Talk:English people/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Dec 2004 and 22 October 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:English people/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Alun 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have no problems with the notion of an "English identity."  However, this article had a bit too much P.O.V. with the comments about political correctness trying to water down the identity--views, by the way, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves.  I tried to edit it a bit to give it more of a "neutral" flavor.--MegaSilver 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.O.V. 

message: Is there a reason for this page to exist? Most of its contents are currently explained, in better detail, under England — and the only argument I can see for this page would be as a way of fleshing stuff out which there isn't room for at England. I'm sure it must be unintentional, but at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. Doops 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long wondered why such a page did not yet exist. I am a Swede, and I feel no nationalism in this text. It plainly states some encyclopedic information. I think it is distressing that articles on ethnicities are understood as nationalistic.--Wiglaf 10:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The article is trying to establish a racially pure concept of English. There are no 'ethnically' English. We are a mixed bag and one of the names we go by - and the one that happens to derive the given name of our home - is derived from the name one of a string of invaders. There are celtic English in Cornwall and English people descended from the Normans through the land. In Liverpool and Bristol (at least) there are black English who can trace their English heritage back 300 years or more. Strange how the article overlooks that part, eh? The 'article' is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption. Icundell 20:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Agree that there's not much content yet, but I would keep the page - there are after all articles on the French, Spanish, Swedes etc as people. But I think we should move to English people (which currently redirects to England) - more accurate, consistent with other countries and avoids the suggestion of nationalism.  --Cjnm 13:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this article contains some irrelevant information. Information which should be on the page England or Demographics of England. The purpose of this article is to describe the people of English Culture, their descent, their language (English and possibly Cornish), their history and their religion. The article as it currently is, places too much emphasis on the minorities, which make up about 3% of the population. These minorities are not of English Culture; therefore they are not English (they may be British however). They usually don’t even regard themselves as English! The Jew regards himself as Jewish; the Rom regards himself as Romany; the African regards himself as African and so on. What about the people of English Culture? This article is about them! Why should the Jewish minority be mentioned in this article? The Jews, as I have mentioned earlier, don’t regard themselves as English. They are a nation in their own right. They should not be integrated with the other cultures which make up England into one nation branded English Nation. To come to the point, I am concerned with the section that reads: and African elements as a consequence in part of the slave trade and in part of England's long history as a maritime trading nation. For most of its history as a recognisable entity it has also had a significant Jewish population. This is all true, but it should be on the page England, not here, all this is beyond the scope of the article. How can the African, the Jew or any other immigrant become English if they don’t adopt English Culture? Also, what is wrong with writing: The English traditionally speak the English language? Is it not true? If not, what is the language of the English people? Urdu, or maybe Zulu? REX 20:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The purpose of the changes was to correct the previous thoroughly POV, empirically inaccurate and theoretically specious attempt at delineating a specifically WASP definion of 'English'. Why do you seek to deny Englishness to those who have come to it by choice, or whose ancestors came to it by choice? There are even those who have had Englishness forced upon them. The Jews I know regard themselves as English Jews, the black people as English blacks. They have not only adopted English culture but enriched it, just like the Asian English. What about my Italian English neighbour? Should we deny those too? Just because they are a minority they are not English? Where should we put them do you think? Icundell 00:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. However, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that people who do NOT adopt English Culture and way of life cannot be truly English. I am not trying to imply that only white people can be English, nor that only Christians can be English. I am stressing the importance of the English language to English nationhood. As I am half Greek and half English I can plainly see that the most important aspect of a nation is its language. Therefore anyone, regardless of race, religion or even citizenship, who speaks the English language and adjusts to the English way of life, is English. Some inhabitants of England however, i.e. Indians continue using their own language and don’t adjust to the English way of life (for example wearing Indian dress), how can these people be English in the way that the majority are. By doing so they themselves are pointing out that they are not English, but Indian. Note that even the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish regard themselves as distinct nations even though they have a very similar culture to the English. How can the different cultures (i.e. Indian) be regarded as English? REX 09:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and I must say that I now agree with it. But now, I am quite confused on what should be included in the article. How should English ethnicity be defined in a neutral encyclopaedia article? You probably know that I first set up this article  and modelled it on articles on other ethnicities (i.e. Greeks, Russians, Swedes, Finns). I suspect that my first draft was not approved of. According to Doops: at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. You (Icundell) claimed that: The article is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption. I believe that there should be an article on this subject, as there is for many other nations. I would like to hear all opinions on what should be done with this article, how it can be improved. Please tell me what you think. REX 16:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: That is a good idea, to move the article to English (people). May also suggest that the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of an English person should be included as it is seen as the most accurate guide to the English language, perhaps at the beginning. The OED defines an English person as: one who is English by birth, descent or naturalization. REX 14:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You may want to see the English (people) article. Also MERRY CHRISTMAS! REX 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: May I suggest that this article be merged with English (people). Both articles describe the same thing and the name of this article (English nation) sounds like nationalism as opposed to the neutral English (people), which just describes a people. REX 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems eminently sensible to me. Icundell 21:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with English (people) 

