Talk:English people/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Non white English

Is it possible to be non-white and English? And if so should the photo reflect this. I mean, there are many mixed race people in England who have English heritage as well. 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexImperium (talk • contribs)

Yes and yes, in my view. The last time the image was revised was 2009, I think, in this edit following this discussion, so it's probably overdue for a refresh. Anyone willing to take it on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions: Naomi Campbell (2nd photo in article) instead of Harold Godwinson (1 Anglo-Saxon King is enough) and Amir Khan (infobox photo) instead of Beckham (1 footballer is enough). DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

...other suggestions: Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's possible to be non-white and English, perhaps about 8% of the population fall into that category, leaving 92% in the alternative category. I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to include such a person in the photos; positive discrimination, i.e. flat out discrimination, to make a point is not a good idea. Placing someone in a photo collection simply becuase of the colour of their skin is an appalling suggestion. Do we have an adquate representation of the various religious groups in the country, or any other discriminating feature you can think of - I don't think so, and nor should we. If a non-white English person is famous enough to be included at the expense of another then fine (I doubt there are any at the moment), but please don't make selections based on race. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And in the article we have this: "However, these groups are often still considered to be ethnic minorities and research has shown that black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England.[61]". So perhaps not in an event. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the montage does in fact aim to be a "cross-section" of Englishness aka being representative. I think it's odd that it's 100% white. Not suggesting we should have 8% non-white, but to have no non-white faces is definitely ....strange. I accept what you're saying about religious representation etc but in a photo montage ethnicity is so clearly visible. A good swap would have been Beckham for Ian Wright since the latter is somewht notoriously passionate about "Eng-er-land", but unfortunately I couldn't see any available images. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already a cross section, and it's not strange to have no non-whites, it's just the way it is. If Nelson Mandela was English then maybe he would be there, but I disagree with the sentiment that we should try and be "inclusive". Incidentally, I've never heard of one of the people shown, Damon Albarn, so I suggest he's swapped out with, I don't know, Churchill? The Roman Candle (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's just the way it is" isn't really an explanation. You're saying that a non-white person has to be of the stature of Nelson Mandela to get in? But Daniel Craig, Kate Winslet or Beckham are ok??? Frankly, its a very odd position to take saying those individuals have to stay but eg Naomi Campbell or Mark Ramprakash don't match their stature. I'm not sure why you used the word "inclusive". It sounds that you rather have a pre-disposition to lable this as "political correctness gone mad..." etc. But that misses the point completely. The point of the montage is to give a representation of prominent English people. All white faces doesn't achieve that. Added to that is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing choices: I mentioned three of the debateable modern choices (hardly standing on the shoulders of giants) but some of the historical choices are equally questionable: Harold II, King for a year?? (Btw, I don't think whether you have happened not to have heard of one of the people is a valid criterion for swapping him out.) DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DeCausa. The image should be based on representativeness of the article content, rather than the notability of specific individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is political correctness gone mad, but it's definitely political correctness, which I abhor in all its manifestations. However, there does seem to be a prevailing view that we should be more inclusive here, so I can work with that if needed. The question, then, is who to include. I think it needs to be someone who identifies as English (maybe difficult to ascertain) but more to the point has primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname. This would rule out the previous suggestions; Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I wondered about Lewis Hamilton and Diane Abbott, but the latter is only first generation British. Any other ideas? The Roman Candle (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to take into account the availability of freely usable images. Recognisability to a global readership is also a factor. We should also take into account evidence of clear self-identification as English - for example, if sportspeople have represented England at some event, such as in an England team. Kelly Holmes, for example. I disagree with The Roman Candle's suggestion that anyone defined as English should have "primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname". As the article says, "Today, some English people ... are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth" - nothing there about surnames. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed completely. There's absolutely no basis for saying that to be "English" the individual has to have English "ancestry" (how many generations?) or an "English-sounding surname" (What is that anyway? Those with Afro-Carribean ancestry will often have "English surnames" because their enslaved ancestor was given their owner's surname.) I agree sportsmen who have played for England most easily tick the self-identification box, which is why I mentioned Mark Ramprakash. Kelly Holmes is a good one, and high profile. So is Lewis Hamilton. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the major definition of "English" people is that they have English ancestry. There is much in the article about this. If that's not the case, then how do you define an English person? It certainly isn't someone who was born here. I suppose it has to relate strongly to English ethnicity. I haven't lloked at the equivalent Welsh and Scottish articles yet - is there any guidance to be had from them? The Roman Candle (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "Englishness". One is your definition, based on (real or imagined) ethnic purity; most others are more inclusive. The article recognises the diversity of definition, and the image in the infobox should also reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton are already included in the British people article montage. Thinking a bit more about this idea, it could be problematic. It's clearly a mild form of political correctness to incorproate non-white people here, and I can't think of any such person who would identify as English rather than British. There's no intrinsic problem with the current set of images, so I'm coming back to the view that it's best to leave well alone. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As you appear to believe that many members of England national sporting teams should be disqualified on the basis of the colour of their skin, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's not problematic at all, and, quite frankly, your point of view is becoming somewhat disturbing and offensive. To think that anything but an all white photo montage is "political correctness" is an extreme position. Your unsupported personal opinion that these specific individuals don't self-identify as English (or that they have an insufficiently "English ancestry") is irrelevant. It's quite ludicrous to suggest that people such as Mark Ramprakash or Emile Heskey play for English teams but don't self-identify as English. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh here we go. I didn't think it would be long. Please comment on the article and its content, not on the editors. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the opinions you expressed not on you. That's entirely within the proper scope of this Talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hairsplitting. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the 100 Great Black Britons list, another strong contender for inclusion would be Daley Thompson - born in England, competed for England on numerous occasions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Daley Thompson's parents were Nigerian and Scottish, although he was born in England. A better example could surely be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that he competed for England, not Scotland or Nigeria - and that is good evidence of self-identification as English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He's the best suggestion so far. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say he's probably the worst suggestion so far. Neither of his parents were English, and his only claim is to have been born in the country, and you don't even have to be born in England to complete at international level in most sports anyway, so the fact that he competed for England is of no matter. He's not would you would descibe as being ethnically English. If we must indulge in mild politicalt correctness then a better example should be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

