Talk:English people/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Islam and the English

It appears to be rather controversial whether or not the English are Muslim. I would argue that they are not as only 0.1% of white British people, which the English fall under, are Muslims, not really enough to require a specific mention when 'other religions' is mentioned, and that low a percentage would certainly fall under 'other religions'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperclip8 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

So only whites are British? Black people whose families have been here for centuries aren't English? How many generations does a southeast Asian family have to have to be English? Doug Weller talk 17:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How many generations does it take for a white Australian to be Aboriginal or a European in Japan to be Japanese? If this article is merely about people who live in England, then it's a useless article. This is about people who have an ethnic identity indigenous to the area of Britain corresponding to England. An Asian family living in England but who says "I'm Pakistani" might be resident in England but has no claim on the name English as their neighbours have who have ancestors that walked across from Europe during the last ice age. Twistedpiper (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If the article disabuses anyone of such misunderstandings about ethnicity as this then it is far from useless. What about such a family who says "I'm English", or both? Ethnic identities don't and often can't be pigeonholed into a single category. Nobody walking across from Europe held an ethnicity that was thousand of years from coming into being. Ethnicity is not genetic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Twistedpiper asks "How many generations does it take for a white Australian to be Aboriginal or a European in Japan to be Japanese?", but I think that ignores the possibility that some identities are easier to assimilate into than others. I'm not expert on Aboriginal populations, but that strikes me as a quite different case to the group now known as English, who have assimilated waves of migration over many centuries. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the cited sources, 5% of the population is Muslim, and Muslims form the largest non-Christian religion. It makes sense to list the largest non-christian religion. Meters (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And I agree with Doug Weller. This isn't an article about only "white" English people. Meters (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the English, an ethnic group, they are white, this is not just an article about people who happen to live in England. The 5% is for the population of England as a whole, for the English as a group, it is less than 1% Paperclip8 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why is French person whose ancestors came over in the early 20th century English and a Black person whose ancestry goes back to the 16th century not English? We call Shirley Bassey Welsh, how about you going to her article and removing that if you feel so strongly? Better yet, here's our category of Black English people: Category:Black English people. Go change all of there articles first, then come back. Sorry, but that is a racist perspective. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about an ethnicity, not a civic identity, because this is a page for an ethnic group. Living in a country for many generations does not make you a part of the ethnic group, that is not how ethnicity works. --Paperclip8 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this page needs separating so that the people who live in the nation of England and the English ethnic group have their own specific pages, to prevent future confusion, as these are two different groups, albeit with some overlap --Paperclip8 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Only if your definition has racial purity as a defining characteristic. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an ethnic group, there is a genetic factor to that. You are claiming that civic English people and ethnic English people are the same, I think that is completely wrong. Why is there a part on the diaspora if they are not ethnically English, they certainly aren't English on a civic basis. --Paperclip8 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. In any case, as I said, you need to go and change Shirley Bassey's article and all of the ones in the category of Black English people as you claim there aren't any. Then, if you're successful, you might have a leg to stand on. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You are conflating nationality and ethnicity, they are distinct things, those who are ethnically English are white, this is not racist, it is a fact, if I were to say that a white person was ethnically Han Chinese it would be considered absurd, this is the same thing Paperclip8 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paperclip8: you're ducking my questions. Why aren't you over at Shirley Bassey's article removing "Welsh" and ditto the articles on black English people? This article is about the nation and the ethnic group, it is just about the ethnic group. Why isn't a black person whose ancestors have been here for centuries English? How about someone with an English mother and an Indian father whose grandparents were born here? Does one drop of Indian or black blood make you not English? I really would like answers. Anyway, this article is called "English people", not "English ethnic group", right? Doug Weller talk 12:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Paperclip give us the precise date on which we can say the real English were born, that they indicate exactly how many drops pollute into non-whiteness, meaning non-Englishness, and why "English people" means "English ethnicity" in the English language. As for that whiteness of medieval England and Europe (I assume Paperclip is talking about that time?), some readers may want to read this article, which discusses what it is that racists see in the Middle Ages and has a few more useful links. BTW efforts are being made by Medievalists of color to open up the profession, not just so they can have jobs but also so that the field of study doesn't continue to be limited by racial bias. If people like Paperclip want groups "to have their own specific pages, to prevent future confusion", they can have that for themselves, in life and on the internet. For now, there is no confusion, unless by confusion they mean "miscegenation". Sock or not, their edit is not going to happen, and for now what I see is an SPA who is extraordinarily focused on one particular issue, not a Wikipedia editor. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm still watching this thread. I'm in full agreement with Drmies and Doug Weller. And by the way, the opening premise of this thread "It appears to be rather controversial whether or not the English are Muslim" is very badly misleading. There's no controversy that not all the English are Muslim. The controversy is over whether we should list Muslim (the largest non-Christian denomination) as one of the religions in the infobox. Meters (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Some interesting observations. But was Shirley Bassey Welsh? She may have been born in Wales, but did that actually make her Welsh? Her father was Nigerian, and her mother was English, from Teesside in the northeast of England. Rudyard Kipling was born in India but we surely wouldn't call him an Indian. A tricky issue. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.218.152 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Meters you want to discuss this problem? Anglopatriot (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ll wait til tomorrow but if you’re not even willing to discuss this problem then for good reason I’m gonna have to make the change again. Anglopatriot (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Do that and you get reverted and reported for edit warring -----Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Anglopatriot, pardon me for not living on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. Which edit is it you want to discuss? Your removal of the largest non-Christian religion, Muslim, has been undone three times now by three different editors, discussed at length above, and you have been given an edit warring warning for it. You called it "useless and unnecessary information which is already included in the link to religion in the U.K". and yet your other edit that I undid added multiple non-Christian religions which have even fewer English adherents that the Muslim religion. You explained that edit as "to better inform people who come to this page for information on the English". Seems more than a bit WP:POINTY, particularly when you then tried to remove Mulsims again as "Removed useless information that takes up space preventing this page from being as efficient as it can be". Meters (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Three weeks and not another edit here or anywhere else from Anglopatriot. It seems we're done. Meters (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what the problem is here. It's in essence that 'The English People' can be defined in more than one way. It can mean, say, 'Everyone who lives in England' or it can mean 'White Europeans indigenous to England and Lowland Scotland descended primarily from mixed Old British, Anglo-Saxon and Norman stock'.