message: Does anyone else think that the sections Reclaimed Identity and Lost Identity are a little POV? I think that that could be remedied by merging both sections into one. Also I believe that sentences such as However, due to a large increase in immigration in the late 20th century emphasis was placed on making England an "inclusive" nation. Thus, openly displayed English symbols or describing oneself as "ethnically English" became frowned upon. Some felt they were being maligned simply for to not wanting to discard their rich ethnic heritage for enforced government "multiculturalism". are VERY POV and sound like something from a BNP member's speech!REX 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity sections [[POV]]? 

message: if you are going to include all Cornish folk as being English then you will need to explain why on the 2001 UK census and the 2004 Cornwall schools census you could describe your ethnicity as Cornish as opposed to English. Also why the Council of Europe is requesting that the Cornish be placed under the terms of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I have made a few short edits to make readers aware that it is not a clear cut issue and added links so they can further explore the issue. Bretagne 44 22/3/05
I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the Talk page of the English (people) article and it began with if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person, what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cornish 

message: The external links have an English nationalism feel about them, i have added a few other links to english political parties and to sites with inormation on England and English history.
Bretagne 44 23/3/05
:It may be so, however shouldn't links with info on England and English history go on the pages England and History of England? REX 17:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it, these things overlap. I'm being too nitpicky. REX 17:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Should there be a different page on English nationalism? There seems to be a number of different political and cultural groups now that have an English national back bone.
Bretagne 44 23/3/05
:Yes, I think there should be such a page. I might be able to start one. Could you help me? Articles of this nature are better made by a team in order to maintain a neutral POV and to better defend the articles existence on the talk page, because believe me, such an article will be proposed for deletion! REX 17:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[English nationalism]] 

message: Are all British people English and all English people British?  If someone says "British" does this include any other places other than England?  Jaberwocky6669 11:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:All British people most certainly are NOT English, me for instance, and others may consider it highly offensive to be called English. The Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, and Channel Islanders are all British and not English, not to mention many people in other parts of the world who have British citizenship of various forms. Until the late 1940s all Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc., were British subjects, before all the countries started developing their own citizenship rules. All English people are British. Whether or not the Cornish people are English is still subject to debate. -- Arwel 12:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: English -- British

message: Is their any reason why this article is 'English(people)' and not 'English people' like the rest of the people articles in Wikipedia? Falphin 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Any subject of the English King apart from Jews if present in that time, were considered English.  No need to get into colonial peoples who have a separate heritage that should not be raped of them.  Does everybody really want to be an Englishman?  LOL, I have Anglo-French descent with minor Germanic/Celtic elements in the descent's periphery.  These lines comprise Anglicans, Congregationalists, Catholics and Huguenots by religion.  Doesn't this speak for the truth in volumes of identity in my genetic origins?  No offence, but some genetic native of Tuvalu isn't English and could never be so.  Do they even have ANGLIAN descent?!  Cornish people had been English ever since their land had been county status, as Welsh had been English since they became an English principality.  Still, it is much like Burgundians or Bretons as French.  To be technical here, no Indian was a subject of the English Crown during colonial times...not even Pocahontas.  Black slaves weren't subjects, but labouring property to be dispenced with as chattel.  Why rob these people of their roots?  English as an ethnicity is reserved for the past in which England was a sovereign body.  What we have nowadays, are British people.  Any non-European who has been a subject of the Crown that uses London as its national capital, would at the very most be considered British or American even as it seems to be.  TheUnforgiven 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English ethnicity is defined by pre-British nationals 

