Talk:English people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Numbers of English continued

quick recap and some observations

Here's where I see the biggest problems.

• Data on English identity from the 2001 census
  

Rex states above that:
All I know is that the CIA World Factbook figures are based on the 2001 census
and zzuuzz states:
The CIA factbook, which is a reputable publisher, says of the United Kingdom: "Ethnic groups: white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
But according to Reference #1 on the article page
The number who described their ethnic group as English in the 2001 UK census has not been published to date.
So where do the CIA get their info on English ethnicity? It can't be from the census data as they claim, as these data have not been published. I think this is enough to discount the CIA data as unreliable. Given that the data regarding English identity from the census are unavailable I think it is reasonable to question this calculation:
58,789,194 * 0.921 * 0.836 = 45265092.65 = 45,265,093
because the source the CIA claim for the 0.836 figure (the 2001 census) has not published this figure. So where exactly does this figure come from? Given that this figure is for the whole UK, then the number of English people in the whole of the United Kingdom (45,265,093) is much smaller (almost 4 million) than the total number of people living in England (49,138,831). Given that there are English people in the UK living outside of England, the figure for English in England will be smaller than the 45,265,093 for the whole UK.

• Arwel states that:
  

the ONS does not identify any such thing as an English "ethnic group": it identifies people by race and place of birth, so there were 44,679,361 white people resident in England at the 2001 Census
I think this is correct, the fact that the census allowed one to identify as a simple write in (which means that English ethnicity will be underestimated, as many will not bother), and that the data on English self identification have not been published, support Arwel's statement.
zzuuzz states that:
p52 of this reference says that English is an ethnic group in the census
but of course allowing people to identify as English in the census if they can be bothered does not imply that they necessarily recognise it as an ethnic group when compiling their stats (which they don't). The fact that the English question was an optional write in, confirms that it is not a mandated ethnic group.

• All data here are estimates, even census data are estimates as many people do not fill out census forms, or fill them out incorrectly.

• Whatever data are used it is important to put them in their proper context. Citing the source of data is all very well, but for a statistic to have any meaning its derivation needs to be understood. This is why it is wrong to accept the CIA figure without understanding how they have derived this estimate of English ethnicity in the UK. In this instance how can this be regarded as a good source?

• Verifiability is not the same as truth. WP:V: As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

• My preferred option would be to cite the numbers of people born in England currently living in the UK, and to quote the same figure for England (number of people born in England currently living in England). This has the advantage of including non-white English people as English, and how the figure is derived is extremely transparent.Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of people born in England:

• living in the UK: 44,028,981
  • living in England: 42,968,596
  • living in Wales: 589,828
  • living in Scotland: 408,948
  • living in N. Ireland: 61,609

refs: Scotland (Excel), England and Wales, Northern Ireland. zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how these figures are derived:

• United States: 30,000,000 (est)
• Canada: 15,000,000 (est)
• Australia: 12,000,000 (est)

They are very different from the sources cited for them

• official statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census showing 24,515,138 persons claiming English ancestry. 2000 (1990)
• 2001 Canadian Census gives 1,479,520 respondents stating their ethnic origin as English as a single response, and 4,499,355 including multiple responses, giving a combined total of 5,978,875.[1]
• The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports 6.4 million people of English ancestry in the 2001 Census. Up to two ancestries could be chosen. Recent increases in the number who identify as Australian suggest that this number is an underestimate of the true number with English ancestry.[2]

How can one give a number that is different from the source it is cited from?

These numbers are being persistently placed on the page, I believe against consensus, by User:Antidote and some anonymous IP addresses. You will see them in the article editing history if you look for reverts to my edits. The numbers have not been published, but admittedly 'guessed' by whoever put them there. Quote: estimations are more accurate than registered data due to many englishman of whom associate with colony; revert. They should be removed. zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think there should be a differentiation made between English and of English descent. I do not believe that one can claim that a person is ethnically English because they claim English descent. For example Irish people differentiates between Irish people and people of Irish descent.Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

They do not differentiate when using infobox numbers. In fact they count the total population of the island of Ireland as Irish. I agree that people who haven't lived in England, perhaps for a few generations, may no longer be English people. But they may retain some aspects of the English ethnic identity - customs, tradition, language, religion, etc., and this means they are part of an ethnic group - whether they know it or not. Self-reported ancestry is part of ethnic identity. zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, OK that makes sense. Alun 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of English in South Africa

