Talk:English people/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

English diaspora

I have deleted the links to the articles suggesting that there is a significant amount of English people living in Spain and France. This is due to the fact that the articles are about British people living abroad, not English people. Thus, the articles are not only worthless, but having links to them implies that the terms "British" and "English" mean the same thing. This is totally unacceptable. New sources are needed for this section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.229.106 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What a crappy article

A typical Wikiobfuscation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.174 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone change the actual title of this sub section? Britishness is just a painfully artificial term invented by the Labour Party Machinery in the wake of its disastrous Multicultural policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.66.154 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Total population.

If we are using English to mean a nation then an American of English ancestor is not English, so the number 90,000,000 worldwide is not accurate. The number needs to be qualified. --PBS (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

English-American? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to Scottish people for the same reason. Jack forbes (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities

I would like to know why this paragraph is here on an article on English people.

However, this use of the word "English" is complicated by the fact that most non-white people in England identify as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office of National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British". For example, "78 per cent of Bangladeshis said they were British, while only 5 per cent said they were English, Scottish or Welsh", and the largest percentage of non-whites to identify as English were the people who described their ethnicity as "Mixed" (37%)

The reference refers to statistics for Britain as a whole. Does it tell us how many Bangladeshi's consider themselves English in England? It could be 2% or 10%. This information has no relevence to English people. This paragraph has to go in my opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i think it highlights a very important point that immigrants / minorities in England identify themselves as British rather than English. If the correct figure for just England exists then it should be changed, but i dont think it needs removal. The vast majority of those Bangladeshis live in England, not Wales or Scotland anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted statistics for the USA and I gave you the stats for North America, saying it's good enough because most of them live in the US anyway would you find that acceptable? And what's with giving the percentage self-identifying as Scot's and Welsh, why is that relevant, and even if it was relevant the figures mean absolutely nothing when given in a British wide context.Jack forbes (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The point missing here, is that "British" is supposed to be a "catch-all term", or shorthand for listing all of our nationalities in the Isles and part of France. The fact that other, foreign nationalities have adopted it, is due to the fact that there was none other than a "British Empire" consisting partly of those dominions or colonies which these aforesaid non-natives come from. In a sense, their use of the term "British" is quite similar, although quite a bit more vague and more of a faint mark of Britishness than the maritime peoples off the coast of the Continent. In another context, there is no real genetic division between strictly insular peoples there, but they have social conventions which distinguish between them, just as there are differences between Caribs and Asians, or Orientals. It can also be argued that the States have a comparable constitution and national character, vis a vis the British Isles, not dissimilar from the convention between the People's Republic of China and Taiwanese Republic of China, in that far away land. The Americans (Britons abroad or in exile, not tied to the Commonwealth establishment, much like Ireland's Republic) unfortunately, adhere to Cromwellianism (republicanism), whereas the Britons at home, likewise sadly, adhere to Orangism (constitutional monarchy). That is the true difference, apart from geography. This is how both Irish and Americans, are more British than any "Bangladeshi" or some such foreigner. Immigrants to America, from non-British sources, are just as honourary in their position as "American". The thirteen states/commonwealths/republics which made up that country, are a creole carbon-copy of the union between the three kingdoms of the UK. Instead of thirteen crosses in the blue canton, stars were chosen, being of similar design, also to the fleur d'lys of France (but background colour originally due to the St. Andrew's blue field), while the alternating thirteen stripes, likewise are symbolic of St. George's colours, although representing the republics, inasmuch as the crosses stand for the monarchies of the UK. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to retire, so quit it Ghmyrtle and Snowded

Some IP removed significant data from the article without explanation, but avowed enemies of me have followed me here to contest my reversion of blatant vandalism, claiming it is me. I have had enough of your trolling. I have even removed most pages from my edit list, to make it harder for myself to get engaged with your provocative nonsense. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the change and have reverted it to the earlier version. A genuine mistake on my part. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle has followed me to Brittany. Feel free to join in once again. What a spectacle he is making of me. LutetiaPetuaria | 10:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying again doesn't help

Ghmyrtle, you know very well you only opposed the edit because it was done by me--you have a history of doing this, disrupting the editorial process when it suits you and it never more suits you than when it is something I have done. This is proved by an examination of your contributions in how they relate to my own. Anyways, I did not susbstantively change the article, just put flesh behind the blanket statements of ethnicity, that you expect everybody to take for granted. Also, the "change" I wrought was nothing unsubstantiated, being provided in the wikilinks, which themselves have references stating the same thing. If blanket statements are not put into context, then they confuse the reader. Otherwise, the revision I designed stated nothing different than what was there before. In fact, what was done only strengthened the case for the statements as they existed. For so long as you harrass, disparage and filibuster my edits and spew vague wikilawyering on a habitual basis like this, I will consider your intrusions to be acts of vandalism. You are an avowed troll and malcontent. Go away again, for surely, you will not force me to go away like you did before. Did your parents ever tell you that bullying is unacceptable? Please get self control. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now there is a continuation of TRHoPF dismissing me to placate Ghymrtle (and others), as he had done on Talk:British Empire. He doesn't like my opinions and that I've supported his opinions, so he is trying to save face for those like Ghymrtle who don't like what they consider to be pro-English political bias, even though I promote nothing of the sort. TharkunColl can attest to the fact that I don't have "Anglocentric" views, because he surely corners the market, you know? Anyways, that's all old news and old dogs don't have new tricks, for they want to be against me in particular forever as long as I edit at Wikipedia. If they don't know an edit is mine, they won't interfere. It's entirely personal with these folks. They don't take a hint, as the one who just rejoined Ghymrtle has now made a personal attack on my talk page and I have reverted such vandalism. I will oppose any heavy handed dismissals by know-it-alls who claim WP:OWN doesn't apply to them where I am concerned, as if I can be categorized differently and treated differently, just because they don't like me. See User_talk:The_Red_Hat_of_Pat_Ferrick#Feeding & User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_9#Feeding for reference. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at all of the old haters come out of the woodwork to disrupt my work. I insist on stating my side of an argument, for that is what talk pages are about. Don't manhandle me or my contributions. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of these jokers reverting my edits and saying I have to take it to talk page, but I don't do that with them. In the past, when I have taken it to talk page, they have ignored it. So, what's the point? Why should I have my hand held by those who are not simply opposed to the text itself, but the person altering the text in any way, e.g. myself? Such an ad hominem way of dealing with articles is bound to be an interference in the scholastic nature inherent in encyclopedias. Witch hunting isn't supposed to be the point of Wikipedia, or is it? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest....?

Having looked at some of the archives, may I suggest we "upgrade" the infobox image to something more akin to the one at British people and use this new image???

