Talk:English people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 21 Oct 2005 and 10 Nov 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:English people/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.Alun 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbers of English continued

so just to recap where do these numbers come from and what do the indicate.

• United Kingdom[1][2]: 45,265,093
• United States[3]: 24,515,138
• Canada[4]: 5,978,875
• Australia[5]: 6.4 million

The 45,265,093 numbers is from where and does it mean this number of people in the UK claim to be English, because i am sure a large slice would in fact claim British as their identity. Why don't we contact the 2001 census to see how many wrote English?

The other numbers are for people of English ancestry but does that mean they are English people, i don't think so? It should state that the numbers are for people of English ancestry, i am sure that the vast majority of these people don't for one moment consider themselves English in ethnicity. Bretagne 44 16:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added the sources from the article to the figures Bretagne 44 wrote. zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems to work for Irish people, Italians, Welsh people, Macedonians (ethnic group), Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, you name it, everyone. Their statistics are in reference to what? All you have to do is to find a reliable publisher which says that there are this many X people there then. That's how everyone else does it. If you find a credible publisher saying the same about the Cornish *snigger* you can use that figure. Sadly, 4000 people surveys don't count, they are POV depending on who the 4000 people are from, surveys are rerely reliable, while censi and CIA World Factbook figures are used everywhere (see Demographics of X where X is any country any you will find the Factbook statistics there). All I know is that the CIA World Factbook figures are based on the 2001 census, something which you would know if you cared to check :-) REX 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The CIA factbook, which is a reputable publisher, says [6] of the United Kingdom:

"Ethnic groups: white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)"

The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 UK census was 58,789,194 [7].

58,789,194 * 0.921 * 0.836 = 45265092.65 = 45,265,093

Although a calculation is not ideal, it is easily verifiable, and as accurate as the published figures. It is no different to conversion to a percentage. For reference, 49,138,831 people were living in England at the time [8] (we know there's a difference).

In the ethnicity question in the 2001 census, "What is your ethnic group?", English was a write-in answer. Like Cornish, English is both a sub-category of(p52[9]), and an alternative to([10]), White British .

The raises several questions including why, according to the CIA, every white person in the UK belongs to the ethnic group of one of four constituent parts of the United Kingdom (e.g. it excludes the Cornish). This will hopefully be made clear by the original ONS census publication. At the moment this source is authoritative, recent, referenced, and verifiable. It is possible for both a person's and a group's ancestry and ethnic group to change over time. I think the Australian reference explains this well [11].

It would really help if someone could identify an ONS publication of the number of English as an ethnic group. zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That will be rather difficult as the ONS does not identify any such thing as an English "ethnic group": it identifies people by race and place of birth, so there were 44,679,361 white people resident in England at the 2001 Census [12], 1,028,546 Indians, 706,539 Pakistanis, and 561,246 from the Caribbean; 44,588,008 were born in the UK, 1,154,707 were born elsewhere in the then-EU (including Irish Republic), and 3,396,116 were born outside the EU. This is one reason why the whole idea of putting figures in an "English ethnicity" article is nonsensical. The figures you seek are simply not available. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly three years, and one of the first things I learned was not to put undue credence in what the CIA World Factbook claims - it is known to adapt figures to suit American concepts of how the world is without necessarily reflecting real life on the ground; it may be OK to get a general idea of things, but it can certainly be wrong in specificities. -- Arwel 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

p52 of this reference says that English is an ethnic group in the census. Place of birth was a separate question[13] and for good reason. I don't think the UK census has ever identified people by race. The CIA Factbook cites the 2001 UK census. zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

User REX raises some interesting points that i myself have made before concerning the use of figures on all the "people" pages and i think its is something Wikipedia need create a policy on to use across the board.

For example on the Italian people page it is possible to include people with Italian ancestry as Italian people and to use the total population of Italy as a figure for numbers in said country. It is even possible to include people who speak Italian form Switzerland even though these people do not think themselves part of the "Italian ethnic group".

