved" version of the page from CyI (or someone) with the Welsh box inserted. None of this went down particularly well (she says, tactfully), especially when it was noted that Scotland got its own tickbox. ("They got tax-raising powers, they got their own tickbox, grr, grr" etc...) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=449 is the official position after the whole mess. But the result is that you need to be very careful to distinguish between numbers of people who were born within Wales (probably accurate), numbers of people living in Wales now (ditto) and numbers of people self-reporting as Welsh (vastly vastly undercounted, because lots of people didn't realise they could write it in and just ticked British).


 * --Telsa 13:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... that does explain a lot. Nice work, Detective Telsa.  Dai iawn! Proto 14:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And Telsa, thanks for that. I seem to have been misinformed on the percentage of the population who had some Welsh skills; 30%, not 40%.  I'd be interested to see how they define 'ome skill in Welsh' - by WAG standards, a skill usually means 'reading', 'writing', 'listening' or 'speaking' to a reasonably fluent level.  If this is the case, then 30% is excellent.  I'd still think a far greater proportion than that had some limited Welsh - far more than half of the people in Wales know how to count to ten, 'bore da', 'pnawn da', 'syd a chi?', 'mae haen wlad fy annwyl' (Welsh naitonal anthem), what all those bilingual road signs mean, etc.  But the above argument stands, speaking Welsh does not equate to being Welsh (nationality, ethnically or otherwise). Proto 08:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References on the Speaker?
Re: "Technically it is not supposed to be used in the Westminster Parliament, but several Speakers (most notably Mr. Speaker Thomas, himself born in Wales, close by Tonypandy) have turned a blind eye (or ear) to the use of the tongue within longer Anglophone speeches."

You can take the Oath of Allegiance in Welsh (or Scots Gaelic). You have to take it in English as well, but the Welsh translation is kept in the Despatch Box, just in case. I am surprised to hear Thomas mentioned in this context: I thought he was very against the nationalist moment and Cymdeithas yr Iaith? Are there any examples of turning a deaf ear? --Telsa 18:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Half a year (!) later, I am still curious...Telsa 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template Removal
While the Template may be incorrect it is the requested policy by the Wikiproject Ethnic groups so I putting it back. Falphin 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the Ethnic Groups page, and I see it describes the template as 'optional'. I don't really see why an template with incorrect information should be on there, particularly  if it's 'optional'. I will try and hunt up some accurate, related and citeable figures and update the template accordingly.  Proto 14:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welsh people and English
I get the impression that Welsh people look different than their English neighbours. They seem to have darker complexion than the English. Is my impression correct? Meursault2004 29 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)

That's because we wash less. Heh, I'm kidding ... it's because us Welsh have got Celtic blood in them (certainly more on average), which favours dark hair and complexion, versus less Anglo-Saxon blood, which is fair hair and sunburn city. Proto t c 30 June 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Well how about the Irish then, and the Scottish, they are also Celtic but many of them are fairly complexioned and many even have red hair. According to this article, relatively seen most redhaired people are to be found in Scotland and Ireland. Do Welsh people look like the people of Brittany Bretagne? Meursault2004 30 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Well, the Welsh are no more or less Celtic than the Scots] or the Irish; I think there's more Pictish blood in Scotland and Ireland, which leads to red hair. You must be careful not to over-generalise, as a lot of Irishmen can be really quite swarthy, and there are plenty of pasty Welshmen. As far as looking like people from Brittany, I don't know. I don't know what people from Brittany look like. Proto t c 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)


 * Come on, these unfounded and largely discredited racial differences should be consigned to the scrapheap of stupid Victorian ideas where they belong. Let's get some perspective. During the industrial revolution the largest ethnic minority in Wales was the English, tens of thousands came to South Wales during the 19th century to work the mines, and stayed, Welsh was far and away the dominant language at the time in Wales and so all these Englishmen (and they were mainly men) learned Welsh. I would be surprised if anyone in the South Wales valleys has no English blood at all. Conversely when the Germanic peoples (Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc.) came to settle in what is now the south and east of England during the 5th and 6th centuries they and the native population mixed, both culturally and biologically, so English people are the direct descendants of the pre-Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain (or Brythons if you like) just as much as the Welsh, Scots and Cornish. So no there is no difference between the way Welsh and English people look, it's just your imagination. Alun 08:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Never noticed this comment here, but there are differences Alun, even if very subtle compared to differences with other groups, as I explained in previous debates on my discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.112.58 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't believe it and have never observed it. I have lived in Wales and England for most of my life and it is just nonsense to claim this. It is a case of circularity of argument, you find what you claim to be differences because you already know they are there before you start looking. I wonder how well you would cope in a double blind trial? Not very well I would suggest. Alun 06:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how you would ever fare in an anthropology course ?, not very well from these comments. I am not basing this on pre-conceived things to look for, but I am looking at features I know to check for because I have studied such. Just because you lived there, doesn't mean you know of these differences and may even know but just do not wish to acknowledge such because of some other ideological motivations. Alun, if you are not aware of such average subtle differnces, of course you won't accept it but you haven't studied physical anthropology (as far as I know) or know of the types of variation of human phenotypes over the past 100,000, - 200,000 years. You once ridiculously argued that there werent even phenotypic differences between Finnish and Welsh, but I admit I can reveal the differnces between you and the photo on your user page of your wife who is Finnish. If you wish to discuss this in greater detail, I invite you to at any time. Cheers, Epf 09:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come off it EPF there are no physical differences between people who call themselves English and people who call themselves Welsh!!!!! Enzedbrit 11:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on Epf, it is a classic case of a circular argument. You already know that there are differences, so you go looking for them and lo and behold find them. Anyway the original point was to contradict the statement that ther are obvious observable differences between Welsh and English people that a lay person could identify. If there are differences (which I am highly sceptical about), then they are small and would require numerous collated very accurate measurements, and then any significant difference (and I mean this in a statistical sense) would be small. It is also the case that any small differences observed could just as well be due to environmental influences such as diet etc. It is the fundamental flaw that physical anthropology has, you do not know if you are observing an environmental effect or a hereditary one, it is why physical anthropology will always be a much poorer way to determine the actual relatedness of populations of people compared to genetics. Alun 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the Welsh of Celtic descent???
"The tribes the Romans encountered in their time in Britain were known to the Romans as Ordovices, the Demetae, the Silures and the Deceangli: all Celtic tribes which had arrived in Britain from Europe over the preceding centuries."