It's made up of notable Englishmen and -women, with a fair representation of the different regions of England, from different historical periods, using suggestions found througout the archives as well as borrowing heavily from the existing image.

Please indicate feelings here. If it's broadly approved, I'll upload to commons. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally approve of it, as it's made up of English people from different periods of history, there's a pretty good balance of the sexes, besides the quality of the images is far superior to the current infobox. As far as I'm concerned, it gets my vote. Hopefully the other editors will agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgot to say, full marks for anyone who can name them all. I'm hoping to get round to the Scottish people and Welsh people too, and encourage a 21 photo montage for each.... but English first eh. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Only recognise 12 I'm afraid, a miserable fail. I would go with the 21 photo montage. Jack forbes (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here goes: King Alfred, Cromwell, Shakespeare, Billy Bragg?????, Duchess of Devonshire, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sting, Elizabeth I, ?, Maggie Thatcher, David Beckham, Richard the Lion Heart, Kate Winslett, Charles Dickens, Thomas a Becket, Daniel Craig, ?, George Harrison, Jane Austen, ?, looks familiar-one of the early Prime Ministers? Well, how did I do?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not bad - you beat Mr Forbes that's for sure. Billy Bragg was actually Michael Palin, Richard the Lionheart was Edward I of England, between Craig and Harrison was (of course) Isaac Newton, after Austen was Damon Albarn and finally in the last corner is George Stephenson. Well done on the Duchess and Thomas Becket though. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rub it in Jz why don't you. (walks away shaking head). Jack forbes (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Should have kept us going a while longer. I missed out on Edward I (I had Richard Cœur de Lion), Duchess of Devonshire (not a clue), Walter Raleigh (had a guess at Christopher Marlowe) and I was still working on Albarn and Stephenson. So, close, but no cigar. I'd support you on the 21, Jza84. The choices look good too. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 21 seems like a good number, just enough to include very different groups of people from different periods. I only know 7 of the 21 without making guesses. :( BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't recognise King Edward, Palin's nose did look a bit small to be Bragg's, Stephenson was English-I assumed he was Scottish? Oh well, guess I didn't do too bad, although I should have known Newton would have tobe there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe Edward I as English. At that point in history the Norman ruling classes were still very much a separate ethnic group, and his first language was Norman French. ðarkuncoll 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon Schama described Edward as the "first truly English king ... given an old Anglo-Saxon name", and responsible for provoking England's nationhood. Longshanks seems to be a critical figure for Englishness. If there's still opposition, I could, say, swap him with someone like Richard I of England? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard I was even less English, since he regarded his homeland as Aquitaine. ðarkuncoll 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, George Harrison was half Irish, Elizabeth had Welsh, Norman as well as Irish and English, so....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not really the point. It's more a matter of what culture you're brought up in and identify with. Edward was part of the Norman ruling classes, who still regarded themselves as a race apart from the English (regardless of any interbreeding that had gone on by then). The first post-1066 king to identify himself as English was probably Henry V (and then only for propaganda purposes). ðarkuncoll 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure most people would consider Edward I to have been English. Although I wouldn't quarrel with Henry V. Honestly, I think the 21 images are good ones and should be used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry V of England seems to have been born in Wales and (according to WP) one of the "most significant British warrior kings" (I assume British meaning Britons (historical)???? - although doesn't seem to fit right).

Perhaps we can select someone other than a monarch? A cardinal, statesman, bishop, saint, chancellor or something - ideally from the medieval period too though, to keep the balance right??? ThankunColl, any ideas (something that most people can agree upon as a fair representation?) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tharuncoll, wasn't Thomas a Becket originally Norman? He was England's most beloved saint, hence all the boys in England throughout the centuries named Thomas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Becket was certainly a Norman (though he was born in London). How about Nicholas Breakspeare? ðarkuncoll 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That'll work for me. A Pope is pretty notable and he was English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Florence Nightingale or Emmeline Pankhurst?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with either of those. When we created the current picture we tried to get a balance of sexes, and representatives from different historical periods, professions and social classes (hence Stephenson, who was working class, even though more famous engineers could have been chosen). ðarkuncoll 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. This is good stuff; please give me a short period to make the changes. Miss Nightingale wasn't born in England - there's no indication as to her heritage or how she identified either so I'd be uncomfortable with her, but I'll try and use Pankhurst and Breakspeare in exchange for Longshanks and Becket. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

..... Before I do, how about Edward the Confessor? It's just I'm conscious of keeping the historical periods pretty balanced? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) IMHO, all the images should be pre-1707. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright GoodDay, I'm going to bite. Why pre-1707? Jack forbes (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

'Cause, Maggie Thatcher & Dave Beckman (for example) are British first. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Scottish people page, it should also be pre-1707 (in otherwords, no Sean Connery). GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think Maggie was very much a unionist, and perhaps yes, British first. But David Beckham is an English sportstar who represents England at international level. He's frequently saying how proud he is to play for "his country". English surname, English accent too. He was a compelling choice for me (and for others). --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

David Beckman, Liam Neeson, Sean Connery, Tom Jones (to name a few) are British. But, I suppose blocking them from the English, Northern Irish, Scottish & Welsh peoples pages, would be like blocking Robert Ghiz from a Prince Edward Island peoples article, just because he was born after 1873. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, why must you complicate life? Let's use Anne Boleyn, Barbara Palmer, Keith Richards, and Vivienne Westwood, plus the obvious ones such as Newton, Shakespeare, Dickens, Pope Adrian, Beckham, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already changed my mind, on the pre-1707 amendment (see my above PEI comparison). GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree entirely with you GoodDay, of course. Post 1707, their nationality simply is British. But, having expanded the British people article, its evident that strong English, Scots and Welsh identities persist (broadly as the lower-tier of nationality - with a very small "n"). It's difficult to quantify, but for British people we agreed that we'd use people who either identified as British, fought as British or competed as British. I believe English etc should go the same way. It would be a shame if we couldn't pull together and agree upon this upgrade. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very complicated. My father fought in the second world war for Britain (showing my age here) but would always call himself Scottish rather than British. Jack forbes (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, how's this? Medieval Normans removed for two alternative notable medieval Englishmen. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how could we leave out post-1707 people such as inventors, sports figures, and Rock Stars? GoodDay, were you trying to spoil our fun, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's OK folks, I've already changed my views on this (see my above PEI example). GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that Edward the Confessor? It looks good. Nice job.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that George Harrison is part Irish, how about showing one of Jeanne Boleyn's suggestions for the more contemporary examples of English people - Vivienne Westwood? Daicaregos (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And there's a fabulous image of her as well. Yes, let's use her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Vivienne Westwood by Mattia Passeri.JPG