The best reference we have to date is this:

1. ^ A 1996 study of South Africa by the US Library of Congress reports that roughly two-thirds of South Africa's 2 million English speakers can trace their ancestry to England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland.

zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of English in New Zealand

The 2001 New Zealand census asked: "Which ethnic group do you belong to?", and people could answer with several responses (including New Zealand European). The total who wrote-in 'English' in 2001, whether as their only ethnic group or as one of up to three ethnic groups was 34,074. In 1991, when there was a comparable question, it was 53,325. In 1996 the number was 281,895. The question in that year was broadly similar, but laid out quite differently. It said: "Tick as many circles as you need to show which ethnic group(s) you belong to", and English was one of the European options.

Numbers are from Table 2a of the 2001 Census: Ethnic Groups - reference report. There is more information about ethnicity in the New Zealand census including census forms, and this definition from 2001 [3]:

Ethnicity is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to. Thus, ethnicity is self-perceived and people can belong to more than one ethnic group. Ethnicity is a measure of cultural affiliation, as opposed to race, ancestry, nationality or citizenship.

An ethnic group is a social group whose members have the following four characteristics:

• share a sense of common origins
• claim a common and distinctive history and destiny
• possess one or more dimensions of collective cultural individuality
• feel a sense of unique collective solidarity.

zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but for me these people are still people with English ancestry but not actually English people. They should be mentioned in the article but not in the info box. People born in England and living in the US, Australia etc fine but not people who's ancestors sailed on the May Flower! On the Cornish people page we could include the decendents of the Cornish dispora around the world that claim Cornish ancestry as "Cornish people", just look at all these Cornish sites from across the globe:[4], however to do so would be wrong as they are people with Cornish ancestry but not Cornish people. Bretagne 44 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They say they belong to the English ethnic group. How can you disagree with them, and the people who publish the figures? I think this is an exemplar (unlike the CIA figure) because we know both what was measured, and who published it. zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The authors of every other athnic group article would appear to disagree with you. What a pity! Do you think that you could find out why the Irish people, the Italians, the Albanians, the French people, the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Norwegians ets all have their USA, Canada etc figures in the infobox? If they can, then so can we. Oh joy! Rex^(talk) 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the... um... "Cornish diaspora" has no figures. If you caould find a relaible source, which confirmed your speculation, but so far, no sources have been produced. The only Cornish diaspora I can think of are the people who entered themselves as Cornish in the last census outside of Cornwall. If you find a reliable source with figures, then we can use them. Guesswork is not allowed. Rex^(talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic group is more to do with culture than nationality or citizenship. Are you saying that once the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, they lost all traces of English culture and became Native Americans? Rex^(talk) 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at what makes an Albanian (like me) an Albanian. Check Albanians#Ethnic Albanians. Could that apply in our case? Rex^(talk) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in support of Rex. It's worth having a look at the ethnic group article as well. We are not talking about a nation, which IMHO is a racial group, and we are not talking about a state or a nation-state, which are political groups, though these articles might be worth reading to help clarify things. It's worth bearing in mind that although England is a nation, in this case we are talking English ethnic identity, not English national identity Alun 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jury system

Is there a reference for this statement:
the jury system (used in a few non-anglo-saxon countries in the world) is an English innovation.
And what does non-anglo-saxon country mean? There hasn't been an anglo-saxon country in existence for nearly a thousand years. Alun 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern Nation State of England

What does this mean?
These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex, forming what would eventually become the modern nation state of England.
I am intrigued by what is considered modern. The annexation of Wales was in 1536-1542, changing the borders of England forever and incorporating a different nation into it's borders. England as a nation-state ceased to exist at that time, and has never existed since. I would not call that a modern nation-state.
I think this is also wrong These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex.
According to the Athelstan article, Athelstan was the first de Facto ruler of England. This was achieved after the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. Paul Hill in The Age of Athelstan (ISBN 0752425668) gives the same date, so it would be 10th century. Alun 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. England as we know it began in the 10th century, not the 9th.--Mais oui! 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