What's the source for this? Is it not possible that all these British tribes were indiginious? And I seriously doubt that the Welsh are more 'Celtic' than the English or Irish. The Anglo-Saxons conquored what is now England; they did'nt wipe out the native population. Thus there should still be a very strong genetic link between the modern peoples called English and Welsh, despite their current cultures.

In any case the Celts were based in Europe. I'm sure there were a few branches located in Ireland and Britain, but its more likely that the inhabitants of the islands were of differnt stock. Remember, no British or Irish person of the early centuries A.D. every called themselves Celts. Fergananim.


 * It's certainly possible that they were indigenous. It just depends when you take your starting date and say "anyone after this time was not indigenous" :) Clearly they arrived at some stage. I am guessing that the question is more whether they arrived along with the Red Lady of Paviland or along with the Celtic language and culture?


 * Two of the sources I listed in the references (The Isles by Norman Davies and A History of Wales by John Davies) give no clear answer to whether it was people who moved from Europe to Britain or just the language and culture. The Wikipedia Hallstatt culture article says "probably both" (and lacks references). But on the whole I think it is fair to call those British tribes Celtic, as an adjective.


 * As to Welsh being more "Celtic" than others or not: I didn't say this was the case. I just wrote that many people regard themselves as Celtic. And put a link to Modern Celts rather than to the Iron Age or something. I think I can get away without citing sources for that (I live here, after all, and the word does get used, honestly); but in order to say "but it's all rubbish" or "and it's all true", I would need references. I was rather hoping someone else would do that bit.


