Talk:English people/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about English people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

On Dynastic Propaganda of Napoleonic (ex-Whig) Tories

Latest comment: 17 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Norman_conquest_of_England#Norman_Heritage_and_Continental_Europe:

As early as the twelfth century the Dialogue on the Exchequer attests to considerable intermarriage between native English and Norman immigrants. Over the centuries, particularly after 1348 when the Black Death pandemic carried off a significant number of the English nobility, the two groups largely intermarried and became barely distinguishable.

As a result of Whig history, Normandy's image suffers from stereotypes of the "Popish" French people, when it was actually the "savage" Nordic nature of that province which repulsed the Catholic Anglo-Saxons. English monarchs since Æthelberht of Kent and Offa of Mercia were part of integral alliances with the Franks, people like Alfred the Great and Charles the Bald having set the anti-Viking standard for Western Europe during the Dark Ages. Be that as it may, the Normans succeeded in England upon the shoulders of Svein Forkbeard's dynasty and the marriage with Emma of Normandy.

William's Conquest only blended disparate elements and contemporary trends, especially relative to the Angevin Empire and the Crusades. As a result of England's integral Continental basis, there was even an Englishman (Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall) who contested the Holy Roman Empire for himself and another Englishman (Pope Adrian IV) who won the Papal States under his wing. Significant English notables in Continental history included: Richard I of England, Edward I of England, Antony Bek, Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster, Edward III of England, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and many, many more.

Professed "defenders" of the Commons, consider it almost akin to blasphemy to include the ("Catholic", "Pagan") Norman Lords of old as true ("Protestant", "Christian") Englishmen, often becoming profusely pedantic with regards to Carolingian pedigrees and chronological circumstances of the Mediaeval dynasties--tainted by their French, "palaeo-multicultural" Catholicism. Extremist anti-Continental positions taken by British Enlightment, anti-Bonapartist politicians, have oftentimes helped rewrite England's part in Rome (Britannic pride wavers in England, unlike Gallic pride in France) and Europe out of history.

In the place of positive Norman stories, state propaganda in favour of the Georgian Kings who ruled Brunswick, became almost a realised manifesto for revisionist politicians who scrambled English history between the Anglo-Saxon raids and conquest of Britain and the "Saxon" Act of Settlement 1701. It did not factor to inform the English people that the Welfs were actually of Lombardic descent, thus favourable to the Bank of England, as the Lombards were well known for their skills in banking. It was irony for the Prime Ministerial Constitutional government vs pro-Bourbon Jacobite period, since the ousted James II married into that family for a Catholic heir in the first place.

Although not heartwarming due to their "foreign" mercantile, almost Hansa element, the Continental Orangist and Hanoverian periods in British history are still acclaimed by the same crowds which still condemn the era of Mary I of England and the House of Stuart--both of which were indigenous to the British Isles. While the Protestant Establishment praised with glowing terms the Prussian state during anti-Jacobite and anti-American "Rebel" times, 20th Century Britain's common people increasingly grew tired of "foreign (Saxon) Royals" and their Prussian friends. (See Edward VIII abdication crisis)

Recent polls indicate that public opinion has held the British Royal Family in lower esteem than at any other period in history, but the choice marriage of the Queen was a Danish Prince from Greece. Consequently, it is often commented by various observers, that the British people are alienated by the Monarchy and have gone a 180 degree turn in their esteem towards the Irish--long usually considered mutually hostile. There are Continentalists and Catholics in England, but many sources infer that they cannot be trusted subjects or citizens in the same category as "traditional Englishmen". This goes over the very issue, of whether England and Britain owes more to its classical heritage than the barbarians of that era. Of course, this is all propounded by Euroscepticism of a new kind.

It seems as if the Welfs/Hanoverians/Estes had a beef with the Normans as well, seeing as how the Hautevilles made it rough for the last independent Lombard states (Benevento, etc) in Southern Italy. So while praising a legitimate descent from William of Normandy, through King James Stuart, it is pathetically disturbing to denounce the lives and ways in which they preferred to live--especially from caballistic usurpers never satisfied with their inheritance. British politics are repulsive, to say the least. User:68.110.8.21 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? TharkunColl 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only eh, but what on earth? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What era gave most to the English people in England and their descendents elsewhere? The names "Angle" (Scandinavian, like "Norman") and "Scot" (Irish) are of Barbarian invaders who used their tribal establishment to rule over the Britons, just as the Romans, Gauls and French conformed the land and people to their own dictates. The English are South-West European, once part of the Western Roman Empire. Britain's first choice in WWII was the Stresa Front and the extremists there were Fascist (e.g. Mosley), not National-Socialist. Even in this day and age, the favoured epithet directed towards Englishmen is "Imperialist" rather than "Nazi". I myself am not counted by White Supremacists as part of the Nordic race, apparently one of the Mediterranean race (with, as I hope, roots in Troy). You can bet your arse that I favour Leonidas over Xerxes! To Hell with Aryans, Iran and Persia.

A hostile clique of eccentric aristocrats in England count German Protestants to be vital for their anti-Napoleonic accoutrements. They hate the French and Scottish dynasties in English history with a passion (admittedly based on the Hundred Years' War) and act as if Rome had nothing to do with us in contradistinction with France or Spain/Portugal. They spin English identity to hinge entirely on parliamentarianism, capitalism and industry, glorifying in hatred of the French but forgetting the Parisian prize won by Henry V, dominating the Scottish but forgetting the British reunification dream fulfilled by James I, or considering the Irish to be little better than rubbish. Those partisans are intolerant and crackpot fundamentalists, doing a disservice to England and the English. Compare American fundamentalists and you get my drift.

Another thing: You won't find beer, gin, vodka, sauerkraut or curry in my home. We have wine, brandy, cider and perry. In addition to cheddar, wensleydale and stilton, we have brie, camembert, chevre, bleu, provolone, parmesan and feta. We have escargot, sardines, anchovies, calimari, couscous, hummus, dates, olives, apricots, pepperoni, mortadella, pesto, alfredo, pasta, salad and pistachios. I think that sets us apart from the Germans, quite.

68.110.8.21 23:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Every so often someone pops up posting tripe like this, and I'm beginning to suspect it's all the same person. TharkunColl 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat. Paranoia is a psychological disorder. 68.110.8.21 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address is American. You are not English, and quite clearly have very little knowledge of the English. TharkunColl 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an online academic forum. People come from all over the place. Their past is their own. Likewise, English diversity should cover my statements. Do you have tunnel-vision about English ethnic identity, sort of like "only a True Scotsman..."? Yours is just the kind of bigotry I am trying to address, with regards to the multitudinous charges I laid before your eyes to mock away on. 68.110.8.21 11:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal insults show a lack of real argument. If you knew the English, you would know that your assertions are just plain bollocks. TharkunColl 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So how does it feel to toe-the-line with state sponsored propaganda? You decry old lords who stood on our shoulders, while attesting to the faux champions of the new order who have taken your vote in their reformatory favour to mean permission for following in the footsteps of those they swore to oppose. You support a vicious circle of kleptomaniacal liars, institutionalised at your own expence and the fates of distant, third world countries to bear the extra burdens you would not at home. So goeth British economy and pride. 68.110.8.21 12:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...And I could not possibly be bothered to drink tea, that dastardly erroneous investment of Calcutta. No Pakis for me either, not with my Airedale ways. I drink coffee and adore the woe-are-us Arabs though. Must be something wrong with me, or Edward Said? Just Look North of where you are. 68.110.8.21 12:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your words both insulting and racist, and yet largely incomprehensible as well. Why bother contributing to this page if you hate the English so much? Incidentally, in case you were unaware, in England "Paki" is considered a term of abuse. TharkunColl 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I find you out of touch with the modern Groans of the Britons, patronising those who feel deeply in their heart the tragedies befallen our great name. I know exactly what the word means, which is why I used it. Rudyard Kipling should have never made the Jungle Book, because it is racist shite that got Bradford into its current mess. Hold their hands like children, condescending tones socially engineered in them to conform to our ways. Send them home and they are free of our Borg implants. You are the White Supremacist for such complacency, a silver spoon feeding of pride for their back breaking labour at your feet. So William Blake's And did those feet in ancient time hymn means nothing to you? I am something of a Luddite, coming from those Satanic Mills.