St.George

Saint George, famed as a dragon-slayer, is also the patron saint of England. St George may be the patron saint of England, but I don't think he was English (It is said that George was born in a fuller's shop in Epiphania, in Cilicia, to a Christian family during the late 3rd century), and he is also patron saint of Georgia (the Georgian flag also contains the cross of St. George). Should some reference be made to Edward the Confessor, who was English, and Patron Saint of England: After the reign of Henry II Edward was considered the patron saint of England until 1348 when he was replaced in this role by St. George. Alun 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[5] [6]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [7]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you about eight times, Local Government Act 1988 established Cornwall County Cornwall as an ENGLISH County Council. Legally, now Cornwall is part of England. It doesn't matter when it ceased to be "independent". How were Northumbria, Mercia etc incorporated into England? There is no record of an Act of Union if that's what you are after. If they don't need one, then neither does Cornwall. Britannica and Encarta call Cornwall an English county. I can tell that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. Here's the gist: it doesn't matter what you can prove or think you can prove on your own. Even if you were to spend ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni di Stefano and found some "loophole" in the law which said that Cornwall is an independent country, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. Rex^(talk) 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In a way you can both be right. WP:NPOV is often misunderstood. It is OK to include a POV as long as an alternative POV is also included. This will lead to a generally NPOV article (from WP:NPOV: The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Of course both POVs need to be verifiable. So you can make the claim of no act of union, while also claiming that the 1988 Act is a de Facto Act of Union, you can even claim that this is not recognised if you like. The proviso of course is verifiability. I do think that, much as I sympathise with Bretagne 44's claim, a verifiable source is required. Just citing the maps as evidence does seem to constitute original research. Can you provide a third party verifiable source Bretagne 44 (for example the same claim made in a published work)? Alun 18:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had a clairvoyant vision. I saw Bretagne 44 bringing up that ridiculous Killibrandon Report again, according to which Cornwall, like Lancaster, should be referred to as a duchy in official documents. Cornish nationalists interpret this as meaning that Cornwall is an illegally occupied Celtic nation which was forcefully incorporated into England and that the British Parliament is not authorised to pass laws over Cornwall, in which case the legislation I cited above is null and void. Those maps don't mean anything, they also mark London; is London a separate country as well? Also, I don't think that the 1988 Act was a de facto Act of Union. It's just an example that as far as the Queen is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been). I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - seeConstitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one, where POV runs wild. Well, I feel I should cite something else: Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. When Encyclopædia Britannica says that Cornwall is something other than an English county, the new can assume that it's constitutional position has changed. Rex^(talk) 18:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. I agree Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, which is why it must be neutral, and why things must be verifiable. Remember verifiability is not the same as truth, and neutrality means providing both POVs. These are Wikipedia policies. If there is some way Bretagne44 can verify what he is claiming, from a reputable source, then he has the right to incorporate it into the article, just as you have the right to incorporate the opposite POV, with a verifiable source. I agree that the maps in and of themselves don't mean anything. My understanding of these policies on NPOV, Verifiability and no original research is that anyone can introduce a POV position if they have a reputable source to verify it, and as long as the opposite opinion is also introduced, and that these together will maintain neutrality. I do not think that you could claim this is propaganda because because both positions will be presented. At present I agree with you that there is no reputable verifiable source for these claims, but if Bretagne44 can produce such a thing (from a history or politics book for example) I don't think there is anything you can do about it except include both POVs. I can't claim to be at all interested in this Cornwall thing, I was just trying to be constructive and to find a consensual middle way, to repeat from the above quote from WP:NPOV, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Alun 19:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking again about this, I am of the opinion that this is not an appropriate article to make these sorts of claims about Cornwall. These are political and historical points, more appropriate in articles like England or United Kingdom. This is an article on English people (first generation immigrants to England often self identify with English ethnicity, even if not with English nationality) which is far more inclusive than say the English nation. I suggest keeping political and nationalistic comments to the appropriate pages. The whole ethnicity thing is hard to define with regards to being English anyway, because English culture is so dominant in the UK. In a way all Britons are a bit ethnically English, even if the converse is not true (I say this as a Welsh person who would never think of himself as English, but who has three English grandparents). Alun 07:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what I find a bit unfair - English culture is so dominant in the UK. What makes English culture different to Welsh or Scottish? What makes Geordies and Cornishmen (as they are English) the same yet so dinstinct from Scotland for the former and Wales for the latter, regions to which they are historically so connected? If there is an English culture so dominant in the UK, it is one of the ruling class, or London, or the BBC, but it's not English culture, although it could be called, due to its epicentre, as AN English culture.Enzedbrit 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

REX you really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.