From the lead: Today, some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth. Daley Thompson is an excellent illustration of that sentence. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Recent forbears" is stretching it a bit to include parents. Don't get me wrong, if there's someone we can find that could be remotely described as "ethnically English" then go for it, but Daley Thompson just isn't a good example. Personally I don't think there's a need for this at all, but I'll go with the majority - and I'll try and think of a few more examples, preferably ones that don't already feature at British people or elsewhere. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can't they also feature in British people? Otherwise, Margaret Thatcher and George Harrison will have to be deleted here. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No real reason, I just thought it would give a better spread if we found other people not already featured, but if we can't then maybe we have to use one from British people. Just a minor point on Daley Thompson, he could very well consider himself more Scottish than English, so again I would suggest he's not a good choice. The Roman Candle (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If that were true, he would have represented Scotland, not England, at the Commonwealth Games. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, the country someone represents may well have no bearing at all on their ethnicity. With Nigerian and Scottish parents Thompson is not an ideal candidate here. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In defining "English people", self-identification is at least as important as "ethnicity" and genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No English is an ethnicity someone who has either Anglo-Saxon, Jute, Norse, Dane, Viking, Norman, basically Germanic heritage makes someone English, just because someone is born in England it doesn't mean their Ethnically English all of a sudden it takes at least a thousand years to make an ethnicity luckily the people that migrated to England as listed above are all from a common ethnic background anyway so English became an ethnicity as soon as Alfred the Great united the kingdoms together.86.144.115.174 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So the only English people are those from the anglo-saxon kingdoms under the cake burner? Its going to be a very small group --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any further ideas on who could used in the montage? The Roman Candle (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a percentage of the whole population of England, who knows? But it's wrong to suggest that a group of English people is 'very small' in itself. Not to sing and dance about it, but my surname appears on documents during the years immediately following the Norman conquest, and almost uniquely from the exact town where, approaching 1000 years on, I was born. So the name's unlikely per se to be anything but English, and connected with my relations and myself. We aren't a very small group, although we're not a huge one. But it would be unreasonable to not believe we are part of a much larger whole. Twistlethrop (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of DNA in the English population comes from long before any of the historic Germanic invasions. The base of English heritage actually derives from the Neolithic agricultural population that first settled in England following the end of the Ice Age. We don't know much about them aside from what archaeology can tell us about their material culture and settlement patterns. We don't know what their language was like at all, though due to genetic similarities to the Basques, a language related to Basque is a possibility. They were assimilated by smaller, more powerful waves of invaders which managed to spread their languages and cultures on the pre-existent culture while leaving behind only a small genetic imprint. The Beaker people and the Wessex culture were subsequent pre-historic groups that moved in, followed by the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and finally, the Norman French. It's hard to dislodge an established agricultural population, so the best these groups could do was impose their authority, culture, and language on their indigenous population (while slowly becoming more and more like the indigenous population in turn). What we consider to be English today comprises elements from all of these groups - Obviously, we tend to think of the Anglo-Saxons as having the largest cultural contribution, but there are plenty of lingering Norman, Scandinavian, Roman, and Celtic influences left in English culture, and probably elements of those older, prehistoric cultures which we can't easily identify anymore, including the one that left the largest genetic imprint. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic" (again)

I reverted this edit - the supposed source does not support the claim and refers only to Anglo-Saxons, not to English people in the modern sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also note that as a rule tertiary sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica should not be used in place of secondary sources. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Two IP editors making similar edits to sock puppets as soon as semi-protection expires? I smell something cheesy. The article has been semi-protected for 3 weeks. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only mentioned it here in case anyone thought my edit summary was over-succinct - WP:AGF 'n' all that... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not so much the source, but that the edit is also removing the word "nation" from the first sentence and refocusing the lead from "nation and ethnic group" to "German ethnic group". "English nation" is easily sourced (as it is in the article) and one has to conclude that removing the word nation is at least as important to Chaosname as inserting "Germanic" into the article.

That said, User:Chaosname is no longer a "block user" but is now a "site banned" user, and so under the banning policy we should revert all edits, good or bad, by Chaosname. To help facilitate the ban I suggest that we do not discuss this edit, or Chaosname's behaviour more than is necessary so as not to encourage this sock master. -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdated UK population

The article currently lists the UK's English population at around 45 million, from a total population of 58 million taken from the CIA World Factbook in 2001. This is MASSIVELY out of date. The "List of countries by population" article uses a much more recent population figure of around 62 million from an office for national statistics report created mid-2010. Is there any reason not to use this newer and more accurate figure in place of the 2001 data? -- AntJ103 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you only have a figure for the UK population as a whole and not for the English population in the UK, what are you going to use? You can't just make an educated guess from the proportions in 2001; you must cite a reliable ref for the current figure. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

photo montage

There are far too many contemporary actors/musicians in the photo montage. I agree with taking out Damien Albarn and probably Sting, Michael Palin and Daniel Craig. We dont need two footballers - could we have an actual photo if it's gonng to be Bobby Moore? I think David Becham is actally better known globally. Georgiana Cavendish isn't really notable enough. I'd suggest putting in people like Charlie Chaplin, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Florence Nightingale and maybe Samuel Coleridge-Taylor or Nigella Lawson. I think the photos should represent the different definitions of Englishness. Who people's parents are isn't always a great way to determine if they're english e.g. Harold Godwinson's mother was danish. And I dont see much of a detailed genetic description for many of the people shown - they could easily be 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation descendents from European immigrants for all we know. Many of the people in the 'list of English people' have scottish, welsh or european parents. The important thing is that we have sources describing them as English (it just isnt specified what English means). Halon8 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate definitions of indigenous English and UK citizens to clear confusion.

Much has been made of the question - Can a non-white person be English?

The issue is complicated because there is a difference between an indigenous English person and an a national who has an UK passport.

Would an English person born is Saudi Arabia who had a Saudi passport be described as an Arab?

Would an English person born in Beijing who had a Chinese passport be described as Chinese?

Would an English person born in Tokyo with a Japanese passport be describes as Japanese?

The intuitive answer to these questions is no since they refer to an ethnicity and not the posession of a legal document like a passport.

There is a difference between someone who is born in England who may have a British passport but culturally and ethnically aligned to a different demographic group and someone who is ethnically English.

The complication can be easily resolved by drawing a distinction between indigenous English people who have various European and British Isles descent and those who are citizens.

Before someone hyper-sensitive bleats about racism, no value judgement is being made here just a sensible and intuitive distinction as is used in most of the other world's countries.