68.110.8.21 12:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you drunk or on drugs or something? Why can't you just write plain English? TharkunColl 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean that I should be yobbish, dumbing down my communication skills for the short and simple, full of crap approach? What about deference to thy betters, when thou hast been bested? 68.110.8.21 12:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

All right then. Your preconcieved notions have come crashing down all at once. From your own words, it appears that this has happened before. Your know-it-all hypocrisy continues to be boundlessly chauvinistic. It's Agincourt with you always, even if wrong. 68.110.8.21 12:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to hold an intelligent conversation with you, but you seem incapable. Furthermore, you have done nothing but insult me personally, and the English in general. I shall pursue this discussion no further. TharkunColl 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...Living in denial about the institutionally racist sufferings of others for your supremacist comforts. Pakis are the ultimate Proletariat in Britain, even propped up by white lies about the Aryan race typecasting us on an imperialist Love Boat together. Set them free of your system and the cycle of hate will discontinue. Don't blame the one who's always having to stay mum about pride on Saint George's Day, to avoid offending the PC crowd who actually were degraded under the Union Jack of Parliamentarian genesis and not the glory of our Dragonslayer. Hate the English for all I care, propping up the British supplanters and their David Irving nonsense about 1066. You are self-deluded. 68.110.8.21 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes of English people

All I meant to do in the previous section, is explain that I WILL NOT LIVE IN A BOX. Stereotypes should not be used to define the English, even if only a benchmark from which to approach their identity. There are too many bigots who assume certain conventions that limit who an English person can be. There is almost zero cosmopolitan understanding from such people. Exclusivist ideology is a very sad dilemma in the British Isles right now. A jingoistic approach has been put to test who is who and what their land means to them, with the stipulation that whoever is not them, is foreign and deserves to be seen as an enemy. Being British means we are all Britons of common origin and even if poor relations in the past, must realise that all families go through such bouts. You see, regional rivalries are damaging European stablity. Separatists inevitably wear down the fabric of tolerance and fraternity. Must problems in the UK stoop down to Yugoslavian ends? Could you truly live like that, with such shame and lowering British pride? People around the world may have mixed feelings about us, but they still give us the benefit of the doubt. We have our dirty little secrets of how flawed elements in our system is, but we are supposed to put a united front before the world. When we insist on institutionally maligning other Britons with contrived prejudices, then we all suffer. It is an island. Learn to deal with cramped conditions. You see, Alun left because of this hatred. Maybe you don't like my scolding. 68.110.8.21 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you choose to read the talk page guidelines, this talk page is supposed to be used for discussion of how to improve this article. The guidelines clearly state that "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." You appear to be using this talk page only as a platform for your views rather than to discuss specific improvements to the article. That is not to say you are right or wrong in your views, just that this is not the place to do it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken with all the wikilawyering, which has nothing to do with the discussion about this article. The call is for extremists to withdraw from advancing their ideologies at the expence of neutrality. I know that TharkunColl has had numerous arguments with Irish nationalists and it has worn him down. Several editors have already left because of this type of behaviour, including the aforementioned User:Wobble/Alun. Maybe you should pay attention to what has gone on, with edit wars on most British Isles ethnic article pages. The chief dispute between myself and TharkunColl, is that he wants this article to portray English people in a stereotypical light, that I consider to be an identity forged by the British government from the reign of William and Mary until the Victorian era. This is a perception of the English people invented by Whiggish historiography, what is actually state propaganda by Parliament in that specific era and not reflecting the English people on a whole. For instance, Queen Victoria was the one who began the focus on "Nordic" heritage in England, but that is because her son King Edward VII married Alexandra of Denmark and the UK was under German leadership for some time. This was not a common theme of English ethnicity before that time period, even when King James was married to Queen Anne of Denmark. So, it all comes down to what type of audience we are serving here. I would rather there be a more HONEST approach, but TharkunColl wants to have a myopic view as the "proper" exhibition of who the English people are. The traditional view of the English is ancient Celtic and Greco-Roman heritage, one which even the Anglo-Saxons ascribed to. 68.110.8.21 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

dynastic propaganda used as "truth" about commoners

TharkunColl, while supposedly decrying aristocrats and their view of history, admittedly bites their bait, hook-line-and-sinker when it comes to that Teutonic canard. If anybody doubts what I am writing here, they can read this: [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Aristocracy-1688-1830/dp/0618135278/ref=sr_1_6/103-0466721-8594225?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182741590&sr=1-6] Parliament revised history to soothe their invited masters from Germany, which proved mutually beneficial for the establishment as the Crown thereafter rarely challenged members and ministers of Parliament. All we need is NPOV in articles.

Do you hate Wikipedia's NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW policy?

Furthermore, I am using the talk page to discuss the nature of the article, rather than engaging in edit wars with TharkunColl.

The problem is, the majority of sources and references are driven by descriptions of the English people that do not vary with the UK's government nationalism. It is dangerous to give so much weight to dynastic propaganda that reflects the Royal Family, rather than the English people themselves. I can't believe you all are so blind and forgetful of the alienation the English people have for their foreign royals. The PR campaign of Prince Albert's family, was to change their name to Windsor. Yet, you all still believe we should present their view of the English. 68.110.8.21 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think an invited foreign dynasty (Hanoverians) was bad, how about a foreign dynasty (Normans) that imposed itself by force, killing vast numbers of English people in the process? If you want an example of hypocrisy, look no further than yourself. TharkunColl 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who contribute to this talk page might like to read Wikipedia:What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blame Edward the Confessor and the House of Wessex for inviting the Normans and Bretons to England, as an alternative to the barbarous Danish faction. Do you know that the ("evil") French King was invited by the Magna Carta Barons to depose King John in much the same manner as ("good") William of Orange's Whigs who engineered the Bill of Rights? 68.110.8.21 08:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who contribute to this talk page Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals is also an informative read as is Wikipedia:Assume good faith --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, caveats are supposed to be placed at the tops of talk pages. 68.110.8.21 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused? English are not Anglo-Saxons

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

It is almost universal consensus (except among Germanicists) that the Anglo-Saxons and Franks were the elite ruling elements in their respective lands. The Anglo-Saxons are no more the basis of the English people than the Franks are of the French, as historians attest to Britons and Gauls as the base populations. Regime change is the prevalent scholastic idea of events, not a Marxist push about master and servant. We'd all love to be on top, with the power and prestige. English are no more essentially Anglo-Saxon than the Spaniards are Visigoths, or Italians are Ostrogoths, or the French are Franks. All articles related to the English should reflect this, rather than bow down to the Teutonicist POV which emerged around the time of Bismark. It speaks for itself, with the Anglo-Saxon wing of Bismark's kulturkampf being obvious for what it is. The fact of the matter is, there are still Germanic mysticists pushing anti-Mediterranean points of view. A prime example, is the "negligent" extent to which Britain had been Roman--rather the more just and rightful occupation of Anglo-Saxons in their view. Let's go back in time and ask the Count of the Saxon Shore what he thinks of that. Only the Anglo-Saxon elite had feelings, in 1066? What of the people they conquered, expelled or assimilated? Logres. 68.110.8.21 02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As others have said Wikipedia is not a forum. Do you have a dispute with a particular part of the article? (89.241.237.36 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