Vivienne Westwood

Harrison appears to be "quarter Irish". There's no indication that Westwood is more, as, or less "English" if we're to use quarter heritage as a criteria? What do we think editors? Do we have consensus for Harrison or Westwood here? I'm personally inclined to use Harrison, but I'll go with the flow. Need to know so I can organise the painfully long and complicated sourcing and licencing etc for commons. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misconception here that just because someone has Irish or any other heritage they should not be categorised as English. A person born and bred in England and thinks of themselves as English is, well, English. Jack forbes (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not use both Harrison and Westwood? The two images are good ones. She is a fashion designer, he was a musician so you've got two different professions and sexes represented.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to suggest that George Harrison self-identified as English, as you suggest? And, although he was certainly born in England, I'll bet you have no evidence that he was, as you say Jack, bred there ;) Daicaregos (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha, do you have any evidence to say he self-identified as an Irishman? If not, then being born and bred brought up in England makes him an Englishman, unless otherwise proven. Oh, and your right, I don't know if he was bred there ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

His article calls him English, he's categorised under "English film producers | English-language singers | English Hindus | English male singers | English multi-instrumentalists | English pop singers | English record producers | English rock guitarists | English singer-songwriters". He was certainly not Irish, but certainly was British - putting possible claims of double standards, I'm confident that Harrison satisfies any conventional understanding of Englishness. DNA evidence shows the whole of humanity has some kind of ancestry that outside their existing ethnic group let's not forget. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor had a Norman mother, was raised in Normandy and almost certainly spoke Norman French as his first language. He imported Norman administrators and illegally handed over the English throne to a Norman. This fifth-columnist scum was not English, despite his paternal ancestry. ðarkuncoll 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most monarchs had a foreign parent. Ideally I think we need someone English from the High Middle Ages to fill that period. Do you have a preference from that age TharkunColl? Someone with a good quality image? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Harold Godwinson? As you rightly say, most monarchs had a foreign parent, but unlike Edward, Harold actually fought and died on behalf of England and its people. ðarkuncoll 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Are you comfortable with the tapestry version of him being used? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the one of him being crowned, rather than the arrow in the eye. ðarkuncoll 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Just a note guys - the image is NEVER going to please everyone, but hope we can all agree this change was needed and is far more befitting for the English people. :) Thanks for everyone's input. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know Edward the Confessor was once the patron saint of England and is still the patron saint of the Royal family. I wonder if they know of his poor reputation. Jack forbes (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course they do, but they view it rather differently. The royal family is descended from the Normans, and Edward was pro-Norman. ðarkuncoll 05:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Jza84, you did an excellent job. The infobox looks so much better now. I also prefer Harold to EDward, especially as I created an article on his wife Edith of Mercia last year. Nice work!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah poop, I was gonna suggest adding John Lennon, Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr (along with George Harrison). Also, to dispell the stereotype that English are stuffy, we could've added Benny Hill and/or Rowan Atkinson. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You forgot Myra Hindley, Ian Brady and Jack the Ripper.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, Tolkienist. Are we still limited in our "Englishness" to the Heptarchy or Danelaw folks? Since when are the English merely defined by an obscure and quaint, fraction of history, in the mind of Bede, a court flatterer (cf. Gregory of Tours)? Why is it acceptable to permit his propagandas of the "English", when it merely focuses on the aristocracy of that time period? After all, modern DNA tests have made that a shaky presentation. According to the history texts, the "Saxons" were partisans of the "Picts" and no more than mercenaries whom upended the public order for their own benefit. Who in their right mind, would afford such a high sense of nativist rhetoric on their behalf, any more than the present royal family, or those dynasties which were imported to the UK since the time of William III? The royal family doesn't praise "le Conquerant" so much as the Winter Queen of Bohemia. French ≠ Germans. LutetiaPetuaria | 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The English nation and English national identity were created by the Anglo-Saxons. Those elements of the pre-existing population that survived were absorbed into the English nation, just as the later Danes were. The Normans too were eventually absorbed, though in their case as a ruling elite they tried very hard to keep themselves separate for 3 or 4 centuries. The very term English itself is, obviously, an Anglo-Saxon invention. This is why we don't have pictures of, say, King Arthur or Boudica, because they simply weren't English. ðarkuncoll 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wars of the Roses sounded the death knell for the ruling Norman elite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What have you against the Winter Queen? After all, she was the mother of the divine and dashing Rupert of the Rhine!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing against her. It's a simple fact that the Royals don't care for the French ancestors of theirs. They are as pro-German as any Saxonist. LutetiaPetuaria | 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the fact that Philip's surname is originally Battenberg explains their affinity with the Germans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prince Philip's surname was not originally Battenberg, he had no surname, he just adopted the name Mountbatten as suggested by Louis Mountbatten (see Mountbatten-Windsor). In a similar way that the current Royal Princes and Princesses adopted the name of their parent's title for a surname as an expediency -- can you imagine the fun that Beatrice York would have at JFK explaining that she does have a surname! --PBS (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The infobox mentions Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, but I wonder how many actual English people follow these religions compared to, say, Neopaganism, which isn't mentioned. ðarkuncoll 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope athiesm & agnoticism are mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Neopaganism, atheism and agnosticism are all irregular beliefs of the English people. English people are mostly Christian or (even) Jewish by tradition. LutetiaPetuaria | 10:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they're mostly secular Christian, or even agnostic/atheist in practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought atheism and agnosticism are common. Judaism, however, is extremely rare - more so than Neopaganism. Judaism in Britain is almost entirely restricted to Ashkenazi Jews rather than the English. --Humanophage (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if what you say is true but are you suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews who have been living in England for a number of generations can not be English? --PBS (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why list all the religions in England? Why not say, agnostic or irreligious as most people are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.147.210 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, look at the Religion in England article. It says "In the 2001 Census, 15 per cent of the population reported having no religion [4]...Other statistics suggest that as many as 44% of Britons may be atheistic/agnostic [6]". So while a lot of them are, it's not true according to the sources to say "most" of them are. Tameamseo (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be reworked, substantially, so that it explains both the ethnic and civic interpretations of Englishness, as well as cultural appropriation and assimilation. Until then, these debates are going to continue. Like most groups tied with notions of nationhood, there are different perspectives on what constitutes a member. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is already in the lead "are a nation and ethnic group native to England who speak English." and is described in detail in the definition section. Humanophage are you suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews who have been living in England for a number of generations can not be English? --PBS (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unsourced though. I'd much rather see something like:

The English are the people of England (dictionary definition). As a nation they are defined as sharing a common English culture, kinship and identity (need a source here); as an ethnic group they are broadly interpretted to be a Germanic people, the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans and Vikings etc etc...(need a source here too)