Whilst it is difficult to clearly define what indigenous English means, it is not as difficult to define what is definitely not indigenous English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I used the Talk Page rather than making edits to the Mainpage . A Talk Page is exactly that- a page to talk. It wasn't a irrelevant commentary since the issue is whether there should be a separate Indigenous English section. There are myriad pages on Wikipedia already about Indigenous Americans, Indigenous Amezonians Indigenous Australians' etc so would this not be a useful addition to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask some further questions of 109.144.19.127, but after reconsidering it, I will only ask one. Do you have any reliable sources that I can read which support your idea and define what an "Indigenous English" means? -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate on my earlier point: the concept of "indigenous English people" is absurd. English people - that is, people who self-define as English and/or who live in England - are a mixture of people of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, later European, later Empire- and Commonwealth-originated, etc. etc., background - all overlaid upon the pre-existing (pre-Saxon) "indigenous" population. In Churchill's terminology, the English are a mongrel race. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is surely a massive inconsistency in allowing pages about indigenous Americans or native Americans, (who are also made up of various tribes and ethnic groups) whilst saying that there is no such thing as indigenous English people. In addition there are hundreds of other pages on Wikipedia referring to different indigenous groups across the globe.

Obviously any indigenous group has constituent ethnic groups within it. In England these were Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and later Europeans who were largely from similar ethnic groups (being all European and for the most part North European). The Normans for example are of Viking origin themselves. Over centuries these people formed a collective identity known as the English, pre the waves of subsequent non-European mass immigration post 1945.

If one believes in the existence of indigenous groups in other countries and geographic areas then why not apply a consistent application to the creation of an indigenous English section? The sub-text seems to be that indigenous should only be used in reference to non-European peoples. Why?World of Whisky (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume that WoW is a new user account by the editor who was editing as 109.144.19.127 please correct me if I am wrong. See the Wikipedia polices on no original research and verifiability. If we are to continue this conversation in any meaningful way you need to produce verifiable reliable sources, that defines what "indigenous English" means, only then can we have a useful discussion. You have your own opinions on this subject, but content of Wikipedia articles is based on the content of reliable sources, both for facts and for opinions. Without reliable sources, this conversation is little more than a forum conversation. This page is for development of the article not for discussing the opinions of editors about the subject of the article other than if those opinions are useful for developing the article. If opinions are expressed on this talk page that do not help to develop the content of the article further, they may be removed (see Talk page guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Sykes research

Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. But Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel.

"Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain, but only a few thousand. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... the majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 20,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA fingerprints have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in his book Blood Of The Isles, published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

But the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celts have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," said Professor Sykes.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain-7182292.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.31.224 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2012

Please draft a proposed change to the article that is not a copyright violation or a close paraphrasing of copyrighted material. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro says the English are Germanic, what about the substantial Roman influence?

The article says that the English are a Germanic people. What about the substantial Roman Latin influence? Did all the Romans die off or flee and that explains why English are only considered Germanic? I mean I find it hard to believe that with the Roman Empire ruling England for many, many years that there would be no Roman Latin influence.--R-41 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for subtantial - i.e. mass - "Roman" (whatever that may mean, let's say latin-speakers from outside Britain) migration. There were undoubtedly small numbers of officials, soldiers, merchants who came to the island, but there is nothing to suggest a major change to the Celtic substrate. "Roman Britain" was primarily about the "Celtic" population becoming Romanized. So by the 5th century, yes "England" was heavily under "Roman Latin influence": many (but by no means all) of the population were living a "Roman" life-style, spoke late Vulgar Latin and were emersed in Roman culture. The withdrawal of the legions/Roman government made relatively little difference to that - it remained primarily a Romanized Celtic population. What did make a change was the Germanic migrations. There's academic argument over whether the incoming Anglo-Saxons pushed out/massacred the Romanized celtic population with the survivors migrating westwards (ending up in Wales, Cumbria etc) or whether they stayed put under Anglo-Saxon rule and gradually adopted (whether through intermarriage or otherwise) the Germanic language and culture of their rulers. (Probably a mixture of both.) Either way, "Romanized British" disappeared in "England" fairly rapidly after the migrations. What can be said largely straightforwardly is that English is essentially a Germanic language, not a Romance language. "Ethnically"? It's anyone's guess. If not "Germanic" then it would more likely be the "Celtic" substrate than "Roman". But then what is "Celtic"? There's an argument that the "Celtic" population had been a neolithic substrate that took on the Celtic culture of an incoming conquering elite. And by the way, what is "Roman"? By the 5th century it was a cosmopolitan designation that had little to do with "Rome", or even "Italy" for that matter. All just goes to show just how silly these simplistic ethnic labels can be. Personally I'd rather see no such description (such as "Germanic") at all because of the over-simplification involved. But I suppose the consistency of "the English" speaking a Germanic language for 1500 years is probably enough to at least make "Germanic" as good as it's going to get on WP given WP editors' traditional attachment to hard-and-fast terminological tags. DeCausa (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The intro certainly does not say that the English are a Germanic people. It says that many English people descend from the Germanic tribes who immigrated after the Romans left, and that the name "English" derives from that time. The article makes clear that the genetic influences of the indigenous British people in the area, and later migrants from elsewhere, are at least as important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. I was just correcting that last bit (having re-checked the article) when the edit conflict beat me to it! DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An English person is any legal citizen of England

Do you agree with this statement? (RexImperium (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

WP:NOTFORUM. Do you intend improving the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No because there is no such thing as "a legal citizen of England". People are citizens of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I mean a legal citizen of England, not a legal citizen of England. (RexImperium (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

If you don't say what changes to the article you are proposing that relate to this discussion then I am deleting it again per WP:NOTFORUM ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is that if anyone resident in England is by definition 'English people' then the montage of English people should actually be representative of the makeup of said definition. As far as I can tell, Black, Asian and Mixed race make up a significant enough percentage of the population to warrant an inclusion. And there are many famous names which could be feasibly justified. (RexImperium (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

This was discussed here a year or so ago. I agree in principle to making the montage more representative - I think the discussion last time got bogged down in discussion of individuals, and no action was taken in the end. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

no objections to an additional line of people being added to help reflect modern England, i think it would be less problematic to just add a 4th row and mix all the images up a bit, rather than get into a debate about removing half a dozen people and replacing them with others. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone living in England is patently not English, just as if I move to Japan I will not become Japanese. Nor if I live there for 50 years. As the first sentence of the article states "The English are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English". Whether those born in England to non indigenous parents are English is certainly capable of debate also. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

>> if I move to Japan I will not become Japanese

Why not though? Is there any definable set of criteria that defines a Japanese person, that you as a resident of Japan would not meet? (RexImperium (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Japanese citizenship would be a good start. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's not go off on a tangent here. Adding an extra row seems like a good proposition. What do others think? (RexImperium (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

It is not a tangent, I am directly refuting the statement with which you began this thread. And no, people should not be added to the infobox out of tokenism or to push a certain POV. The issue which you started off this thread is that English people are people who live in England. No they are absolutely not. If I move to Israel I will not become an ethnic Jew. Nor if I become an Israeli citizen. Nor even if I convert to the Jewish faith. For one cannot join an ethnicity, one is born into it. I similarly cannot ever become black, or Chinese, or Native American or aborigine.