 * Telsa 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the Red Lady of Paviland was paleolithic or old stone age, this was before the development of agriculture in the fertile crescent, and so these people were hunter gatherers. Nothing is known of these people and they lived tens of thousands of years before Britain reached the Neolithic. This was before the last Ice Age began, there probably weren't any people living in Great Britain during the last Ice Age. This Ice Age ended in Great Britain about 10,000 years ago, and it is then that the Island was re-populated (or the population expanded). This was the mesolithic, and no one knows if these were the descendants of the previous paleolithic inhabitants or not. Agriculture came with the neolithic (new stone age) about 6000 years ago, again no one knows if there was an invasion of new peoples or if there was cultural diffusion of agriculture. The Beaker culture (Bronze Age), arrived about about 4000 years ago and Celts (see also: Iron age, Urnfield culture, Hallstatt culture, La Tène culture) arrived in Britain between 1500 BC and 400 BC. Cultural diffusion or large scale invasion? The jury is still out, as it is with the Anglo-Saxon invasions.
 * Use of the word indigenous is misleading. Let's face it, there are no indigenous people in Europe, we all came from somewhere else originally, as Telsa points out, it depends when you count from. In this case it is reasonable to count the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain as the indigenous population. These people spoke a Celtic language, in fact to be specific they spoke a Brythonic celtic language. If you go to the Celt page it starts by defining Celt as The term Celts (pronounced "kelts") refers to any of a number of ancient peoples in Europe using the Celtic languages. Unless you are going to argue that Brythonic and it's derivative Welsh are not celtic languages, then you have to accept that the people living on the Island of Great Britain were, by definition, Celtic.
 * Fergananim you are correct when you point out that all the peoples of Great Britain can trace their ancestry back to the pre-Roman peoples of the island. What we are really talking about is different culture and language, not different race. So if you like all British people are descended from Celts, it's just that Celts are defined by language and not by race. Alun 12:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of Welsh people in Wales
The number of Welsh people in Wales is given here as 2.9 million, equal to the entire population of Wales. On the other hand the English people article gives the number of English people in England as 45 million, whereas the total population of England is 49 million - it seems to be taking the number of people living in England who were also born in England. Surely these figures should be consistent? Rhion 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't pay too much attention to the number for English people in the UK. It is reported by the CIA Factbook, and it is quite controversial because it is not clear what it represents. The number of people living in Wales who were born in Wales was 2,188,754 . The number of people identifying themselves as Welsh ethnic group (in Wales) was 417,820 . Consistency would suggest using the ethnic group numbers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can deduce anything from the number of people identifying themselves as Welsh ethnic group in the 2001 Census - see the comments by Telsa above. It wasn't specifically offered as a choice, you had to write it in. Rhion 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using the number of people born in Wales, the number of people living in Wales and the number of people self-identifying as Welsh from the 2001 census. I would also make specific reference to the strengths/weaknesses of each method of calculation. It's absurd to claim in the article that only 14% (417,820/2900000) of the population of Wales is ethnically Welsh. My reasoning is that the data are totally transparent (unlike the CIA data used in English people). Because someone does not write in that they are Welsh does not precude them from being ethnically Welsh, some Welsh people may have been unsure of what the write in actually means. It may also indicate that people want to give an absolute minimum of personal information to the state. These sorts of data are always difficult to determine as people have different perceptions of ethnicity. As long as the data are properly referenced, transparent and their context explained then I see no need for across the board consistency. In fact consistency is impossible as different states calculate their populations in different ways. Alun 06:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. As long as it is remembered that ethnic group is what the numbers should try and represent, the more information the merrier. However too many numbers and definitions in the infobox can make it look cluttered - luckily there aren't too many in the first place. zzuuzz (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An exhaustive 5 year study published yesterday by the Economic and Social Research Council reveals that: 21% of those living in Wales see themselves as just Welsh, a further 27% as more Welsh than british, 34% as equally Welsh and british, 8% more British than Welsh and 9% just British. That suggests that 91% of the population of Wales consider themselves Welsh. That would make the number of "Welsh in Wales" around 2,639,000. This figure is much better than that given by the 2001 census due to the lack of tick-box which others have already explained- Cwlcymro

Numbers
From the infobox:

2001, population of Wales

->

2001, population of all citizens of Wales

What's the point of this change? What does it mean? Flapdragon 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dunno, and it's wrong anyway, there's no such thing as a "citizen of Wales". -- Arwel (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Pruned it. Flapdragon 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know really, just trying to show that number includes people of all ethnic origins (UK citizens) in Wales, not just Welsh. Epf 21:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"population of all UK citizens in Wales" doesn't seem to me to say any more than "population of Wales". Do you need to be a citizen of the UK to show up on the census figures? Don't think so. Of course there are two completely different things being juxtaposed here: number of people resident in Wales, and people in other countries that under some criterion or other can be called Welsh. How we define that is not a straightforward business; there are people living in Wales who are not Welsh, while of those claimed 1.75 million people living in America, many would probably have difficulty locating Wales on a map. So yes there's a need to make it clear that we're not coparing like with like, but I don't see how the puzzling wording "population of all UK citizens in Wales" helps at all -- and it's probably not accurate anyway. Flapdragon 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the shorter wording appears to indicate that the number represents the population of Welsh people in Wales. My preferred wording would be: 2001, total population of Wales, since UK citizens is not correct either. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What could possibly be unclear about "2001 population of Wales"? That's what the figure is, plain and simple: the number of people resident in Wales at the time of the 2001 census. It doesn't say anything about whether they were Welsh by ancestry, national feeling or anything else, just that they were living in Wales. Flapdragon 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not telling you what it says, I am telling you what it appears to say. The infobox is labelled, significant population of Welsh people in:. The word population should be requalified to reduce ambiguity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What ambiguity? The words "population of Wales" means the number of people resident in Wales. It's very simple. I don't see how that could possibly be taken to exclude those residents of Wales who are in whatever sense not Welsh, or to mean anything else. It's absolutely clear. The phrase "population of all UK citizens in Wales" is not only bizarre (how could you have the population of some UK citizens in Wales? and a population is a thing that a place has, not a thing that citizens have -- "number of citizens" makes sense), but, as I've pointed out, not even correct. The figure is just the number of people in Wales at the time of the last census, simple as that. The infobox itself is certainly misleading and perhaps misguided, lumping together as it does completely different things (Welsh ancestry in the case of the US, Welsh cultural identity as self-reported in New Zealand, a geographical population in the case of the UK), and perhaps the figures would be better given for what they are in the body text, but that's another story. Please let's stop reintroducing this mystifying, unnecessary and inaccurate phrase. Flapdragon 02:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Genetic affinities
I came across these two links and I think they may be of interest. One of them belongs to Coon, an anthropologist who worked on his theories before DNA testing was available. Now, the other link to DNA research seems to go in the same direction.