However for regions where the question of ethnicity is more controversial such as the English or Cornish people page this does not seem acceptable, i would not, for example, feel comfortable having a number for Cornish in Australia or the USA even though there are large populations in both that claim Cornish ancestry.

I think it is a subject that should be decided by Wikipedia and then definitive regulations used for all the pages. A differentiation should be made between people who claim ancestry of one particular group and the group itself.

User zzuuzz thank you for your clarification of the figure for numbers of English in England. However i still am not happy about the numbers used for English in other countries. There are English people who live abroad and then there are people with English ancestry but the two are not the same. Bretagne 44 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

zzuuzz, what are you doing? Changing figures without first discussing it here. Where did you get those figures? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have edited them back so they are now similar to how they were (as above). Someone keeps reverting my edits, and I don't know where those other numbers come from (?). I have changed the UK figure to Unknown, and amended the CIA Factbook footnote, because I think the number is not credible. It is likely to represent country of birth or something, as Arwel's comments suggest. It is however referenced. Although the CIA number is itself cloudy, the other issues about the numbers of this page seem a bit clearer to me, and I hope I can help clarify what they are (when I get a chance). I also wish to assert:

• The correct figure for the UK will be based on the number who wrote-in English on the census form.
• Self-defined ancestry and ethnic group are both relevant to this page.
• If credible sourced numbers are reported they should be included (somewhere) on the page.
• The total number of English is unknowable.
• Number of English in South Africa - unknown
• Number of English in South America - unknown
• Number of English in Ireland - unknown

If anyone has an opinion or a (referenced) source to the contrary, please quote it. zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

zzuuzz I am in agreement with you and your list. All sources that are reasonably reliable should be discussed in the article as should numbers claiming ancestry. These figures should not be used in the box at the top however. Bretagne 44 19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree the infobox is a bit of an issue, but it is where you would expect to see metadata, and a reference to the scale of this English people (ethnic group) thing. If the infobox is there it should show the numbers, or have a reference to a footnote (or something). I am uncomfortable with the word population being used, though it is technically accurate. zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Um zzuuzz, from where do you derive your special authority to pick and choose which reliable sources to use and which not. I find it most interesting that because you think that the Factbook's figures are unreliable then they must not be used. Why don't we apply that to Demographics of X where X is any country. The Factbook clearly says the figure of the Number of English in the UK. Why can't it be used, because you don't believe it? Also, why doesn't all this procedure apply in the case of ALL OTHER NATIONALITIES? Once a credible source gives a figure, it is used. How do you explain the French people figures? They do not seem to be having the same worries as you. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You have an excellent point GrandfatherJoe, so I have put the 45,265,093 figure back in the infobox. I think it might be an idea to round these numbers a little, but I have no strong opinion about it. I have seen most of the other XX_people pages, and the referencing is absolutely terrible. There is no indication what is being measured. Completely unencyclopaedic. Most of the numbers look like complete guesswork, not knowledge; and many are optimistic if not deliberately inflated. Take for example the Irish people (ethnic group) article which includes a number for the Irish in Ireland that not only includes all the British in Northern Ireland, but includes every single person on the island, and then some more. In its tricolour infobox. The number of Irish in Britain is over 10 times what the UK census says, and the number in America is nearly twice what the US census says. One of the more serious attempts I've seen to identify the total population is Albanians, but even that is sorely lacking in some respects. Welsh people is not too bad either. I firstly think that all these numbers should be properly sourced, and secondly agree with Bretagne 44 and others that this infobox requires a wider standard across the board. I/we would also prefer they were accurate, but that is of secondary importance to being referenced and accurately reported. zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should propose a policy, which mandates that only census results can be used in these infoboxes. Rex^(talk) 16:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This may be difficult as some countries will not measure ethnic group in their census. They may ask for ancestry (see discussion elsewhere), but even this is not guaranteed. The Irish census for example will ask about ethnic group for the first time in 2006. It is a good principle though because censuses are authoritative and usually very transparent. Perhaps where the census figure is available it should 'trump' any kind of survey in the infobox. Or perhaps surveys should definitely not be used in the infobox. zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a possible solution but my main point is that a decision needs to be made at a high level in Wikipedia and the applied across the board, so i would really like to know how to approach Wikipedia with this problem.