Some here seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of "ethnic group" in British English, and of "native to". Rangoon11 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask from a different angle. Do ethnic minorities who are resident citizens of this country warrant an inclusion into the montage of English people? If a foreigner for instance were to go to a shopping centre in any major English city s/he would almost certainly encounter Black, Asian, Mixed race people etc so therefore the montage is not truly reflective of English people. (109.145.1.253 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Per above, it is questionable how many, if any, of those Black and Asian people are part of the English ethnic group. Secondly, the article is about English people worldwide and throughout history, so even if one were to include all Black and Asian people living in England today as English - which I dispute - they would still be a very small proportion of all English people worldwide alive and dead. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"it is questionable how many, if any, of those Black and Asian people are part of the English ethnic group". So now it is not just where you were born, the accent you have and the culture you live and participate in, but also the colour of your skin. This conversation has strayed into racism and as the title of this section is a nonsense, I suggest that this whole section is deleted or at the very least collapsed. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the topic has been brought up by someone who has directly and explicitly raised the issue of race by seeking to add images of "Blacks and Asians". I was responding to a point and my response is in no way racist it is a statement of fact. You cannot join an ethnic group, you are born into it. And as I stated earlier, if I and my wife moved to Israel, became Israeli citizens, and my children were born in Israel even they would still not be ethnically Jewish. Do you dispute this? Rangoon11 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, although genetic heritage may be one element of "ethnicity" - and some aspects, such as skin colour, may be seen as particularly important by some people - it is not the only, or even most important, aspect of ethnicity. Shared culture and identity are far more important elements. English people include people of a very wide range of genetic and cultural family background, and the image should reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The British people article is already more progressive in this regard. (RexImperium (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

It's a question of being neutral rather than "progressive". There are many definitions of what makes someone "English", and the article, and the image, should reflect those. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about English people alive and dead, living in England and elsewhere. Even if one included all non-whites currently living in England as English then they would still be a very small proportion of the total number of people which this article addresses.

"Native to" at a minimum requires someone to have been born in England or descended from those who were. A substantial proportion of non-whites currently living in England are therefore immediately excluded.

This article is not about "People who live in England", but "English people". The British people article concerns people who are citizens of the United Kingdom, something which is separate from ethnicity. There is no such thing as English citizenship at present.

One can be a Japanese citizen and/or a member of the Japanese ethnic group. The article Japanese people primarily concerns the ethnic group. If a Korean moved to Japan and became a Japanese citizen would they have joined the Japanese ethnic group? Clearly not. Whether their children would be ethnic Japanese is a matter of debate (although most Japanese would be clear that the answer is no). If a Chinese moves to Israel and becomes an Israeli citizen have they now become an ethnic Jew? Clearly not. Would their children be? Again no. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also a large number of whites living in England who were not born in England, including people like Joanna Lumley for example or any number of Australians. Why pick out "non-white". Ethnicity is generally for England, Scotland Wales etc a matter of self identification. We have 'white' south africans playing for the English Rugby team to take of many examples where identity and self-idenitifcation override your somewhat quaint (and worrying) definition. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of non-whites is being discussed because it has been explicitly suggested that images of non-whites should be added to the infobox.

However an Australian or South African who is of English descent is already arguably included in the topic so that is a curious argument.

"Ethnicity is generally for England, Scotland Wales etc a matter of self identification." Why? That's not what the article say. And what is your source for the fact that English people are somehow so different as an ethnic group to Koreans, Chinese, Japanese or Jews? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using one particular, very limited, definition of "English", to mean what you want it to mean. There are many definitions. This article should take a balanced view, taking into account wider definitions, certainly including those who may not have "white" skin. Would you, for instance, consider black Americans not to be American, or white South Africans not to be South African? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am taking the common approach used to identify ethnic groups. I notice that my comments about other ethnic groups are being repeatedly ignored. But I will again extend the courtesy to others repeatedly not extended to my posts by responding to yours fully. American and South African are the same as British in that one can be a citizen of the United States or South Africa without any ethnic, linguistic, cultural or other connection. They are also quite different as, whilst the overwhelming majority of non-whites in England are either first generation immigrants or the children of post-second world war immigrants, there has been a large number of blacks in America for many generations, and whites have been in South Africa since the mid-1600s and established the nation state there. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but I don't see that as being very relevant to improving this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the main subject

There seems to be a clear majority view here that a better balance needs to be achieved in the infobox image. Can we agree to progress on that basis, recognising that the original image creator, User:Jza84, is not currently active? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a vote and there is no consensus above for the addition of POV pushing tokenistic images into this article.

You are seeking to add images for reasons purely of the individuals' race (no doubt the next thing will be a desire to add image of disabled people, or perhaps of homosexuals).

So it is therefore necessary to justify why. This article addresses English people both alive and dead and both living in England and elsewhere. By a generous count all non-whites currently living in England would barely amount to 1% of the total number of people whom the article addresses. And there are all manner of views as to how many of those non-whites currently living in England actually fit within the topic.