message: I have in the notes the likelihood that 24.5 million is an underestimate of the number of Americans with English ancestry. Actually it is a certainty. 281 million Americans cited 287 ethnicities, implying that they are nearly all pure blooded descedents of one immigrant group, which is obviously not the case. I suspect that English ancestry was one of the most under-reported of all, as it seems to the only hythenated American identity which is not valued by the American establishment. Bhoeble 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that English ancestry is not particularly valued by citizens of the United States when compared with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German and so on. But, we can only say that 24.5 million citizens gave their ethnicity as English, we can not make any statement about whether this is true or not (too high/too low). Ethnicities are hard to define and understand, and there is no test or exam to 'pass', and that includes blood. Oswax 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US Census, 2000 was the year of the 'American'.  The number of respondents calling themselves 'American' in the section on ancestry rose from 13.05m to 20.63m.  Meanwhile, the number of respondents calling themselves 'English' fell from 32.66m to 24.52m.  Surely, assuming that a large part of those 'Americans' are lapsed Englishmen, the actual number of Americans of 'English' ancestry should be given as at least the figure for 1990.  The German peoples page claims 65m Germans in the US (compared to a peak in the Census of 52m in 1990), the Irish people page claims 44m (peak of 39m in 1990), and the French people page claims 16m (peak of 10m, plus 3m Franco-Canadians in 1990).  Could anyone explain, without referring to the traditional British bashfulness, why the Germans, Irish, and French take the Census figures to be underestimates, whilst the English take them to be overestimates? Bastin8 21:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can add a source for a higher number to the article, then do so. Elsewhere on this page the population figures come under fire for having little or no proper basis. That is why I think it is better to stick to the figures backed by evidence. I do think the figures are great underestimates, for as I said above, Englishness is not particularly valued by Americans, or by any group when compared with Irish/Scottish and so on. One only needs to look on pages for actors to see they list their Irish/German/Italian/Scottish/Hispanic/Hawaiian/Navajo/Senegalese/Tagalog blood, but seldom English. (I'm ranting now so I'll stop.) Sadly, or maybe ironically, we cannot even find a figure for the number of English in England! Oswax 10:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the late reply.  I'm not sad in the slightest that Americans don't feel English, although I'm exceedingly disappointed that most don't value their British roots.  That's entirely a different matter.  The figures that I cited are from the US Census site; for 1990 figures, see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en.  For 2000 figures, see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false.  The majority of the major specified ancestries dropped, with an increased proportion of non-respondents, a decreased proportion of multiple ancestries, and a vastly increased proportion of 'Americans'.  Post 9/11, I can only imagine that the number of 'American' respondents will sky-rocket, further skewing the census results from what they are supposed to illustrate: Not nationality, but ancestry. Bastin8 22:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Americans of English ancestry

message: Why is it that the British act in such a vulgar and Loutish manner when abroad?...They travel in same sex packs, drunk, violent and out of control. They ruin every place they visit. whatis wrong with their culture??
:You are making these statements based on just a few isolated examples. I'll have you know that most British people are on their best behaviour when abroad. REX 10:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are British louts 

message: Added the following link
*Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

message: The CIA World Factbook seems to indicate that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. That would amount to 50,529,058 individuals, wouldn't it? Why then does the article say that there are 50,000,000 English people in Great Britain? Isn't that a gross inaccuracy? Where did that figure come from? Rexhep Bojaxhiu 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the 2001 census, there were 49,138,831 people living in England. I think the figure in the article is related to this figure, but like the other figures isn't referenced, and it isn't clear what is represents. I don't think the CIA figure is much better. zzuuzz (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The figure does sound credible, but is it verifiable? Has anyone verified it? Why is it not referenced? It appears to be referenced (as the population of England) in a footnote. The sources for figures for ethnicity has been discussed on the Cornish page. zzuuzz (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In the absence of the relevant official UK government statistics, I have added the CIA figures as a source. They are ultimately based on the UK census, but I don't have an original reference. Using the CIA figures I calculate the English total to be 45,265,093 (58,789,194 *  92.1% * 83.6%) but please note that this group is clearly marked as a subset of the 'White' ethnic group. I think this is conceptually wrong, but it is how the UK government appears to have allocated English (and Cornish) people. It is so controversial that it needs to be clearly identified. Feel free to reword my reference, but please try not to lose some reference to this important qualifier. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.  zzuuzz (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My replies highlight the importance of verifiability and verification.  zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English population of the UK 