I have a dispute with others editing according to their POV agendas. 68.110.8.21 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring that dispute here though. This page is for discussing ways in which the English people article can be improved. (RexImperium 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

This issue is of fundamental relevance. The problem is that since king Henry English people have been fed so much Anglo-Saxonist propaganda, that they have fully believed it. It must be quite a shock to find out that they are not Anglo-Saxons. At least the majority of them. They should start coming to terms with this fact, starting out here in this article. Genetic research is demonstrating that the bulk of the English population come from the Native Britons, not from Aglo-Saxons. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.137.97 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reverse is true. Since 1066 the English have been subjected to constant pro-European propaganda. TharkunColl 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is actually the Plantagenets' own fault. They propagated the cult of Edward the Confessor, as his legitimate successors. Remember, Henry III named his son and heir Edward I. This was due to the loss of French lands and a decidely insular policy. See Richard II's arms, which feature the style of Edward III, impaled with those of Edward the Confessor. This means there is no conflict of interest between the "pro-European propagandists" and the "Anglo-Saxonists". Only the Whigs and Marxists would confound the two as seemingly divergent interests. You have to remember Offa of Mercia, Willibrord, Alcuin and Æthelberht of Kent. They were shining stars, when Britain was racked with lots of savagery.

Furthermore, I would say that since the Anglo-Saxons were mercenaries employed by the Romano-British, Vortigern's people have been regretting the decision. Anglo-Saxons were not innocent creatures anymore than their neighbours--most of them in that part of the world were savage, even though folks like Cecil Rhodes in Africa would push Victorian notions of the Anglo-Saxon onto the native Negroes. Total hypocrisy.

In 1066, the Normans were actually not Europeanists--being opposed to the Byzantines, while the Anglo-Saxons were employed by the Emperors in Constantinople. The Breton half of the Norman Conquest were the Europeanists, having taken cues from Gildas. They did the Harrying of the North, rightfully so. What is so wrong with the British nature of Britain? Britain no more belongs to the Anglo-Saxons or their heirs, than any other British people. Hengist and Horsa came as usurpers; it is of no consequence that William brought Scandinavians to usurp the place of Edgar Aetheling. Who really gives a shit? 68.110.8.21 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Who really gives a shit? You do, obviously. And your grasp of history is marginal at best. Your statement that the harrying of the north was justified is a blatant admission of your anti-English agenda. TharkunColl 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you think it was wrong for Bretons (in the Harrowing) to take a bit of their land back, from the Anglo-Saxon Conquerors? It just so happened, that this land was originally part of Alba (rather than Logres/England, though the Bretons came from Logres) in ancient times anyways. In with one regime, out with another. Sometimes, the old dynasties come back to the fore. Just check the Wars of the Roses, oh versed historian. The English people are much more than Anglo-Saxons (e.g., France is more than Franks, Scotland is more than Scots) and this is a majority consensus. Nobody is arguing with the fact that the Anglian tribe from Angeln was dominant in a defining time of British history, just like the Scots from Ireland. Are you just happy making accusations of persecution, to avoid criticism of the English people harming others? Tit for tat, everybody plays this game. While debasing historical expertise, you surely don't explain your own perspective. Tell what you know and maybe somebody will listen, rather than just judge the quality of others' contributions to this heated discussion of the innate nature of the English people, whom are not the same thing as Anglo-Saxons. If you think they are, then you are in the minority. Maybe not in public perception, but in academia, your opinions could land you in a lot of hot water. I am not talking about the Marxist establishment that would "prove you wrong". 68.110.8.21 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons is that the Franks were assimilated by the Romance-speaking population of Gaul, whereas conversely the Anglo-Saxons were able to impose their language on any remaining Britons in what became England, completely obliterating any language spoken before. Since ethnic identity and language go hand in hand, this at once tells us that England and France have gone in very different directions. No one is trying to deny that Britons have contributed genetically to the inhabitants of England - indeed, kingdoms such as Wessex had laws that were specifically designed to cater for its minority Welsh population. Given their linguistic success, it is clear that their were far more Anglo-Saxons relative to Britons than there were Franks relative to Gauls - possbly because the population of Britain was much smaller than that of Gaul, anyway. The Franks in Gaul lost their Germanic language, and simply ended up contributing words to modern French, such as bleu for "blue" - their situation is therefore analogous to that of the Normans in England. But English is believed to have picked up a mere six words from Britonic, apart from placenames. TharkunColl 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Black Britons and African Americans? They lost almost everything through assimilation, almost totally mimicking their former masters. Does that make them Anglo-Whites? What about how the English forcibly assimilated the Irish, or how the Lowlanders changed the Highlanders? It has been proven to happen this way in historical times, when we can judge the difference. So the same has happened in less historical times, when records of the situation have been lost. I am sure that you have heard of the material transfer theory, about how Britain was not verifiably populated by "an influx of Central Europeans", but that a new material culture definitively changed Britain. Anyways, much of this is speculative.

On another point, placing value judgement on the contributions of various peoples in opposition, when almost all of them have invaded and deposed prior establishments, is just a waste of time. That is why I see little difference between the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans and Franks. The Britons themselves claimed a mutual origin with the Romans, but then come hordes of conquerors who try to suck dry all that ever meant anything to the Britons and Romans in general. Historians thus class these "barbarians" differently. Besides, to what degree of imperium did any of those peoples claim over Europe? Therefore, their culture is rather second-rate to the Roman, or in imitation thereof. We could look through the historical manuscripts themselves to see the admiration or covetousness any of these peoples held for Rome. It therefore, does not seem logical to carry an anti-Continental bias, "rooted" in any of those who were pro-Continental--whether to plunder or assimilate. 68.110.8.21 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tharkun, your arguments are very weak.

1. According to you the French, Romanians or Spanish are all Romans, because they speak the language that the Romans impose upon them.

2. As to genetics, very week too. The native Britons did not contribute to the English genetic pool. They are the basis of it. The Anglo-Saxons and others contributed. Not heard yet of Stephen Oppenheimer or Bryan Sykes. Well, they have both published books about origins of the British using genetics in 2006, the only two books that deal extensively with this subject (If you know another tell me. And I mean extensive books based on hundreds of studies, not petty articles), although some people here speak of the genetics of the English and seem to ignore it fully. Read about them a little bit in the links. Here you have a sample:

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia, ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory... ...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

And read Native Briton instead of Iberian, which is more controversial. It is irrelevant where the Native Britons came from. Fact is that they form the basic genetic make-up of all the British people, including the English. Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.136.196 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Jan, the genetic studies aren't really taken into account here. I will tell you this though: they do not have to be. Britain was part of the Western Roman Empire, thus making it Southwestern European, just like Gaul, Spain and Italy. In fact, both Britain and Spain were subsidiaries of Gaul. Rome and Africa were similarly, distinct parcels of Italy. The logical meaning of this, is that the British thus have extended relationships with Illyricum (Macedonia, Dacia) and the Roman Orient (Egypt, Pontus, Asia, Thrace).[1] Why did the Anglo-Saxons choose to venerate this world of Rome? It is obvious that they were not opposed to it, at least the civilized ones among them who fought the Danes--like Alfred the Great (or joined the Imperial Guard of Constantinople, to fight the Norman conquerors in Southern Italy). The English eventually had to give in to both the Danes and the Normans, but the French ties were revived under Kings Stephen of Blois and Henry II of Anjou.