The infobox has 21 images, so even one non-white would be undue according to even the most neutral analysis. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, at least we have a common debatable criteria here. The people in the image should be chosen on the basis of proportional and fair representation. Not just on ethnicity but on other aspects too, because I notice a clear bias towards present day celebrities and figures from the recent past. (RexImperium (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

"Fairness" is both wholly subjective and wholly irrelevant. The image in the infobox serves to give some examples of notable subjects of the topic. And the topic is English people alive and dead living both outside as well as inside England. The image has been in place for a number of years and serves the purpose perfectly well (although Michael Palin, Damon Albarn, Sting, Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig are all slightly curious choices and there are in my view too many current images and too many pop culture images; I would prefer some more scientists, and some images of English people who lived outside of England, since that is a major part of the topic and article). Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Less celebrities, more inventors, engineers, scientists etc. (RexImperium (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

It seems that we do have some common ground afterall :) Rangoon11 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about including Jessica Ennis, seen as she is from Sheffield, and a famous and decorated athlete? This avoids any tokenism. (RexImperium (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

No, recentist and trivial. As well as tokenistic in view of your earlier comments. And I thought that you just said ess celebrities, more inventors, engineers and scientists. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How about Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Darwin, Francis Bacon, John Locke, John Maynard Keynes, George Washington, Cary Grant, Tim Berners-Lee, George Orwell, Nelson and the 1st Duke of Wellington? Rangoon11 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not many scientists there though, apart from Darwin, and only one inventor (Tim Berners-Lee). This is the problem with lists like these, they can never be totally satisfactory to everyone, so my idea would be to remove it completely. Not just from this article but all the articles of these types.(RexImperium (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Because if you don't you have to quantify for example why Isaac Newton is more representative of English people than, say Johnny Vegas, or otherwise we just accept the article is illogical. (RexImperium (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Well, I sense that suggestion's likely to be a non-starter. It's obvious nonsense to suggest that an article as a whole is "biased" (or "illogical") simply because you disagree with a selection of representative images. By the way, any changes to the montage here also need to take into account the requirement to use free images, wherever possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

>>Well, I sense that suggestion's likely to be a non-starter.

I realise that, making any large-scale changes to an established article is likely to be met with a lot of opposition, but my point stands. (RexImperium (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Reliable sources can certainly be provided which state that the above names are all amongst the most significant figures in their respective fields, certainly among the English people but also worldwide. I should add that the same can also be said of many of the current individuals in the box, with the exception of some of the recent celebrities and Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. If you want another inventor than I can suggest Frank Whittle; another engineer could be Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and a further scientist Francis Crick. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Those seem like decent choices if everyone is in agreement, but I've qualified the current list in the infobox in light of this discussion. (RexImperium (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Although we all agree that the infobox could be improved, the chances of any agreement coming from this unstructured discussion are, I suggest, zero given the diversity of views expressed on how it should be improved. Frankly, the time and effort in getting agreement to such a minor improvement would be better spent in improving some of the other 4 million or so articles needing care and attention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. Proof that Wikipedia cannot be taken with anything more than a pinch of salt. (109.145.0.96 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Your goal as a good Wikipedian should be to strive for neutrality in everything. (RexImperium (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Indeed - but we have to have priorities, and a great deal of time is wasted here on interminable discussions about not very much. You raised a good point initially about the failure to show those of non-white ethnicity, with which I agreed, but the subsequent discussion has moved a long way from that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to note, with the earlier course of the discussion above, the (perfectly reasonable) suggestion as a candidate of a notable French-educated son of a French immigrant for the photo montage. Does this, though, mean that French becomes English more easily than does Black, Asian or Jewish? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is rather different as it has been proposed that non-whites be added to the infobox purely because they are non-white. Brunel has not been proposed as a tokenistic white (Brunel's mother was also English BTW).

There is no objective answer to the second part of your post, my own view is that yes it is more difficult for non-whites to adopt an English identity because they are more likely to identify with another ethnicity, be it "Black", "Asian", "Pakistani", "Chinese", "Indian", "Japanese" or something else, and their children and their children are too (this is actually borne out by census results). As is stated in the article, most English people are also from genetically similar peoples overwhelmingly western European.

As I noted earlier though the article addresses English people both alive and dead and both living in England and elsewhere. By a generous count all non-whites currently living in England would barely amount to 1% of the total number of people whom the article addresses. The infobox has 21 images, so even one non-white would be undue. This is leaving aside the issue of how many of those non-whites currently living in England actually fit within the topic, which is a controverisal and highly subjective issue. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The proportion of the population of England who were defined as White British in 2001 was about 83%. No doubt the figures have changed, and some of the remainder will be "white" but of other cultural backgrounds. But, it should be clear that the overall proportion of "non-white" is at least 10%. To describe the inclusion of such people as "tokenistic" is offensive. The modern, inclusive, definition of English people should be reflected in the infobox montage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You wish to add people purely on the basis of race and say that I am tokenistic?!

This article is about an ethnic group, not merely about "People who live in England in 2012". Perhaps you should start a new article with that title where you can use your own preferred "modern, inclusive, definition".

And as I have said before, the article concerns English people alive and dead living in England and elsewhere. So yes of that group all of those non-whites living in England as of 2012 would be unlikely to reach 1% of the total, leaving aside the issue of how many of those non-whites living in England as of 2012 fit within the topic of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you described the views of others as "tokenistic", not me. You are clinging to a definition of "English people" which is merely one definition out of many definitions. The article, and the infobox montage, should reflect a wide range of definitions of the term, not your narrow one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So whiteness, genetics and a quota based on the proportion in the populace!? Does the quota system extend to other aspects - gender, disability, hair-colour? Wouldn't want to have an undue number of gingers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is true that once one starts to add tokenistic images based purely on the issue of race - which I strongly oppose, leaving aside the issue which I mention of it being undue on an wholly objective basis - a whole can of worms is opened in terms of all manner of other categorisations. If an infobox image such as is in this article is to serve any real purpose it is simply to give a flavour of the most significant achievements and historical events of the group through some of its most notable figures. It is not supposed to be a cross section of the group according to racial/socio economic/gender/sexuality/hair colour/height/IQ or whatever other characteristics one may wish to highlight.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not supposed to be a cross-section and advocating people solely on the basis that they would better represent a cross-section would be unwarranted. Neither, however, should it exclude examples solely on the basis that they possess a quality that puts them in a grouping that (purportedly) forms less than a twenty-first of the population, as you are advocating: "even one non-white would be undue". You are effectively herein preventing anyone suggesting a non-white person (or homosexual or disabled person), however notable, because you will claim the motivation is tokenistic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the thread, it has been proposed that non-whites should be added purely on tokenistic grounds because non whites are currently not "represented".

Personally if I were to prepare a list of the 100 most notable figures in English history I cannot think of a single non-white who would be there. Nor even in a list of the top 1,000. I'd be very interested to hear some names if you disagree.

