Talk:English people/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Baseball

That a related hit-a-ball-with-a-stick game named baseball existed in England earlier than the development of the modern game is apparently correct. To claim England as the source of the game, in the very lede, alongside sports where the influence is clearly more fundamental and significant to their current forms, such as cricket, football, rugbys league and union and tennis, is anomalous. One could claim an English origin for American football on a similar basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this at Talk:Origins of baseball? In any case, it doesn't belong here, as User:Human Taxonomist's source, David Block, says that Wales may have been an influence on p.118. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What I am addressing is that its repeated addition to this article is unsuitable, at best, and should be stemmed; the place to note that, particularly to the responsible party, is here. By all means discuss the actual question of its origin at the baseball article but I have no personal interest in that matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the comparison with American football (a much more recent invention exclusively in the US which was only modeled after rugby, not derived from it) is without relevance. In the case of baseball, most of the form of the game as it is played now was already developed by Englishmen, in both England and the English-American colonies, in the mid-to-late 18th century. Furthermore, just because the American colonies (most of them, but not those in Canada/British North America) broke away after 1776, does not mean the game ceased being played by Englishmen either in the US, the British North American colonies or in England. Those of English extraction or origin (Yankees) in the colonies continued to be English culturally and saw themselves as such (e.g. see the Grand Union Flag, Flag of New England, etc). Even though the game continued on to be largely popular in American areas, it nevertheless continued to be played (and still is played) in England or other parts of the UK. The 'Englishness' of its invention, origin and development is impossible to take away from the history of baseball. It was not a product of the French, Spanish, African or aboriginal cultural spheres in North America, nor was the game itself impacted or developed by the late waves of other European immigration (German, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc.) in the 19th century. It was specifically an Anglo-American cultural development with English origins in the northeastern coastal English colonies.

The form and rules of modern lacrosse have changed significantly after being adopted by European-Americans, but no one doubts that the game's cultural origins and invention are with the aboriginal peoples, specifically those of the eastern woodlands of eastern North America (Iroquois, Algonquians, etc.). The statement in this article is about the invention and origin of sports by Englishmen and English culture. In this, there is no doubt baseball was invented by English people, first in England and then the English colonies, just as lacrosse was invented by aboriginal peoples in North America, or the origins of Gaelic shinty and hurling were ultimately in Ireland. Human Taxonomist (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I can find nothing coherent or supported in the above but, if you feel it worth pursuing, please take it instead to Talk:Origins of baseball. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything above is supported by the authoritative book by David Block, and is quite 'coherent'. What exactly is it you have difficulty with? Furthermore, I already have discussed the issue there and have not received a response in weeks. In any case, it is the article here where the edit conflict is. If no one replies or continues to explain why they oppose my edits, then as per WP I can return my original edit and indeed add baseball here, which is without question from every source shown to have been invented by Englishmen in England and then Englishmen in the American colonies. Human Taxonomist (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edit has been challenged by more than one editor on this page, and I agree with its removal. There is no consensus here for you to restore it. Meters (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed it both here and at Talk:Origins of baseball. If you agree with the removal of my edit, then the burden is on you to explain such. Simply leaving the conversation for weeks does not mean you win the argument. If you do not continue and provide a source that the game or early game was ever developed by non-English or non-English-Americans, then you must provide a source that claims such. There is none on either page claiming such. It is merely a question as to whether the game was invented by English in England or by English in the colonies. Human Taxonomist (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Human Taxonomist: you simply do not have WP:CONSENSUS for your edits - of the 4 editors discussing this, 3 of us disagree with you. You need to stop these edits and either use some form of dispute resolution or just drop the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If an argument is presented and it fails to convince, it is incumbent on those who are unconvinced to respond as to the reason. If that reason is the rambling nature and incoherent expression of the proposition, to address that is a material matter, not a personal one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The burden currently is on you to explain how you find something 'incoherent'. Proper English sentence structure and wording is being used with valid reasoning and reliable sources. You simply can't just dismiss something without proper explanation. I have made my case extensively. You are required to respond to it in a proper fashion, not act in an obtuse manner. No one even replied to my original statements for weeks previously. Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That is very much not how it works. The burden is not on everyone else to understand, let alone agree with, that which is poorly expressed or argued. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The argument has been made concisely, coherently and with a valid source. You simply can't (falsely) claim "I don't understand", and then leave. If you do that, then WP says my edit can be re-entered after a given period of time. If you oppose the edit, then reply properly and explain in detail why. So far you have not been able to demonstrate how the inventors of baseball, either in England or English America, were somehow not Englishmen. My edit is simply claiming that baseball was a game invented by English people, which all the information available supports. Human Taxonomist (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of baseball in the lead. It is WP:UNDUE in the lead summary of an article about the English People. This is regardless of whether the English invented it or not. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the paragraph? Please explain how including baseball is somehow WP:UNDUE as an invention by Englishmen, but rugby, football, cricket and tennis are not? That is a silly argument, and is irrelevant. Human Taxonomist (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead is pretty specific. "The English people are a nation and an ethnic group native to England". There's also the English diaspora and English Americans, but their achievements don't belong in this article. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the English ethnic group that is native to and originates in England, which includes ethnic English outside of England and descendants in the English diaspora. It is a highly biased opinion to simply say "their achievements don't belong in this article". The article is about the achievements of people of English ethnicity and ancestry, and includes the English diaspora, so it certainly could include their achievements. In any case, how does any of this statement deny the fact that baseball was invented by Englishmen, both in England and in early English America? Those very much were Englishmen further developing the game of baseball in colonial America and the early post-independence period in New England. That is unanimous and quite obvious. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the process you should resolve this at Talk:Origins of baseball and this article can reflect what is agreed there. It is plain wrong and disruptive to pursue the same issue on two articles at the same time. Editors are justified in ignoring you here until you do that. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: that was my original thought, but I now think that Human Taxonomist is simply arguing that if Americans with English ancestors developed the game it was developed by English people. There are a couple of issues here. For me that's a misinterpretation of the lead, where I find 'nation' to be a key word. The other is how you determine who qualifies as a descendant and how you determine precisely who created the game. Heck, I'm seriously Old Stock American going all the way back to 1620, but am I English? My surname (to my father's surprise and I think chagrin is German, there's Dutch and French in my ancestry, probably Scots/Irish, and my DNA shows some Iberian. So no, I'm not ethnically English. Of course perhaps the specific people who invented baseball did identify ethnically as English, and maybe that's enough. It certainly should be today, Englishness in England shouldn't be based on religion or shade of skin. So I don't think that even if there were consensus that baseball as known today was an American invention that HT wouldn't still claim it as an English people one. Oh, I get even more lost about the word "culture". That's not exactly easy to pin down. Which in the end is why we depend upon reliable sources for our articles. If HT can show that reliable sources say it was invented by English peoples fine, although of course if other sources disagree we'll have to make that clear. So I guess I need to end my thoughts by saying my original thoughts were probably wrong, maybe this does need settling at Origins of baseball and then we can use the sources from there. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well if he is arguing that he is plain wrong and his change rejected. Looks like other editors at ANI think he should resolve it on the Baseball page however. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller, we are talking about the people who invented baseball, which would be the people who first developed the game. Yes, most of the people at that time in the English colonies were English. The origins of the game came with them from England, where Englishmen had already invented much of it, and the game was developed further in the culturally and ethnically English part of America by men of English origins, identity and ancestry. I'm not sure what your own personal anecdote about your own ethnicity has to do with this. Baseball is a creation of English American culture. The Italians, Mexicans, Germans, Jews, etc. certainly didn't bring it with them when they immigrated to America. And it certainly wasn't invented by the aboriginal peoples. Would you deny that lacrosse is an invention of aboriginal American (Iroquois, Cherokee, etc) cultures?

"Englishness in England shouldn't be based on religion or shade of skin." Ethnicity and ethnic identity very much does include common ancestry, genetics, physical appearance and cultural heritage, as well as language. Groups have biological and cultural differences. I'm not sure where religion came into it, but that is often also part of ethnic identity. It's not simply about how an individual identifies either, but how others see that individual, because it is a social grouping. As for your own personal anecdote, very little of your ancestry goes back to 1620, but I would say yes, much of your ethnicity and heritage is European, English, Scot-Irish and other northwestern European by the sounds of it. Baseball is a creation of English American culture. The Italians, Mexicans, Germans, Jews, etc. certainly didn't bring it with them when they immigrated to America. And it certainly wasn't invented by the aboriginal peoples. Would you deny that lacrosse is an invention of aboriginal American (Iroquois, Cherokee, etc) cultures? Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Snowded, what am I wrong about exactly? Yes, English ethnicity includes people sharing a similar ancestry, genetics and physical features, in addition to culture, language, traditions, behaviours, etc. These are the main criteria for ethnic groups. The people who invented baseball were English; those who brought it over to the English colonies were English; their descendants are English, English Americans and/or Anglo-Americans. Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

On that basis we should give credit to the early hominoids on the savannas of Africa. Ethnicity doesn't give national ownership -----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

HT has been indefinitely checkuser blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Struck through their edits. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic

Why are English not germanic? Peperonnie (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Peperonnie, do you have a reliable source that says that they are Germanic? (Note: Pinterest is not a reliable source.) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Nice to have new faces here. In addition to Girth Summit's perfectly good reply above (I cannot remember seeing someone trying to pass off Pinterest as a source before, but thanks for making me smile), and to unpack your first edit summary in which you said: "English are descendants of Anglo Saxons." That is partly true. They are also descended from Britons (more than you might think), Vikings, Flemish settlers brought by the Normans, French (both some Normans and many Hugenots to name just a couple of waves of migration), Scots, Irish, and many many other groups. It is just not as simple as you are asserting.

You might say, "ah, but the language is descended from Anglo-Saxon", but language is not ethnicity. English was heavily influenced by Norse, and even moreso by French. Again it is not that simple. That information does not belong in the lead.

Finally, the lead is a summary of the main text. Lots of editors want to make changes to the lead, but you can't have something in the lead that is not discussed in the main body of the article. If a detailed discussion goes into the main, then you can update the lead to summarise it. If the claim is not in the main, don't touch the lead - you will only get your edits reverted.

But welcome to Wikipedia once again, and I hope you enjoy editing here. Even though your previous edit is not going to be accepted here, I hope it does not put you off from learning more and helping build a better encyclopaedia. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I Peperonnie (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

You could say the same about literally any European ethnic group. Are Austrians not Germanic? Because their Wikipedia page blatantly lists them as a Germanic ethnic group despite them having significantly LESS Germanic DNA than England and Scotland has. The English are obviously Germanic as their language is Germanic, if their language had been influenced by non-Germanic languages to the point that the language was no longer considered Germanic by linguists, then of course you could make the argument the English were a mixed people or what have you, but that's simply not the case. No people are pure. No people are void of influence from other sources. Every ethnic group has assimilated and absorbed others. The English are clearly Germanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "They are also descended from Britons (more than you might think), Vikings [who were also Germanic], Flemish settlers [who were also Germanic] brought by the Normans, French (both some Normans and many Hugenots to name just a couple of waves of migration) [well they weren't 'French' by your logic they were just French speaking peoples, since the Normans and French generally were of mixed genetic background], Scots [again, what are they? Because around 5 distinct ethnic groups existed in Scotland historically and funnily enough they were grouped by language, as the languages died out one by one people stopped identifying as the ethnic groups associated with them for the most part], Irish, and many many other groups." Do you see the problem with what you're doing here? You're deconstructing the very notion of an ethnic group to fit your fetishistic notion that the English are some unique example of an ethnic group which is not pure. When in actuality no ethnic group in history has ever been 'pure', it does not stop them being classified today and grouped with other similar ethnic groups under umbrella terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC) The term "ethnic group" (first line of the lead) does not need to be qualified as a type of ethic group, because it's all explained quite clearly in the article, with sources. Ranting doesn't help. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC) It doesn't need to be, but they clearly ARE Germanic, so blocking them from being labelled as that is doing a disservice to the page and the encyclopedia in general. They're as Germanic as any other ethnic group in Europe listed as Germanic on Wikipedia is. In fact almost every ethnic group in Europe is listed as a Germanic or Slavic or Romance ethnic group so why make the distinction with the English under such a false argument that could be applied to any ethnic group. Nobody's ranting. If you can't distinguish between explaining/debating something and ranting then perhaps you should frequent other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Why did the Norse in the Danelaw and other parts of the British Isles stop being identified as and identifying themselves as Norse, Tony. What do you think changed between the times of the Danelaw and Danes disappearing as a distinct ethnic group in England? What do you think caused the Normans to cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group in England? Why do you think people in England stopped identifying as Welsh/Britons? Could it perhaps have been because they were assimilated into an English identity, losing the tongues which originally distinguished them from the English they lived among. Every single contemporary historical source from the British Isles groups people by language. A shared language IS an ethnic group. Shared language, shared name and shared phenotype, that's the way it's ALWAYS been for the vast majority of history. Why do you think Picts disappeared? They didn't genetically. They weren't eradicated or genocided. So what caused the Pictish identity to disappear? Is Scotland today actually predominantly still Pictish/Welsh/English/Norse? Can you really call everyone in Scotland Scottish when only a small minority of modern Scotland actually genetically descends from the Gaels who brought the Scottish language and identity with them from Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC) You're doing the same thing a core group of editors have been doing for years on this page and pages related to the English, which is selective reasoning that could be applied to any ethnic or ethnolinguistic group in history. You continually ask for sources, sources are provided which state the English are Germanic, then you ignore the sources or claim they're invalid (when the sources are currently actually being used on other Wikipedia articles for Austrians, Dutch, Flemish and others to back up stating they are a Germanic ethnic group). Then when it's all died down you delete the threads a few weeks or months later. If an ethnic group's native language is Germanic. And they are over 50% descended from Germanic peoples through their Y-DNA (according to Eupedia, assuming we don't class R1b-L21, the 'Insular Celtic haplomarker' of the British Isles as Germanic DNA even though the carriers of it are genetically far closest to Germanic peoples than they are anything else), then that is more than enough to classify them as a Germanic ethnic group. Especially when their identity for most of history has been expressed as a Germanic/Teutonic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a previously-identified sock of User:92.14.216.40, indeffed for their earlier campaign on this page, amongst others. Is the appropriate action the striking or deletion of their comments? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about that when they said "You're doing the same thing a core group of editors have been doing for years", but is the sock confirmed through SPI? Should the new account also be checked and blocked if confirmed? If confirmed, I think we should strikethrough first and then delete. The strikethrough will ensure that anyone looking through edit history at large deletions can understand it came from a sock. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ETA: Looked at the edit history for this page from 30 August. Same subjects as the blocked IP, same (unusual) style, same idiolect. The ISP is the same in both cases. No need to bother with an SPI on the IP. This one passes WP:DUCK. Also WP:NOTFORUM point 4. I am going to strikethrough the IPs edits on that basis. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Not a sock at all, Mutt, most people's IPs change on a regular basis. I'm not familiar with the IP you've posted, as I don't tend to keep track of my IPs they used to change every few days although now they're a bit more stable. The ban placed on this IP has expired and did so on January 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "The strikethrough will ensure that anyone looking through edit history at large deletions can understand it came from a sock." Also seems fairly irrelevant too. You failed to answer any of these points the first time, before now labelling me a 'sock'. You, and other editors like Andrew Lancaster, failed to answer similar points raised by other users over the course of months and years. You refuse to answer them now. Censoring and pushing for bans under very loose interpretation/application of Wikipedia's rules is a lot easier than defending an indefensible position, I guess. Absolutely every ethnic group on Earth can be categorized into ethnolinguistic umbrella groups. And since it's the standard for European ethnic groups on Wikipedia the English page should be no different without a strong, clear justifiable reason that cannot also be applied to all the other European ethnic groups listed as Germanic or Slavic or Romance etc. Listing the English as what they are, Germanic, is no more controversial or inaccurate than listing the Austrians, Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians as Germanic. Or various Balkan ethnicities as Slavic and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.155 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for another three months. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the claim that English is an ethnicity, because it is not supported by sources. This appears to be a free mix of Anglo-Saxon people and English white nationalist claims. English people are people born in England to parents with British citgizenship. It's reasonable to claim that English national identity is blurred, but it is not reaosnable to claim that English people are white and share a common culture - that sounds like Nick Griffin after a few pints and has no place in Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources required

The claim that the English are an ethnic group was restored, and then promoted ahead of national group in the lead. What sources do we propose that support the claim of Englishness as an ethnicity? This is clearly contentious (so stays out pending consensus, per WP:ONUS), and there is no clear citation that makes the specific claim. I have found some academic sources that discuss English people in the context of ethnicity, but when doing so, they invariably qualify it as white English people, drawing a clear distinction between English as a nationality and white English (a subset of white British, the ONS category) as an ethnicity. I think the ethnicity is excessively superficial and falls for the fallacy of the "white race", but that's an aside: I have not yet found a credible source that supports the idea that "English people" without some additional qualifier is an ethnic group. Guy (help!) 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a wider issue and covers several other articles - Welsh People for example. Ethnicity is linked to language, culture and history and there are plenty of sources that establish that. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Snowded, sure, but every source I can find says that the ethic group is white English (or white British), whereas the nationality is English. The problemj of defining English people as culturally and ethnically homogenous should be obvious. To say that, for example, the black English community are not "English people" is sufficiently offensive that it requires a robust source. I can't find one. Recall that the lead of this article is being used to argue that Idris Elba is not English. He's a Cockney ffs! Guy (help!) 11:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that argument and the editor has I think being blocked. There is no way it can support that argument in fact it is the other way around. Ethnicity is culture, language etc. etc so Idris Elba Engish both ethnically and in terms of nationality -----Snowded ^TALK 11:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Snowded, {{citation needed}}. Recall, the ONS defines ethnicity groups as "white British", "black British", "British Asian" etc. As I say, I have yet to find a solid source that establishes that English people (without some qualifier such as "white English people") are an ethnic group. If this article were called "white English people" then I'd agree that this is a largely homogeneous ethnic and cultural identity, but the claim that "English people" is synonymous with an ethnicity and a common cultural heritage reads as racist, regardless of how it's intended. Guy (help!) 11:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Race can be a sufficient definition of ethnicity but it is not a necessary condition. This is 101 Cultural Anthropology. Given the standard defintions of ethnicity there isn't a single category - it can be race, but it may not be. Cockney is an ethnicity which is probably stronger than skin colour for example. This question impacts on many articles -----Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Snowded, again, {{citation needed}}. You are advocating a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the English people are a homogenous ethnic group with a common cultural heritage. Given how grossly offensive that will be to anyone who is English and black or Asian, and how closely it matches the rhetoric of groups like the BNP, we had better be certain that we have completely solid sourcing for it. The more I search, the more I don't find that. Guy (help!) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it a basic, indeed impacting on numerous articles, that the sharing of ethnicity and a common cultural heritage has no requirement for shared skin colour or provenance of biological ancestry? What would be racist and offensive is the requirement that it does. I'm utterly baffled by Guy's stance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No I am not - please read what I said. Race, nationality and ethnicity are deeply entanged and fractal in nature. There is no way that saying that English (or Welsh or Scottish) is an ethnicity which excludes someone who is black or asian and its deeply offensive toi suggest it is. If ethnicity was defined as 'White British' or 'White English' which it isn't you might have a case, There is zero match to the rhetoric of the BNP and the like and I spend a lot of time on wikipedia on making sure that those hateful views don't get an audience.-----Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Some sources include the UK government: What is your ethnic group? A: English/Welsh/etc [1] 2011 census. Here are some other sources: [2], [3], [4]. We should not be removing it as it has long-standing consensus in the lead (at least silently) Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how these are supposed to shed light. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, the census is a perfect example. It qualifies first by "White". Exactly as the academic sources I am finding do, and per the ONS categories, which identify the ethnic group as "white British". The Times also supports that: Previously, only groups such as Indians, Bangladeshis, Africans and Irish have been able to tick boxes on most official documents to denote their ethnic background, leading to complaints from white English, Scottish and Welsh people, who could only tick a "white" box.

So, where are the reliable independent sources that support the idea that "English" is an ethnicity synonymous with "white English", rather than "white English" being a specific ethnicity? Academic sources, please, because the documentation clearly shows that journalists can be lazy in this regard. Every academic source I have found to date says that English is a nationality and white English is an ethnicity, and the entire problem here is that this article engages in bait-and-swiitch. Guy (help!) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with the article encompassing those of an English ethnicity and those who nationally are English. Though maybe I am missing something. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've commented at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#English people, I think that at the source of this disagreement is the fact that "English people" can mean different things, which overlap but aren't always the same. Those meanings range from a civic sense of the term, to mean someone born in England, to a narrower, ethnic sense. If you have access, I'd recommend this source on some of these complexities. This also looks like it would be helpful, but I don't have access to a copy. I'd also be wary of assuming that official classifications of ethnicity in the UK match up with sociologists' understandings of ethnicity (Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom#History and debate covers this a bit). Some sources do refer to English ethnicity: see this and this. This source is also potentially helpful, explaining that Englishness "is a somewhat nebulous descriptor that hovers between ethnic and national identity" - which is basically my understanding too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, that's perfectly plausible. My problem is that this article defines English people as, effectively, white English people, and that is being used for example to assert that Idris Elba is not English. Any article that defines English people as an ethnicity needs to be really careful not to support the white nationalist view of Englishness. Guy (help!) 14:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the artice in detail when you started this and I can't find a single thing that defines English as 'white' and over the years I and others have removed any attempt to do that. Neither can I find anything that says that ethnicity is necessarily linked to the colour of your skin-----Snowded ^TALK 14:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does the very reverse of "(define) English people as, effectively, white English people", hence, for instance the constant targetting by those who, in contradiction, wish to remove the noting of Islam from the infobox and the article text. When I saw the edits this morning, my initial thought was that they fitted the pattern of such race warriors. It's only if you regard skin colour as being a fundamental element of ethnicity that these objections can be sustained and, to my understanding, the mainstream of academic thought very much does not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG if we have a source that defines "English people as, effectively, white English people" why does that necessarily correspond with a "white nationalist view of Englishness" or can even be accurately described as a "white nationalist view of Englishness"? Ethnicities linked to race exist without corresponding to a racially-supremacist political viewpoint. Alssa1 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Diaspora/Population

Are there any sources for the claim that there are 80-100 Million English people worldwide? This looks a little like a sum of the diaspora numbers, give or take. Is there community consensus or an internally accepted definition for populations based on cultural/heritage markers? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

'Indo-European Language'

Changed the opening from "Indo-European language family" to "Germanic language family". It's fairly nonstandard and vague to refer to the an Indo-European language by its overarching umbrella term in academia, it's generally far more common to divide them into their long established and recognized subfamilies (such as Hellenic, Slavic, Germanic, Romance etc. etc.). If you're suggesting English isn't a Germanic language or have some specific reasoning as to why it should not be described as a Germanic language, then provide sources. As far as I'm aware there isn't a single academic who seriously entertains the notion English is not a Germanic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.182.89 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"English nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect English nation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 1#English nation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The question of ethnic grouping vs country of residence

Firstly, I'd like to apologise to those editors who may feel frustrated that I have been slow in using these talk pages when editing this page. In my defence, I have attempted significantly and/or relevantly different edits of this page and the last two were very minor (in terms of the number of words edited) indeed. But I should have followed the procedures more quickly – apologies. I hope editors understand that I am trying to solve a genuine problem here. This ethnic group page does not make it clear that the adjective 'English' is defined by the OED as:

'Of or belonging to England (or Britain) or its inhabitants.'

Significantly, the OED adds:

'In early use sometimes spec[ifically]. designating inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, in contradistinction to those of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent.'

The Wikipedia page does not make it clear that it concerns only (something approaching) this 'early use' and, most importantly, that another use is equally valid. This is very important because there are people with a poor understanding of these matters who are liable to read this page as indicating that it is not possible to be both English and a person of colour. This was recently highlighted by a much publicised conversation on LBC with David Lammy MP, in which a caller insisted that it was not possible to be both English and African Caribbean. The Wikipedia page was cited as evidence in support of her claim early in the subsequent Twitter storm.

Having looked at the work of the wikiproject 'Ethnic Groups', I see that they provide a succinct means of addressing this issue with one of the statements in their template:

This article covers the <GROUP> as an ethnic group, not <GROUP> meaning citizens of <COUNTRY>

In my last edit I used a version of this but had to replace citizens with inhabitants because citizens of England are, more strictly, citizens of Britain (thanks to Doug Weller for pointing this out). To make minimal impact on the flow of the article it made sense to put this in the template at the top adapting the statement already there, which is based on another of the options in the wikiproject template.

This gave the statement: This article is about English people as an ethnic group, not English people meaning inhabitants of England.

I would prefer a comma before the gerund 'meaning' but I wanted to stick as closely to the template as possible. The use of the term inhabitants is taken over from the OED. If an entity can be defined as English because it is owned by an inhabitant it follows that an inhabitant of England can themselves be defined as English.

Please can editors offer support for such a statement, or suggest a way of clarifying this discrepancy with the OED, or otherwise offer reasons for not making such a change. I realise that the OED is a dictionary and not an encyclopaedia, but I hope that the need for consistency between the two authorities is self evident. I know this is not anyone's intention, but I think the page, as it stands, encourages some very damaging ideas about who does and doesn't 'belong' to England and this very small qualification, in line with recommendations from the wikiproject, could make a significant and positive difference to people's lives. BJACurry (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@BJACurry: Although I agree with the reasons you give, I don't understand. There is an English nation - one of the four nations making up the United Kingdom. That nation is multi-ethnic and one of the ethnic groups is the English people ethnic group. There is no English country. The phrase "English people" can refer to either. As I recall, the editors who reverted you agree with this - and thus I think you. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you very much for clarifying. I am starting to understand the reasoning. If you agree with my reasons and, furthermore, regard the English nation as multi-ethnic, I'm sure we can reach a consensus - bravo! So the distinction between nation and ethnic group is currently unclear. The opening statement: 'The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture', particularly in the last seven words, does not make it clear that we are talking about two uses of the adjective English as laid out in the OED and corresponding broadly to the ethnic-group-vs-nation distinction (i.e. single-ethnic vs multi-ethnic) you make so well. This would be easily remedied I think by replacing that statement with this: QUOTE The English people are a multi-ethnic nation native to England. In some early use, the English people are inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture. They are identified, in particular, in contradistinction to people of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent. [Ref to OED] UNQUOTE. The next sentence could begin QUOTE The English (in the older sense) identity is of early medieval origin...UNQUOTE What do you think? Do please feel free to edit/revise/counter-propose this suggestion. I do hope we agree that the current text could be clearer on the ethnic group vs multi-ethnic nation point. I think we both agree that it is currently open to some worrying misinterpretation. BJACurry (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Doug, who is extremely cogent and clear in both his original post and his response. As it stands, the opening sentence is ambiguous, not very clear, and open to multiple interpretations. It could be understood to predicate the same attributes to "English" under the two distinct definitions from the OED mentioned by Doug (one of which is specifically an "early use") and by implication mixes up those definitions. There may be overlap, but it's important to make the distinction very clear, particularly at this time and for a variety of reasons.Meerta (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

More worrying to me is the fact that the opening four sentences of the article contain the word Germanic no fewer than three times. That is unnecessary, and tends to imply that the most important feature in defining "English people" is that they fall neatly within a wider set of N European peoples. While it's absolutely correct that the English language is considered a Germanic language, and that the Angles and Saxons were Germanic peoples, it is probably not necessary to state those facts in the introduction - they can be explained in the text. The opening paragraphs need to be balanced, and cover both the older genetics-based definition of "English people" and the more recent (and more balanced) definition of "English people" as those sharing cultural values (or simply place of residence) rather than, necessarily, genetic history. As a wider point, "ambiguity" and being "open to multiple definitions" is absolutely characteristic of many aspects of Englishness (and Britishness), and we as editors should not seek to impose a particular definition of "English people" on a concept that has many different meanings. The lead can be fairly simple - and if necessary, unclear - and the uncertainties can be explained in the body of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you editors for your points. Ghmyrtle, please can we keep the question of the extent to which references to Germany out of this section. It could be discussed in a separate section. This section concerns the very real issue of the opening statements and the opening statement, in particular. Thank you so much Meerta for your expression of support and your concise and penetrating analysis of the issue. Like you, I do not think it is acceptable to tolerate an unclear opening statement, esp. when we consider what is at stake here as indicated by Meerta and myself. More importantly, this is more serious than a matter of ambiguity. The opening statement is not so much ambiguous as false. This is because in applying it to the world consistently it yields false results. This is because it entails the claim that it is ONLY possible to be an English person if one can be said to 'share a common history and culture'. A more formal treatment will I hope make this clear:

The opening statement of the article is:

The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture.

This can be expressed more formally as:

X=English Person

1. All members of set A (Eng Ethnic Group) are Xs 2. All members of set B (Eng Nation) are Xs 3. Xs have ability L (speak Eng Language) 4. Xs have quality Q (shared Eng History and Culture)

In the case of John Barnes in 1994 (An English footballer with 79 caps to his name. He is of Jamaican heritage, has British citizenship and moved to England in c.1975 at the age of 12 are was an inhabitant of England until at least 1994) John Barnes in 1994 has ability L but does not have quality Q Therefore, by virtue of 4, John Barnes in 1994 is not an X, and therefore, by virtue of 1 and 2 John Barnes in 1994 is a member of neither set A nor set B.

This is consistent but false as John Barnes in 1994 is a member of set B (English Nation). As well as being false it is (and I know this was nobody’s intention) quite straight-forwardly racist. It clearly promotes discrimination against people of colour and/or non-white heritage by effectively claiming that they cannot be English and is, therefore, likely to be prosecutable under laws of hate speech.

So this opening statement really must change. The current proposed replacement stands as:

QUOTE The English people are a multi-ethnic nation native to England. In some early use, the English people are inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture. They are identified, in particular, in contradistinction to people of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent. [Ref to OED] UNQUOTE. The next sentence could begin QUOTE The English (in the older sense) identity is of early medieval origin...UNQUOTE OR the next sentence might read QUOTE The term 'English', in the early sense, can be traced to the early medieval period when it was used in Old English for the Angelcynn ... UNQUOTE BJACurry (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled (amongs other things) by the implication that Barnes, as the given example, does not share English culture. I don't know how he self-identifies but nothing in the first sentence excludes him. The rest of the lede expresses the evolution and ambiguity of the term and I think, if anything, the proposition opens up the option of a more exclusive definition and borders on WP:OR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How John Barnes self-identifies does not have any impact upon the strict logic of my argument as demonstrating that the opening statement is currently false, unless you are claiming that neither John Barnes nor anyone else in the world is both (1) NOT sharing the culture and history in question and (2) belonging to the set English Nation.

The only way one could claim this would be to also uphold the claim that all people in the world who inhabit England or might come to inhabit England in the near (i.e. relevant future) share the same culture and history, but this would render the the phrase 'shared culture and history' meaningless in this context. This is clearly untrue because people are moving to England all the time who would, by these Wikipedia ethnic group pages, have to be considered as having a different shared culture and history.

To help clarify further: a formal account can be presented without Barnes as follows:

X=English Person

(1) All members of set A (Eng Ethnic Group) are Xs (2) All members of set B (Eng Nation) are Xs (3) Xs have ability L (speak Eng Language) (4) Xs have quality Q (shared Eng History and Culture)

For this to be false there must exist at least one person who is a member of set B (Eng Nation) and does not have Quality Q. Many people of colour, amongst others, living in England are a member of set B (Eng Nation) and cannot be said to have quality Q, unless the latter is generalised to the point of applying to to all people who inhabit or who will soon come to inhabit England in the near (i.e. relevant) future.

Some ways of coming at the same point: Note that if Q is synonymous with being a member of set B then it is rendered meaningless in the current context. Note also that I, Doug Weller and (by implication) Meerta have agreed that set B (Eng Nation) is a multi-ethnic nation. If the English nation is multi-ethnic (please be clear if you do not agreed with this) then there must be significant numbers of people in that nation who can be said to have a different culture and history. Otherwise, the phrase is meaningless.

(Incidentally, when I last checked Wikipedia stated that John Barnes is considered Jamaican.)

So the proposal still stands:

QUOTE The English people are a multi-ethnic nation native to England. In some early use, the English people are inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture. They are identified, in particular, in contradistinction to people of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent. [Ref to OED] UNQUOTE. The next sentence could begin QUOTE The English (in the older sense) identity is of early medieval origin...UNQUOTE OR the next sentence might read QUOTE The term 'English', in the early sense, can be traced to the early medieval period when it was used in Old English for the Angelcynn ... UNQUOTE

My indication that the current statement is false is not new research it is simply a statement of fact. The proposed replacement text is not new research; it is just a means of making the opening statement more consistent with the OED and of removing the falsehood. BJACurry (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "English people", and attempts to claim that the article is, or should be, about one precise definition will always fail. I've trimmed the introduction a little to mention that there are multiple definitions, and also to minimise the unnecessary over-use of the word "Germanic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This does nothing to address the issues I have raised with the falsity of the opening statements, please provide justification for you removal of the account of the English language's family in another section. The following proposal remains the only means proposed thus far of addressing the falsity of the opening statements, and the opening statement in particular:

QUOTE The English people are a multi-ethnic nation native to England. In some early use, the English people are inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, who speak the English language of the Germanic language family and share a common history and culture. They are identified, in particular, in contradistinction to people of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent. [Ref to OED] UNQUOTE. The next sentence could begin QUOTE The English (in the older sense) identity is of early medieval origin...UNQUOTE OR the next sentence might read QUOTE The term 'English', in the early sense, can be traced to the early medieval period when it was used in Old English for the Angelcynn ... UNQUOTE BJACurry (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of activity currently, on various articles, mostly by recently-registered editors, to change the description of certain people. For example, the description of John Barnes was changed a week or so ago from the established wording of "Jamaican-born English" to "Jamaican". I wonder why. (I've reverted that change.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I will have to declare that I find BJACurry's line of argument very hard to follow, the posts are long, convoluted and the examples unclear and, as far as I can tell, cover the same ground again and again without any increased clarity. I'm neither dismissing nor agreeing with it; I don't follow it well enough. Being familiar with Ghmyrtle, I'm assured of the good intent but I'm not sure I'm happy with the new sentence "Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England", not at least without elaboration or caveats that the exclusive definition either refers, say, to the OED's early-use case or that it runs counter to what I comprehend to be the modern understanding of ethnicity. Apart from anything else, there would be precious few English people under the latter definition. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that there are precious few English people who are purely "Anglo-Saxon" without any later admixture? I completely agree, but that seems to be the definition that some are seeking to adopt. I'm happy for you to come up with other wordings - my basic point is that this article needs to cover the whole range of definitions of the term, not one exclusive definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. I feel like this is constructive discussion and really appreciate it. (I'm happy to contribute on the discussion of the new wording from Ghmyrtle, but for now I'd like to remain focused on the opening statements.) Thanks Mutt Lunker, in particular, for indicating that while you find my line of argument difficult to follow, you recognise that it may be valid and true. I'm happy to take up the challenge of being clearer and more succinct: Another way of explaining the falsity of the opening is by considering necessary and sufficient conditions. (There is a Wikipedia page on this – the Venn diagram might be particularly helpful.)

The opening statement includes the claim that 'English People share a common history and culture'. This is untrue because it presents the predicate 'share a common history and culture' as a necessary condition for being an English person when it is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition of being English.

That in a nutshell, is why it needs to change. I do hope that helps.

One very brief point which I hope helps further: if 'a shared history and culture' can be said to exist, and for the purposes of this article, I think we have to say it does, then a true statement would be 'Some English people share a common history and culture'. However, I don't think we should state that and I think the OED approach is much better and deals well with the complex issues involved here.BJACurry (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not warranted to say that I "recognise that (your line of argument) may be valid and true". I do not follow it, so I have no indication that it is.