Unfortunately, there are people who like to edit articles from a mystical-pagan-teutonic (or celtic) and Church hating conspiracy fantasy, placing all these articles into a quagmire of balkanist revisionism a la Martin Luther or David Irving. The Germanicists might have a point about the English being an "Anglo-Saxon"/Germanic nation, if England was ever a bicoastal country between Jutland and Britain. The fact is, the mercenaries left Jutland for Britain and became native--albeit on their own terms as the victors and with little pressure to conform as relates to language and some customs. The actual example of the English being bicoastal, was when the Normans took over and England became fused with France. The Danes who took over Britain before Hastings, had in some ways been bicoastal, but their whole efforts collapsed because the heart just wasn't in the English people to sustain it. The English had enough of the "glorious Woden" and that "ancient North", using a bridge by the Normans to re-enter the Continental standard. Note that the Normans were not pro-European, but the Plantagenets were. 68.110.8.21 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Normans vs Saxons/Danes, Forgotten Romance Britons

The article presently shows the ancestry of a balkanist England, rather than as the years have gone down and a whole or complete people which has existed without regard for tribal conceptions of who the English are. Where is the intervening story of the English people between Normanisation and the colonial era? NPOV is the hallmark of Wikipedia. One-sided history is not NPOV. To those who did not believe me about propaganda, I had to remove part of the section on Normans [2] that defined them as a separate people, all the while saying Danes were English otherwise and making this article Saxon-centric. TharkunColl of course, loves Whig/Victorian/Neopagan revisionisms and reverted it. I will continue to stand for neutrality until TharkunColl and those like him give up on myopic Whiggery. He needs to come to terms with the inclusiveness of the English people. The English are one people, not divided into tribes but counties. The English were not merely the Anglo-Saxons and Danes even in pre-Norman times. If the Normans subjected anybody, where is the statement asserting this about the Danes or Anglo-Saxons to the people of Britain? 68.110.8.21 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, as usual...cannot stomach convential or mainstream history of the English people and the totality of their heritage. [3] I ask him to stop making it harder on the reader. Not everybody is into Whiggish historiography, which by definition of partisanry, is not NPOV. England had a continuous history between 1066 and the Colonial Era. Anybody who can't see this, obviously would have to explain how to get from Point A to Point C. TharkunColl prefers it a mystery wrapped in conspiracy. He also reverted everything he considered as obsessively French, even though having nothing to do with France (all changes). This is obviously bigoted factionalism, not a balanced Wikipedia. He wants one element to dominate and outshine all others. That is POV, not Wikipedia policy. Holistic approaches are the way to go. Don't believe me? Ask Jimbo Wales! 68.110.8.21 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group or "nation"?

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

According to the box at the top of this page the Enlgish people article "falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups". However the article actually discusses the english as a multi-ethnic nation. Can we either change this article to refer to the english ethnic group or create a new page for the ethnic english. (81.154.129.76 09:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

See Talk:English people/Archive07#Not an ethnic group but a nation

The nation article says "Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent." (my emphasis on usually) as this seems a fairly good definition for the relationship of the people that make up the English Nation.

And as noted in archive 7: The OED definitions for ethnic used as an adjective are:

Adj:

1. Pertaining to nations not Christian or Jewish; Gentile, heathen, pagan.
2.a. Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic.
2.b. ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity.

But the third definition as a noun is "A member of an ethnic group or minority. orig. U.S." So the English are an ethnic group when they are being described as a constituent part of a different nation (for example as part of the American nation). So there is no need to change either it depends on the perspective and usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish people and Welsh people articles both refer to their groups as an ethnic group and a nation and I cannot see why England is an exception. So lets try both. Nation refers to residents and citizens of that part of the United Kingdom landmass , ethnic group to these plus the ex-patriot and emigrant communities who still identify as English. Lumos3 11:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the terminology right, please? People from a country who no longer live there are expatriates - they are not very often ex-patriots, indeed they're often even more patriotic than people who still live there. Sorry for nitpicking, put this frequent abuse of the English language gets on my wick... -- Arwel (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What is in the Scottish and Welsh articles does not make those articles correct and this one wrong. The French article is closer to this one in this respect, and I think the Scottish and Welsh articles should be changed to reflect this one on this issue), and the English are not an "ethnic minority (group)" of in the United Kingdom. One can be a resident in England and not be English (This was agreed by the participants of the Putney Debates of 1647). The United Kingdom has more than one landmass. One can not be a citizen of England only of the United Kingdom. Self identification is not enough, there must also be recognition by others as to the claim -- Just look at who can and can't play sports for the different Home Nations some people are eligible to play for England Ireland Scotland or Wales, but are not perceived to be of that nationality by either themselves or most other people. Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish and Welsh articles are closer to the truth. The United Kingdom is a very different entity to France. Its parts are both nations and components within a larger nation. How we describe the English (or Scots and Welsh for that matter) people has to allow for a wide spectrum of overlapping affiliation. Putting in both terms gives the necessary looseness. Self identification is everything. Anyone is English who feels themselves to be English and (the same goes for any other national or ethnic group). So expatriates (sorry for the mistake) , emigrants and immigrants can all claim to be English. Rules in sport are only attempts to define something, not the final answer. There has never been a consensus on this discussion for an issue that was only raised last month. So I will continue to press for the inclusion of both terms. Lumos3 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you think is included by the term "ethnic group" that is not included in the term nation? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The English people are paradoxically a non sovereign nation in their own right and an ethnic group within the British nation which itself is the major part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Thus in some contexts, such as sport, they are a nation and in others they are an ethnic group with a distinctive culture within a larger entity. No single term describes them so both need to be used to convey the complexity. The same holds for the Scots and Welsh. Lumos3 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland is like the United Kingdom of Castile, Aragon and Granada. Don't look to France, but Spain for a contemporary of Britain. Unless of course, one could say that Navarre was to France what Scotland was to England. Still, the French make no distinction between Navarre and France proper. One might say that Spain and Portugal had similar unions, but just because they are closer neighbours does not mean they would have the same system. Perhaps France and Portugal share the same model, since there was long "Portugal and Algarves", like "France and Navarre". German and Italian unifications were not very different from eachother, between Bismark and Garibaldi. Furthermore, the Austria-Hungary government was like the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The House of Habsburg-Lorraine decided to retain this "King-Emperor" form of "unification", which would make Germany and Hungary, Italy and Austria similar. What I am trying to do is show how these other systems were different from the Anglo-Spanish form. I think the Portuguese and French forms of identity are closer than the Central European. 68.110.8.21 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lumos3. This is not an article about Britain this is an article about the English. Your definition of British is not common usage. Those people in Northern Ireland who approve of the Union describe themselves as British. The British Army is the army of the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Great Britain. The government of the United Kingdom is frequently referred to as the British Government - there is no government of whole of Great Britain only one for the United Kingdom. The wording you are inserting "The English are ... [an] ethnic group native to England and speak English." because it does not say what they are an ethnic group of.

It is quite possible for a Union to be made up of more than one nation. Indeed the nation-state of the United Kingdom is made up of several nations and although it is a nation-state it is not a nation in the sense that the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are nations.

I think you are missing my point. What is it that you think is included by the term "ethnic group" that is not included in the term nation? What is it that you are trying to convey with the term "ethnic group" to describe the English that is not in the term nation? --Philip Baird Shearer 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the English can be described as a nation in some contexts and am quite happy to keep that term in the article introduction. They can, also usefully be called an ethnic group to describe the general culture and behaviours that go with being English wherever people live in the world and when comparing the English to other ethnic groups in the UK in which the word ‘nation’ does not work..

I provide some examples of its usage.