And I have nothing at all against the inclusion of homosexuals or disabled people. I have everything against homosexuals or disabled people being included purely to "represent" those groups. That is no less absurd than wanting certain counties represented, or certain heights, or hair colours, or IQ levels, or political opinions, or religions. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think anyone's talking about "quotas", but there is a consensus that these images should be representative of the article topic. The article topic is "English people", and many definitions of that would include all people living in England who define themselves as English - including, for instance, members of England sports teams, leading entertainers, politicians, etc. etc., who have "non-white" genetic backgrounds. Ethnic groups such as English people are primarily defined on the basis of common identity, not genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Representative" is just another way of saying "quota". The meaning is identical in this context.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To reflect the article topic, then all the people in the photos have to be is English, however one defines that. There's no obvious necessity to cover every aspect of what makes up the English as a group. At a glance, I don't see any gay people in those photos either, or disabled people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you move to a Navajo reservation and claim to be Navajo? Would you move to Ireland and claim to be Irish? Ethnicity is based on genetic lineage from common familial ancestry. Black English are of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity for the most part. These discussions are getting stupid. How come only white countries have to include non-indigenous peoples among their own bloodlines? Do white people living in China claim to be Chinese? Do white people in the Phillipines claim to be Fillipino? Do white people who move to North Africa claim to be Berber or Arab? These arguments are not based in fact and nothing more than attempts to placate the sensibilities of minorities and people who sympathize with far-left ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.246.204 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so. "An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other through a common heritage, consisting of a common culture, including a shared language or dialect". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That’s a possible definition, but the topic of ethnicity is not so easy to define. For example the Jewish ethnicity, most of them don’t speak a common language, yet they see themselves as one ethnic group based on historic heritage. Italian-Americans, they are proud of being Italians even though many of them don’t speak Italian anymore and their culture is American.

I think a common language and customs are optional things and a more relevant to what plays a bigger role is how you see yourself and what kind of historical heritage you are sharing.

You mentioned heritage, the question is, how do we define heritage? I think heritage includes a big historical factor in it, historical factor that minorities which came to England after the formation of the English ethnicity couldn’t identify with, unless they absorbed to the English ethnicity to the extent they ceased to exist like the Normans, but the fact is, they themselves weren’t English but married people and their children didn’t know any identity except the English one. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think people here got confused with terms, that’s why the discussion started in the first place. The picture now is great and represents all groups of English ethnicity, the only thing is it would be nice to put more women in it. I was impressed how all regions of England got representatives. We’ve got Geordies, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, literally almost every area.

Nationality=Citizenship and possibly cultural identity.

Ethnicity=Identity based on common heritage, which basically means common history and traditions.

An Indian, Black or Polish person living in the UK can easily identify with being British, but they definitely can’t identify with the heritage of the Anglo-Saxons who evolved in the English ethnicity in the first place, which is the history of the English ethnicity.

The interesting thing is those who started the discussion want to “turn” those minorities into ethnic English in a patronizing way, I’m sure with good intentions, but first of all, against what the term ethnicity means in the first place, and second, against the will of those minorities.

Indians, Poles, etc. in the UK are loyal British citizens, their children speak English as a native language and they even have a modern British culture, but at the end of the day, do they want to be ethnically English? I have to say it’s very much in the spirit of French colonialism – let’s turn everyone into French! 79.99.144.141 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%! I think people here got some terms confused with their POV. I agree minorities should be protected and allowed to integrate in the society, but for that you have an article about British people! This article is about English ethnicity and I'm sorry the minorities don't fit the defenition. It has nothing to do with racism or their rights. The fact that someone of Indian ethnicity is not of English ethnicity doesn't mean he's less British and has rights. Gōd cyning (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above! There is a differnce between English ethnically and British/English by nationality, and the fact is, people who immigrated are British, but they are not ethnically English because ethnicity is based on heritage, heritage includes history, and their history comes from somewhere else. Gōd cyning (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wkipedia generally treats "ethnicity". Usually it's based on self-identification, rather than applying a set of concocted and arbitrary criteria. "people who immigrated are British, but they are not ethnically English because ethnicity is based on heritage" So, is a 1st generation descendant Polish immigrant ethnically English? Is a 2nd generation descendant of a white Jamaican immigrant ethnically English? Is a 2nd generation descendant of a black Jamaican immigrant descendant ethnically English? Is a 3rd generation descendant of a Jewish Lithuanian immigrant descendant ethnically English? Is a 4th generation descendant of an Irish immigrant descendant ethnically English? Is a 5th generation descendant of a French Huguenot immigrant ethnically English? Is a 6th generation descendant of a Scottish immigrant ethnically English? Is a 7th generation descendant of a Flemish immigrant ethnically English? Is a 20th generation descendant of a Norman immigrant ethnically English? And so on. But then that's just one genetic line. Multiply that exponentially for all of an individuals genetic lines which would include a mix of "all of the above" and more. Is there a proportion of the foregoing "foreign" element that precludes being ethnically English? If it's more than 0%, there would no ethnic English. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree ethnicity is also based on self-identiicatioh, but that's my point, I never met a Jamaican, Polish or Nigerian person even if their parents were born in the UK claiming they are ethnically English, the say they are British.

I will answer your question with an example Were the Normans ethnically English? No. Were there children ethnically English? In most cases. Why? Because they married someone ethnically English and their children grew up feeling connection with their English heritage. Same thing! Even if a person is a Pole or Jamaican 3rd generation in England but his parents and grandparents made sure to marry someone of their own ethnicity, no, he is noe ethnically English and I didn't meet someone in such a situation claiming they are. But if a Pole married an English person, their child is half ethnicall English, and so on. If ater few generations in the UK the person and his still children make sure to marry someone of their own ethnicity, it shows they don't feel English. When they do marry someone English, they are still not ethnically English, but their children will be.

A 5th generation descendant of a French Huguenot is considered ethnically English because it's highly likely that his ancestors married English. Gōd cyning (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions/generalisations there which actually are counter to self-identification. What about Ian Wright, 2nd generation but famously (and stridently) self-declared "English"? It's statistically quite feasible for some Liverpudlians to have all their great great great grandparents born in Ireland, but it would not occur to them that they are anything but English. You either go with self-identification (for whatever reason) or you concoct arbitrary "rules". I don't think the two can be mixed. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please give me a link to that? It's not that I doubt what you said, I believe you, I just want to see the context. He played for England on a national level, and what I wonder is if what he ment was nationality, or if he actually spoke about ethnic identity? That's the thing, we can't assume that when speaking about nationality or citizenship a person means ethnicity. Let's say an American of English ethnicity calles himself an American, which is a nationality, does it mean he says he is Native American?