The Mediterranean Reemergence in Great Britain

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

Celtic nations have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with "Celts"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_people"

English as Germanic
Can we please stope refering to English people as Germanic. Let's get some perspective, just because they speak a Germanic language (as do most Welsh people) does not make tham a Germanic people. You are just trying to introduce outdated concepts of race into an article about ethnicity IMHO. As Europeans we should have learned the dangers of inapropriate and inacurate racial classifications some 60 years ago. Alun 17:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The English are predominantly Germanic. Studies have shown this. That is not to say that in the current population called "the English" there isn't a significant proportion of genes from the indigenous Britons. It even states so in the English people article. Let's not let political opinions get in the way of facts.


 * By the way, the fact that the English are largely Germanic does not mean that the English have no right to be in the British Isles; which is the only reason why people oppose the English being identified as Germanic. As already stated, the English are indeed also descended of native Britons, even if in a smaller degree, and thus entitled to be in the British Isles. And this is not about "racially" classyfing Europeans, it's about presenting facts. The English are essentially a Germanic people, although with significant indigenous British admixture, and that is not a point of view. Al-Andalus 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the whole it doesn't really matter what the genetic contribution to England is, nor does it matter that English people speak a Germanic language these articles are based on ethnicity. 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). I do not think anyone can claim that English people identify as Germanic, much more likely to identify as British. Can you provide evidence that a majority, or significant minority of English people self identify as Germanic? You really should not be making claims like this without providing verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Alun 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The English are a British people. They were formed in Britain, share a British culture with the rest of the British isles and are primarily descended from the ancient Britons.  You are confusing linguistics with ethnicity, and even then you're making errors, because you class the Scottish people as Celts. Enzedbrit 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The English are a British people, I have not disputed this. There is some good evidence that they may be primarily derived from the ancient Britons, but there is no definitive genetic proof as yet. I think it is fair to say that English people are the product (culturally, linguistically and biologically) of both ancient British people and immigrating Germanic people. It may well be the case that there was a very limited migration to the British Isles by Germanic people, but as yet this is not fully supported by the evidence. It may also be the case that Germanic immigration was regionally variable, being stronger in the south and east of Great Britain. I do not percieve this as an either/or exclusive proposition. Whatever the truth it is still incorrect to claim that English people are part of the German ethnic group, rather they are a novel English British ethnic group that may be a hybrid of British and Germanic people/culture/language. Alun 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, let us go an place Arabs as a related ethnic group in the Indonesian people article, and place Spaniards as a related ethnic group in the Filipino people article. The truth is, as far as ethnicity goes, Indonesians and Filipinos are related to each (culturally, genetically, linguistically, although not religiously) hundreds of times more than any weak relationship either has respectively to Arabs (Islam in Indonesia) or Spaniards (Hispanic cultural borrowings in the Philippines). Al-Andalus 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Alun, sorry, but I wasn't replying to you there, rather to Al-Andalus. I think you'll find I'm basically in agreement with you on these matters.  I will say though that unless you're speaking of the first humans, almost every tribe that invaded somewhere else was itself a 'hybrid' of previous invading and mixing tribes. Enzedbrit 11:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? Are you claiming that Indonesian people self identify as ethnically Arab? If you have evidence for this then you can actually put it in. Or are you merely claiming that they are both predominantly of the Islamic in faith? These are two different things. I fail to see your point. No one here has made any reference to religion as a determining factor in this and I fail to see the connection. You still have not provided a verifiable source. Alun13:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the section Who is an Arab? in the Arab article. Alun 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, that’s nice and interesting, but in truth that’s not the real reason. I believe to make a link to something Germanic (and therefore Germans) is in reality (also) a political question. Particularly in England exists in this matter a lot of aversion. (Please observe I am not German.) I don’t know from where comes this dislike, it may be connected with several negative historical events.

A nice example, in English the term “Nordic” is often used to describe “something Scandinavian” or “from the north”. In fact, it’s a “technical term” to avoid the use of the word “Germanic”. (J. R. R. Tolkien leaves greetings) There are several other cases which show this “conflict”, something similar can be also watched with the phrase “European”.

However, in reality there is absolutely no valid reason to deny a Germanic or European relation. --lorn10 14:18, 10. April 2006 (CEST)
 * If ethnicity is determined by how a people perceive themselves (as the definition from the Ethnic group article states) then you are wrong. I did not make this definition, but I see no reason to dispute it, it is properly referenced. If you have a problem with this definition then I suggest you make reference to it on the relevant talk page here. The reasons why the English do not self define as Germanic may well be as you say, but it's not the point, the fact that they do not identify as Germanic is the salient point here. No one here is claiming that there is a valid reason to deny a Germanic or European relation, claiming that English people are not ethnically German is not the same as claiming that they are unrelated to Germanic people, being related to the German ethnic group is not the same as being part of the German ethnic group. Alun 13:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I also refer you to this from the Ethnic group article.
 * While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification of Homo sapiens according to chosen genotypic and/or phenotypic traits. Alun 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