Both these definitions are equally 'true'. Therefore it's a matter of choice of which one to use. Or to use both. I'd use both, whilst making clear the different usages. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.167.15 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that this IP-hopping sock, who for a time turned occasionally to editing as User:Cassandrathesceptic, scours around article talk pages in an attempt to turn them into WP:NOTFORUM platforms to sneak in their tenuously-related pet campaigns. This latest post transparently ignores the topic of this thread and is just a clumsy attempt to resurrect the "Scotland is also an English country" hot air above.

And, I'm not sure if your two definitions are intended seriously or are just padding to cloak mention of your camapaign but, patently not "Everyone who lives in England" is English (and not everyone who is English lives in England) and as for "White...". If that's the crucial word to start your definition, enough said. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history over the years it would appear that the consensus is that islam doesn’t belong here as over the many times it has been removed a select few moderators have added it back, just admit you want islam to be seen as important rather than making up some sad excuse that it’s “the consensus” when clearly he consensus is that islam doesn’t belong on this page, the only people that agree with that consensus are a small number of mods. AngloPatriot89 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)— AngloPatriot89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nope, what I see in this discussion at least is two editors (three now with you) with less than two dozen edits between them, all editing only this article for the same reason. And a number of other very experienced editors. Note that there are no "mods". Doug Weller talk 11:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t you look at the edit history of this page where there has been at least two editors (three including you) reverting any of the many changes put forward over the years to remove islam from this page you are in the minority and the consensus is that islam doesn’t belong here, according to Wikipedia’s own rules you are in the wrong here. AngloPatriot89 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To address your comment in this edit summary, I do not have an informed view on whether the infobox should include mention of Islam, but I reverted you because you had failed to establish consensus for the removal here on the talk page. Your response to my revert was to edit war. By the way, edit summaries such as this suggest that your motives are not so much factual accuracy but prejudice. Please put your personal opinions aside and consider the evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. Enough of this edit-warring. I've fully protected the page. Any attempt to carry out the edits after the protection lapses will be dealt with via blocks. I suggest that single-purpose accounts (see WP:SPA) try to broaden their editing behaviour a bit more. And before you say anything more, User:AngloPatriot89, I will say that you are lucky to have escaped a block this time. Read WP:3rr.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

To be direct, given that User:AngloPatriot89 is clearly edit warring and claiming a consensus on the talk page which does not exist then I would have thought a block was more effective that preventing experienced editors, who are simply respecting consensus, from editing. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. @Ddstretch: I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglopatriot. If this isn't actual socking, it's the result of something offwiki. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: Now that the sockpuppet investigations have uncovered their activities and they have been blocked, I have unblocked the page. If similar edits occur, then I suggest they are dealt with firmly and decisively using blocks, and a partial protection may be in order.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've struck through the sockpuppet's edits. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Look you lot, you're not looking at this properly. English people, who are an ethnic white group of people, are white.The largest religion is Protestant Christianity. Islam makes up less than one per cent of English people (who are, by definition,white). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.2.247 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• The only way to put this perennial discussion to rest is to have two articles, English people (nationality) and English people (ethnic group), since the English language, unlike some other langauges, use the same word for both nationality and ethnicity, causing problems on multiple articles on WP, i.e. not only on this article but also on several other articles where the English language uses the same name for both the nationality and the ethnicity. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

From which of these categories are you aiming to exclude the people that "Look you lot" above wants excluded? English Muslims, white or otherwise, would fit just as much in these categories as they do in this one. How are you defining "English people (nationality)". It's what this article is already about, unless you mean citizenship, of which there is no such thing. Likewise "English people (ethnic group)" is what this article is already about, unless you are of the belief that skin colour has a bearing on ethnicity, as LYL (under various identities) seems to be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on what ethnicity means. Hint: "An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation. Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance.", which means that immigrating to a country doesn't automatically make someone a member of the ethnic group/s of the country one moves to, even after becoming a naturalised citizen of the country one moves to. And no, I'm definitely not a racist ("Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another", which means that merely noting differences in physical appearance, culture etc does not make anyone a racist...), but I do know what words mean. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"based on the society in which one lives". Immigrating may not "automatically make someone...", neither does it automatically exclude them, nor is it particularly likely to in a modern, open society. What society do you think these people are living in?

Your support for LYL's call for changes to be made would imply you find validity in their opinion that change, at least, is needed. If you don't in fact agree with their viewpoint that skin colour has a bearing on ethnicity, what is the reason for agreeing with the need for change? Since you raised racism, are you saying that you find LYL's views racist and you wish to disassociate yourself from them, or that you share them but do not view them as racist? What would be the difference between your "nationality" and "ethnic group" articles and how would you define them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I must admit a certain amount of sympathy for some of the views expressed in this talk page. What is the required level of adherence amongst the white English population for a religion to be named itself rather than it appear in the "other religions" section? I note that on the 'Islam in England' page it says "179,733 Muslims who described themselves as 'white' in the 2001 census. 65% of white Muslims described themselves as "other white"..." Is 63,733 the threshold needed? If so, do we need to list every religious perspective with more than 63,733 or equal in the "Religion" section of the box? Alssa1 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of your post may be incorrect but you appear to view being white as a fundamental requirement of being English. Can you clarify if that is the case please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: That would depend on what you mean by "being English"; are you referring to English ethnicity (in the sense that the Igbo people of Nigeria are an ethnicity) or are you referring to what could be described as English nationality? Because this page seems to deal with English people as an ethnicity. Alssa1 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