Another possible solution would be to have one set of rules for recognised countries/states and their citizens eg UK, Irish, Russian, Chinese etc where you could use total population figures for the numbers and another rule for unrecognised/historic nations/peoples eg Cornish, Tibetan, Chechen, Ulster, English etc Bretagne 44 10:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Cornish "unrecognised historic nation" *snigger* :-) how could I forget? Well, the usual criteria include what distinguishes these unrecognised peoples from their ethnic surroundings, such as language, religion and any racial characteristics. This works for the Chechens, the Tibetians and the Ulster protestants; but it doesn't help with the English/Cornish/British thing. The English, Cornish and more generally, the British all speak the same language, religion is not helpful (unless of course we say that every Methodist in the outside of Cornwall is part of the "Cornish diaspora"), and they all look the same. Perhaps regional accents could be a criterion. Rex^(talk) 12:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So back to childish attack as opposed to being constructive, good on you REX you make this board so much better! To any other contributors i would really like to know how to make a formal complaint about this REX individual.

Maybe we should propose a policy, which mandates that only census results can be used in these infoboxes

That sounds like a good idea, so how many wrote in English in the last census? Bretagne 44 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why talk about the English? Let's talk about that "unrecognised historic nation", the "Cornish" *smirk*, who according to the last census numbered 33,932 *Wow!*. Maybe we should propose that policy and see where it leads us. I can forsee a problem though. It will be up against mass opposition by the authors of every other ethnic group article, so we will be in the minority :-( To comment on you, why don't you tell me what the childish attack was exactly, so that I can remidy it (that is assuming that I did indeed make an attack and you are not lying)! Rex^(talk) 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, if you want to make a point, please try to do so without being patronising and dismissive. You do not have the right to sit in judgment on people, and your opinions are simply that, just opinions, people will not always agree with you. Disagreements cannot be solved by making childish and inflamatory remarks like *smirk and *Wow!, this sort of attitude is insulting and does not contribute to the article in any kind of productive way. You seem only to want to cause offence or pick a fight. Go and do this in a more appropriate place like a talk board if you must do it at all. You have every right to disagree with people, but you should do it in a constructive manner. I find your attitude offensive. I think you should look at this Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline, and also this one Wikiquette, particularly this sentence: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better.

If you'd actually tried to understand what User:Bretagne 44 had written, rather than dismissing it because of your POV position, you would have seen that it was unrecognised/historic nations/peoples, and not unrecognised historic nation. Like it or not Cornwall has historically been a kingdom separate from Wessex, Alfred's Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons and Athelstan's Kingdon of England (both of which were de Novo creations), where they did speak a different language, and I mean a language derived from Brythonic, and so akin to Welsh and Breton and not a Germanic language, and had a separate religion (it was almost certainly Christian when neighboring Wessex was still Pagan). Also this from the Cornwall article It is worthy of note that on many maps produced before the 18th century Cornwall was depicted as a nation of Great Britain. Cornwall does have it's own separate cultural and linguistic identity.I think you need to read the Cornwall article and the Constitutional status of Cornwall article as you appear to have little or no understanding of this subject. I also think you need to understand that all peoples and cultures are important and that all have a right to express an opinion. You may disagree, that is your prerogative, but if you do so please do not be offensive, dismissive, patronising or generally insulting. Make your point in a polite way, explaining the reasons for your position.

but it doesn't help with the English/Cornish/British thing. The English, Cornish and more generally, the British all speak the same language, religion is not helpful

