Talk:English people/Archive 7

message: Some definitions:
Definitions of ethnic group
Definitions of nation
Definitions of race
Alun 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of ethnic group, nation, and race

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Flags and Numbers

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have placed the neutrality tag. why? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please address comments to the RfC. Alun 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions with significant populations box 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please address comments to the RfC. Alun 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: numbers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Complaint about Whigipedia RACISM!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Big Bad 1066! Francophobic articles need to die.

message: 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)
thread_title: Origins: Recent Contributions

message: 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)
thread_title: Largest single population resides in England?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Not Celts 

message: 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
* 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)
Cop 663 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nice work. Alun 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And then there were 8

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removel of peice on Immigration