See above as to why viewing things as depending upon this is problematic. Being ‘’ethnically’’ English, then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: I would say that ethnicity does have a racial characteristic; and that position seems to be supported on both this page and others (through the cited population numbers of English people in the UK). I fail to see any legitimacy in the claims of it being "problematic" or "racist" though, why would there be an issue on that basis? I am a white British person, if I was born in Igboland, Nigeria I don't think anyone would consider me a member of the Igbo people (that's not a commentary on whether I would be a Nigerian though). Alssa1 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What is problematic, again per above, is defining "English people (nationality)" (e.g. there is no such thing in a citizenship sense) and of distinguishing it from "English people (ethnic group)". There are denials of racism here but no claims; I have only discussed the validity of views as expressed, I have not characterised them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, when you said "problematic" I thought you were referring to the concept of Ethnicity and it's link to race. When it comes to Nationality in the British context, there seems to be a distinct lack of clarity on WP about how to proceed. On other pages, such as those for Nationalist politicians like Adam Price (as well as past leaders of Plaid Cymru and previous SNP leaders/politicians), his nationality is listed as Welsh; when of course if we are to define Nationality as citizenship, his nationality is British. In my opinion we need to draw a distinction between nationality and ethnicity, for the reasons suggested by Twistedpiper earlier: if a white British family moved to Australia and lived there for hundreds of years, I don't think we could legitimately call that family an aboriginal family (unless of course they intermarried). I'm eager to hear your views on these points Mutt Lunker. Alssa1 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To have such a discussion on this article's talk page would be firmly in WP:NOTFORUM territory, though I'll note that your intended analogy is very poor on a number of counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I must disagree with you on the WP:NOTFORUM statement, I for one am approaching this discussion with the intention of creating an encyclopedia and it is for that reason that I am engaging in this discussion in the first place. A discussion surrounding the issue(s) with the "English people" page and whether it refers to an ethnic group or simply people who live in England (as well the community-agreed meaning of "Ethnic group"), is fundamental to creating a quality online encyclopedia and clearing up any confusion that might exist. Do you not agree? Alssa1 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Matt, clearly trying to make a point and trying to create an either/or set of extremes in that last statement. You need to bring some citation based evidence to support your proposition otherwise I think this is over -----Snowded ^TALK 16:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The only proposition (if it can be truly described as that) I am proposing is one of clarity; we should be clear as to what the purpose of this page actually is. I state the need for clarity because the information in the box demonstrates a confusion as to the purpose of the page. If we define English people as being 'people who live in England', then the stats "80-100 million worldwide" (yes I know it requires citation) and the "25-50 million" in the USA (etc etc) are wrong and should not appear on the page. However if we define English people as being an Ethnic group (if we have a community-agreed understanding of what that means) then the "25-50 million" stat for the USA is correct and should appear on the page. If we define in the ethnic sense, the only reason we would continue to mention Islam by name in the box (as opposed to having it in the "other" section) is if there's a threshold of 63,733 (see earlier) adherents needed to included by name. Alssa1 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. On any understanding of ethnicity or the related concept of a 'people' the assimilation of other cultures and religions is common place. You need to provide some references to establish the question you are asking.-----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I need a source to justify asking for clarity on your position regarding the issue(s) mentioned? That makes very little sense to me. What is this false dichotomy you speak of? Alssa1 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

When it makes sense provide the data and I'll look at it -----Snowded ^TALK 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

In all these cases, given this is Wikipedia, the first question to ask is What do the reliable sources say? because without these, one falls into the problem of carrying out original research. So, all we need to do at this point is keep on asking what the reliable sources say English people consist of until those really wishing to add or change material and who want to write an encyclopaedic wikipedia provide an answer.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded:+@Ddstretch:The British government holds the position that "Race and ethnicity are seen more as interchangeable concepts than distinct categories." (Under the "Ethnicity and Race" tab). The ONS recommended survey question only offers the possibility of being defined as "English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish..." in England under the broader category of 'White'. The American census under section F-4 (numbered 103) lists English people under the Race category of "White". Therefore I think it's safe to say (and not an example of original research) that being ethnically English has a strong link to being white (at least in the opinion of these government bodies). This, along with the fact that the English people page lists the population of English people in the UK as 37.6 million, rather than 53.01 million (the population of England as of the 2011 census) suggests that the definition of English people is not simply people who happen to live in England. With this in mind (and referring back to the original topic at hand), I don't think we should include Islam by name in the 'religion' section because only 63,733 of people in England of a white British background (and therefore not all of them are specifically English) were adherents of Islam. As always I am eager to read your contributions/responses. Alssa1 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Produce some reliable sources as the basis of any argument (rather than your interpretation of selective primary sources). Until you do that this conversation is over -----Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. The interchangeability or otherwise of two social constructs tells us nothing here. I don’t think anyone is under the impression that this is an article about (all) “people who happen to live in England”. Neither do all the people encompassed in the article live in England. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mutt Lunker , I think you almost offered a full response to the issue that I've put across. If no one"...is under the impression that this is an article about (all) “people who happen to live in England”, why do we have Islam as a named religion in the box as opposed to having represented under the "other religions"? Shall I take the WP:BOLD position and remove it as an individually-named religion in that box? Alssa1 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If that is your understanding of the points being put across to you, maybe the central issue is one of WP:COMPETENCE. Please read them again. The article is not about all people who happen to live in England, only the English ones, plus English people in other countries. Considerable numbers of them have Islam as a religion, not just your small cherry-picked sub-set. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: 1.) If this article isn't defining English people as "people who happen to live in England", how does it (/you) define English people? That is a question I've asked multiple times that has not been answered, yet remains the linchpin upon which the issues surrounding this topic stem from.

2.) If this article is about English people globally why do we cite stats and pages in the religious section specifically about England and make additions to the page based upon that?

3.) You assert that "Considerable numbers" of English people in other countries have Islam as a religion; can you provide the stat for that please? I wouldn't make claims about my competence if you're unable/unwilling to provide the evidence to justify your assertions.