I know what you mean though, with the Liverpool example, it's similar in some Irish areas of Manchester. The thing is, in their case they didn't marry someone Irish intentionaly, it's because almost everyone in their neighbourhood was Irish that's why it happened. But if in a person's head his only identity is English or his main identity is English by ethnicity then yes he's counted as English. The thing is, usually when let's say Indians on purpouse marry only Indians and make sure to keep their ethnic culture as their main culture and even refer to themselves as Indian, I doubt they see in themselves ethnic English. They see themselves as British, but I doubt they changed their ethnic identity. Gōd cyning (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I really suggest that you read the archives of this page. This topic has been discussed to death. See for example: 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."(Andrea Levy, "This is my England", The Guardian, February 19, 2000.) -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did, and I saw in all times there was always a debate where both sides were not convinces. I don't deny the fact after ew henerations immigrants can become fully English, but until then they keep their ethnic identity, unless marrying English.

If you noticed, she is actually talking about nationality! She talks about England being a prular country and that it's not an exclusive club, but that's the proof she is not talking about ethnicity. What ethnicity you are has nothing to do with nationality. Gōd cyning (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)#

The article ethnic group states in its opening sentence "Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality." As Levy shares a common culture and nationality with other English people, she ticks both the nationality and the common culture boxes. Do you have a source for the assertions you posted in response to my post, or is it just you personal point of view? If you do not have any reliable sources for your assertions then this thread should be stopped, as the ideas can not be added to the article or used to develop the article. This page is for development of the article it is not a discussion forum (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is very general and is ment to include groups like Arabs which assimilated different cultures in different regions and therefore from area to area has genetic differences. The sentence however also states: "Ethnicity can, but does not have to, include common ancestry, appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions, or other cultural factor!" Now in the English case, I think common ancestry, heritage and history also play a role. The Druze people for example have the same ancestry as arabs but they have a dufferent religion. Jews are literally based only on ancestry and history if you examine them as an ethnic group. Gōd cyning (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is for development of the article it is not a discussion forum (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). I will not reply to any more general comments of the sort that you have been making. I will only reply if you propose changes to the artilcec based on reliable sources and not your own opinions. -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a discussion form, but here you have a discussion which lasts for ages regarding the issue and both sides don't agree on what to do. I stated my opinion. Everyone here state their opinion on the issue. I'm not the one proposing changes to the article, and what I'm saying is against changing the article. Gōd cyning (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are discussing your personal opinions on the matter rather than using reliably cited material to either support the current version of the article or to support changes to it. Your own opinion, or mine, or anyone else's is not a reliable source. Whatever your best intentions and whatevever anyone else in this thread is doing, you are using it as a forum and you must not. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. If anything this thread, or at least the latter parts of it, should probably now be removed as retaining them may be falsely giving them credibility as appropriate for an article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is not Bede in the infobox?

"The Father of English History" definitely deserves a place in the collage! More then Daniel Craig anyway, there are enough actors in the image anyway. Does everyone agree we should add him? Who should we put him instead? Gōd cyning (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because we have no idea what he looked like? Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We also don't know how Harold Godwinson looked like but still have an image of him. Gōd cyning (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

English ethnicity

The whole thing needs re-working. It talks of genetics but ethnicity combines many factors, not just historical/genetic details (the usual acceptance of the nature of these is overly-challenged quoting just one "historian" but that's not the point). Ethnicity is more of a social scientific concept. Very many "mixed-race" people identify themselves as black but they may have 50% Germanic genetic make up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.79.99.42 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As noted when I reverted your first run of edits, I agree there are problems with this whole section. I also accepted that those edits appeared to be a bid to improve it. The problem, however, is that your changes added claims, for example, about what is "the widely accepted view", as well as claims that such a view is "supported" by Bede, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and the BNP; all primary and probably unreliable sources. It also talked about the assimilation of Normans "particularly in the east and north", which is both unsourced and untrue. It made comments about Germanic linguistics which may well be accurate but which attempt to build an argument based on that, which is original research. It added parenthetical observations/commentary about the use of the word race; again, unsourced, if accurate in one sense, but also overly instructional to the reader. Those are just some of the issues.

Your latest, less wide-ranging edit reinserts the "widely accepted" claim, which needs some support. I'm not sure it's not better to describe it, less definitively, as the "conventional" view, which has come under some challenge. I'm not going to quibble too much over the expansion of Anglo-Saxon to be more detailed, but the term is commonly used as a catch-all description, which the linked page does explain. As to your broader comments, ethnicity is indeed about more than mere genetics; but the conclusion I would probably draw from that is that the section is mis-titled. N-HH talk/edits 09:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking into this further, I'd argue that a better opening line for this section might be something along the lines of "there is considerable debate about ..". Even a basic Google search throws up, from the off, plenty of serious comment acknowledging exactly that. I know it's a bit woolly, but it seems an accurate description of the state of any academic consensus (or, rather, the lack of it). I'd also suggest that this section be retitled "English origins and identity" or something similar and that the meta-ruminations should be deleted, eg "A popular interest in English identity is evident ..", "In all these cases, the language of race is employed by the journalists" etc. N-HH talk/edits 08:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Although, having said that, I guess the point of the section is less to cover the debate about origins and genetics per se (which is, in any event, dealt with in more detail in the narrative historical section) than to focus on the relationship between origin/origin myths and more modern identity. Bearing that in mind, the "conventional view" opening might be better after all; but some of the other changes I suggested are probably worth making. N-HH talk/edits 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Related peoples

We've had people adding these just now, and on previous occasions. Those added have ranged from Welsh and Scottish to German and Dutch. Given the vagueness of the term "related", the historical mix which helped create different modern "peoples" and the many ways in which different people can be said to be "related" (Culture? Political unit? Genetics?) I guess you can justify each of those at one level, and arguably we could just stick in every European neighbour, but I'm not sure where that's going to get us, especially when you start chucking in questions, for example, about whether the Cornish are entirely separate from, related to or merely a subset of the English. N-HH talk/edits 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate infoboxes and their ridiculous over-simplifications. They're far more trouble than they're worth and I wish we could just get rid of them altogether. Back to reality..."Related" is such a vague undefined term. Related culturally, linguistically, historically, genetically...? And it just begs to have a list based on 19th century pseudo-science. I support not having that parameter. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. English people are a mongrel mixture - much better to leave the parameter out of the infobox altogether. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The English are not a "mongrel mixture".The only people in Europe who are a mongrel mixture are countries like France & Italy. No where in England or Scotland are there people who are entirely ethnicaly different to each other as there is as much difference Northern Italy & Southern Italy. People from all regions of Britain cluster with each other, its not like Italy where one half clusters with a totally different people like Southern Italians & Sicilians do with Ashkenazi Jews, while Northern Italians cluster with Spaniards & Portuguese. This does not happen in England, the clustering in ALL regions is consistent which is why parts of England & Scotland are never seperated in genetic studies like Italy is by region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4ea:ca0:f481:792e:4ca7:d22 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 July 2013‎