This way we're allowing for much more professional, encyclopedic introduction. I know you might think " well, what's different there?", but this way it's saying the English are "a nation and/or an ethnic group" (depending on civic or racial perspective), which is more like the reality of Englishness. It's a minor, but important change IMHO. I think we then need to eliminate that the English are the largest component of White British people - it's a breach of WP:SYNTH and is only alluding to the ethnic definition. I'd rather we have a paragraph explaining their relationship with Britishness and being a (kind of) British people:

After the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, although initially resistant (I have a source), the English came to think of themselves as symotainiously English and British, together with the Scots and Welsh(also have a source - the English, Scots and Welsh have a shared history like no other group, and it's important to mention so we can elborate later on their distinction from Britishness and each other). The English are subject to British nationality law, but nevertheless, remain a distinct population in cultural terms bla bla etc etc(need a source here of course)

Needs a tweak, and it'd be a bold change which I have no doubt editors will be unsure about, but currently the lead is pretty dire. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I support Jza84 - the introduction as it stands is really pretty poor and unencyclopaedic. But I think we should take an extremely cautious line over definitions based on "ethnicity" - there are various different but equally valid definitions of "English people", of which one is simply those people who now live in England. I'd caution against a definition based on "descendants of Anglo-Saxons" etc. as there is persuasive genetic evidence that many of the "Celtic" peoples in the area now called England remained in the same area but took on the English language; it is also the case that England has assimilated many, many phases of (apart from the Normans) more peaceful immigration and inter-marriage over many centuries (including, of course, immigration from other parts of Britain, and Ireland), and in most if not all cases the descendants of those people could and often do legitimately define themselves as "English people" - while also in many cases legitimately self-identifying with other groups through their genetic or cultural heritage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not need citations as it is describing the sections below that are thoroughly cited -- including the OED -- (see WP:LEADCITE). The wording of nation and ethnic group is a compromise. If you look through the archives you will see that I personally I was for junking the ethnic group, but there are reliable sources (included the article) that define English that way were presented and WP:NPOV dictates that we put both in (as we have with the two sections that discuss the two view points). -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally like PBS's version, but have given it a few tweaks, mainly for style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At WP:FA, usually they work on a basis of not over-referencing a lead. Ethnic groups are notoriously controvertial, so citation wouldn't be a bad thing. The point still remains that we're publishing that the English are a "nation and and ethnic group", something I think we can change to improve the lead. I'm currently wrapped up with the British people article, but I wouldn't mind dipping my toes in and suggesting a different lead in the near future? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

History

The historcal background is mostly about the White British section of the English ethnic grooup and to about how the Asian and Black English came to contribute to forming the modern English ethnic group of today.86.29.147.210 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The history is about the English nation. Like all nations histories, it has some truth and some exaggerations. There is a section on recent migration, if sources can be found that explain how "Asian and Black English came to contribute to forming the modern English ethnic group of today" then that is probably the place to include mention of such things. BTW what do you mean by "White British section"? --PBS (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? This article is about the native ethnic group, not other ethnic groups. Perhaps you are confusing this subject with the related but distinct subject of the demographics of the country of England? --86.137.155.129 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is about "English people", which is a term with many different definitions. The idea of a "native ethnic group" is one definition which the article should address, but other equally valid definitions exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is NOT about the demographics of England, as it clearly says in italics at the top of the article!

Some people have edited this article to include the recent immigrant groups from the Commonwealth countries, such as Asians and Afro-Caribbeans into the English ethnic group. First, being born in England, living there and having a British passport does not automatically make you English in the proper sense of the word, especially if you have no cultural affinity to it and practice a different culture instead, such as the Pakistani British. The English are an ethnic group who have a common ancestry, history and culture just as other nationalities and ethnic groups do. Even the Afro-Caribbean British, who are culturally a lot more similar to us, have a different culture, history and ancestry that is theirs. Anyway, most ethnic minority people, as they are called, coz they are not part of the English ethnic group, do not identify with English or English symbols such as the St. George's Cross but rather with Britian and the Union Jack anyway. I know it might sound harsh, but I am not racist. Nobody is objecting to other ethnic groups liviing in England. I think that it is very good that they live here as they add different cultures to out cities landscapes, but they have their own ethnic identity to enjoy! Britain is a union of different and seperate ethnic groups. That is why this country is so great! But they are seperate and independant of one another.

If you are interested and pround of the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans living in England, then show it in the Asian British, Black British and above all British people articles, as well as the demographics of England article. In that way, you can let English people, foolishly lumped together with the Welsh and Scots as White British, which I personally find offensive and racist as I am not a colour, by official statistics, enjoy their ethnic heritage and culture whiles others in England can enjoy theirs without interfereing with anyone elses!86.162.152.39 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The very fact that these people are ethnic minorities proves that they are not part of the ethnic majority, i.e. English. This is not a value judgement, it is simply a fact. ðarkuncoll 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The English are more a nation than an ethnic group. --PBS (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? ðarkuncoll 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See the section English people#English nationality. The problems of an ethic group is what is meant by an ethic group when there have been waves of immigration to the region known as England, and that various groups of immigrants have not settled all over the country (For example the Danes mainly settled the North East and Vikings other specific areas), that would imply there is no such thing as a common ethnic origin. But a nation is based as much on a shared identity and a territory (hence a most people consider the citizens of the United States to be a nation even though they have come from a number of different ethnic groups). A further problem with the arguments that 86.162.152.39 is presenting is how does one describe the descendants of the groups like the Huguenots who settled in England are they French? --PBS (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "English in the proper sense of the word". There are many alternative definitions of what it means to be an "English" person, of which one perfectly valid definition is simply living in England, now. Any supposed ethnic or "racial" definitions, based on genetics, are highly dubious and debatable given the historic flows of migrants into England, from other parts of Britain as well as everywhere else. This article is, in line with its title, about "English people" - however they might be defined. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Should that be the case, may I ask what is the point of this article? "English people", by your definition would be covered on the demographics article, wouldn't it? Daicaregos (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is fine as it is. There are multiple definitions of "English people", just as there are of "American people", "Welsh people", etc. etc. I'm happy for the article to explore those definitions, and identify the historical background, genetic make-up, and so forth, as it does. I'm not suggesting at all that "people who live in England" is the only definition. But I am saying that, in my view, this should not be an article based solely on "ethnic heritage and culture", as was suggested by IP 86.162.152.39. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Layout

From the history of the page:

• 22:20, 7 July 2009 Jza84 (Undid revision 300844085 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) part of a layout recommended at WP:ETHNIC)
• 13:38, 8 July 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (rv to last version by PBS, 1. this is not an article on just an ethnic group (and I see nothing on the linked page about this layot), 2. this is the format we have had for a long time.)