British ethnic groups
I'm unsure about having all of these articles for the different parts of the UK being different 'ethnic groups'. There are pretty much no differences between the English and Welsh ethnically. We have been interbreeding for hundreds of years and probally the largest part of the English genetic identity was 'Welsh' to begin with. It all has me rather uneasy and seems to be a rather far right way of looking at things. --Josquius 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to be confusing ethnicity with race. But on the whole I agree, many of these pages seem to be devoted to trying to exagerate the differences between Welsh, English Scottish etc. There are cultural and linguisitic differences between the four nations of the British Isles, but I think they are far smaller than anyone reading the relevant articles would conclude. I would prefer a British people article in stead of what we have now, but that is not goint to happen so what we need is an additional British people article. i think all that can be done is to keep an eye on the articles and tone down or remove the more nationalistic, xenophobic and even racist attitudes that often come to light on these pages. Alun 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say here Alun that no matter what level of difference there is between the peoples, there are significant cultural, linguistic and ancestral differences between them that do exist. In fact, any "British People" article would be quite offensive to many people who would read the article due to the long distinct histories of each of the different groups of Britain. So called "race" is not the same as ethnicity, but with ethnicity being based largely on descent, resulting phenotypic/genotypic traits indeed are a part of ethnic identification, more so between some groups than others. In any case, there are ethnic differences between the peoples of Britain, even if the similarities outweigh them. With this said, there is obviously no concept, idea or even significant support for some non-unified, hypothetical, and almost impossible to identify, "British ethnic group". Epf 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I did say there were cultural differences, but these pale into insignifficance to the cultural similarities. Linguistically there is little difference, Scotland has Gaelic and Scots, and Wales has Welsh, but everyone speaks English. If you go to South Wales at any time you will be hard pushed to find Welsh being spoken. As for ancestral differences, we are back to your odd racial ideas, and you already know my opinion of these, it is little more than guesswork, and is rapidly being disproven by genetic research, I have noticed that you rubbish genetic research that doesn't fit with your opinion, this is not a very scientific way of looking at it, you should not start with a deffinite idea of the way things are, you need to be able to accept results that contradict your current opinion, and adapt your position based on the results, you are living in denial if you cannot do this. Alun 06:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ps how can it be offensive to have a British people article? British people are the inhabitants of Great Britain, or citizens of the United Kingdom. My passport says I am a British citizen, I know of no one who would be offended by this. Anyway wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not censor things in case some over sensitive nationalist might get offended. I am Welsh and British and see no contradiction there, I would say I am equally both. Alun 06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that a "British ethnic group" article would be offensive to classify them all under one people, especially to Welsh and Scottish peoples. Also, I believe according to your article that your are mainly of English ethnic affiliation, other than your one grandparent who you say is from one of the most Anglicized parts of Wales. You are taking a tone with me lately that is unacceptable and I do not know what your issue is. Where do I talk about "Race" and how are my views out of date and disproven ? In fact, genetic studies are actually confirming the phenotypic/genotypic differences between various groups and I only argue that most (if not all) of the studies, as admitted by the researchers, are in the very early stages of development and can not be considered conclusive in any shape or form. As for ancestral differences, they do exist and this is the main definition of ethnic groups. You have this obsession on always assuming origins/ancestry means to go back 100,000 years to when we were possibly all African. When speaking of descent/common origins, it means going back in the modern historical era to only that over the past 10,000 years. Also, if you go to South Wales, you indeed will find alot of Welsh speakers, especially in places like Swansea and even Cardiff. I do not "rubbish" genetic results that contradict my ideas since in fact, there hasnt been much that have done so, but even so they aren't conclusive anyway. The same can be said about any genetic study and I will and do admit as such. I am not living in denial, I am suppporting the correct information and analysis and any information or views that contradict my statements arent just at conflict with my "opinion", they are conflicting with facts widely held by the academic community. Do not call my ideas "odd" or "racial" just because I accept the facts about traits resulting from commmon descent, whether they be cultural, behavioural, familial, religious or genotypical/phenotypical. I do not have to argue this because I have already proven most of my views on phenotypic traits from personal experience/research as well as from confirmed research of other academics. In fact, at one point I thought you approached these matters from a neutral perspective however, I have come to know indefinitely now that this clearly is not the case. Whatever is the reson behind your scathing attacks on me lately, at least have the decency to come up straight and say it in a discussion. I invite you to use my talk page for it, so knock yourself out. Have a good one, Epf 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Welsh Epf. I have never claimed to be English and have NEVER identified as English. Both of my parents are Welsh, I may have three English grandparents, but both of my parents were born and grew up in Wales, my father is a Welsh speaker and I went to a Welsh language school, I had never even lived outside of Wales untill I was 26. You cannot put words into my mouth in order to win an argument. You persist with your incorrect assertion that ethnicity is due to origins/ancestry in total contradiction to the accepted definition, this is why I claim that you are confusing race with ethnicity. If you were correct in this assertion then there would be no point in having any such concept as ethnicity because we would all be defined by origins/ancestry (ie race). Untill you fully accept the proper definition of ethnicity then I really think your arguments are of no consequence. I am insulted that you think that I am not of British ethnicity. I am Welsh, and proud of it, I identify as ethnically Welsh. I also identify as ethnically British, have strong ethnic identities for being both Welsh and British, and I suspect that the vast majority of British people feel the same. I will not let a tiny proportion of nationalistic extremists deny me my British herritage. British people are one people, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Billy Bragg was on Sky news just last weekend talking about English identity and he commented that being English and being British are not mutually exclusive, well the same applies to being British and being Welsh. One of Britain's strengths is that we celebrate out diversity while also acknowledging that we are one people. There have been Welsh and Scotish Kings of England and Welsh and Scottish PMs, we have a shared language and a very long shared culture and history. I will not be told what I can and cannot be. I will also point this out to you from above on the talk page, from a 5 year study:
 * 21% of those living in Wales see themselves as just Welsh, a further 27% as more Welsh than british, 34% as equally Welsh and british, 8% more British than Welsh and 9% just British
 * So 79% of Welsh people identify as British, and 21% don't identify as British, 70% of Welsh people identify as Welsh and British. So the vast majority of Welsh people identify as British as well as Welsh. I am getting fed up with you, this is probably coming out in my posts. You seem to be incapable of accepting any POV but your own, and I cannot understand why you seem incapable of conceding that sometimes you are wrong. You have obviously misunderstood the definition of ethnicity, it is clear that ethnicity is about how people percieve themselves and their social/cultural group and their percieved shared origins, rather than any actual origins/ancestry, the definition is there in black and white. I am fed up with your intransigence and your inability to accept that on wikipedia all points of view are valid, you cannot remove a POV just because you disagree with it. You cannot expect anyone to accept your claim that ethnicity is about origins/ancestry when you provide no alternative definition to the one used on wikipedia, you seem to expect people to accept your different deffinition on your word alone. The criterion for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, it is not Epf's opinion, although you have even tried to argue against the verifiability policy with me. By the way I lived in Cardiff for three years and attended University of Wales College Cardiff (Now Cardiff University), I also grew up some ten miles from Cardiff in Llantrisant, so I lived the first 26 years of my life within a ten mile radius of Cardiff. Don't presume to tell me how much Welsh one hears on the streets of Cardiff or anywhere else in South Wales for that matter, this is my home. Alun 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you just come out and say that a British ethnic group would be especially offensive to Welsh and Scottish people? That is plainly and simply not true and presupposes far too much of both them and English people.  