"Acculturation processes in white English ethnic majority group ch". Conference presentation. University of Surrey. Retrieved 2007-07-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
"Survey pinpoints ethnic winners and losers in 'melting pot' Britain". The Sunday Times. September 10, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-16. It reveals that Ripley in Derbyshire is the "most English" place in England with 88.58% of residents having an English ethnic background. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
"Study reveals UK's ethnic mix". Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), i-uk site. 20/09/06. Retrieved 2007-07-16. In contrast, Southall in west London has the smallest English gene pool, with just 17.82 per cent of residents being of English ethnic origin. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

Both terms need to be used in the introduction. Lumos3 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lumos. Sure, I personally think 'the English' are a nation, and that anyone who lives in England can be called English if they self-identify. However, that is only one point of view. Another point of view is that the English are a group of people tied by genetic links to various groups in history, and that 'outsiders', such as people of African, Asian, or even French descent, are different genetically from the English, even if those people identify with English culture, and that those differences are important to understanding our society and history. I realise that the latter view is uncomfortably close to BNP rhetoric, but it is a very common perception and should not be airbrushed out of the article. The article should say 'for some people, the English are an ethnic group distinguishable from other related groups; for others, they are a nation and their ties are cultural rather than genetic'. Better wording can be found, but that's the gist: simply calling them a 'nation' without suggesting any controversy about the term is POV. Cop 663 15:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-directs

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to explain my edits. The article has quite a large number of wiki links that are to re-directs rather than the actual articles. Some were also to non-existent articles. Therefore in accordance with the policy of avoiding re-directs I have amended them whilst retaining the wording used for the most part. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Obsessive vandal

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Can anyone offer any suggestion as to what we should do about the anonymous troll 68.110.8.21, who keeps coming back using different addresses and adding a load of POV to this article? TharkunColl 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You engage in edit wars all over the Wikipedia in relation to national issues. That means you are acting nationalist. Why not cut the crap and look in the mirror. I have only given more flesh to the article, with the hopes of NPOVing the often one-sided presentation that quaint nationalists like yourself endorse to the exclusion of a more neutral, impartial, conventional and broad-minded approach to history. I am not the one fuming in my boots over historical issues of right and wrong. I'm just another editor trying to preserve the balance and not label certain aspects of the English people as suspect or villainous. Please, calm down. 68.110.8.21 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

~~::Report him to the Adminstrators. GoodDay 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~ ~~:::I meant Tharkie, should report you. He was seeking suggestions. GoodDay 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Yeah, sure. I'll think about that. 68.110.8.21 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl must stop his rampage of wholesale vandalism to positive contributions that elaborate on the English people beyond his particular POV. At least I am being NPOV by inclusiveness. 68.110.8.21 18:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you persist I'll report you for being a sockpuppet of User:Lord Loxley. TharkunColl 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, an IP address is never classified as a sockpuppet. You are way off base all the time, a true sign of your hate. I will always stand up to your bigotry. Lord Loxley 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your fantasies about aristocracy and your anti-English bias have no place in this article. TharkunColl 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are so wrong. I blame the aristocracy for the enclosures and poverty which drove half the British Isles population overseas. I don't hate the English when that is most of my ancestry, apart from other British Isles ethnicities. You think that NPOV means fantasy and bias? Get a life and stop being a dick. Lord Loxley 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, go away. Wiki-Ed 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times must that be repeated, in order for TharkunColl to cease and desist? Lord Loxley 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If anybody sees a fault that is not ad hominem in nature, then please delineate the specifics. All I see is bashing and self-righteous declarations. What is unfactual about this article? Lord Loxley 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago48 comments9 people in discussion

- An editor/sockpuppet is inserting material on the history of the English against consensus view. It sounds coherent enough to warrant additional comments on its veracity, but should probably be treated as vandalism. 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)}}

On the above: - is this perspective valid or is it vandalism?

User:Lord Loxley has been attempting to impose his POV on this page, on and off, for at least a year - more recently using anonymous IP addresses. Look at this talk page, and my own talk page, for examples of his lengthy, meandering, and often completely irrelevant discourses, interspersed with offensive attacks on anyone who disagrees. He appears to be obsessed with the idea that the English and French are, or should be, one people, and has attempted to re-write a number of articles so that they conform with his opinion. No historian would support his interpretation of history. For example, he has totally removed any reference to the brutal nature of the Norman Conquest, because in his view it was justified. TharkunColl 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at some of his edits. On first look I didn't see anything that was outright false or untrue, but I don't claim to be an expert on anglo-french history so I can't say for certain. I think it's worth discussing though. (Nebulousity 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Here's a good example. This paragraph of his comes from the section describing the Romano-Britons:

Romano-British is a collective term used to describe the native Latin and Brythonic-speaking Celtic population that lived in the area of Britain under Roman rule, known as Britannia, during the 1st-5th C. AD. They had previously been known to the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians, through the tin trade and market in what was called the Cassiterides. During the tetrarchy in which Britain was part of Gaul and administered at Trier in the Rhineland, Hispania was also. This early history of is mythologised in the Matter of Britain, which has a religious element described in the poem And did those feet in ancient time. After 1071, Bretons made a large return to their ancient homeland in the Harrying of the North. Alain Le Roux reforged links between Brittany and England (Logres), through the immense estate known as the Honour of Richmond. Although Alan II, Duke of Brittany had already begun this momentum on a peaceful level, the connections made in 1066 would eventually mean a lot for the Tudor dynasty's succession and the revival of Britannia as important for the English people.

Notice the reference to the Britons making a "large return to their ancient homeland" after 1071, in the Harrying of the North. This was when William the Conqueror slaughtered countless thousands of people in Northern England when putting down a rebellion against the Norman invaders. Yet User:Lord Loxley tells the story as if it were both justified and peaceful. And what on earth is it doing in a section on the Romano-Britons? All of his revisions to the article are riddled with this grossly distorted view of history. TharkunColl 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You want Whiggish historiography. You are always placing a value on tribes and their contribution to the English. I have no such reservations. You think that the English are a foreign people to Britain and the only righteous conquerors of the land, because the Anglo-Saxons are glorious in your POV. You however, think it is wrong for the Britons of other stripes and colours to get their upper hand, maybe even back from the Anglo-Saxons who had done them wrong in the first place. I would like all these peoples to be treated harmoniously, but again, I am not living in the Home Nations and fighting about who is English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish or Irish enough. I am not engaged in a quasi-civil war of identity and concerned for separate parliaments and extra bureaucracy. I am not motivated by anything political, unlike you, TharkunColl, who is seriously compelled to edit war on anything to do with the UK. There are enough Wikipedians here to back up what I say about your aggression elsewhere (Muhammad, 2nd UK city, Falklands, Canadian Monarchy, etc. etc.). You are unbalanced, my friend, if you think what was there in the article is neutral. Don't hog articles and be ultimate arbiter of what is not yours to dictate. Why can't you see that presenting history in favour of some, at the detriment of others, is just not NPOV? Both Britons and Anglo-Saxons contributed to the English people, but you want it to appear that the Anglo-Saxons singularly made the English--with a trifling amount of "Danish-Vikings". In your presentation, the Britons and Romans especially have nothing to do with the English. How dare anybody present this article other than YOU want to see it? How dare anybody cross your path? HMPH! Yeah, huff and puff...Can't you see how you violate NPOV, by assessing the good/bad nature of parts of the existing English people? The Romans and Germans duked it out quite a bit. The Prussians/Brandenburgers still hate Rome and the Roman Empire, but the Bavarians have no problem with Rome. There should be NPOV history of England and the English, not depending on a POV that advances only one of the constituent groups which have composed the English. The Irish and Scottish would have complaints about your heroes of "Constitutionalism".