message: According to the CIA World Factbook there are two ethnic groups in the Republic of Ireland: Celtic and English. We know that the people who have some English background will be Anglicans (ie Church of Ireland). Ireland's population is 4,015,676 and 3% of those are Anglicans. Thus, there are 120,470 people in the Republic of Ireland who have an English background (I am excluding the Anglo Norman settlers, as they were Catholics and they will no longer have any knowledge of their English ancestry as there is nothing to distinguish them from the Celtic Irish, so they don't count). I will leave Northern Ireland out as that will be included in the UK figure. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is wrong to count followers of the Church of England as ethnically English. Unfortunately the CIA factbook does not gives figures for ethnic English. The Irish census did not ask about ethnicity on its census form, but only asked for nationality, and previous country of residence . I think some numbers could possibly be used from that but only if it is made clear they represent nationality. zzuuzz (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This sort of thing is what makes me doubt the accuracy of the CIA Factbook - classifying the Irish population as either Celtic or English ignores various factors such as the Norwegian Viking foundation of Dublin (confirmed recently by genetic comparisons between Ireland and Norway), or the fact that most of the Protestant setlers in Ireland came from Scotland, not England. -- Arwel 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Not really. Don't forget the English settlers who went over with Henry II, went native and ended up more Irish than the Irish - ethnically if they'd avoided intermarriage (extremely unlikely after 800 years!) they'd be English, but Catholics. -- Arwel 18:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English population of Ireland 