There is a British ethnic group, as clearly defined as English, Scottish or Welsh, and I identify with it. Enzedbrit 11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear hear!!!Alun 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, you are the one who seems to not be in accordance with the definition of ethnicity and descent/kinship is one of the main distinguishing factors (usually the most distinguishing) in most cases. The British are NOT one unified people and to say so is ridiculous and against the opinions of many. Even under your own statistics, 49% identify themselves more Welsh than British (and a further 34 % who are "equally" Welsh and British) and the percentages may be even higher in Scotland. This shows that the British peoples themselves do not even identify as one unified ethnic group. I do not understand whatsoever how you have three English grandparents and are therefore of significant English descent, yet supposedly "never" have identified as being English (even though according to your own user page, you gave one of your children an Anglo-Saxon name and clealry have an interest in such heritage). I am curious as to what the names (both first and last) of your grandparent were and also to know that although from England, do they trace their origins there or were they (or descendants of) some of the numerous Welsh emigrants to England during the 19th century. Peoples' ethnic identification is based on how they both identify themselves as well as how others identify them, especially those within the community they largely inhabit. I find it funny how you claim the definition is there in black and white yet you yourself misinterpret it. Their perceived shared origins are in most cases actual and "perceived" does not anywhere indicate that such kinship/descent is not or can not be actual. My definition IS in accordance with the one on Wikipedia, believe me, and I have spent most of my academic studies and interest committed to anthropology. I think you need to calm yourself in some of these discussions and accept the fact that people have the right to argue and debate against your opinions and viewpoints. I nowhere debated or disagreed with you on the Wikipedia verifiability policies, but merely pointed out that such policies are not enforced in most articles and that most are unsourced and largely based on original research or opinions of certain individuals or groups with some sort of ideological goal. I nowhere condone such things and you are correct that the whole encyclopedia needs a massive uplift with more sourcing and verification. I also pointed out why this is the reason why the encyclopedia does not garner much (if any) crediblity whatsoever in academic circles. As to our original point, I will continue to discuss this matter and argue my opinion as it is shared or similar to what many anthropologists (and people in general) hold by. I believe it is you who needs to understand what defines ethnicity and the various anthropoligcial viewpoints on this definition (it is by no means unilateral amongst all ethnic groups), as well as how ethnic identification is applied in varying ways among differing groups. You obviously have the right to identify yourself as however you wish, but I again stress that ethnic identification includes both how one identifies oneself and how one is identified by others. Obviously many people in Britain do not share the same feeling that they are one unified people and they find support in many distinguishing aspects of their culture, history, language, ancestry, etc. For example, my dad's family and most of my friends who are from the UK do feel "British" in terms of being from the same island, but ethnically identify themselves more (and in many cases solely) by their more specific ethnic definitions and in no way consider themselves to be part of some hypothetical and non-unified "British ethnic group". We share many aspects with each other, more so than with other groups, but we also have significant differences which we are proud of. Cheers, Epf 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Epf, you are being personally offensive. Do not presume to tell anyone what ethnic group they identify with, just who do you think you are? You have no right to tell people what ethnic group they belong to. This is bordering on racism. Are you next going to claim that Black and Asian English and British people have no right to claim this identity? You owe me an appology. Acknowledging that one has relatives outside the group they identify with is not the same as identifying with the other group, you appear to be clutching at straws to support your racial redefinition of ethnicity. My cousins for example have three Welsh grandparents, but grew up in London, and have stated that they are so not Welsh. We as a family are living proof that when it comes to ethnicity one's identity comes from their social and cultural conditioning. Alun 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity does not come simply from where you live and from "social/cultural conditioning". I have to say that you are in a minority if you believe such things. I am not telling anyone how to identify themselves as they obviously have the right do so as they please, but its commonly acknowledged that ones identification is not just based on their own personal affiliation, but also how they are seen by others, especially by those others within the group. Black Asian and Black English do not generally have the same problem you have and while acknowledging being English, they are also proud of their own distinct ethnic identities and heritage which is separate from those who are native/indigenous English. I am clutching at no such straws to support my opinion, but it appears you are doing so as most of my opinion is what is widely supported in both in the public and in anthropology. You as a family would be quite distinct from the rest of the population if you did attribute ethnicity merely to where one grows up or lives. I do not know how else to explain to you that ethnicity isnt sometihng you can just easily change. It is something which is inherited that results in both traits which are easily lost/gained like language, nationality and certain aspects of culture; and those which are not such as familial ties and traditions, behavioural traits, genotypic/phenotypic traits, etc. No one has the right to force on someone or tell them how they should identify themselves, but again identification is based on both ones own personal affiliation as well as how they are seen by others in the population. Your cousins who grew up in London may not see themselves as Welsh in a national or cultural sense, but considering that their ethnic origins are Welsh and trace their ancestry there for generations and generations, they can be identified just as much as Welsh as they can English. In most cases, I again stress ethnicity is not something that is just chosen by one's social/cultural conditioning, it is more often based one ones descent/kinship and this is widely agreed upon with regards to most other Eurasian peoples. This is easily seen in our situation by how the non-British ethnicities in the UK are trying to stress how the ethnic English and others (indigenous "Britons") need to assert their own native identity in what is now a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society of many peoples who are seen as both British (English, etc.) and of non-British ethnicity/ethnic origin (Asian, African, other European, etc.) and they are proud of such. Epf 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity does not come simply from where you live and from 'social/cultural conditioning' I have to say that you are in a minority if you believe such things. You have claimed that ethnicity is defined by origins/ancestry because you claim that most ethnic groups de facto have the same origins/ancestry. You provide no evidence for this assertion. In actual fact the definitions I have seen claim that the common origins/ancsstry of an ethnic group may be percieved, but not necessarily real. If this definition is a non standard definition of ethnicity, as you appear to be claiming, then I urge you to find a verifiable definition and put it in the ethnic group aricle so as to improve the neutrality of the article. I also urge you to produce more evidence in your posts, because all I am getting from you is opinion without any substance to back it up. Alun 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * and trace their ancestry there for generations and generations, how do you, or they know? This is one of the weakest points of your arguments. I bet hardly anyone in the UK really knows where their ancestors came from. Most people probably know where their grandparents came from, but I reckon most people would be hard pressed even to name their great grandparents, let alone know what part of the country they came from. There was so much movement during the industrial revolution, from the mid eighteenth century untill, well it's ongoing, from the country to the cities, that it is impossible to say where ones ancestors come from. Most British people live in cities and industrial areas, like the South Wales Valleys these were populated by immigrant workers, there just weren't enough peoply in South Wales to provide enough labour. Most of this happened over a century and a half ago, people living in Wales, who are 100% ethnically Welsh are almost certainly descended from English immigrants, but are equally unaware of the fact. Epf, you clearly know very little of British/Welsh culture and history and are mainly talking rubbish. I urge you to stop making claims you are unprepared or unable to back up. You never provide evidence for your assertions, you simply seem to think that we should take your word as fact. This for example In most cases, I again stress ethnicity is not something that is just chosen by one's social/cultural conditioning, it is more often based one ones descent/kinship and this is widely agreed upon with regards to most other Eurasian peoples. Widely agreed upon by who, and what does widely mean, is it less than consensus, is it a majority, is it a plurality, or is it a minority? This way of talking, that you constantly use is merely a form of weasel words and those which are not such as familial ties and traditions, behavioural traits, genotypic/phenotypic traits, traditions are learned, so is behaviour, I was a nurse for mentally handicapped people for five years, I know that behaviour is learned. What is a genotypic trait? As a geneticist this term is meaningless to me. As for phenotype, no one in the UK can tell where someone else is from untill they open their mouth and you can hear their accent. I know this I have lived in many parts of England and Wales, it is obvious you have not. Alun 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, can I just correct you. You say 'immigrant workers' but I believe it should be 'migrant workers' ... Enzedbrit 09:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even under your own statistics, 49% identify themselves more Welsh than British (and a further 34 % who are "equally" Welsh and British) and the percentages may be even higher in Scotland. These are not my statistics, why are you claiming this? No 49% do not identify as more Welsh than British, 21% do not identify with being British at all, the largest plurality (34%) identify as equally Welsh and British, and 79% identify as British to some extent, so these data do not support your assertion that there is no British identity. and the percentages may be even higher in Scotland, this is just speculation, you have evidence for this statement. AlunAlun