4.) You've accused me of a number of instances of intellectual malpractice, which is undoubtedly very productive and definitely demonstrates that you wish to further the purposes of this encyclopedia. I've given some primary sources (which were long-standing sources on this page), I've offered an explanation and I have repeatedly asked you for comment/explanations. Instead you throw up 'walls', throw insults about and refuse to engage in any constructive manner. You say I have cherry-picked, be specific and explain how I have cherry-picked. Alssa1 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You're on a political mission, trying to use wikipedia to make a point, or it an issue of your competence. Either way, enough is enough. You have no support form other editors, you are simply repeating yourself - its not worth it. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'm not on a political mission, I've said multiple times that I want clarity. There is no set definition that I'm advocating for, nor a political position I'm trying to further. All I have done is stated that I don't think we have a definition, asked for a definition (in case I've missed it), answered and expanded upon my answer to Mutt's question, and finally tried to piece together some semblance of an answer because you (as a group of editors) don't seem to want to answer my question(s). When it comes to my competence, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the recommended practice in relation to someone who's WP:COMPETENCE is in question; such as: "(a) direct explanation and (b) showing the better way." and "Telling people their work displays incompetence does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction." "Rude and uncivil comments may discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills." Alssa1 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing requires us to carry on repeating explanations is the face of ongoing intransigence by a single editor and sorry, I can't see any other reading of your persistence than you having some political mission/strong belief. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, you haven't read what I've written. Alssa1 (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page for an opinion. Race is a mutli-meaning concept, and some of those meanings are both indistinct and of dubious existence; while ethnicity is a very fuzzy concept and tends to mean whatever one wants it to. It is impossible to covey the situations in a few words.Therefore my opinion tends to be that this sort of discussion is not helpful. Instead, there are many places in WP where we need to add content and references. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits involving the genetic ancestry of the English

I was told to explain my edits on the talk page. According to Wikipedia policy, I actually do not need to do so since my edits are taken almost verbatim from a valid academic source, while the previous paragraph contained OR and was uncited. My edit is thus valid, and should remain. The Kingdom of England was first formed, and traces its origin today, to the House of Wessex in the early 10th century. It was done so in response to the Danish Viking invasions, when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms unified. With regards to Danish and Norman settlements, they were shown by the study I cite to have left only a minor genetic impact on the English population, and that the English population clusters identified - South/Central England (Red - the largest grouping consisting of most of England), West Yorkshire, Devon, Northumbria and Cumbria all have most of their descent to the Celtic (or Bronze Age "Beaker") and Anglo-Saxon populations.

The fine scale genetic structure of the British population:

"After the Saxon migrations, the language, place names, cereal crops, and pottery styles all changed from that of the existing (Romano-British) population to those of the Saxon migrants. There has been ongoing historical and archaeological controversy about the extent to which the Saxons replaced the existing Romano-British populations. Earlier genetic analyses, based on limited samples and specific loci, gave conflicting results. With genome-wide data we can resolve this debate. Two separate analyses (ancestry profiles and GLOBETROTTER) show clear evidence in modern England of the Saxon migration, but each limits the proportion of Saxon ancestry, clearly excluding the possibility of long-term Saxon replacement. We estimate the proportion of Saxon ancestry in C./S England as very likely to be under 50%, and most likely in the range 10%-40%.

A more general conclusion of our analyses is that while many of the historical migration events leave signals in our data, they have had a smaller effect on the genetic composition of UK populations than has sometimes been argued. In particular, we see no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region (cf. Orkney), or in estimated ancestry profiles, suggesting a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings and subsequent mixing with nearby regions, and clear evidence for only a minority Norse contribution (about 25%) to the current Orkney population."

Figure 3 showing the major events of the peopling of England: [1]

Epf2018 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another study showing the dual Anglo-Saxon and Celtic majority ancestry of the English Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history

"Although there is only a slight genetic cline from north to south at a coarse level, recent analyses have revealed considerable fine-scale genetic structure in the Northern and Western parts of Great Britain, alongside striking homogeneity in Southern and Eastern England in the regions where archaeologists identify early Anglo-Saxon artifacts, cemeteries and communities. A variety of estimates of the fraction of Anglo-Saxon genetic ancestry in England have been given, with the recent fine structure analysis suggesting most likely 10–40% (ref. 4)."

"Our analysis of early and middle Anglo-Saxon samples from East England adds significantly to our picture of the Anglo-Saxon period in Britain. In the cemetery at Oakington we see evidence even in the early Anglo-Saxon period for a genetically mixed but culturally Anglo-Saxon community."

"Given the mixing apparent ∼500 CE, and that the modern population is not more than 40% of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, it is perhaps surprising that the middle Anglo-Saxon individuals from the more dispersed field cemetery in Hinxton look more genetically consistent with unmixed immigrant ancestry. One possibility is that this reflects continued immigration until at least the Middle Saxon period."

"We estimate that the modern-day East English population derives on average 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrants. We give evidence for mixing of migrants and natives (Iron Age Celts) in the early Anglo-Saxon period, and we show that the Anglo-Saxon migrants studied here have close ancestry to modern-day Dutch and Danish populations."

Epf2018 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As of 2019 and stephen oppenheimers out of Iberia theories are still on here? I have put in Reich's bell beaker stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Germanic