Other ethnic people articles here at Wikipedia are unbiased in their depiction of additions to their culture or gene pool. The English people article should be as unbiased in presentation of its tribal origins as the French people, Italian people, Spanish people or Portuguese people articles. This is not about triumphalism for me. Other ethnic people articles do not exclude their conquerors or conquered. I don't think it is right to place a positive emphasis on certain conquerors of the English or other British Isles people, while denouncing others. I do not judge the past rights and wrongs, at least not ones a millenium ago. World War II is still an important set of war crimes against humanity though, in most people's minds. I just don't have any POV other than what it would take to balance it out. I'm not placing my personal opinions in the article. You have my personal opinions all wrong on the Normans and French. In fact, I have never advanced them out of fear of ridicule. My personal opinion is...what? Tell me and if it's what you think it is, rather than what I know it to be, then I know for sure you've been talking out of your ass. Don't jump the gun and accuse. You really have been extremely prejudiced and hateful, shooting first and never even asking. How polite. I paraphrased the thing about Bretons in the Harrying of the North from a website about the Norman Conquest ([4]) and what is known of them. 68.110.8.21 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't profess to know the rights nor wrongs in the debate between the two of you. However, the two of you edit warring over this will not resolve anything. In addition, you are wrong to state that IP users cannot be sock puppets. Check, WP:SOCK where it is discussed. IP users can be blocked for sockpuppetry but that they are not to be blocked indefinitely, presumably because the IP address is not yours to own. You have used both a registered account and an IP user account to make a total of four reverts in the past 24 hours which is most definitely a violation of not only the 3RR policy, but also covered by wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry about using two accounts to revert more than three times. And yes Tharkuncoll seems to be doing this just as much as you. A compromise either needs to be reached or this will surely have to go to arbitration. And before you answer, Lord Loxley/68.110.8.21, this is in no way a personal attack on you, just an observation of the situation as I am also assuming good faith in your edits. As for your final comments about Tharkuncoll (which I see you have now removed) , may I refer you to previous comments you made on this topic where you have attacked other users for amending what you have added and accused others of not knowing enough about the topic to be able to edit. As for "how dare anybody cross your path?" I also refer you to comments you have made about other users edits, such as "Don't step on my toes" and other warnings not to interfere. And personal attacks of other users is not the way to sort this out (and that also applies to Tharkuncoll attacking you). ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not know I just broke the 3RR, because I wasn't paying attention. Well, I was not getting around any block (just check LordLoxley's blocklog). I just didn't care to have an account. That's because I don't come here to socialize and be recognised, but to edit for the benefit of all. I just saw myself get ganged up on by Victorian ethnoracism, priding only in the Anglo-Saxon, to the exclusion of all others--not even the French are as enthusiastic about the Franks...even the Italians don't all blast their Roman heritage everywhere. I am not wearing my feelings on my sleeves like TharkunColl. I have nothing in mind but a holistic approach that treats everybody fairly. TharkunColl is always taking what he thinks to be the "right side" on issues. I have no side, but them all. Maybe that makes me a Hippie in this case, but I don't want to be one of those. I just care about getting along. If England is multicultural now, it was then too. But don't tell that to TharkunColl. They were 99.99% Anglo-Saxons. AND WHY, do uninvolved parties always revert me, but not TharkunColl? How impartial! Wiki-Ed is another Anglo-Saxonist, btw. I think the ratio of Victorianists vis a vis regular English on the Wikipedia is sadly imbalanced. I have no revisionist or nationalist ideology to push. I just love all of my English ancestors and with no exception. 68.110.8.21 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I wasn't accusing you of being a sock puppet as in all honesty I don't think that is what you are, just pointing out that it could be seen by some as you using the two accounts to get round the 3RR ruling. I just think that the two of you near enough "name calling" each other and criticising each other is counter-productive to impriving the article which you clearly are interested in and for which I applaud you. As I said, I don't know who is right etc, however, would it be an option for a compromise to be reached? I have seen on some articles huge disgreements, specifically one over the demographics of Argentina, and in the end the article was fully protected for a while to stop the edit warring. Though a compromise appears to have been reached to reflect differing views. Is that a possibility between the two of you (and without either of you talking about each other on a personal level).♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I would be happy to not take this personally. After all, I would prefer to stay mostly anonymous. I don't come here for personalities, but for improving articles I think are worth my time. I think this article, as well as the other British Isles people articles, are too prone to politicisation. I don't like that at all and the divisive nature of current events in the UK over the past 30 years in the British government has me refuse to take a side except for whoever is being attacked. I would hope all parties get a fair participation or stake in what is done. I deplore one-sided or tunnel-vision versions of history and what makes a people, because life is not so linear. I have my faults too. Despite not having a problem with Southern Europe, I don't really warm up to Eastern European influence in the UK (but a fan of some like David Warner (actor) or Gavin Rossdale), but I am trying to see what there is in common grounds. With these social problems now, I hardly think that a thousand year old issues should be so heated. You will never find me in historical re-enactments to take the sides of those I believed were right. My feelings are very removed from the editing, but I do think all should be treated right. On talk pages, I am willing to admit that I have favourites. In the articles themselves, I will not push my personal preferences. That is more than can be said for my opponents. I believe honesty is proper. Those who believe themselves 100% NPOV all the time, are not right. I never moralise this article, which is what my opponent has been calling for with regards to the Norman Conquest. That is a political theme and a violation--just look at WP:NPOV. 68.110.8.21 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with this complaint by PiCo. My opponents believe that language is everything, or the only defining standard to judge ethnicity. 68.110.8.21 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point of an RfC is for third parties to look at a case and determine whether a given POV has any merit. It is not for those involved to rehash tired arguments. Please desist. Wiki-Ed 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I counterclaim. Please listen. 68.110.8.21 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If User:Lord Loxley wants to make these significant revisions to this article, he should present them on the talk page first - each one, individually. TharkunColl 23:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is coming off like the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the question of whether the US should apply for permission to do it. If this was on an article with less editors, there would not be this call. If it were you doing a significant revision, you would not expect anybody to challenge it. But, it's me. I'm at fault. Anyways, you have not disproven the version. All you did was moralise ancient history and find value in such POV violations in the article. I did not whitewash crimes any more than other ethnic group articles do so, when counting the Romans, Visigoths and others in Spain for instance. Those editors do not trifle over which was the most humane and legitimate invasion. You wish for editors to accept a POV violation to stand the test of time. It makes no difference whether conquerors were right or wrong, at least in their presence as part of the English people or any other people. I have no wish to join your perception or present a counter-perception. The Normans and Bretons are a de facto part of the English people since a thousand years ago, just as the Britons, Saxons, Danes were. The simple fact is, there is no way to divide Normans and Bretons apart from English and make them culpable for anything. If you think there is a case, then why don't I engage in similarly specious attacks on people of Hamburg or Jutland? You are so upset that my version does not hold a stain on the memory of some ancestors to most English. This is like being mad at me because I love all grandparents and you want me to hate one of them. 68.110.8.21 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl is right. You can't make significant revisions without gaining a consensus first. (84.13.240.164 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually that isn't stricly accurate. Those changes can be made without discussion if it is to fix an article say full of spelling mistakes and poor grammar and so on. However, if it is to make changes that are or could be controversial then discussing in a talk page is both helpful and gives others valid reasons for the wholesale changes. And if there is disagreement about changes then the issue needs to be dealt with by discussing it in the talk page, reaching a consensus, a compromise etc. After all, wikipedia does have the "be bold" in editing statement. One thing that unfortunately comes across from Lord Loxleys edits is stuff like this as an example: Changing the heading "Romano-Britons" to "Cassiterides and Britannia". Now this may seem very simplistic, but I would hazard a guess that most people in general who wish to read about the topic of the history of the English people may well relate to and understand the term "Romano-Britons", but Cassiterides - I should imagine that most people would not even have heard of the word let alone understand it. I know it is a small and simpistic point, but it is relevant.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not true (to the one above Tangerines). People do it all the time without opposition on obscure articles. On hot-button articles though, there is a double-standard. People like to politicise and it drives away good editors like Alun. I already challenged this article time and time again for its lack of NPOV, but it falls on deaf ears or I am accused of POV-pushing when the article needs a balance of different POVs and not one over-riding POV. I decide to do something about it myself, so TharkunColl throws a fit. It's totally a circus and not NPOV. Where is the dicussion about the different tribes of Britons, like Iceni or Brigantes? It is obvious that the single most important tribes to TharkunColl come from Mercia or Wessex. Screw all other contributions to England, or sweep them under some rug. This is what I mean about exclusivism. He is obsessed with his own self-importance and how English is in his own personal, local circumstance. He doesn't care about English diversity as it is outside of his own life. That is definitely POV. Now, you all are kissing his ass and holding me down. I bet he is laughing because I can't do anything without your contrived quasi-United Nations assembly breathing down my neck. Corruption it is. You've all been taught that the English are 99% Anglo-Saxon, with sprinkles of Viking here and there? Victorian myths are not NPOV. They served much of the propagandas of people like Cecil Rhodes in Africa, or the East India Company.