Therefore 48% see themselves as not British at all or more Welsh than British, while 34% seem themselves as equally Welsh and British while only 17% see themselves as only British or more British than Welsh. Clearly, as is expected from the increase in nationalist sentiment in Wales over past few decades, people feel distinctly more Welsh rather than "British", whatever the term is meant by (i.e., generally "British" is thought in terms of nationality or citizenship, not ethnicity). Epf 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what you typed earlier: 21% of those living in Wales see themselves as just Welsh, a further 27% as more Welsh than british, 34% as equally Welsh and british, 8% more British than Welsh and 9% just British.
 * Are you a bit thick or something? We are talking about the amount of Welsh people who identify as at least in part British (because you claim that such a group is offensive), which is all of them (100%) excluding(-) those who identify as Welsh not British (21%) (100%-21%=79%), all other groups consider themselves British to a greater or lesser extent. You cannot claim a group that has positively identified themselves as British for the non-British group, even if they see their Welsh identity as dominant, they have not rejected British identity. Your claim for a group that sees themselves as only or predominantly Welsh is just a rather crude attempt to distort the figures, because it is clear that this group contains people that identify as British. I can't understand why you find it so difficult to follow such a simple bit of maths. So it goes, Welsh 93%, British 79% and Welsh and British 70%, this is not rocket science Epf Alun 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the full report, took a little time to find, Devolution, Public Attitudes and National Identity, a quote: ...the figures show that large majorities in all parts of Great Britain claim some level of Britishness: around three-quarters of the English and Welsh and around two-thirds of Scots. When people are forced to choose between being British or English/Scots/Welsh the majority choose their national identity, but we all have various identities, both local, national and supra-national (I would be Llantrisant, Glamorgan, Welsh, British and European and I identify positively with all of these groups), and when given several choices the majority identify as both British and their national identity. Alun 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is obvious because although closely related, the people have been long proud of their distinct ethnic identities, especially with regards to Scotland and Wales, which have preserved distinct cultural and ethnic identities even after centuries of English cultural, political and linguistic dominance. Epf 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously many people in Britain do not share the same feeling that they are one unified people. Why is this obvious? Alun