This statement is not true. The Welsh are British and speak a different language to the English. The Welsh language only became a minority language in Wales in the 1930s, and is gaining in popularity. The Welsh also had big religious differences to the English, Wales has largely been non-conformist and there is now no established church in Wales, whereas there is in Scotland and England, though the two are different. Scotland has a different Established Church (Presbyterian)to England (Anglican). I would argue that there are in fact large cultural, religious and linguistic differences in Britain as a whole and within England as well. England itself is as much a mosaic of cultures as Great Britain is, it may be one reason why Englishnes is so difficult to define, as the article says.Alun 11:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah Alun, welcome to the discussion. For starters, I prompt you to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which directs users to assume that other users are acting out of good faith (and are not trolling for example). If I'm not much mistaken, you are assuming bad faith on my part, or that's what I gathered from your quote: you seem only to want to cause offence or pick a fight. I may be wrong of course...

You are asking me to read a wikipedia guideline that I have just directed you to. You astound me. You either believe that the best form of defence is attack, or you really don't know what assuming good faith is. Here's a quote from the page When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. I always assume good faith, but the fact is that I can find no way to interpret these comments

"unrecognised historic nation", the "Cornish" *smirk*
recognised historic nation" *snigger* and
who according to the last census numbered 33,932 *Wow!*
as anything other than deliberately offensive and sarcastic put-downs designed to ridicule someone else. These are my reasons.

• These comments are directed at people who hold different opinions to yours.
• These comments do not seem to contribute to the article in any productive manner.
• These comments seem, to me, to serve no other purpose than to belittle the views or opinions of others.
• These comments are offensive.

So yes you do seem only to want to cause offence or pick a fight with these comments. Note the use of the word seem. This is my interpretation of these comments.

If it was not your intention to cause offence or to belittle someone else, then why did you not just post a message explaining that this was not your intention, instead of accusing me of assuming bad faith? So I stand by what I said, unless you can show me how these comments contribute in a mature and constructive way to the article, and were never intended to be belittling or offensive, in which case I will modify my position gladly. Alun 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You may not know that Bretagne 44 and I have been at odds over certain issues for quite a while and I do have a rather extensive awareness of the "Cornish" question. On Talk:Cornwall#Constitutional status of Cornwall Bretagne 44 and I were having a long "legal debate" over whether Cornwall is an English county or an "illegaly occupied Celtic nation". In my opinion, it would be POV to say that it is and POV to say that it isn't. As far as I can tell, Britannica, Encarta, The British Parliament and even The Queen herself view and treat Cornwall as an English county (all this is well explained at Talk:Cornwall#Constitutional status of Cornwall). According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, that cannot be ignored. WP:NPOV seems to indicate thatWikipedia should express all views and support none. Therefore, there is a good reason not to gloss over the fact that there is a strong case that Cornwall is an English county. Desipte that, if you were to check the equlvalent article on the Cornish Wikipedia, you would see that only one POV is mentioned. Gee, I wonder which one.

I am not disputing the status of Cornwall as an English county (and actually haven't so don't put words into my mouth please). I do not dispute that Cornwall is English. But I do take offence at your attitude to people who have every right to dispute these things if they so wish. Just because Cornwall is in England this does not mean that it's people necessarily identify themselves culturally with the Germanic English peoples, and no one (not even you) has the right to tell anyone that because they are born in Cornwall they must feel English. The same arguments could be made for the Brythonic heritage of Cumbria, for example. In Yorkshire many people identify themselves as culturally Scandinavian, and the people of York are proud of their descent from Vikings, though this groups them in with other English people of Germanic descent, it distinguishes them from people who identify with Anglo-Saxons.Alun 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Welsh language: Forgive me, but I was unde the impression that roughly 25% of the Welsh people can actually speak Welsh (the rest speak English). Therefore your assertation that language could be a means of identifying whether someone is Welsh is rendered null and void, as it would be excluding 75% of the Welsh. That is what I was saying above, as English is the majority language of everyone in the UK, language doesn't really serve to distinguish the various "unrecognised historic nations". Also, neither is religion. Are you taking the WASP view that all English are Anglicans, all Scots are Presbyterians etc. That is a gross generalisation, as there are Anglican Scots (Scottish Episcopal Church), there are Anglicans in Wales (Church in Wales) and there are Roman Catholics everywhere. In other words, my main conclusion is that all people in the UK are, at least superficially, identical an there is nothing (such as language and/or religion) which can help distinguish each "unrecognised historic nations" from the other. Rex^(talk) 13:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth again, apparently to try to win an argument I am not having. I didn't say that Welsh people should be identified only by an ability to speak Welsh. I did pointed out that Wales does have a language that is distinct from English. You may not be aware that Welsh has equal status to English in Wales. My point was that your comment that what distinguishes these unrecognised peoples from their ethnic surroundings, such as language, religion and any racial characteristics doesn't apply to Britain because the British all speak the same language, religion is not helpful (unless of course we say that every Methodist in the outside of Cornwall is part of the "Cornish diaspora"), and they all look the same is not only fundamentally flawed, but actually hopelessly incorrect and biased. Not every Welsh person has to be able to speak Welsh for the language to distinguish Welsh people as different, the fact that the language exists does that. After all, I expect all Chechens speak Russian.