As to the Kilbrandon report or Cornish foreshore case being ridiculous well in comparison to what you write I think I would go for a Royal Commission and case law as being less ridiculous.

There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been).

So you are going to give your POV and then provide no support, i however have provided legal and historical facts that can be verified.

I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - seeConstitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one,

Again an unfounded insult which you cannot support in anyway, really very pathetic!

Bretagne 44 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

References

I am considering putting an unreferenced tag on this article because, population data aside, nothing here seems to have been properly verified with references. Alun 19:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Normans

Hardly anything about the Norman (French/Viking) addition to the Celto-Germanic pot. Ksenon 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Because User:TharkunColl hates his ancestors; the full extent of our ethnic identity that he himself doubtlessly shares at this point in history--that's if he is truly English and not a Hanoverian imposter. The fringe who claims Hanover to be the original English homeland are living in their Whig fantasies. Lord Loxley 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

languages

To avoid a lengthy addition of edits in the language section by users wishing to let us know that the language they speak plus english is being spoken in England I removed the whole list and put commonwealth and non-commonwealth (commonwealth being relevant to England). Ciriii 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did the ancient Britons come from?

The article reads that the ancestors of the English people are basically the Anglo-saxons and the ancient Britons. It points out that the Anglo-saxons came from areas around Germany, Danemark and the Low Countries. Where did the Ancient Britons come from? Is there any evidence as to their origins?

Well, the celts came from mainland europe. But i believe before there arrival there were some other ethnic group already present there. --Lucius1976 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. Does anyone know the contribution in the modern English people that can be traced back to the Celts and to the inhabitants that were there before them? Is there any information about the origins of those people who where there before the Celts? Were the ancient Britons mainly Celts or did they come rather from these peoples who preceded the Celts? I know it's a lot of questions, but I think it is interesting and the article should also go into that if there is information available.

It's an interesting question. "Celtic" culture traces back to what is now southern Germany / Austria / Switzerland in the first millennium BC, which spread out into what is now France, Belgium, and the British Isles. However, it's questionable whether many people actually moved with the culture -- genetic analysis of populations in GB and Ireland have shown that the people in what are traditionally considered to be the "Celtic" areas, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, appear to have more connection with the Atlantic seaboard of France and Spain than with Central Europe, which agrees with the theory that sea transport would have been easier than land transport at that time. Analysis of the English population's genes show increasing influence towards the east from either Anglo-Saxon or Danish Viking origins (it's not possible to differentiate the two genetically); there is evidence of some Norwegian Viking origins among the populations around the Irish Sea. -- Arwel (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you talk to. Some people like the Mass migration model, which would have it that there were several prehistoric migratory events, linked to new technological inovations. So in the neolithic people actually migrated to Britain and bought farming with them. The same holds for the bronze age and for the iron age (which is associated with celtic people). This model generally assumes that the migrating people replaced the indigenous population. The cultural diffusion model holds that ideas and technologies diffused through contacts between neighbouring peoples, and that little actual migration took place. Both of these models have supporters in the academic commmunity. Recently studies on the DNA of modern peoples living in europe might show an element of truth in the mass migration model, but with the twist that the invaders did not displace the indigenous population, but rather mixed with it. This paper A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles seems to show that there is an indigenous genetic component to all British people,and this paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans gives strong evidence that most europeans are derived from both paleolithic and neolithic people. So the truth of the matter is that we do not know. Suffice to say that the best bet at the moment is to assume that the Ancient Britons were, like most europeans, derived from several source populations. Alun 10:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Sea Kingdoms : The History of Celtic Britain and Ireland " by Alistair Moffat is an excellent book if youre interested in the Celtic history of all of the British Isles and is rare in that it considers the Celtic history+influences of England and the English. An Siarach

The Belgae, who formed the most powerful tribal groupings in south-east Britain since before Caesar's time, were at least partially Germanic. This may account for the mysterious fact that Germanic speakers existed along the east and south coasts during Roman times, and probably formed the nucleous of what later became known as the Anglo-Saxons. TharkunColl 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)