 * the people have been long proud of their distinct ethnic identities, this just seems like opinion, how do you define many people? How do you know they have been long proud of their distinct ethnic identities? Where is your evidence? How do you know their see their ethnic identities as distinct? This is not, as you seem to think, an exclusive proposition. One can be proud of being Welsh, one can keep the Welsh culture and language etc. and still consider themselves British. Your proposition only works if one considers Welshness and Britishness as mutually exclusive, but they are not. English people are proud of their distinct cultural and ethnic identities (visit Yorkshire and compare it to Somerset), there is massive variation within England, they still seem to manage to consider themselves one people, as well as British. It is just another example of you thinking that you do not need to provide verifiability, your opinion is not fact Epf, however much you tell us it is. The data I have presented are at least from a reputable published source, all we get from you is inuendo and opinion. Alun 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your comment and I don't like the bias I see here either which often goes unchallenged because who would dare stand up for the English, but ... being proud of an ethnic identity? What's that term when we apply a modern concept/thinking to the past?  Anachronistic?  I doubt people for centuries have thought of themselves as differing ethnicities but peoples certainly, as in one group is linked to England, one to Wales, etc.  People were very aware of their community, their region and to a much lesser extent until the industrial age did they think much of the nation state.  How has Britain had English dominance?  London is in England but English people are thus arbitrarily linked into being the dominators simply because they reside in England's borders?  Once again EPF you are looking at England as this single entity and passing off the differences in that.  You imply that Scotland and Wales are dominated by England which has this unified internal culture when in reality the further from London you go the more marginalised the people become, within England.  It is not the fault of the English that Scotland speaks English, and Wales has benefitted from speaking a lingua-franca as a first language.  I doubt there are many people in Wales that see speaking English as something of which to be ashamed or angry. Enzedbrit 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also Alun, it should be pointed out that the concepts of ethnicity and so-called "race" ARE related and this is elaborated somewhat further on the "ethnic group" article. Common descent/kinship is the main identifying factor in ethnicity in most cases based on the varying endogamy of populations. Such origins though are not on the level of "racial" differentiation which is more strictly defined and spread over tens (and hundreds) of thousands of years and also being strictly biological with very little or no socio-cultural emphasis. Epf 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed they are not related, but that does not make them the same. Alun 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)