are the english germanic and so should be described as such in the intro, to change from "english are a nation and ethnic group" to "english are a germanic ethnic group" 83.185.92.238 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The English people (in the strictest sense of it, disregarding immigrants that have arrived during the past couple of centuries...) are a mix between Germanic and Brytonic/Celtic people, and can not be described as just Germanic. The English language is usually described as a West Germanic language, but the English people are a mix. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no pure nation anywhere. There are no hybrid nations, and the claim that English are a "mix" is pure assumption. Whilst Celtic and Romance peoples have certainly assimilated into English society, the entire crop of Romance nations were likewise overwhelmed historically by Gothic (Germanic) invasions and eventual assimilation into the Romance identity. We don't know that the first Englishman picked off the street has Celtic or Romance ancestry. We know that he CANNOT be without Germanic ancestry except for if he knows his parents (or all grandparents) to have immigrated but he has abandoned his roots. But if this person's pedigree can be traced back centuries on English soil, then he will certainly have Germanic blood, but no guarantee of Romance or Celtic. Additionally, it is sourced that the English are listed as Germanic, [2], [3]. They're not listed as Romance or Celtic anywhere. It is merely acknowledged that the latter two tribal societies have merged into English, just as Slavic has permeated eastern Germany, Germanic has permeated West and East Slavic, and Celtic has its vestiges in every corner of the west of Eurasia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at the two sources noted above. The first one has several inaccuracies (eg population), serious over-simplifications and some outright howlers. It refers to the Kingdom of England as a current entity and also believes that it "shares the island with (amongst others) the territories of the Northumbrians... and Cornish". This is not a source of quality. I haven't checked out the second source's provenance but, unless the passage can be pinpointed, I can see no support for the assertion. It discusses historic tribes, not contemporary peoples. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Lunker. What do you mean "discusses historic tribes, not contemporary peoples. Are you claiming that there is no continuity between modern English and antique English? A sort of a Macedonians Mark II theory? --Edin balgarin (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That there is an element of continuity clearly does not, simplistically, make them one and the same thing, with the same descriptors appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You've just destroyed your own argument. You've admitted continuity and that is the end of the historic tribe narrative. So now that we know the English people ARE Germanic, and that this is something that IS being acknowledged in sources, there are no further arguments for its absence from the opening sentence. As stated elsewhere in this thread, the fact that the Germanic ancestors to the modern English came into contact with non-Germanic elements neither warrants the classification of English into a new category, nor does it provide a disclaimer to excuse them from the wider grouping. The sources which categorise the outstanding nations as Germanic all include English, not one withstanding (see Dutch people, Germans, Frisians and the rest. In fact if you read the Minahan sources on Luxembourgers, it says that Luxembourgers are a Germanic ethic group OF MIXED GERMAN AND FRENCH BACKGROUND. This, according to proponents of "deny Germanic" narratives on this article is a blatant infraction because the Luxembourgers are evidently not a pure breed. -Edin balgarin (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

See alsoenglandandenglishhistory.com. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

per above comment 83.185.85.204 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not canvas. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:APPNOTE, notifying editors previously involved in a discussion is permitted. I have previously been involved in this discussion.[4] Your allegation of canvassing is unfounded. Krakkos (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• IP users, please stop adding and removing the {{rfc}} tag. It's breaking inward links, messing up the RfC listing pages, causing unnecessary re-notifications and is generally disrupting the RfC process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That first book is by James Minahan, the main source for our article on Stateless Nations. He's a popular independent researcher, writes a lot of books and gets referenced, but I think he's a terrible source and don't trust him. And that was before User:Mutt Lunker commented above. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• There is of course significant non-Germanic (primarily Celtic) ancestry among the English people. Similar mixed ancestry is found among almost all ethnic groups in the world. Nevertheless, the ethnolinguistic affiliation is generally included in the first sentence of the lead of articles on ethnic groups at Wikipedia. I see no valid reason that there should be an exception for the article on English people in this regard. Consistency is valued at Wikipedia. English people are described as Germanic in several quality sources:

• Tomasz Wicherkiewicz (Professor of sociolinguistics at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań): "The Germanic [peoples] still include: Englishmen, Dutchmen, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Saxons. Therefore, [in the same way] as Poles, Russians, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians belong to the Slavic [peoples]..."[5]
• George C. Homans (Professor of sociology at Harvard University, President of the American Sociological Association, and a prominent English studies scholar): "The English are ultimately of Germanic origin, as are the Flemish, Dutch, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders."[6] Krakkos (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose Krakkos's pestilential ethno-linguistic crusade infecting this article. The English are almost never described as a Germanic people, for very good reasons. Just say no! Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No such thing as "almost never", either something is or isn't. The English are certainly never referred to as a Celtic people, and that is a certain 'never'. As for the rest of the argument, perhaps you or someone opposed to the sources would like to nominate a nation whose population is 100% pure. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"are ultimately of "x" origin" means something entirely different to "are "x"" anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we just stop wasting time on this - its been persistent vandalism and species specious arguments for years now -----Snowded ^TALK 15:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean "specious". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see the justification in defining the English solely as X or solely Y. Like Johnbod, I fundamentally oppose Krakkos's amendments. Alssa1 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a justification in the proposal. The refusal to define English as solely X or Y is based on the irrelevant knowledge of a Celtic substrate and a later Romance (French Norman) influx. But when a Celtic speaker in Cornwall or a one-time Norman French speaker assimilated into English society and called even called himself "English", based on "Angle" (something not even my people can boast as we are Slavic but bear the name of a non-Slavic race, the Bulgars) then the Celtic or Romance past has been abandoned. When I went to school, all of our textbooks and teachers taught us that the English were a Germanic people as were the Dutch. They never implied that there was no mixture. The point being missed by so many is what it means for Croats to be Slavic, for Latvians to be Baltic and for Karelians to be Finnic. It is not a claim that they have never mixed heavily with outsiders. It is a claim that those outsiders through adopting the language and naming conventions no longer found themselves a separate society. A Celtic substrate existed from the British Isles all the way to the Alps and Carpathians. --Edin balgarin (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification to anything without reliable third party sources -----Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I know that. We've provided sources. It is a bundle of editors who are opposing those sources based on something I can only describe as special pleading. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything which isn't original research or synthesis I'm afraid. I don't think its special pleading. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to read through this thread again, post by post from the start. The SYNTH and OR is from the analysis of the deniers of the sources we've given, based on their own takes - and that alone, is special pleading in no finer feather. --Edin balgarin (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not have made that comment without reading through the posts - and I've also had to clear up a lot of vandalism on this in past from various IPs and editors. Its a crusade based on selective quotation and interpretation and a waste of everyone's time. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well if you've read the posts then you know that denialism of Germanic heritage is down to personal interpretation of specific editors (i.e. OR and SYNTH) rather than the conveying of academic sources. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK I just found this discussion and want to leave one comment for people to think about. Turkish people are called "a Turkic ethnic group" when in reality they are not. They are Turkic speaking. So to call English people Celto-Germanic leaves us with a problem, because it's not being applied on other population like the Turks. We don't call them Anatolian or call them "Turko-Anatolian". I think we should adopt one central rule and regarding ethnic and linguistic groups and apply it everywhere to avoid these constant arguments. I think calling them "Germanic speaking people" is a good start until we can adopt a central rule.User:Persian Lad

I'm not sure what you mean "Turks are not Turkic" but it is clearly an absurd remark. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly then are the English if not a West Germanic people? What exactly is a Celt ethnically, or a Germanic ethnically? Or a Slav ethnically? The Proto-Germanic language, just like Proto-Celtic, originated in a small area of continental Europe and spread outwards, partially through conquest and partially through cultural conversion and absorption of speakers of other Indo-European langues, just like any ethnolinguistic group. Why on Earth would the English need to be "of 100% Germanic ancestry" to be classed as Germanic, that is absolute nonsense. No Germanic peoples today are "of 100% Germanic ancestry" except maybe small numbers of people in the core area of northern Germany and southern Scandinavia where the languages/cultures emerged.