Are you taking the WASP view that all English are Anglicans, all Scots are Presbyterians etc. That is a gross generalisation, as there are Anglican Scots (Scottish Episcopal Church), there are Anglicans in Wales (Church in Wales) and there are Roman Catholics everywhere

Why do you persist in misrepresenting what I have written? I can't decide if it is because you want to re-define the argument on your terms, or if it is because you have not fully understood what I wrote, and so are responding to what you think I said, rather than what I actually said.

What I said was that in England the Church of England is the Established church. That is that it is the official state religion. In Scotland the Presbyterian church is the Established church. In Wales there is no established church. So the state attitude to religion is different in the three regions of Great Britain. It is therefore also incorrect to say that religion is not helpful when it comes to defining the British peoples.Alun 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You do seem interested in my previous comments and also seem to be displaying an intense desire to discipline me. Let's see if I can explain them. I view those "expressions" as something tantamount to smileys. My intention is to make clear my personal views on the matter and that I am not in any way endorsing it. For example, in this case we are talking about the Cornish language and people. According to UNESCO's Red Book on endangered languages Cornish is extinct and has been so since 1777. In other words, the Cornish language as spoken today is a somewhat artificial (papier-mâché) language intended to create the illusion of nationhood (as the actual nation has long been assimilated). However as the Cornish nationalist ideology is irrelevant to what we are supposed to be discussing here, which is the population of alleged English expats. While what you are saying about the UK's other autochthonous peoples may be true, without sources, it cannot be published by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). That seems to be the problem here; the facts are mixed up with nationalistic fantasies, such as the suggestion that Corwall is an illegally occupied country, while remaining oblivious to reality that the British Parliament would appear to have different views. In such circumstances, the theory in extended to imply that the British Parliament is illegally passing laws over Cornwall. Wikipedia policies should be adhered to. ONLY what can be found in reliable sources can be published and theories of our own should be left out. As regards to your last comment, please clarify. Please give me an example of how religion could be used to identify the number of an ethnic group. I really am curious to know. Can I take the number of Presbyterians in the 2001 census and say that is how many Scots there are in Britain? Or do the same with Anglicans? If you wanted to find out how many ethnically Welsh people there are in Britain, would you use language or religion? No, they are not helpful. Not all Welsh people speak Welsh, nor do they all belong to one religion. The same applies to every other nation in the UK. Language and religion cannot be used, and even if they were, the figures that emerged could not be used as they would be original research. Rex^(talk) 20:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that I am trying to discipline you from. I am saying that I found your posting needlessly confrontational and aggressive. You say that this was not your intent. OK I can accept that, though I would urge you to try to be clearer in the way you post messages, for the sake of clarity and good communication. Personally I do not think that smileys contribute in any meaningful way to discussions on articles.