I reverted to a long standing format for this page. user:Jza84, this page is not just about an ethnic group, but let us suppose for a moment it does, in which section of WP:ETHNIC does it have a recommended layout? --PBS (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. It's an FA winning layout (used by Tamil people) that is for ethnic groups, nations, cultural identities, tribes and other classifications of people. It's also been used for British people (winning it GA status) - not an ethnic group either.

I could be more brutal and apply WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH to the letter and remove the section outright. However, I'm in the process of getting round to revamping these people pages (currently working on Cornish people in a sandbox), so I'm just trying to get the layout right so any forthcoming material falls into a consistent format that can be advanced in the near future. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a totally different page from the one you gave. What makes you think that the English are only an ethnic group and not a nation? --PBS (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the section "Classification " in this article fulfilling as the same function as "History of the term" in the British people article. --PBS (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's not about the history of the term though - it seems to be about definitions of "English", i.e. classifications. I'm not sure what the conflict is here. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The major change I made was to move "Classification" back up above history and you reverted that change. ( The other changes were quite small (renaming some sections and moving a section heading up (or a paragraph down depends how you wish to see it)). --PBS (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'm editting within reason and policy here. But as WP:MOS says "the overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent... One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion" whilst going on to say "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable".

There is a layout template provided above, and I'm trying to promote Wikipedia's principles of "consistency", "clarity" and "cohestion" within a "guideline-defined style". For these reasons, the Classification section should be moved; I gather you're keen on presenting the English as more than just an ethnic group - well - so am I! The whole article needs reworking, and these definitions should be explained within a succinct, reworked lead section (I'm working on a proposal here). But until then, a personal preference shouldn't over-ride a project template, one proven to get results. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We can both use that arbcom decision to justify taking actions the section was moved from one place to another I moved it back, so to move it back again is "revert-warring over optional styles [that] is unacceptable". Particularly when you are using a project called "Ethnic Groups" when this is an article predominantly about a nation. --PBS (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the WP:ETHNIC banner above please, specifically the bit where it says WP:ETHNIC is "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia". --Jza84 |  Talk  16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template is structured for an ethnic group not a nation. It is important to clearly identify near the start of the article that there are two possible meanings to the term. If one looks at the reliable sources returned by a search on "English nation" and "English ethnic group" then "English nation" is far more common:

• Google books 4,245 on "English nation"
• Google books 134 on "English ethnic group"
• Google scholar about 20,300 for "English nation"
• Google scholar about 39 for "English ethnic group"

--PBS (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're at risk of breaching arbcom ruling, WP:MOS, WP:POINT, WP:OWN and taking this a little too far. I've engaged politely in discussion, listed several valid reasons why you should stop reverting, providing policy and points that nulify yours, and still you trying to find new reasons not to adopt a "guideline-defined style".

Let's be intelligent here: If WP:ETHNIC is for all cultural identities, then, well, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template applies to them. What is your problem with the template? If you dislike the layout, seek to change the guideline, not force your preference on one single article without providing policy or a guideline of your own.

A google search is not a suitable means to base a discussion on. "Statistics can prove anything" as they say.

You said the English are a nation - FINE! - but I've shown the project covers nations - even by your own logic the layout stands. Now you're changing the criteria (against an arbcom ruling - dangerous, and, regrettable) to fit your preferences. I suggest a revert and we seek a third opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see you're pretty much reverting everything I've done on a criteria of it being "better". This doesn't help your case or reputation - this type of conduct is precluded in WP:POINT AFAICT --Jza84 |  Talk  17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I have not edited this article before, and I don't think I've edited any article specifically on nationality before (at most I might have copy edited British people). I am commenting here at the request of Jza84 on my user page.

Now, it seems logical to use a successful formula in organising this article, hence I think it should follow the same structure as British people and Tamil people. The WP:ETHNIC guideline applies to nations as well as ethnic groups, so I don't think the argument that it doesn't apply here is correct. From wikipedia's nation article (the statement is sourced): "A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory". By this definition, the Tamil people article is about a nation, and the concept of nationality and ethnicity are linked.

Assuming for the moment that nationality and ethnicity as mutually exclusive, as PBS seems to be asserting, what would the best structure be? The WP:ETHNIC template suggests having sections on culture, language and literature, art, religion, and cuisine. Wouldn't these all be included in an article about a nation?

I am concerned by some of the removal of information in this edit. For example, the following

It is unclear how many people in the UK consider themselves English. In the 2001 UK census, respondents were invited to state their ethnicity, but while there were tick boxes for 'Irish' and for 'Scottish', there were none for 'English' or 'Welsh', who were subsumed into the general heading 'White British'. Following complaints about this, the 2011 census will "allow respondents to record their English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Irish or other identity."

was removed from the article. The information is sourced and would relate to either the concept of nationality or ethnicity so what is the objection? I will scrutinise the edits in more detail, but these are my initial thoughts and I support the adherence to the standards and layout stipulated by WP:ETHNIC and as used in British people and Tamil people. Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Ok, the sourced information was reinserted while I was reading the diffs. With that, the problem here isn't so much content as structure. Having read the discussion and changes more carefully, here's my interpretation of the situation:

• The structure laid out by WP:ETHNIC has been successful, with (to my knowledge) 1 FA and 1 GA following its instructions. It makes sense to emulate what works.
• Everyone seems to agree that the term "English people" refers to more than simply ethnicity.
• That the WP:ETHNIC is not applicable to nations is a fallacy. From the template "Not all sections will be useful for all groups, but this should be suggestive of appropriate ways to handle articles about ethnic groups and other similar human populations such as tribes, nations (meaning peoples, not states), etc".
• Regarding arbcomm, what "guideline-defined style" did the previous incarnation of the article follow? If it is none, the WP:ETHNIC template should be followed and reverting the article to the old structure is disruptive and could be interpreted as a breach of WP:POINT and WP:OWN.

Thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Making accusations of "breach of WP:POINT and WP:OWN." is hardly the way to encourage people to reach a consensus. The reason for placing the definition first is because it is useful to define what is English before going into details like the history. --PBS (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I said could be interpreted as such, but I have struck my comments as I did not wish to cause offence. I sympathise with your opinion that the classification should go first, but I suggest you raise your concerns at the guideline talk page as your concern does not apply to this article alone. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev1 the problem with the definition "A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory", is not necessarily true. For example the people of many African states are part of new nations and they often do not share a "common history, culture, language or ethnic origin," although they do "inhabit a particular territory". --PBS (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Assuming for the moment that nationality and ethnicity as mutually exclusive, as PBS seems to be asserting, what would the best structure be?" I am not asserting that they are mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing. The danger of arguing that they are the same thing falls into the trap, see for example the comment higher up this page in the section Talk:English_people#Religion "Judaism in Britain is almost entirely restricted to Ashkenazi Jews rather than the English" and my comment that follows it. --PBS (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I'm still confused. Why don't you want this English people page to adopt a standardised layout? You seem to want it without letting us know why. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that a standard layout for an ethnic group is applicable for an article such as the "English (people)" when they are usually defined as a nation, but may also be defined also as an ethnic group. Before the word English is used throughout an article it is best to define what is meant by English, and then the reader armed with that information is better able to understand what is meant later in the article. Without that one could easily read this article until close to the end thinking that English means "born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons." Ethnic group works much better when one thinks that the group is predominantly "Pertaining to race". ("Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological." (OED) which defines ethnological as "Of or pertaining to ethnology." and "The science which treats of races and peoples, and of their relations to one another, their distinctive physical and other characteristics, etc.") but a nation may only be a race, as it is also defined more broadly than that and this dichotomy needs to be explored and explained early in this article. --PBS (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange, because, we actually share alot of opinion about the topic/content. I agree that the English are a nation. Sure, there are ethnic connotations and origins that a) persist, and b) definately need to be discussed in this article, but I agree Englishness is something of a "civic" identity, rather than something about race.

But, are British people an ethnic group? Do you not thing that the layout works there? Could it not be adopted here? The lead of English people should be the space that explains what/who the English are, and again, I want to try to appeal to your sensibilities that we try and make that so: I have work in progress at User:Jza84/Sandbox3#English_people that I want to advance asap. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic (minority) group" is an American invention (OED first use 1945), and I am not sure that it works well as a description national groupings within Europe. Logic would dictate that if the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh and are distinct ethnic groups (and I would define them a nations not ethic groups, because the ethic groups that went to make up those nations are long since subsumed into those nations and lost to antiquity), then the British can not be. However although British designates a citizen (pax Sinn Féin) or institution of the United Kingdom, if reliable sources state that the designation also describes British as an ethnic group then we should include that within the agree parameters of NPOV. BTW similar weighting should also be given the sources on the English people which clearly lean towards the English being a nation rather than an ethnic grouping.

The lead should be a brief stand alone summary of the whole article it is not the place to go into a detailed explanation of what/who the English are. If it were simple definition it could be in the lead but it is not as there are two competing definitions, they ought be in a section near the start of the document before the word is used in the rest of the article. This is not a radical proposal were there is the possibility of misunderstanding, definitions usually come before their usage in most well written documents on most subjects. --PBS (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes to answer your question, no I don't think it works so well with the British article. I think that the section called "History of the term" does not work because it is not about "British people" but about "Britain". Until I get down to the very last section of the article I have no idea from the content of the article what "British people" means currently. --PBS (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are "competing" definitions as such - do you have a source? And I think placing a section larger than the history section with lots of lovely statements like "Writing about the English may be complicated" (for who?), "the English may still be regarded as a "nation" according to the Oxford English Dictionary's" (looks like WP:SYNTH to me), "It is difficult to clearly define the origins of the English, owing to the close interactions between the English and their neighbours in the British Isles, and the waves of immigration that have added to England's population at different periods" (difficult for who?) is terrible writing. This is not a well written document, but bad practice. The overriding principle for good writing is that the subject is outlined in the lead, per WP:LEAD - and I'm confident in this because I have taken pages to GA, FA and TFA. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You can criticise the wording of what is in the section, and that can be fixed, but that has nothing to do with the placement of it. I can easily pick holes in the British people article about lots of specific details, but that is not what we are discussing we are discussing the placement of a definitions section. --PBS (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure they are "competing" definitions as such" See the comment by Andrea Levy in the article. --PBS (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that the 'definitions' section is semi-repetitive of much the information in the 'history' section. The job of the 'definitions' section is partly to qualify and complicate the significance of the material in the 'history' section by describing the different ways in which the history is considered significant today. The ideal solution would be to find ways of integrating the caveats and qualifications within the 'definitions' section into the history section itself. This would help avoid the 'definitions' section being a bit of a ragbag of ideas, and would avoid the over-simplified historical narrative that PBS is concerned about in the 'history' section. It would be hard work and time-consuming to reorganize the page this way, but it might be for the best... Cop 663 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I share these sentiments entirely. For me, this is about one of the most important and influential "nations" in the world - we should be able to do better than what we have IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As always with contentious issues, articles like this tend to gather moss and have a dislocated style because they are a product of construction by committee and are a compromise (with additions to prove a point). In the case of many nations it is quite easy to make a distinction between ethnic and civil distinctions because the civil can be defined by law, as it is in the article French people. In the case of the nations of the United Kingdom it is not possible to define nationality that way, so it takes more explanation and is fudged with opinions. In the case of the French people article I think it is correct that the definition of what is a French person is placed early in the article and likewise I think it is important that the definition of English people with all its ambiguity is placed early in the article. I do not think that the place to embed the definition is in the history of the article as there is a clear distinction in the question being asked. If I wanted to know what does "French people" mean when I flow a link from another article which is talking about their preference for purchasing Japanese DVD players, I do not want to have to start reading about the Gauls, Franks &c,&c before arriving at a civic definition. Likewise, if I read an article on pop star that says they are English and want to know what that means, I probably do not want to read about the meaning of English in antiquity, dark ages, &c,&c before reading a section on who the English are today. --PBS (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Templates are not good for Wikipedia - they give the impression that everything falls into a neat category. I don't think there is a problem with the placement, format or content of the history section, but the definitions section could be made more concise (at the risk of offending those who, as PBS says, have added sentences to make a particular point). It's more of a historiography of the term at the moment. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the reality of the situation at all. Read any encyclopedia or article or book about an ethnicity or nationality - all give indepth accounts of their history and ancestry. A "civic definition" (which has never been codified) is only one aspect - an aspect you're keen to push on our readers with undue weight. It's verifiable that most ethnic minorities in England do not embrace English identity, but British. There's only one defintion of the England, and that is that they are the people of England, anything else is conjecture and interpretation. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 by the indention I assume that your last comment was addressing to my last comment. But whether addressing Wiki-Ed or me, I have no idea what this sentence means "There's only one defintion of the England, and that is that they are the people of England, anything else is conjecture and interpretation." please clarify. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

English ethnicity in New Zealand

Only 44,000 people of english descent in New Zealand .... that's very very unlikely... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.67.214 (talk • contribs) 2:06am 22 September 2009

The figures in the infobox aren't how many people are of English descent, but are English. One of the sources used is the New Zealand census where 44,000 identified themselves as English. It's also the bottom end of the range given. Wikipedia's policy, for better or worse, is verifiability over "truth". Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the statement in reference is "The 2006 New Zealand census reports 44,202 people (based on pre-assigned ethnic categories) stating they belong to the English ethnic group." - not that they were English, but that they belonged to the English Ethnic group (if there ever was such a thing). I think the source used here is suspect - or has been mis-reported.