Maybe you don't care about the insensitivity which Anglo-Saxonism presents and maybe you are unapologetic that another could challenge your childhood perception, but we are adults here. You probably think I'm trying to deflect criticism from multiculturalism in the media or pressure groups. It is none of that. It is a myopic view of the English and of England, that only serves extremists like the BNP or New Age weirdos in our present day. Even before Victorianism, the concept of the high and noble Anglo-Saxon above all others, was not in vogue. People acknowledged the multiple sources of heritage which have created the English, on more or less equal or unprioritised ground. See? I present all these charges and you ignore it. So, there is no sense in the kangaroo court you have convened. Go away and find something better to do. The only way you participate in this is by stifling progress. You hold it down without any refutation of the essential nature behind my edits, except from political arguments. You are all wooden to me, except Tangerines. A waste of our time. You all have barely anything to say except him. He is obviously interested in improving the article, because he is using critical thinking skills. I have seen nothing but some Victorian reactionary attitude from TharkunColl. Reactionary is not exactly thoughtful. 68.110.8.21 14:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When Alun was here, he was the only check on TharkunColl. Alun also accepted my edits and many of them are still there. TharkunColl has never accepted any of my edits, although I am sure he does not know which ones were mine in the article, other than all the recent ones he unilaterally removed by declaring a "state of emergency". I see a state of emergency with TharkunColl's edits throughout Wikipedia. Just check his edit history and block log, because he consistently edit wars with others on a slew of hot-button articles. I am only concerned with the English people article and you are letting this edit warrior win, letting him keep his POV in the article. User:RickK had it right. I leave it up to you to finally get what I was saying, months or years down the line. You will eventually tire of TharkunColl's self-righteous editing. Then you will feel low and question whether it is worth staying here. Good bye. One last thing: check the archives of this talk page! Lord Loxley 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of the bias or one-sidedness you are attributing to TharkunColl, but I don't think that is important. The majority of editors here can judge things objectively. If you believe the article is unbalanced in some way, fine, point out where it's unbalanced and how the article can be improved, and then perhaps a consensus can be reached if you have a valid argument. (84.13.240.164 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Just to explain to User:Gazh that I have reverted the edit made today, as per the above, where the changes are being discussed. A wholesale change reverting back to one of the versions being discussed here while it is actually being discussed is not reaching a consensus. Please discusss any changes in here. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but it appears that we are just fannying about at the moment, let's discuss what is wrong with the article and what changes we need to make, instead of discussing matters irrelevant to the subject.

The main point of argument (i think) is that us English can trace our blood back to the Ancient Britons, not the Anglo-Saxons like popular belief has led is to believe in the past. Right? Gazh 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. In fact the English can trace their ancestry to both those groups. TharkunColl 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reasons why I refuse to continue in this, are:

TharkunColl's only stated reason for calling me an obsessive vandal, to get all of your attention, was: 'Loxley's got to be a big bad Frenchie, not English like me. He refuses to call the Normans evil. I want my opinion of the Normans to stay in. Normans were not just another founding tribe of the English people, along with Saxons and Danes. Bretons were evil for their reconquest of British territories then constituting England, so their place in the English people of today is similarly irrelevant except to be depicted negatively.'
I am only following the style of other ethnicity articles here at this Wikipedia, by describing events in neutral form. Several conquests happened, by several different tribes or polities. There is no reason to colour any one of them with our personal prejudices, or those held by writers and politicians. Or, we must describe the faults of all conquerors. If the 1066 Conquest was wrong, then we must include Groans of the Britons and other commentary on the mass destruction and death wreaked upon those whose identities were swallowed up in the change from Logres to England. King Arthur is very famous for trying to turn back the "evil" Saxons. We would have to depict the Romans as wrong, with Boudica as a hero. The Britons of Logres would have to be represented as a subject class before the Romans and Saxons. The Danes too, for their uncouth Viking behaviours, would have to be described as "bad".
You lot take his POV-obsession on the evil nature of Normans and Bretons, as a legitimate complaint. You pretend to apply one policy while obstructing another, that of NPOV. Aside from Tangerines, none of you have addressed the various edits aside from TharkunColl. You do not censure TharkunColl for his editorial slant, which implies an extant disparity between the English and Normans and Bretons, but not the Saxons and Danes or Britons. This means, there is little legitimacy in the opposition to my editing. You are not nearly as constructive as I have been in this article; merely rolling back edits here and there. Yet, you come by and judge without cause. You are not invested in this project's neutrality, allowing the slanderous TharkunColl to keep his preferred version and finding no specific fact against me other than skirting around unofficial procedure. You are so reluctant to charge TharkunColl with misleading your entrance into this article's issues, to avoid looking foolish. Of course, my scathing treatment of you being duped to defend the undefendable TharkunColl crying wolf does not impel you to righteous action either. Teapot. Kettle. Black. You have a POV "consensus", that's unaltered from the preference of one party and yet telling me to list my already listed complaints that you would "do something about", yet have not. How blind. Wiki-Ed tried to tell me that NPOV was non-negotiable. His userpage shows that he is an Anglo-Saxonist, not simply an English enthusiast...More strength behind the bias that the Saxons were and still are the core element of the English people, to the exclusion or evasion of all other elements. Even the French aren't as arrogant in their devotion to the Franks, which TharkunColl calls me. The Saxon POV uplifts the German dynasties in the UK since the Act of Succession in 1701, but TharkunColl calls me an aristocrat (a Whig like him?). I will serve nobody's propaganda! RFC?! Lord Loxley 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you have totally misrepresented my position. The proper article takes no sides, it merely recounts the facts (and it was not written by me, either). Please remember that this article is about the English, not the Britons. English identity is a product of the Anglo-Saxons, though no one is denying that other peoples went into the mix. Your version of history would seek to obliterate the differences between the Welsh (i.e. the Britons) and the English, which is most certainly POV. And not once have I ever called you an "aristocrat". TharkunColl 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl you are right in that the 'English' identity was born of Anglo-Saxon invasion. However in modern times where we have the benefits of DNA testing i think it is vitally important that we do not enforce a false popular belief for the sake of it. The Anglo-Saxons make up an underwhelming minority of English people, fact. Gazh 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, I am not interested in placing a priority on certain tribes or linguistic groups as the base of the English people. The English people are a mixture of Britons, Bretons, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans. I am not interested in replying to TharkunColl anymore. He defies all logic, by pretending to hide bias in plain view. His POV violations are like the side of a barn. He has removed the Bretons as a part of the English, despite their repopulation of Northern England when the locals were kicked out to the Lowlands. He has the preferred view of the Normans as distinct from the English, but not the Danes, or the Saxons before them. There was/is no de facto disparity, except during the initial wars between separate tribes. There is no core of the English people, Saxonist propaganda notwithstanding. There is no oppressed and no subjected people. TharkunColl refuses to withdraw his POV, whether written by him or not. He was most upset at the mere inclusion of British peoples and other Scandinavians like the Normans, when it is a fact of every mainstream website that they did contribute to the English people, over time--just as the invading tribes before them. Positive or negative perceptions do not need to be presented, even if so by mainstream websites that take POV for granted and revel in their warped view of patriotism through a Whiggish filter. Furthermore, the counties of England have been proven to be a mere re-naming of old Loegrian tribal regions. England is just a renaming of Logres. [5] Enough with this supremacist hooey. There is no anti-English prejudice by being inclusive. What doesn't kill England and/or the English, only makes her/them stronger. Cerdic of Wessex, with the non-Saxon proof on his face. Who cares what the land is called, or what nationalism that facts could serve if swayed to fit one propagandic perception or another? I am not a politician. I leave that to TharkunColl. If he wants political proof of diversity, see here. England is good enough with the verified diversity, assessed by scholars. If he doesn't like it, he can complain to God why history happened a certain way. I'm apathetic on the matter, content with the lot handed to me. Lord Loxley 09:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes. Meanwhile we're still waiting for those verified sources that support your POV. Wiki-Ed 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see a non-Whig supported view of English history from you. Be fair for once. For you, life is Anglo-Saxons => British Empire. How simplistic and irrationally Victorian. Lord Loxley 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest i don't see how an Anglo-Saxon identity can be pro-English. They were the hierachy-minority from over seas who forced their culture and language upon the indiginous people by taking our land and distributing it among themsleves for wealth. I think some of us English need a head check if they identify with that, and presumably pay homage to the Germanic regions as the true forefather of our nation, right? Gazh 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already counted on the interlopers to pay attention to my responses, upon request. Their supposed guarantees of neutrality and hate of revisionism (per-Wiki-Ed's user page) are worthless. I can't trust them to care about anything than "good ol' Wessex" and the global empire. "There ain't no good 'bout England, save the Saxon!" "Down with the Celtic upstarts!" "Down with tolerance and humanity!" British Union of Fascists come by here? Don't worry, I am not a Commie anyways. They can keep their Paki slaves. Lord Loxley 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting. Wiki-Ed 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That statement is full of shit. Lord Loxley 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seen as this discussion doesn't seem to be leading anywhere, I'll put forth one or two suggestions as to how this article could be improved in my opinion. First I think the sections in the origins section are a little light on content at the moment, they could do with expanding a bit. Also, I think the recent genetic survey is not that clearly explained. To me it seems like there are contradictory messages of what the actual results means in terms of the overall genetic landscape of the English people. Perhaps that could be explained more clearly in detail. (Nebulousity 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you Nebulousity! a voice of reason. I suggest Ed, Loxley and the rest put previous matters aside as we move forward to discuss changes rather than argue about previous meetings and disagreements.