Ah, the clusters from non-peer reviewed, amateur blog entries... it's not like people don't know Brits are a mongrel nation derrived from numerous migration waves. 188.124.93.223 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant people

I would like to open a discussion on the section of significant English people, as I felt that some could be replaced by more widely known individuals within the same field; e.g. musicians such as Freddie Mercury, Chris Martin, David Bowie etc. might be considered in place of Damon Albarn. Of course, the matter is subjective, so, what are your thoughts? 424ever(talk) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular music is already represented by George Harrison, but I don't see anyone from the world of classical music. What about Edward Elgar? DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the composer of one of English National anthems could be included -- in which case I nominate Wallace Willis as an honorary Englishman 😉. -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DeCausa. "High" culture isn't well represented: we could do with a composer, painter or poet. Tigerboy1966  07:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We have 3 from pop, 3 tv/film actors/celebs, 2 footballers but no one from the visual arts or classical music. That's not right. And Georgiana Cavendish...why? DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Damon Albarn shouldn't be in the collage! There are better selections, like Bryan Ferry or Kate Bush. Kate Bush would also be good for female represantion! 2.125.166.38 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

British

A key point is missing from this article. English people almost to a man and woman are likely to be British, ie UK passport holders. Let's improve this article and reflect this obvious fact. I look forward to comments and discussion. 89.243.217.176 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. There are over 100000000 English people around the world, only 46000000 are British. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of "British" nationality is a sore point for many English people, as well as for the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. A very large number of English people feel the term "British" takes away their sense of national identity. From an anthropological point of view, the term British, as a nationality, really means nothing, since Britain is a melting pot of at least five separate nations with their own languages and ethnic identity, the English, the Welsh, the Cornish, the Manx, the Scottish, and the Irish. Throwing one's nationality into the British blender is not appealing to many in the UK. The majority of Scottish people self identify as Scottish and not British, the same is true for Welsh and Irish people. Until recently most English did identify as British, mostly because of embarrassment over colonization and the Empire, since the words England and English invoke images of imperialism. Recently, since the mid 20th century, English people have reversed their feelings and most now do self identify as English. There are many examples from Richard Dawkins, to Antony Flew, to Mick Jagger, and Mark E. Smith as people who identify as English. There is already an article about the British Isles, and the UK, so let the concept of a British nationality, if it does in fact exist, be discussed there. This page is expressly for England.--Newmancbn (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For at least the 100 years before the 1970s most English people would have looked confused if you asked them were they British or English, the two were synonymous in most English people's minds. Take example the use of flags at sporting events. Throughout most of the 20th century, the English flew the Union Flag at sporting events in which English teams competed. It was not until some time in the middle to late 1990s that English supporters started to fly the Cross of Saint George. If you listen to any of the recent television and radio content about the start of the Great War, i t is noticeable how many politicians of the era said English and England when today they would says British and Britain in similar circumstances, because the synonym between the terms has broken down. So if "'British' nationality is a sore point for many English people," it is a very new phenomenon and the evidence presented in the article does not support this contention (British identity, Guardian 2007), instead it presents a slow realisation that British and English are not one and the same thing, and that this means that cricket is not a British national sport. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this be removed?

Should "while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth." be removed, given at the beginning of the article, it is stated that this article is about nation and ethnic group? Clearly native people of other European countries and the Commonwealth are not ethnically English. There are of course "returnees" from Commonwealth countries whose forebears were ethnically English to begin with. There is also no reference source to the claim made, so it could be removed any way. 81.156.243.180 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a read of the discussions above and the archive and the Ethnic group article. "native people of other European countries and the Commonwealth" (may or) may not be ethnically English but that does not mean that those descended from them are not. Ethnicity is not determined by genetics (certainly not alone). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Eg Marc Isambard Brunel was a French immigrant, his son with his English wife, was Isambard Kingdom Brunel is considered to have been English by popular renown. He is not usually described as being half English/half French -- although I bet French history books emphasise that point. -- PBS (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

English identity

@Atotalstranger: I don't fully understand where you got the specific numbers from for this edit in which you state:

"2011 England and Wales census] reports that in the 80.5% of the population were white British, and that 42,279,236 of this group are part of the English ethnic group"

The source you quote states in a bullet point:

• White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).

If is not clear to me how you derived the 42,279,236 from the above cited web page. There is another web page from the same source: "Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales 2011" that states:

• English identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was the most common identity respondents chose to associate with, at 37.6 million people (67.1 per cent). English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities), was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7 per cent).

That seems to me that it contradict you calculation. Can you explain the difference?

-- PBS (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the 45.1 million figure is for England and Wales so some of the white British are also Welsh, I got the 42,279,236 from the other source I added. You can find the complete data from the 2011 census here Demography of England. Atotalstranger (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

PBS is correct to question this. The 2011 census in England and Wales did not ask about an English ethnic group but did ask respondents in England "How would you describe your national identity? Tick all that apply: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, Other, write in"[1] and respondents in Wales "How would you describe your national identity? Tick all that apply: Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, Other, write in".[2] Respondents were at liberty to include English whatever single ethnic group they then selected in the next question. The ONS report Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales 2011 does not cross-tabulate responses to those two questions and as far as I know the ONS has no plans to do so. It would be original research to attempt our own cross-tabulation, which would depend on a number of assumptions about the census respondents' views of themselves and how they reported those views on their census forms. I should also point out - though the above renders it irrelevant - that it would be a mistake to multiply the total population of the United Kingdom by a percentage for England and Wales. I have adjusted the infobox accordingly. NebY (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

English flag.

Can we add the English flag to this page as it talks about the English people. The British flag is not the English flag. Please respond! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.76.41 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Scotch

Whatever you might think of the term "Scotch" it is the one that is used in the quote so don't alter it as that then misrepresents the quote.

The term is regarded by some as wrong in Scotland because it has largely fallen out of use but it was formerly in much wider use in Scotland and still is so in may parts of the world. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Video clip on the origins of the British, including the English.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)