I agree that there are a lot of nationalistic fantasies and nonsense. But you seem to want it both ways. You seem to be claiming (please set me straight if I have misunderstood) that all British peoples are culturally, linguistically and religiously homogeneous, this seems to me to be verifyably nonsense (Welsh people do not wear plaid or toss the caber, English people do not, as far as I am aware, hold Eisteddfods and Scots people are blissfully unaware of the joys of cawl). But if it were true, then why are you contributing to an article about the English, because if Welsh and Scottish people can only be considered homogeneously British, then the same must be true for the English.

You say this:

Well, the usual criteria include what distinguishes these unrecognised peoples from their ethnic surroundings, such as language, religion and any racial characteristics. This works for the Chechens, the Tibetians and the Ulster protestants; but it doesn't help with the English/Cornish/British thing. The English, Cornish and more generally, the British all speak the same language, religion is not helpful (unless of course we say that every Methodist in the outside of Cornwall is part of the "Cornish diaspora"), and they all look the same.

Based on your criteria I can see no reason for you claiming that the Ulster Protestants would count as an unrecognised people, what they count as is simply residents of Northern Ireland who are not Catholic, but by definition a Protestant is not Catholic. This is like claiming that English Catholics count as an unrecognised people. The Ulster Protestants speak English, so do non-Protestant residents of Ulster (so no linguistic differences), they look the same as other residents of Ulster (so no racial differences). Religion? Well they may all be Protestants, but they do not all follow the same religion, I'm sure some are Anglicans, others Presbyterians, yet more Born Again Christians, so Religion is not helpful, which is exactly the argument you use. So are you claiming that all Ulster Protestants, to a person, all follow the same religion?

In the end, the only way a person can be identified as English is if they themselves choose to be identified as English, the same is true of being Welsh or Scots. This must be true, because there is no legal definition (like there is for being a UK citizen, for example) for being English or Welsh or Scots. However much you try, I don't think you will ever manage to pigeonhole British or English people in a satisfactory manner, we're simply too diverse as a population.Alun 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

First, religion in Northern Ireland (as I see it at least) serves to distinguish between Loyalists and Republicans; the article Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland illustrates this. You have said that: you [you were addressing me] seem to be claiming (please set me straight if I have misunderstood) that all British peoples are culturally, linguistically and religiously homogeneous. Forgive me, but I can't recall me ever saying that. To quote you: don't put words into my mouth please. I was raising the point that from the available statistics we have, nothing serves to distinguish the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh from each other. This is plainly and purely due to the fact that there is no identifiable characteristic (that the census inquires after, unless of course the census asks how many people celebrate the Eisteddfod) that just identifies one people (in this case at least, language and religion). Perhaps you can enlighten me, show me how you would use language or religion to find the numbers of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish in the UK. I say it is not possible (it may be possible in the case of the, say, Jews). The gauntlet is down, the best thing you can do is prove me wrong. As regards to the smileys, I think that they serve a very important function; they convey the writer's emotions and attitude to a specific subject to the reader. As the reader cannot see the writer's face, he cannot know what whether he is being serious or not. You say that (quote): I [you] found your posting needlessly confrontational and aggressive. This may be so, if anyone is offended, I apologise. It's what I am used to really, I contribute (or attempt to) to other articles, where posts such as this (I (and a few others) am being compared to terrorists and potential assassins, and I'm being called an Albanian chauvinist and extremist) are a regular occurrence. Therefore (I'm just guessing) it's likely that I interpret most posts addressed to me as secretly conveying malice. You should visit us on Balkan related article talk pages, the hot stuff is now on Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). If you like nationalism and aggressive and confrontational posts, do give us a visit. You'll come out thinking that everyone's against you and against your nationality. You'll be a paranoid as the Albanian ex-leader Enver Hoxha. Rex^(talk) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Rex, I am sorry for jumping the gun and accusing you of being aggressive. I recently had a bad experience over at Talk:Rosalind Franklin and it may have made me overly sensitive.