message: I am sorry but these figures are ridicules, it is not acceptable to us total population figures for England as numbers of English, even a very brief review of the situation will reveal that. As to the other figures well what can i say. where are the numbers from, what census provided them, are you really trying to say 30 million people in the US think of themselves as English?
I just hope it is not some form of English nationalism that is behind these outrageous figures.
populations in: Great Britain:
:50 million
United States:
:30 million (est)
Canada:
:15 million (est) 
Australia:
:12 million (est)
South Africa:
:3 million (est)
South America:
:2 million (est)
Ireland:
:c. 105,000
Bretagne 44 17:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Bretagne 44. These figures are total nonsense, there can be no proper justification for someone more than a generation or two removed from the migrants to count themselves as "English" - this sort of thing really pisses off most of the Irish people I know - people whose ancestors got off the boat in the 1840s and 1850s still calling themselves "Irish" and presuming to have an interest in contemporary Irish politics. As far as the UK goes, the BBC's "Born Abroad" analysis of the 2001 census figures () shows that 7.53% of the UK population, 4.3 million people, and all but about 250,000 of them in England, were born outside the UK and Ireland (and just under 500,000 people were additionally born in the RoI).-- Arwel 21:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Double standards? Not at all, I just wasn't aware of that bit of Welsh people, and I've just put a note on it about its claims - www.euroamericans.net says 1.75 million put themselves down in the US Census as having Welsh ancestry, but how long ago is the connection, and what proportion of their ancestry is Welsh now? The Canadian census recorded 28,000 people who put their ethnicity down as solely "Welsh" (and that was the figure quoted on Welsh people) but another 320,000 included "Welsh" as one of multiple ethnicities. My gut feeling is that 28,000 Canadians is a realistic figure for the number of people who have a direct connection with Wales. www.euroamericans.net uses official census figures, but what conclusions it draws from them are purely their own - I nearly fell off my chair when I saw who it offers as Famous Welsh-Americans - Bob Hope, Thomas Jefferson, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones! Hopkins and Zeta-Jones, yes - they were born in Wales and now live in America, but Hope was born in London, just having a Welsh mother does not make him Welsh, and he had no other significant connection with the country or its culture, and Jefferson was a Virginian; there is no way any Welsh person would ever consider either of those two people to be Welsh. As far as I'm concerned, the proper limiting definition for a person to be able to claim a particular ethnicity is whether or not they could represent the country concerned in international sport if they were of the appropriate age, sex, and ability, and maintain a reasonable connection with the country i.e. usually no further removed than having a grandparent born in that country. -- Arwel 16:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just added the 50,529,058 figure from the world factbook (I've discussed that above) and the figures from the census websites provided by Grandfatherjoe (, , ). Enjoy! Rexhep Bojaxhiu 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have updated that figure, as I mentioned elsewhere on this page. The CIA is a reputable publisher(!), though not the first choice, and they even quote the UK government statistics for once, so it will do as a stop-gap. Yes, we should get the original statistics from the UK census from the ONS. They are probably published but I can't find them anywhere. If someone can get the same figures for the Cornish, then they are obtainable. zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Rather than reply to your email I thought I would post it here so that others may judge you for themselves (or at least have a good laugh). My comments (above), by the way, referred to the old English Nation article.
From: Jean-Guy Laframboise <toneetonetone@yahoo.com>
Subjeck: You ignorant little twat
My dear little Ian,
I happen to be the primary author of the wikipedia
page on the English people that you seem to find so
erroneous and hate-filled.
As both an avid student of European history, as well
as someone with eight letters behind my name, let me
direct your attention to something called "the facts".
The "English people", as with virtually every ethnic
group spanning this planet, represent a composite
ethnic profile, meaning that they are a single unit
derived from multiple sources. To make the issue a tad
more manageable for you young Ian I've come up with a
simple analogy. Imagine one were to combine the
colours blue and yellow; would the colour derived from
such combination (a certain shade of what we call
"green") be any less a distinct color to the human
eye? Of course not. And nobody would dispute this,
because absolutely nothing is at stake with defining
the colour green, magenta, taupe or fuscia. 
When it comes to ethnicity however, and especially
when one (very slightly evolving) group has laid claim
to a part of this earth for thousands of years, it
leads those other groups seeking both its
"dis-establishment" and displacement, to kick up quite
a storm when such group defines itself in an
exclusivist sense.
To those who engage in hand-wringing over this issue I
simply say "tough titties". There IS an indigenous
ethnic group in England, who are culturally,
religiously, and genetically very distinct from the
recent tidal wave from the third world that swamped
the island in the past 50 years.
As to your comment regarding supposed black Britons
who have been in England for 300 years, I can't help
but laugh at how someone with even a quarter of a
brain could ascribe to such a ridiculous belief. There
were at most a couple of thousand blacks who settled
permanently in Britain in the pre-world war II era,
almost all were male, and of those, very few ever
found willing indigenous English mates to intermarry
with. (try to imagine the stigma) As a result, very
little admixture ever occurred, and any that did take
place led to the rapid genetic assimilation of a
handful of non-Europeans. (which incidentally would
explain Cavalli-Sforza's findings on the genetic
placement of the English within the world's
populations.
Apart from a few thousand Normans in the years
immediately following William's conquest, a few
hundred dutch tailors in the early modern period, a
few thousand Huguenots in the wake of the French
crown's repeal of the Edict of Nantes, and a few
thousand Polish soldiers post WWII, there has really
been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English,
thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic
group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic
cauldron for thousands of years. Only a simpleton,
ignoramus or person acting in bad faith would see
otherwise.
As much as it might pain you to accept it, the English
are, heretofore, a fairly homogeneous, endogamous,
north-western European ethnic grouping that is quite
naturally defined in opposition to other ethnic
groupings around the world. Just as the Estonians,
Poles, Germans, Dutch, Romanians and Greeks represent
distinct groupings, so too do the English.
-TW
P.S. Don't bothering replying to this email, as I have
decided that your lack of knowledge regarding this
issue makes you categorically unqualified to debate me
on it. Listen and learn. That's all you should be
doing for the time being.
Posted by: Icundell 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know who that e-mailer is (so we can revert any edits he ever makes)? His "lack of knowledge regarding this issue" could potentially damage the page. Wiki-Ed 09:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAO: Jean-Guy Laframboise <toneetonetone@yahoo.com> 

message: Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment