A refutation of    As soon as my ban expires I shall revert the English people page to that which had been agreed by a consensus of editors though I hope that someone else does so sooner In the meantime I shall attempt to address each of the issues raised by s in his revisions  In the related ethnic groups section you have included Danes Norwegians and Swedes but excluded Welsh This makes no sense and it had been agreed by all editors that the Welsh are among the closest ethnic groups to the English as anyone familiar with those two peoples knows Your argument appears to be that the Welsh should not be included because they are English  as a result of the  legislation that annexed Wales to the English kingdom I can only assume that you have no idea what ethnicity actually means and I suggest you read the article about it In short ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with legislation and the mere annexation of Wales to England did not extinguish Welsh ethnic identity But you dont need to take my word for it just look at the Welsh people page And nor incidentally is ethnicity dependent on race or genetics You have accused me of being a racist but it is you who are the racist by insisting that ethnicity is defined by race As for Danes and Norwegians their inclusion is arguable though not so much the Swedes  very few of them settled in England The agreed consensus prior to your unilateral intervention was that no Continental ethnic groups would be included on the grounds that the inhabitants of the British Isles are much much closer to each other in terms of culture history and language than any groups from mainland Europe Again this fact is obvious to anyone who knows them As a Canadian it is possible that you may have been ignorant of this If you are not familiar with a subject it is probably a good idea not to make edits to its page  Further down the article you have inserted a sentence saying that the Tudors are the chief representative of the English kingdom This is not only false it is also completely irrelevant  Still further down you have completely mangled the section dealing with the Norman Conquest and its effects You have deliberately suppressed the historical fact that the English became a conquered nation and inserted irrelevant descriptions of coats of arms You then suddenly lurch into a false description of Neolithic Britain and Gaul as if this was in any way relevant to the Norman Conquest You then mention the Roman Empire and one of its shortlived breakaway states jumping straight to Offa and Charlemagne desperate to clutch at any sort of straw that will lend support however flimsy to your own preconceived notion that no distinction should be made between the English and the French despite the obvious fact that these two peoples have a very different language culture and ethnic identity Your mention of the consolidation of kingdoms around capitals such as Winchester and Paris is also completely irrelevant and your suggestion that the English Channel has been the main focus of English cultural development is demonstrably wrong  the North Sea has been just as important usually more so  Moving further down still you have inserted a whole new section entitled Royalty and it is here that you expose the full extent of your total misunderstanding of a what the article is about and b the English people English identity is not based on coats of arms as symbols If you want evidence of this look at the World Cup being played in Germany as we speak The English fans almost to a man carry the flag of St George and only very rarely the Union Jack They never ever carry the royal coat of arms in any form Being Canadian I suspect that you have received a rather distorted view of the English through Holywood depictions and the like The vast majority of English people would laugh in the face of the sort of mediavalist aristocratic fantasy that you are espousing You then go on to claim that all Englishmen are actually descended from royalty This is patent nonsense and once again exposes your own royalist fantasies The medieval Frenchspeaking monarchy deliberately did not interbreed with its Englishspeaking subjects Now Im not saying that no genetic material from earlier monarchs exists in the modern English population but that is not the point Statistically every single person on earth might be descended from Julius Caesar or anyone else you care to name who lived long enough ago Oh and French is most definitely not a lingua franca used among Englishmen  we dont need one because weve already got English Indeed English people in general have been notoriously bad at learning foreign languages And all that guff about what Scottish and Irish people think of this that and the other is not only POV but also completely out of place in an article about the English people  To sum up  by your own admission you are a Canadian of French ancestry Nothing wrong with that of course but it means that your view of the English may not be at all accurate and this has been proved by your illconceived alterations to this article The English and French for all their geographical proximity are worlds apart when it comes to culture language and ethnic identity As a Canadian you might lament this fact but AngloFrench identity in Canada is something for Canada to sort out and you have no right to try and impose it on the actual English and French themselves If you really want to make constructive additions to this article then try and learn something about what the English are really like and stop relying on medieval fantasies You clearly have some sort of personal axe to grind but Im afraid that Wikipedia is no place to sort out your own ethnic insecurities And you might also gain more respect by not resorting to foulmouthed insults and childish temper tantrums every time someone disagrees with you