I can't agree about religion in NI. There are Protestant Republicans and Catholic Loyalists. Not to mention that there is technically a difference between a Republican and a Nationalist. But of course we were not talking about how religion in NI serves to define one's politics, but how religion serves to define an unrecognised people. So what I said still stands, You cannot use Protestantism as a means of defining an unrecognised people as Protestantism is not a single religion.

you [you were addressing me] seem to be claiming (please set me straight if I have misunderstood) that all British peoples are culturally, linguistically and religiously homogeneous. Forgive me, but I can't recall me ever saying that. To quote you: "don't put words into my mouth please"

If you re-read this properly you will see that what I am doing is asking for clarification, not putting words into your mouth. By using the word seem I am telling you what my understanding of your position is. By saying please set me straight if I have misunderstood I am seeking clarification that what I have understood is the same as what you meant. I did not put words into your mouth, I simply asked for clarification.

I was raising the point that from the available statistics we have, nothing serves to distinguish the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh from each other.

What do you mean by statistics? I have already said that in my opinion there is no real way of defining English, Welsh or Scot except by self definition.

This is plainly and purely due to the fact that there is no identifiable characteristic (that the census inquires after, unless of course the census asks how many people celebrate the Eisteddfod) that just identifies one people

Well the census could simply ask people to identify for themselves which of the native British people they most closely identify with. It wouldn't have to ask them if they had participated in an Eisteddfod, it would simply have to ask them if they consider themselves English, or Welsh or Scots or Irish or of some other group (Cornish, for example?) I think that whereas you are seeking to impose your (in my opinion narrow) definitions on people, I would seek to allow people to self-define (it's probably my libertarian instincts coming out). Again I am not trying to put words into your mouth, just trying to clarify the differences between our positions. So it's not rocket science, a quick and simple way to find out, just ask people.Alun 17:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it most interesting that you have just changed your position. What I say stands; you cannot use religion or language as a means of distinguishing the English from the Scots, Irish or Welsh. Or as I said above: The English, Cornish and more generally, the British all speak the same language, religion is not helpful (unless of course we say that every Methodist in the outside of Cornwall is part of the "Cornish diaspora"), and they all look the same. Plain and simple, language and religion cannot be used for that purpose in the UK. You seemed to disagree with me at first (I still haven't understood why), but at least now you have modified your position and we are agreeing (while hoping that I wouldn't notice). As for the Protestents of Ulster, I'm sure that you don't need me to remind you that they are the product of the Plantations of Ireland and as such are the descendants of Britons and are not ethnically Irish. Unless of course you believe that Protestantism has a strong foothold in Ireland and traditionally has been extremely popular amongst the native Irish. Therefore, it only makes sense to say that religion does distinguish the descendands of the British settlers as Protestantism was/is their main characteristic. Can the same be said for the British ethnicities? Has religion ever been used for that purpose? It has in NI. Orthodox observance of Wikipedia policy is required here. The question we are trying to answer is how many English people are there in England? The CIA World Factbook says that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. I am prepared to accept that figure without futher question as per Wikipedia policies: WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RC and WP:NPOV. Certain individuals though, yourself for example, say that in my [your] opinion there is no real way of defining English, Welsh or Scot except by self definition. And you also said I think that whereas you are seeking to impose your (in my opinion narrow) definitions on people, I would seek to allow people to self-define (it's probably my libertarian instincts coming out). I'm not seeking to impose anything. I'm seeking to observe Wikipedia policy, which directs that once a credible publisher has published something, then that should be included in the article as a fact without futher question. Our POVs should stay out of it. Statistics exist, therefore as per Wikipedia policy, they should be used. Unless of course you have a problem with these rules, in which case you should take it up with the people who established them. Tell them that you do not with to be burdened with such silly rules and would much rather be free to implement your (quote): in my opinion there is no real way of defining English, Welsh or Scot except by self definition. Well, I've got news for you. Your (and my) POV should stay out of it and the neutral statistics should be used (Wikipedia policy). As for your statement that your liberal instincts are making you say that people should be allowed to self-define, whereas I am not allowing them to do so (ie I have no liberal instincts), if you want to claim the liberal moral high ground, why don't you find a better way (still compatible with WP policy) to fill in the infobox. And your proposal would be? Rex^(talk) 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly are your reliable figures for the numbers of English people from Australia, America etc? Remember "English people" not people with English ancestors. As for avoiding an apology for your patronising and childish language well done but i have not forgotten or gone away. I don't think we should be defining what make a Cornish or English person on wikipedia but instead trying to look at all the facets that are claimed to make up each respective identity, language is only a part of this. It is undeniable that there are Cornish, English, Irish etc people, wikipedia should examine the properties commonly attributed to these groups. However the info box should not contain figures for other countries of people who claim such and such ancestry. These are not numbers of said people but these numbers could be used elsewhere in the article. You are both right there are many nationalistic fantasies and claiming 24,515,138 English people live in the USA is one of them. Bretagne 44 21:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you, about 8 times. I am following the example of the authors of the articles on every other ethnic group. See Italians, they don't seem to be having the same worries as you. Oops, nor do the Irish people (that's the worst one). Obviously they seem to think that ancestry and ethnicity are both relevanti in this case. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be seen as the rebel, who goes against the system. However, given that you know everything *gleeful snigger*, why don't you tell me what ethnic group those 24,515,138 people belong to. If it is not the English, then what is it? Zulus maybe??? Rex^(talk) 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rex.

So what you meant to say is that you cannot exclusively use religion or language as a means of distinguishing the English from the Scots, Irish or Welsh. In which case I agree with you. They can be used in conjunction with each other and with other criteria, like place of birth, ancestry etc. If you are looking for an individual characteristic which will define a people, then I think it is impossible for any people or nation to be defined by a single trait. Your position on NI protestants does not hold up to rigorous scrutiny, as you are effectively saying that no person of British descent in NI has ever been born or converted to Catholicism, or that no person of Irish descent has ever been born or converted to Protestantism. It also doesn't explain how this qualifies then as an unrecognised people rather than simply an ethnic/religious minority.

The question we are trying to answer is how many English people are there in England? The CIA World Factbook says that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English.

It's all very well to accept that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. This doesn't tell you how many of them actually live in England though does it? And this is the question you are posing. In fact there are two fundamental problems here. Firstly the figure given is a proportion, whereas your question asks for a definitive figure, How many English people are there in England? not What proportion of people living in England are English?. The second is that the figure is for English people in the UK, not for English people in England. So this figure fails to answer your question on two counts. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the figure, though I will note that several people above have commented that this document is far from authoritative on subjects like this.

..policy, which directs that once a credible publisher has published something, then that should be included in the article as a fact without futher question. I don't think this is what the policy says at all. I think what it says is that credible publishers are the best ones to rely upon for citations because they are the ones that are least likely to be wrong. But multiple sources can be contradictory and all be correct, especially when it comes to statistics as the criteria for definition may be different for different compilers. What I mean is that one has to explicitly state what the criteria used by the CIA World Factbook to determine Englishnes are, otherwise the statistic is meaningless.

Your (and my) POV should stay out of it and the neutral statistics should be used (Wikipedia policy). Actually talk pages are absolutely the appropriate place to air ones opinions, it's one of the reasons they exist. There are no such things as neutral statistics. For example you have stated that What I say stands; you cannot use religion or language as a means of distinguishing the English from the Scots, Irish or Welsh. So what criteria do you use to distinguish them? But more importantly what criteria have the compilers of the CIA World Factbook used? Because the same problems of differentiating between English, Welsh and Scots apply to them. So this statistic derived from the Factbook is not neutral at all, but a subjective statistic based on the definition of Englishnes the compilers of the book have used.

I didn't mean to imply that you have no liberal instincts. I was commenting on myself, not on you. Apologies, this comment was not intended to cause offence.Alun 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Alun, I'll get back to you in a minute. I have to read what you wrote as we edit conflicted. Rex^(talk) 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)