It was the EXACT SAME for Celtic languages/culture when it actually existed. There's no such thing as being of Celtic or Germanic or Slavic descent. What utter nonsense. By this same logic none of the traditionally viewed as Celtic nations of the British Isles are actually Celtic because the people spoke different languages before Proto-Celtic ever spread into the British Isles? That seems to be how it works, right? So basically 97% of Europe is just pre-Celtic, pre-Germanic... heck nearly all of Europe is basically just pre-Indo-European because apparently your ethnolinguistic group does not change when your people start speaking the languages and practicing the cultures of a different ethnolinguistic group

Article "Now 90% of England agrees: being English is not about colour"

See[7]. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in disagreement with the principle here but I'm failing to see the point. I never would have challenged an individual in the first place for identifying as English despite being of a darker skin tone which reflects family origin from lower latitudes. Equally "90% of England agrees" is part-circular because unless one has threshed from the beginning (separating a "pure" from a "bastardised" English), the figure in agreement is bound to include those newer darker-skinned generations. But as I've pointed out in the other thread, your ethnicity is how you declare yourself, whether the majority see you that way or not. The statistics will record you according to how you declare your own self. I don't know if this is intended to buttress the earlier discussion which aimed to delist English as Germanic but all I can say is that this is a recurrent theme in developed states where economic migration has occurred. There are some offshoots to Turkish immigrants in Germany who choose to identify as German over Turkish and many Germans (though probably not 90% of the full figure) who accept them. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Again I'm in agreement with you largely but I do think "looking English" (effectively looking white, looking like a northern European) is a fairly reasonable component of national identity, the same way it is for many other groups. This may be changing now due to various factors but I think a prevailing amount of people will see darker pigmented English people or phenotypically nonstandard English people as "less English" than lighter pigmented people with northern European phenotypes, despite their language and place of birth. It's definitely a far cry away from claiming people who look identical to one another, speak the same language natively and even border each other do not belong to the same ethnolinguistic group, that is English/West Germanic etc. etc. People who try and bring up "are Africans/Indians etc. etc. who natively speak English English then" in order to delegitimize the idea that white English speakers of the British Isles are all of the same ethnolinguistic group are being rather ridiculous, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Amalgamation"

"The English largely descend from two main historical population groups – the earlier Celtic Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes who settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans: the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians"

Well, they're not really, are they? How are they descended from the Celtic Britons when the Celtic Britons themselves are just descended from continental Celts and pre-Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles. And those pre-Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles are just descended from proto-Indo-Europeans and the 10% of pre-proto-Indo-Europeans that they did not annihilate/genocide?

The culture and language comes from the Germanic groups, so they trace their descent from them, not the Celtic Britons. The Celtic Britons were absorbed/assimilated into the Germanic identity, once they started speaking Germanic languages they ceased to be Celtic Britons anymore as Celtic Briton is more of a cultural/linguistic rather an ethnic term. They don't remain Celtic, which is a linguistic/cultural term, after they become English/Germanic. Especially considering they had only been "Celtic" for around 1000 years (bearing in mind 400 of that is Roman occupation) at most before the Germanic tribes settled and spread their culture/languages over the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So, e.g., all anglophone people, in the Commonwealth, the wider former British Empire and elsewhere, having adopted English or had it thrust upon them, have become "Germanic peoples" have they? It is the language which is Germanic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's their native, primary day to day language then yes, effectively they are. What else would they be? I think it's a reach to equate northern Europeans (who are extremely similar genetically and phenotypically) switching from Celtic languages to Germanic languages to sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians speaking English as their native language but technically in the broadest sense of the term the latter would still be English/Germanic too.

Yes, the language is Germanic and thus its speakers are Germanic. What else would they be? Semitic? Celtic? Slavic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You're also flagrantly ignoring the fact that those inhabitants of the British Isles once upon a time did not speak Celtic languages. So they were never really Celtic in the first place, according to your own strange logic, is that correct? What were they then? When did they become Celtic, and why are they not Germanic now?

See we have a fairly consistent, logical stance and approach to this. Yours is all over the place and is ridiculously contradictory and riddled with holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Genetic History of Britain

The Wikipage on the Genetic History of the British Isles is worth reading and linking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

Here's just one sentence from it: "Most of Scotland showed a very similar genetic composition to England".

The genetic history of Britain is extremely mixed, so mixed that it strikes me that all attempts to categorise and distinguish most British people today from one another are doomed to failure - and that arguments on the subject are never likely to reach any meaningful conclusion.

A friend, whose documented ancestry can be traced back generations to one Pennine valley, recently took a DNA test. The epicentre of people with a similar DNA profile however turned out to be in modern Belgium!

How did that happen? Possibly the seldom-mentioned Frisian component of 'Anglo-Saxon' settlement was responsible. But who now can say?

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.15.48 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this but I've read all 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' DNA of the British Isles was originally very similar anyway as they both ultimately descended from the same population blocs a few thousand years ago. That is to say the people of the British Isles, regardless of what languages they spoke, cluster extremely closely with other northwestern Europeans (Dutch, northwest Germans, Norwegians etc.) than they do with any of the other peoples that used to be Celtic in Iberia and other southern regions of Europe.

It's apparently very difficult for researchers to determine whether a person is of 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' descent in the British Isles, and it begs the question was it ever relevant to either groups at any point in human history what your genetic clustering data showed? Or was it perhaps, you know, almost entirely based on language and looking like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like to point out that Hungarians cluster very closely genetically with West Slavs and other surrounding people, they do not cluster genetically closely with Turkic peoples or their fellow Uralic speaking Finns. However nobody would call Hungarians West Slavs, and nobody would group them in an ethnic sense with the Slavic and Germanic peoples neighboring them who they are closest to genetically.