Origins section needs clarifying

"...several recent books, including those of Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes, have argued that the recent genetic studies in fact do not show a clear dividing line between the English and their 'Celtic' neighbours, but that there is a gradual clinal change from west? (primarily Iberian origin with some genetic ties to Altaic peoples) to east?(primarily Iberian and Balkan origin from the "Balkan refuge")."

If the above refers to the east and west of Europe then it sounds more likely to be true at least to this faitly ignorant person. But then it needs to say Europe and then tie it in that it's not a statement just about England but the gradualness of ethnicity wrt. geography in Europe and England in particular.Rich (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that these theories are not universally accepted. For example, in its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' The National Museum of Wales note here "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Daicaregos (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. Now can we at least clarify it?? If you want to put in a caveat or even remove it if it's not well accepted, that's a separate issue.Rich (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the genetic evidence points in different directions. Capelli et al did a study of Y chromosomes in 2002, detecting a marked difference between the Irish and Welsh samples (which generally clustered together with a Basque sample) and samples in the rest of mainland Britain, which had a lot of similarity to German/Danish samples, especially in eastern England (though there was also some 'indigenous' survival). This is evidence of substantial Anglo-Saxon or Viking settlement in England. In contrast, Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes argue that most present-day English people trace their ancestry back to people who settled Britain in the Neolithic period. Oppenheimer does detect a genetic difference between eastern and western Britain, but he claims that it predates the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.Pondle (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is actually mentioned in footnote 28. It would be good to pull it out of the footnote and into the main text.Cop 663 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

While expressions of English national identity can involve beliefs in common descent, most political English nationalists do not consider Englishness to be a form of kinship. For example, the English Democrats Party states that "We do not claim Englishness to be purely ethnic or purely cultural, but it is a complex mix of the two. We firmly believe Englishness is a state of mind", while the Campaign for an English Parliament says, "The people of England includes everyone who considers this ancient land to be their home and future regardless of ethnicity, race, religion or culture". In an article for The Guardian, novelist Andrea Levy (born in London to Jamaican parents) calls England a separate country "without any doubt" and asserts that she is "English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons.)" Arguing that "England has never been an exclusive club, but rather a hybrid nation", she writes that "Englishness must never be allowed to attach itself to ethnicity. The majority of English people are white, but some are not ... Let England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland be nations that are plural and inclusive."

There are a lot of things wrong with this. It states, for example, that "most" English nationalists do not regard Englishness as being related to kinship, but then, in support of this statement, quotes some tiny, minority parties. Nothing from the BNP though, strangely, despite their recent million votes. And then fully half the paragraph is taken up by the views of a completelty unelected Guardian writer who isn't even English anyway, as indicated by her unilateral attempt to redefine Englishness so as to include herself - all very sincere no doubt, but why are her views even worth reporting? In short, this entire paragraph is POV. ðarkuncoll 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Levy clearly is English, born in London etc. I do (and I never expected this) however agree with you that overall the paragraph is poor and unrepresentative of English Nationalism which has both good and ugly aspects. However I suggest a discussion of principles before editing. --Snowded ^TALK 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Take the Levy quote out, tidy up the first part, then think about how best to improve it with new refs which explain some more about the extent of migration into England over the centuries (from other parts of the UK and beyond), inter-regional cultural differences within England (N v S, E v W, Yorkshire v Cornwall, etc) and how Englishness can best be defined as "Britishness with the other countries taken out" - that is, as a residual element rather than as a positive cultural identity. For a start:
Many expressions of English national identity recognise the existence of cultural variations within the country as well as elements of genetic descent and shared heritage and language. For example, the English Democrats Party states that "We do not claim Englishness to be purely ethnic or purely cultural, but it is a complex mix of the two. We firmly believe Englishness is a state of mind", while the Campaign for an English Parliament says, "The people of England includes everyone who considers this ancient land to be their home and future regardless of ethnicity, race, religion or culture".

But one of the problems with English identity is that it is so difficult to define, and contentious, that most major political parties and organisations simply shy away from discussing it, or don't see any pressing need to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Britishness with the other countries taken out" - that is, as a residual element rather than as a positive cultural identity

Or rather, we should point out that Englishness and Britishness are so similar because in fact, from the point of view of the English, they're the same thing, with the English creating the concept of Britishness, paying lip-sevice to the contributions of the other countries, but essentially molding it for their own purposes and in their own image. ðarkuncoll 08:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is giving a lot of weight to a couple of relatively small groups which are attempting to define Englishness in civic nationalist terms. However, these groups do not have a great deal of support and England does not have a clear institutional identity - there's no English government, anthem, or even a national museum[1] to act as a focus of civic identity.Pondle (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a common mistake to assume that England has no government. The Westminster parliament governs England, and delegates powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. ðarkuncoll 22:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "the English Government" though, it's Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom. Some Whitehall departments have essentially become "England-only" since devolution (Health, the two education departments and Communities) but there is no devolution to England. Pondle (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? Since England comprises 84% of the UK population, why does it need "devolution"? ðarkuncoll 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not expressing any opinion about the desirability or otherwise of devolution to England - I'm simply stating a fact, which is that there is little English (as distinct from UK) institutional identity.Pondle (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I am stating that you are incorrect. ðarkuncoll 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So what distinctively English institutions are there, beyond the world of sport? I can only think of the ENO,tourist board and English heritage.Pondle (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As you mentioned above, the fact that most government departments deal with England alone. This was also the case before devolution, when there was a Scottish Office, Welsh Office etc. ðarkuncoll 08:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is inaccurate. In 2003, only three Whitehall departments were 'England-only' (Health, DfES, and what was then called ODPM, and is now DCLG). Five retained a variety of reserved powers in respect of Scotland and Wales (Home Office, DCA, DEFRA, DCMS, Transport), and seven had UK-wide responsibilities (the Treasury, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office, DWP, DTI, DFID and Defence). I'm using the IPPR's classification here,[2] the exact numbers may have changed following the recent 'machinery of government' changes.[3]Pondle (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, quangos which exist as independent entities in Wales or Scotland have equivalent England-wide parallels - English Heritage, English Nature etc etc etc. As Wales and Scotland develop separate practices in different areas, there are also policy and procedural differences developing between those countries and England - for example, in town planning practice (see Town and country planning in Wales, to give just one example. There are many others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept that more England-only official entities have emerged in recent years, but I still think that Roy Strong's point about the lack of distinctively English institutions stands.[4] As he said, the courts, Parliament, civil service, armed forces, monarchy, national broadcasters are all UK (or at least England and Wales) institutions, and England doesn't have an official anthem, national museum, national gallery, etc etc. We should reference these points somewhere in the article. Pondle (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a big and complex issue. I suspect (it's not clear from the source) that Strong was writing in the early or mid 90s, since when things have moved on a lot. One point that is sometimes forgotten in discussion of the four UK countries is that, simply in terms of population, England is 10 times as large as Scotland and 17 times as large as Wales. On those grounds alone, it's not surprising that it has identity problems. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem, I think, is that people are coming to this with a false assumption - namely, that British identity and English identity are somehow distinct, and therefore failing to find much that's distinctively English. In fact, form the point of view of the English (or the vast majority of them at least), there is no distinction between being British and English. I for one would use those terms freely interchangeably when referring to my own national identity. ðarkuncoll 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