I disagree with the notion, that I think you are expressing, that people who were born, or whose ancestors were born somewhere other than England do not or can not share culture (particularly) and history with those who were, or whose ancestors were, born in England. This is not conferred genetically or by skin colour, as I'm sure you would agree. Culture evolves, significantly by external infuences such as immigration. Those with and without immigrant backgrounds share that evolving culture. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mutt Lunker. I think we have been over this point already around making the term 'shared history and culture' meaningless in this context. What you argue only makes sense if the culture you refer to is the culture of all humans. But I will make the same point in another, I hope clearer, way:

If you are saying that 'English People (nation AND ethnic group) share a common history and culture'. Then you are saying 'All English People (nation AND ethnic group) share a common history and culture'. And you must be saying that the English nation is NOT a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation. But we have already established that the English nation is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation. BJACurry (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that English people of immigrant backgrounds do not share culture and history with other English people, in a substantial way, that unites them distinguishes them collectively, at least in part, from the culture and history of other peoples; that English people of immigrant backgrounds can not be ethnically English. If so, I strongly disagree. Your understanding of ethnicity is not what I understand ethnicity to be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's tricky isn't it? BJACurry is rightly using logical language to be very clear about the problems with the article as it was, and the reasoning is correct. I don't like the opening clause as it stands though: "The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England..." This could mean and reads to me as meaning that this group can only both things at the same time. ("And" tends to be inclusive, and the following clause seems to apply to both, further marrying them. )I suppose they are a "nation", according to the wide definition of that in the Wiki entry linked to there. It's strange to think of it like that though. I don't feel a sense in which we're a nation except applying to the physical country itself.

Perhaps the "ethnic group" part should be demoted in importance. There is a separate article on "English National Identity", that is surprisingly short and spends a lot of time talking about cricket. It's rather superficial. When the caller to LBC last week told the Englishman David Lammy he wasn't English, I should imagine she was thinking of ethnicity. I've heard more and more now of black people being told and even feeling they can't claim to be English even though they were born here, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The trouble is, there is very little that can make you English in an "official" sense. There's no English passport, parliament, or citizenship. It's an administrative region - in some respects overlapping with Wales but in some respects separate. So in those terms, if you were born here or brought up here, you're English. Otherwise, if you have a British passport and reside in England, you can claim to be English. Rather like the provisions of the peace process in Northern Ireland, where the ability to identify as either British or Irish is enshrined in law, so, to a certain extent, it may a matter of self-identification in this case. No one is giving out certificates for being English.

Yet that way of being English is more based in reality than some kind of claim to be "descended from the Anglo-Saxons". (by the way, I was surprised the article about them is still called that, since this term has itself faced some questioning lately). For one thing, that's an early usage of "English", and not a current usage. We don't need to reflect it here. Maybe you could have a DNA test that showed you were mostly early Englsh or something. It would probably show that you were descended from the Celtic-Britons and the British who preceded them, whose language we do not know, too. But more likely you'd be more of a mixture, particularly in relation to the Scandinavian visitors we had a while ago.

The English are those who inhabit England by birth or tenure, or who have a sufficiently strong connention to the country to reasonably consider themselves English. Beyond that, I think it might be considered a family resemblance concept. Meerta (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Unconvincing arguments

I do not seem to understand why there is an issue with the article as it is. This has clearly been spurred on by the David Lammy radio show of all things, not any sort of academic or scholarly revelation. There is clearly a misunderstanding between ethnicity and nationality that Meerta and BJACurry are conflating. This article explains this distinction off the bat. English people exist as an ethnicity and also a nationality. This is not a controversial statement. Idris Elba is English and ethnically Sierra Leonean and Ghanaian. This is not really a hard concept to understand. To blur the lines or remove this seems disengenous and politically motivated. Lastly, English ethnicity is not tied solely to 'anglo-saxon' origins, it already states from this article it includes the partially Romanised Britons that were already living there. Unless there is a reputable source that confirms english ethnicity doesn't exist, this argument is futile per Wikipedia tenets. Regards JJNito197 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think that either me or BJACurry are conflating nationality and ethnicity, then no, you have not understood the discussion so far. And it’s strange that you are singling the two of us out when what had been proceeding was a constructive and nuanced discussion between a number of editors. No, this is not spurred on merely by the “David Lammy radio show” (what does “of all things” mean? He’s an MP. It’s significant enough for the talk page that an English MP has had his Englishness challenged live on radio is it? Should I not have mentioned it?) That’s your assumption. But what happened there was illustrative, yes. Did you not notice my comments about black English people being told they shouldn’t identify as English, and this, as it turns out, being a common thing?

I don’t know what you think I’m asking to be removed. You don’t seem to have read carefully what I have suggested about the opening sentence as it stands. With all due respect, you don’t seem to have read the discussion very carefully. (Admitedly there is a lot of it.) You're making one or two tangential statements and then concluding by with the implication that it all hinges on whether English ethnicity exists or not. But it may not be as simple as that. You flatly state it’s “not controversial” even while an edit war takes place on an English professional footballer’s page. So what is wrong with trying to gain clarity about these matters?

Here’s a quotation from a book written in 2006, quite a long time before the radio incident this week, and the resurgence of ethno-nationalism over the last few years: “It is not easy to address the English question because there are available to us different representations of England and Englishness. Two of the four distinguished in this chapter also blur the distinction between Englishness and Britain. Different citizens will, collectively and individually, reproduce and transform different combinations of all four of them in different parts of the country at different times...I do expect further constitutional evolution in Britain to generate more searches for Englishness but the more sophisticated the searches the less likely they are to prompt claims for ethnic purity or cultural exclusiveness...” (The Nations of Britain by C. Bryant) So perhaps it's not so simple.

No one’s trying to blur lines and my contribution - no one’s contribution to that discussion as far as I can see - is politically motivated. But if the article is ambiguous or imprecise,in a world where the subject actually is controversial, it's less likely to shed the light that’s needed.Meerta (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This dialog started because of the David Lammy radio show, this was the reason BJACurry started editing (consequently vandalising) the article in the first place. Neither David Lammy, the ignorant caller, you or BJACurry explained clearly the distinction between ethnicity and nationaity and how they are easily conflated. Whatever matters go on in England does not affect the definition of the term internationally, so whether or not Lammy was right or wrong, to put bluntly, is irrelevant. An edit war or heated radio debate does not give credence to suddenly change longstanding definitions, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Yes I did notice your comment about black people which is why I brought Idris up. As someone who is multiracial and brought up in London (Wood Green to be exact) I am fully aware of identification issues different races have, but, as I stated this does not affect whether or not English people are an ethnicity or not. In my experience, most people of immigrant backgrounds make that very distinction I made about Idris.

That quotation from 2006 is relevant and poignant, but the English ethnic-identity goes back further. It seems you and BJACurry are on the same page which is why I singled you both out, either way, until the scholarly and academic consensus regarding this matter changes, it would be wrong and against the fundemental tenets of wikipedia to make any changes you or BJACurry suggest. Regards JJNito197 (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll reply properly later, or see what other people have to say. (Though it seems a bit bizarre to say that my suggestion was "against the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia, and I'm also not very clear what you mean by some of the other things you've said.) But just for the record, that wasn't a heated debate. It wasn't heated because Lammy, very impressively, kept his cool, was gracious and polite, and the woman who had called in to tell him he wasn't English was absolutely calm about it. (Also, that type of thing isn't really for debate, but I don't think you were suggesting it was.) Again, I'm glad Lammy, and you, and people you've known, are clear that "English" can be applied to them. The black lady from east London I spoke to a couple of days ago, and people she knows, and some people on social media I've seen, have have had a different experience; of people telling them they aren't English, so often that it gets to the point where they feel this is true, and so they decide just to identify as British. So your experience doesn't seem to be universal. These aren't the main point but worth writing this in response to a couple of things you said. Meerta (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Meerta for again providing valuable insight on these matters. I agree that this matter is complex, but I also think it clear that some editors are intent of focusing on complications to uphold an opening statement that is straight-forwardly false. I would note that both Meerta and I have continually noted its falsity. I will continue to focus on this point. JJNito197’s statements have been dealt with cogently and authoritatively by Meerta and I do not see the need to engage with them. I intend to remain focused on the following:

THE KEY POINT: QUOTE The opening statement claims that 'English People share a common history and culture'. This is untrue because sharing `a common history and culture' is not a necessary condition for being an English person. UNQUOTE. Henceforth this claim will be refer to as THE KEY POINT. PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE IN THIS DISCUSSION WITHOUT ACCEPTING OR PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT TO COUNTER THE KEY POINT.

Mutt Lunker has attempted to counter THE KEY POINT. His approach is to redefine ‘a common history and culture’ and something that all English people have (see above). But I do not believe that this is really his view. If it were his view (and he wanted to be consistent, i.e. provide valid statements) he would need to add the following qualification to the opening sentence of the article to stop it being false... ‘any migrant into England can be said to share English people’s common history and culture from the moment they begin inhabiting England’. This is clearly absurd. The technical problem with Mutt Lunker’s argument is not complicated. It is called of HUMPTY DUPTYISM (there is a Wikipedia page on this). She/he is insisting on a usage of the term ‘a common history and culture’ which does not align with socially-sanctioned usage.

Mutt Lunker has also attempted to counter THE KEY POINT by trying to characterize my argument as one that excludes descendants from migrants as English, when I believe that she/he knows perfectly well that the opposite it true. She/he says: ‘You seem to be saying that English people of immigrant backgrounds do not share culture and history with other English people, in a substantial way, that unites them distinguishes them [sic] collectively, at least in part, from the culture and history of other peoples; that English people of immigrant backgrounds can not [sic] be ethnically English’. I entirely reject this characterization of my argument. The technical issue with Mutt Lunker’s argument at this point is that it is a STRAWMAN argument (there is a Wikipedia page on this also).

The use of either HUMPTY DUMPTYISM or a STRAWMAN argument might, on its own, indicate ignorance but the use of both together, especially when the strawman tactic is so blatant is a clear indication, in my view, that the argumentation is willfully misleading and disingenuous. I draw the following very reasonable conclusion: Mutt Lunker is acting as an apologist for a statement that promotes discrimination against people of colour or otherwise non-white people living in England for strongly-held and highly-problematic ideological commitments. This point is also consistent with Mutt Lunker’s claim that qualifying the English Ethnic group as socially constructed seems ‘especially strange […] given that the English to have shared ancestry and genetic commonalities [sic]’. It is also indicated by her/his concern that Ghmyrtle’s recent edit might have the drawback of justifying a definition of English that excludes so many people that ‘there would be precious few English people under the […] definition’. Note that this runs counter to her/his claim at other points that she/he wants a definition of Englishness that includes all inhabitants of England.

As Mutt Lunker has seen fit to characterize my position on these matters I think it fair to make my position clear. PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM ONLY SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT HERE AS IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT I WANT TO EXCLUDE MIGRANTS FROM A DEFINTION OF ENGLISHNESS. PLEASE MAKE THE FOCUS OF ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THE KEY POINT NOT THE DETAILS OF MY VIEW.

My view is this: All inhabitants of England are descended from migrants (this is a fact). The claim that Englishness might reasonably be assigned to descendants of some migration groups rather than others is, at best, problematic and, at worst, racist. It is also absurd as it is not possible for any one person to ascertain with any precision the migrant groups from which they descend and it is also the case that any one migrant grouping will be the result of a complex network of earlier migrations.

Some confusion may arise with regard to my view in relation to the ethnicity tick boxes on census and other forms. I support the use of such tick box sections. It is important to understand that the tick-box sections of these forms are used to counter prejudicial treatment of people who have migrated more recently into a given population. In particular they can be used to identify and address under representation of people who identify one way or another in positions of power (judiciary the police force etc.). Such forms are not to be used as a means of deciding who does or doesn’t belong to a given population or nation or any other grouping for that matter. They are also not used to identify the sense in which anyone can be said to belong to a given nation nor should they be.

One of the key reasons there are difficulties with Wikipedia ethnic group articles is because these articles are being constructed in relation to nations/countries/polities or comparable groupings with an expansionist history. To understand this point consider a case from Ghanaian history. During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular, large parts of what is today Ghana was subject to a process of Akanization, through which the Akan people assimilated (often through a form of slavery) multiple peoples, namely Ga-, Adanme, and Ewe-speaking peoples (see Rucker Gold Coast Diasporas 2015: p. 75). As a result, in Ghana, during that process or soon after, it would make little sense to speak of the Akan as an ethnic group. However, Gold Coast diasporic people living in Jamaica after being enslaved (a horrific process we should never forget – an unwashable stain) might sensibly be considered an ethnic group, and that ethnic group might plausibly be termed Akan. While this is my view I think it important to prioritize and that is why I am asking everyone in this discussion to focus, at this point, of the falsity of the current opening statement, i.e. THE KEY POINT. That is the end of my account of my view.

One final, more loosely related, point on Mutt Lunker’s attempt to counter THE KEY POINT indicates that he has little or no grasp of modal logic. This is demonstrated in the exchange regarding whether NOT DISSMISSING someone’s argument because you cannot follow it warrants the statement that it MAY be true. We know from the study of modal logic that possibility and necessity are inter-definable. So to say that something is not necessarily untrue and invalid (i.e. it is not dismissed) is also to say that it is possibly true and valid (i.e. it may be true).

Mutt Lunker then has clearly indicated that she/he (1) finds it difficult to follow basic formal logic (2) deploys humpty dumptyism and strawman arguments, and (3) does not understand very basic modal logic. I, therefore, ask that he stops editing this page which clearly covers a complex and sensitive dimension of modern British life.

As there have been no rational arguments to counter THE KEY POINT, and as there have been no other revisions suggested to address the key point I am now making the following edit to the opening statement.

QUOTE: The English people are a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation native to England. In some early use, the English people are inhabitants of England of Anglo-Saxon descent, who speak the English language and share a common history and culture. They are identified, in particular, in contradistinction to people of Celtic, Scandinavian, or Norman descent. The term 'English', can be traced to the early medieval period when it was used in Old English for the Angelcynn ... UNQUOTE

I am sending a full transcript of this discussion to the following:

Wikipedia Media The Good Law Project David Lammy MP

I am sending it to the latter because he suffered a verbal racist attack by a person adhering to the definition of English contained in current opening statement of this article. A statement that has been established as false, as far as it is possible to establish that any statement is false. I am not copying in David Lammy for party-political reasons.

I ASK THAT NO EDITORS REVERT THIS EDIT OR CHANGE ITS CONTENT WITHOUT PROPERLY ADDRESSING THE KEY POINT. BJACurry (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many words you write, or how many capital letters you use - I can't see any evidence that you have persuaded any other editors to agree with you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not reasonable to deluge a talk page with vast tracts of indulgent angry, shouty, unfocussed text or to tell another user that they are lying about the views they have expressed. You are advocating a cumbersome, inaccurate, original research, ill-expressed solution to a problem that you have failed to convince is existent. Personally, I think it compounds matters. WP:NOTFORUM and, though I've waded through your previous edits, this time it's too much. TLDR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

QUOTE I knew from the days of my childhood and in the elementary school, on through my walks in the Harvard yard and my lectures in Germany, that in all things in general, white people were just the same as I: their physical possibilities, their mental processes were no different from mine; even the difference in skin color was vastly overemphasized and intrinsically trivial. And yet this fact of racial distinction based on color was the greatest thing in my life and absolutely determined it, because this surrounding group, in alliance and agreement with the white European world, was settled and determined upon the fact that I was and must be a thing apart UNQUOTE. (DuBois 2007 [1940]: 69)BJACurry (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a very good discussion is it?! I’ll just try and finish my reply to JJNito as I said I would. I’m not aware of the vandalising, and I don’t think this begins with the Lammy show. I’m not clear whether you think I’m conflating concepts or not, or whether you think either would be a good or bad thing. My main point was that the opening sentence is ambiguous. I tried to open up the discussion further but I can see that this might be a bit ambitious. The only definite observation I made was about that sentence.

“The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England, who speak the English language and share a common history and culture.” It’s very easy to read that sentence as meaning that the English as an ethnic group and the English as a nation are one and the same. You don’t need formal logic to see this and that they are not. It doesn’t matter where they discussion started in this respect.

I don’t know what you mean by “English identity goes back further”. English identity remains undefined there. And I very much doubt this opening sentence as written reflects an academic consensus. The second sentence isn’t very precise either, because whatever English identity is now, it is not the same as it was in early medieval times. You might even find breakages of continuity there. (Note: “The genetic map of Britain shows that most of the eastern, central and southern parts of England form a single genetic group with between 10 and 40 per cent Anglo-Saxon ancestry. However, people in this cluster also retain DNA from earlier settlers.”)

In any case my positive contribution concerned the first sentence. I could bring more to this discussion, but as things stand I’m not sure we’re likely to get much further here. Meerta (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Meerta, the point is this is a sourced, cited and lengthy article that goes over the valid points you are making about identity and how one identifies, expanding on recent immigration and absorption of different cultural groups. The part I strongly disagree with you is changing the opening sentence as this is not the standard for any other ethnic article on Wikipedia. Whether people identify as English or British is a matter purely up to them and anecdotal evidence is not reason enough to change established articles if the scholary consensus hasn't changed. I'm sure people are not going to be dissuaded by identifying as English soley due to the opening sentence of this article- people of multiethnic backgrounds like myself become entangled with identity issues by blurring the lines between ethnicity and nationality, causing one to identify as their percieved race rather than their nationality, causing great problems in society. If the ethnic articles are changed across the board on wikipedia I would not mind, but as it stands it seems to be an attack on English ethnic identity. Also, this article is not just about insular England; this includes the English diaspora across the world, which is why multiple problems could arise from nullifying the ethnic identity of people overseas. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

”not the standard for any other ethnic article on Wikipedia” Well this just isn’t true. Just look at the Scottish people entry. Look at the entry for Germans in German Wikipedia. You might expect that to be better on this, and it certainly is. And Germany is a sovereign nation unlike England.

“Whether people identify as English or British is a matter purely up to them” That’s not true, and you aren’t going to find many academics who agree with you on that.

“people of multiracial backgrounds like myself become entangled with identity issues by blurring the lines between ethnicity and nationality, causing one to either identify as their percieved race rather than their nationality, causing great problems in society” This needs a hell of a lot of unpacking . It’s not relevant to my point. I very strongly dispute it’s truth.

Even the quote from 2006 should indicate to you that eth. and nat. when applied the England are not straightforward. This is very rudimentary and basic. And the quote and the OED entry already mentioned should be enough to indicate they should be treated separately in the first instance.

I very strongly doubt that whatever it is you’re talking about is “causing great problems in society”, because it’s very vague. And this isn’t relevant, again.

“I'm sure people are not going to be dissuaded by identifying as English soley due to the opening sentence of this article” It’s not about whether they might be or not.

“seems to be an attack on English ethnic identity” Does it? Okay. But it’s not. Are you perhaps being a little defensive.

“If the ethnic articles are changed across the board on wikipedia”. If the “ethnic articles” are all framed in the same way, they aren’t going to be very accurate. But they aren’t in any case.

That opening sentence could be improved in a lot of ways. Perhaps there was a point in the past when it was better. What I was proposing was very modest, yet I’ve faced a barrage of statements about my motivation and my arguments that have no bearing on me or what I was trying to say. Meerta (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Try not to be offended, I'm trying to have a constructive conversation. Scottish people, German people and Welsh people all state the ethnic identity in the first sentence, that is your gripe no? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and as you have provided none, its hard to see where we progess from here. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of the infomation just below the heading in each article. The Scots page says "This article is about the Scottish people as an ethnic group. For residents or nationals of Scotland, see Demographics of Scotland", while the English page says "This article is about an ethnic and national group." Very different emphasis.

For the German entry I'm talking about German Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia. (I did say so.) It manages to avoid the ambiguity completely, although unlike England it's a sovereign nation (so German nationality is very clearly defined.) So again, it simply isn't true that all of Wiki deals with these things the same, and it wouldn't be appropriate anyway.

It's true that the first sentence of the Scottish and English page are similar, but the issues around what it is to be English or Scottish are very different. Is it my "gripe"? No idea. I think I've been fairly clear in what I want to say.

Wikipedia is also based on consistency, clarity and good English, no? I provided you with an excerpt from one source, to illustrate that this wasn't all about something that happened this week, and you commented that the quotation was poignant. There are plenty of sources, across many disciplines, some of which will have been selected to inform this article. It's such a large and complex discussion, in the case of England, that I think it's one of those pages that it's difficult for Wikipedia to do well. But this is beside the point.

I don't know why you think it's fitting to ask me to read those pages. If you're certain it's okay that the opening sentence should read that way and that there is no alternative, is that based on original research? Meerta (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Until you provide citations to the conclusions you want implemented, everything you wrote would come under original research. I'm not sure about that point about demographics, but its very clear your main issue was the first sentence of this article and this is what I am subsequently addressing. What you said about Scotland and England is just untrue and is a matter of opinion. About that 'good english' comment, we don't generally use a comma before 'and' in British english. Regarding that excerpt, you should add that into the article under the relevant sub-categories if you think it helps the article for sure. Peoples experiences regarding this matter are valuable. I think you are being rather combative so can you start providing reliable sources otherwise we will never get anywhere. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a conclusion. It’s a correction/improvement of the opening sentence. What are you talking about? Commas? What I wrote? Do you mean in this talk page? We’ve both written plenty here. Untrue AND a matter of opinion? You have the OED as a source for one, and the change is want is consistent with the article already, I would think. I can’t respond better than this at this stage, sorry. We’ve been over most of already, too much, and I’ll feel like I’m falling into some kind of trap, whether you meant to set one or not.

That final comment isn’t going to get a response from me. Most of the rest had already been covered, more than once. In any case, this is too difficult. Meerta (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we keep the arguments brief and to the point it is difficult to follow when so much of it is walls of text.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to pick up on a point raised by User:BJACurry above who wrote:

This is consistent but false as John Barnes in 1994 is a member of set B (English Nation). As well as being false it is (and I know this was nobody’s intention) quite straight-forwardly racist. It clearly promotes discrimination against people of colour and/or non-white heritage by effectively claiming that they cannot be English and is, therefore, likely to be prosecutable under laws of hate speech.

If this was true then authors of the national census 2021 (PDF) would be breaking the law. On page 8, there is section on National Identity. Tick boxes for British and the constituent nations, or space for some other national identity to be written in.

Then there is a section on ethnic group. Try filling it out stating you are a black English woman and not a white English woman (which is the default colour for English according to the form). There tick box option that incluses Black British but you would have to write in longhand "Black English". You can be British-Asian, but it is tricky to work out how to be English-Asian. I found the form to be rasist, and because of the ease of just ticking a box, likely to be introducing bias into the statistics, but I doubt it broke the law. -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)