It also creates a minefield with ethnic groups like Germans or Russians, who are very varied genetically by region, is there no German ethnic group? I think most Germans would beg to differ, but I'm not sure. The obsession with genetics in the British Isles in determining ethnic status is bizarre to me, and I can only assume it is down to the fact that the people of the British Isles are so indistinguishable in every other aspect (language, phenotype, general society etc.).

They have regional identities and cultures/traditions, sure, but so does every other large ethnolinguistic group. I honestly have to wonder sometimes why the actual Celts remaining don't take serious issue with English people masquerading as Celts today, is it not ethnolinguistic appropriation? Does it not devalue the term Celtic and put them at even greater risk of true extinction when all it apparently takes to be Celtic is existing in the same region that Celtic peoples once thrived in?

Why would any children of Celts remaining even bother to keep the languages and traditions that the Celts first got their name from alive if it doesn't even have a bearing on your ethnolinguistic classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

...and per the thread above, you can strike this too as WP:NOTFORUM applies equally to this off-topic and obscure pontification that makes no attempt at addressing improvements to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And Lowland Scots?

Historically the English Kingdom of Northumbria extended as far north as the Firth of Forth. Even in Medieval times the people there still described themselves as 'English in the Kingdom of the Scots'. It's why the Scots today speak English and not Gaelic. These lowlanders were English then, and, arguably, are still ethnically English today. The history is complicated, confusing and seldom-mentioned, but nothing about these English Scots seems to feature in the article even though it is an important bit of the story of Britain. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.246.225 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, sadly this seems to be the accepted delusion of the age. That we trace no ethnolinguistic descent from the Anglo-Saxons and ultimately the Proto-Germanic peoples before them. This is a thing associated with the geographic area now known as England (even though like you mention Northumbria spread into large areas of Scotland), thus it is not our history... apparently.

The Celts are our TRUE history, despite them almost certainly spreading their languages and culture to the British Isles in exactly the same manner Germanic peoples did, and only around 1000 years before, if even. And the ironic thing perhaps is that they spread theirs from Germany too, just the southern part. The most hilarious aspect about this modern disassociation of the inhabitants of Scotland with anything English and Germanic is that the original homeland of the Proto-Celtic peoples is actually geographically further away from us than the original homeland of the Proto-Germanic peoples.

I wonder how embracing we would be of our Gaelic history if we constantly referred to the Gaels by their more authentic contemporary name (or at least meaning of the name), Irish. Or obsessed over the fact that most inhabitants of the British Isles were not actually genetically 'Celtic' either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Mutt a while back where I posed him a question, which he did not answer. His stance was seemingly that the people of Scotland were not English nor Germanic in an ethnic sense because they once spoke other languages before they adopted English. If this was the case, then surely nobody in Scotland was ever an ethnic Gael? Surely we must describe the inhabitants of Scotland as Gaelic-speaking always and never as ethnic Gaels, since clearly they spoke languages before they adopted the Gaelic tongue (whether it was by force or willingly). The inhabitants of Scotland were truly Picts all along! They just spoke the Gaelic tongue! And what were they before Picts? Or even Celts? Or even... Proto-Indo-Europeans? Hmmm. Gets very weird and redundant when you adopt this "ancestry defines our ethnolinguistic grouping" stance. I suppose with the Proto-Indo-Europeans its fair to say most who remained were not descended from the ones before them, since they massacred 90% of the inhabitants, apparently, or replaced them through some other means.

It's a strange disconnect we seem to have with our modern identity. And a strange inability to distinguish between ethnic English and political English. To put it into perspective, the kings of England and much of the elite were politically English after 1066, but to call them ethnically English would be beyond a stretch, at least the earlier ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Strike this thread now, firstly as Wikipedia is not a forum for rambling general discussion and secondly for the sustained campaign here, at my talk page and elsewhere, of attribution to me of statements and views that I have never expressed. Fail to do so and I will take this to WP:ANI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"So, e.g., all anglophone people, in the Commonwealth, the wider former British Empire and elsewhere, having adopted English or had it thrust upon them, have become "Germanic peoples" have they? It is the language which is Germanic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)"

What? Are you denying you claimed English people are not West Germanic due to 'non-Germanic' assimilation and absorption? It is an attempt to improve the article by having the English people labelled what they are, West Germanic, something you are obsessively attempting to block and obfuscate through selective reasoning that apparently applies to no other ethnolinguistic group on Earth other than the English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Dutch people, or the Dutch, are a Germanic ethnic group and nation native to the Netherlands.[12][13][14][15][16][17] They share a common culture and speak the Dutch language."

Do you care to explain to me then, Mutt, how the Dutch are a Germanic ethnic group and the English are not? Are you of the opinion the Dutch have never absorbed or assimilated non-Germanic peoples into their greater ethnic identity over the centuries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You present a quote, attribute a statement to me which is not in it then ask if I'm going to deny it? ANI it is then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Remiss of me not to link the ANI, here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As to supposed selective reasoning re descriptions of other peoples, this analagous edit at Scottish people is presumably something you approve of, having effectively repeated it yourself a year later. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with that, if the people of Scotland spoke Celtic languages today. I absolutely agree that the 1% of native Gaelic speakers in Scotland are unequivocally ethnic Gaels/Celts and so forth. I would not classify those people, nor the Gaelic ethnic bloc which existed in Scotland over the past 1500 years or so as anything but Celtic.

It goes into a much wider debate, what is the Scottish ethnic group. Is it Gaels or English? You can't be both, you're one or the other, and AT PRESENT 1% of Scotland is Celtic while 99% of Scotland is Germanic, whether that's through English or Scots doesn't matter a huge deal.

Formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain

Just to note, I mad a change in the lead of this article to reflect the fact that the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the unification of the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland. The previous sentence made it appear as though England became Great Britain, which isn't accurate. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Terming Northern Ireland a nation

Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation" so this edit is not appropriate. What's more it is notably regarded as being part of one nation or part of another by various communities. The previous wording is clear and neutral. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source to justify the claim that "Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation""? The edit you're trying to (re)insert is overturning an edit ([8]) that has been in place un-controversially since 29 January 2018. Interestingly enough, you have also made numerous edits of this page (and specifically that section of the page) multiple times since January 2018, so would you also explain why have you taken issue with this particular point now? Alssa1 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Take your pick from the sources included at Northern_Ireland#Descriptions.