90,000,000

Regarding number of English people worldwide in infobox:

90,000,000 might be an accurate figure for how many people have listed English as an ancestry on their census forms in countries such as the US, but many of these people also list multiple ancestries, as they are permitted to do so, so the figure is innacurate in that sense. In my opinion, it needs to be made clear how the numbers are arrived at, or do we want to claim anyone with part English ancestry as English? (86.20.249.141 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

If you can think of a concise way of explaining the figure that will fit into the infobox, go for it!Cop 663 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

pictures

only one northerner, maybe we can address a bit of balance? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To be included in the "8 most famous English people gallery" should require that the person is a bit special. My suggestions are as follows: Ancient: Alfred the Great. Medieval: Richard I, Henry V, Chaucer. Post Medieval: Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Shakespeare, Newton, Cromwell. Early Modern: Nelson, Victoria, Dickens, Darwin, Churchill. Modern: Thatcher, Beckham, McCartney, Bowie, Hawking, Hitchcock, Oliver Reed, Michael Caine, Peter Sellars (trying to figure out who is the greatest English screen star on the last 3). Pick 8 from that lot. Stutley (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... Richard I was King of England, but it is stretching it a bit to say he was English. He didn't speak the language and only spent a tiny part of his life in England. Not a very good choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peas Pudding (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, 6 popular entertainment, two right wing politicians and footballer who is no advert for the English education system. Suggest we work with the current set, maybe look at some minor changes, or a large collage as is current on other pages --Snowded (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant pick the most famous actor which clearly isn't Winslett, Beckham is very well known world wide, as for right wing politicians: what matters is their fame not their politics. Stutley (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to replace Damon Albarn with John Lennon?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

McCartney was an equal partner in the Beatles and has had a more successful solo career, admittedly it helps that he wasn't murdered. Stutley (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

but John Paul and George were all of of mixed Irish-English decent. Too great an extent i think to be on the front of an @English People@ page. Maby Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page or Chris Martin would be better choices...

good photo of George Harrison

There is a good image of George Harrison at Commons.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with me to replace Damon Albarn's image with this one of George Harrison?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has all been discussed extensively in the archives. Nowhere in the article or caption does it suggest that these are the "most famous" English people. They are not. They are intended as a representative sample of people defined as "English" who may be known to the global readership. In an ideal world maybe there should be a regular review and "churn" of all the suitable images, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to change one of them now simply because some people think that a different face would be "better". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But surely Ghmyrtle, you'll agree with me that the photo of Harrison is of far superior quality to that of Albarn which is blurred, of low resolution, and has his face partially obscured by a microphone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thom Yorke would be a very good choice in my opinion. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Margeret Thatcher HAS to be up there--86.166.150.52 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How about including pictures of Black and Asian English people. The English ethnic group has been remodelled after immigration from Commonwealth countries. The English of today are multicultural and multireligious as well as multiracial and are different of the English of the past who were White and protestant. Hip-hop, rap and Bhangra is just as English, if not more so than morris dancing as it represent the English of today! The British Empire has been just as formative to English identity as the Germanic migrations of the Dark Ages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.152.39 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote for pictures of Black and Asian people too, how about Lenny Henry maybe so inspiration could come from the article 100 Great Black Britons. However having said that I think such a pictures of people are always going to be contentious and should probably be dropped altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.28.189 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are all the people in the pictures White??? Why not put Asian English and Black English people as well? They are just as English as the descendents from European immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.120.47 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

English people

There is no mentioning of the Picts (aldough I assume that these made up most (if not all) of the "Gaelic" population (or "Angles"). I also think that it is worthwhile to mention the Aboriginal English (eg the english population before the Roman invasion). Please update the article accordingly. 87.64.63.183 (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sourced references (please read WP:RS) showing that the Picts are, in fact, English people? I would be interested to see it and it would probably be included in the article. Daicaregos (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is the origins of the English.

If the indigenous English people were descended from the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, etc, who arrived before the 11th century. Who are the modern English people of today descended from? What is the difference between the two? How as the indigenous English people dissapeared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.120.47 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And if the Asians and Blacks form part of the English ethnic group, why are they called 'ethnic minorites'? As if they were distinct. And does the same apply to recent European immigrants? Are they an 'ethnic minority as well?86.160.120.47 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the current article - Today, many English people are descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and the Commonwealth - does not imply that all modern English are descended from the 'indigenous' population or from later migrations, but that some are and many aren't. --Pretty Green (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the European immigrants intermarried with each other and with the indigenous population. Therefore the cultures of some of the Eruopean immigrant groups would be abandoned for the English culture. Therefore you would get Spanish-descended people who might look Spanish but do not practise Spanish culture, like Speaking. Perhaps, very few or no English people are NOT descended from more recent immigrants. There has been a huge immigrantion from europe specifically in the 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, England is like America. But there has to be research into the amount of English people descended from Eruopean immigrants. It is sad that those English people lost their ancestral roots. This would show how wonderful to be an immigrant county, like Canada, America or Argentina. There show be an immigrant festivals instead of the 'folk' festivals in the small towns, whrere they only have the traditional culture ofthe origianl English people.

English culture has been modified from its Germanic origins by the European immigrant groups, sobretodo in food. Poeple eat Italian food, not only English poeple of Italian origin but those of indigenous origin and orther origins.

This has happened in Chile as well. Chilean culture has been modified by the European immigrants.86.160.120.47 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is information of scientific studies showing that most English people have ancestry dating back to pre-historic times in Britain. This rubbish of Anglo-Saxons as main part of English identity is based on the ignorance of old history books, as they assumed that language adoption was common, that some huge wave of immigrants was necessary to change the language of a country. Anglo-Saxon influcen is mainly linguistic only. Only a few English people are descended from recent immigrants, even though the latter have had an important impact on English culture and identity, particularly the ones from the former British colonies.86.156.199.108 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)