As you are fully aware, the issue has previously been raised, in mid-August. I am not au fait with, nor have necessarily read, every word in every article I have ever edited, let alone approved them all. I was made aware of this point when raised by @BeenAroundAWhile:. I am receptive to points of view that haven't previously occurred to me; you should try it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Your tone is becoming quite rude and I would appreciate if you adhere to the principles espoused in WP:Civility. But that is separate from the point at hand so I shall leave it be. You are recommending an edit of long-standing terminology, it is not my responsibility to jump to another WP page, and 'take my pick' of the sources to back up your case for the amendment you want; that's your job. You need to make the case, followed by choosing the reliable sources to back up that case. But remember; what you said originally is that the Northern Ireland is not "conventionally regarded as a nation", a WP page that simply discusses the controversy is not the same as being declaring that 'Northern Ireland is not conventionally considered a nation'. You're confusing Wikipedia's position (an impartial position) with your own (which is very partial). Alssa1 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please highlight the uncivil passages. You seem quick to take offence and, I'll note, actively on the lookout elsewhere to needlessly do so on the behalf of others who aren't, (just as a consensus was emerging, from which I subsequently implemented an edit, mutually satisfactory to the parties).

Though none of the sources in the "Description" section at Northern Ireland in any way support the use of the term "nation", I'll highlight the passages and sources which most directly dismiss it as a suitable term:

"D. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books, "...what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? ... 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd" (my empahsis)

"Unlike England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland has no history of being an independent country or of being a nation in its own right."

"The absence of a distinct nation of Northern Ireland, separate within the island of Ireland, is also pointed out as being a problem with using the term"

References

Please cite your sources that, in contrast, support the notion of Northern Ireland as a nation. There may be some in Ulster nationalist sources but I have my doubts that they'd be regarded as neutral here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We did this to death years ago and there were solid references to the four nations or four countries of the UK and if anything they are becoming more frequent. The whole discussion was mediated, documented and resolved. Subsequently it was agreed to qualify NI but not remove the idea that it is a country -----Snowded ^TALK 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can point me towards the discussion in question I'll cheerfully drop the issue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a search of the Talk:Northern Ireland archive [9]. As you can see, it's covered in detail. This debate in Wikipedia goes back years, but in recent times, and as a result of the Brexit madness, the terminology issue seems to have come to the fore again. Accordingly, it's perhaps worth revisiting once more. 31.52.161.140 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can see the doing to death bit, not sure about the resolution and I think I'll leave trawling through at this hour. 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, have drawn a blank. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask again please, where is this historical resolution to the issue? I in no way doubt the faith in which it's existence is advanced but simply can not find it and woud like to read it. I'll note that my preferred wording avoids labelling what the entity is, so surely more NPOV. Also, FWIW the contested term is "nation" not "country", which I would regard as being rather different things. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ranged over all four country articles for example on Wales here the final process was mediated by User:Ddstretch who probably still has all the links. To be clear the agreement was on the use of country, one could be pedantic about nation -----Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've only just had glance over that discussion but it appears to be rather a different angle: roughly whether something can be called a country if it is not a nation state? (Depending on the case, clearly it can, I'd say.) A nation is rather a different thing to either of those and the unsatisfactory aspect of nation as a term for NI is not about it not being a nation state. Not sure the earlier discussions have much of a direct bearing here then, I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also a key difference between being a nation and being a nation state. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I obscured it but (one of) my intended point(s). Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the difference between "country" and "nation" is mere pedantry. One of the key factors in previous discussions, I seem to recall, is that UK government sources like this refer explicitly to four "countries". They do not, so far as I'm aware, refer to four "nations" - which is a more politically loaded term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So if "nations" is a bad or at least worse choice, options are "...resulted in all four countries having..." or just "...resulted in all four having...". Per my edit, I'd prefer the latter as no term is used, so no controversy about the term but I'd rather an indication of consensus first. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case I'll remove the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away and only now seen a mention of me in this discussion. Around about 11 or so years ago I proposed, and a lot of community work, was put into compiling a large list of reliable sources for as many terms as we could find which described England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom. The latest version of it I can find is here. It almost entirely settled the repetitive wrangles we have about terminology for a while, until it was removed for reasons I don't clearly understand. I feel it was extremely useful and it should be reinstated in an updated form. At the time, I was away from wikipedia for an extended period of time, so I neither followed any discussion which led to the table's removal, nor was I able to comment on it. I seriously think the reinstatement of an updated table could assist the situation considerably, since it clearly lays before people the problems and variety of reliable sources of terminology and reaches a considered position about it. The issue seems important enough to do this in the article itself rather than in any talk page or otherwise "hidden" from the general reader. I'd like to propose we do this reinstatement.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reinstate it! I don't remember any discussion to remove it -----Snowded ^TALK 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it indicate a resolution for the specific discussion at hand, i.e. the use of the term "nation" for Northern Ireland?

On a side note, I should flag this apparent attempt to influence the debate, away from scrutiny, on my talk page. I recall that the individual got themself into bother in the past in regard to their views on terminology in relation to these islands/the British Isles. The discussion on my talk page confirms that sanctions were imposed, though the individual was rather unconcvincingly unforthcoming on links to the specifics. I suspect that others involved in this thread can shed more light and have a view on whether further action is required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note, I already explained to Mutt Lunker that I was no longer interested in this article's current discussion & had requested that he not bring me into it 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, you were perfectly interested with your initial approach, this only dropping when I indicated I had your number. You brought yourself into it with your attempt to get me to advance your view from behind the scenes; I'm not going to cover up for suspect tactics. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Since ML has mentioned me & I've given it hours of re-consideration. Indeed it's acceptable to use nation in this article (and Scottish people, Welsh people, Northern Irish people) to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The consideration that: as I'd clocked you, if I say A, you'll suddenly say B? What a transparent and petulant volte-face. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)