In regards to the surveys Nebulousity the recent findings although great are seemingly being kept under wraps. The study is not yet conclusive but it seems that the following studies will confirm what is now believed, it seems that the 'Anglo-Saxon' pockets (actually just saxon or frisian in truth) are mainly in the south-east, and even these examples are sparse, the more west and north you travel (bar a few exceptions) the more 'Briton' the people are, this is ofcourse all new findings. Gazh 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a request for comment section, not somewhere for people to dump opinions. The same argument applies to you as to anyone else: Material on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. This RfC discusses whether a certain point of view is verifiable, that is, it has been published by a reliable source. If it is not then it does not belong here. If, however, there are other changes that could be made to this article (which can be substantiated) then these should be discussed elsewhere. Wiki-Ed 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Different genetic surveys have given conflicting results. We must also remember that ethnic identity is not conditioned by genetics, but is much more to do with a shared history, language, and culture. TharkunColl 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's arguable, surely genetics would heavily influence ethnic identity, and in modern times when people are learning the truth surely the shift in identity will move even further, in that sence our move towards being ethnically British and not German is just starting, and it already seem s to have alot of support with the youth - the future. Gazh 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you are obviously talking about something that you hope will happen in the future, which is, of course, POV. TharkunColl 16:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is obviously the discussion page, where we are allowed to discuss our opinions, TharkunColl are you a German perhaps? Gazh 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hell no - and I find the suggestion that I'm a German to be highly insulting. And nor were the Anglo-Saxons by the way. Linguistically they were Ingaevones, whereas the Germans are Hermiones. TharkunColl 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed thinks that he can use a source to justify a POV, but that is not what the policy on NPOV states. NPOV is non-negotiable and requires a balance of perspectives. England is British. That is a fact. England is not German. That is a fact. England is not in Germany, but in Britain. Remember World Wars I and II? That was just an example of what is known by everybody who has seen an atlas and nobody can put other than that in an article. Apart from that, history books on 1066 state that several people came with the court of Edward the Confessor from Normandy. This should be fine, because you admit it too. The problem is, when you want the entrance of the Normans into England to become a POV matter. The simple fact of the matter is, that the Normans became part of the English people, after having defeated the Anglo-Saxon and Danish factions for the Crown. Deeming the Normans as holding the English like a subject class, is revisionist history (either Whig or Marxist) and a violation of NPOV policy. History books on Wales, Cornwall, Cumberland and Lancashire, usually talk about the Normans having taken over quasi-Briton areas in the North and West. History books which talk about the Harrying of the North usually don't explain who was behind it and just say it was William himself and Robert Comines was his lieutenant. Breton sources state that it was Alain Le Roux who led the battles in the North. William is recorded as deeding the second largest fief in England to the Breton ducal house. The Bretons moved in. This is already sourced above. There is no reason why you should keep demanding a source. Check Honoris Registrum de Richmond for more info. Also, the book by David Morris. I am simply replying to the initial complaints about my edit. There is nothing from TharkunColl stating that he understands there was a mistake in his perception of the issue, or an apology for starting this. It is obvious though, that I cannot rely on TharkunColl to care. Thus, let's hope you lot make it impossible for him to act unilaterally and get his (or Wiki-Ed's) POV. Lord Loxley 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what can I say except "That statement is full of shit." There's no point in trying to change the subject with a wall of text or throw in sources to support forks. It is not convincing. If you want to change the thrust of an article you need enough sources to outweigh those supporting the consensus view, or at least enough to indicate that there are differing academic opinions. So, again, we're still waiting. Wiki-Ed 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whig and Marxist revisionisms, as well as Mosleyian propagandas are not universial consensus. If you can prove that England is a German state, rather than one of the British Home Nations and that England suffered under Normans but flourished under Saxons, then by all means--do it. Just remember the NPOV caveat. Lord Loxley 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I'm starting to get a little annoyed at this. I am neither a Whig nor a Marxist, yet I have been accused of both. The problem, I think, is that User:Lord Loxley, being neither English nor British himself, finds it difficult to distinguish between the two. I suggest that he goes and reads British people, just to see what that concept actually means in contemporary British discourse. TharkunColl 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I, TharkunColl, am better than you, Loxley. Rehash it all! This article is a vehicle for political separatism, nothing more or less. The same for other UK constituent ethnic group articles. I'm sick of the extremism from all parties. I have no further interest in this bullheaded nonsense. You can be king of the article. Have fun, dividing and conquering the British people! Lord Loxley 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that when we start taking forward steps we are suddenly back at square one, please stop the personal arguments and start to contribute to discussing the article.

England and Britain both benefitted and suffered because of the Anglo-Saxons AND the Normans, the biggest economies of the world today have alot to thank for their invasions, but the indiginous people suffered alot along the way to building what we have today. Gazh 10:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Anyway, the person making the personal attacks has promised to go so we can now discuss practical and substantiated improvements to the article. I would have preferred more third opinions, but if the threat of revisionist original research has been removed it should be safe to close this RfC. Wiki-Ed 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything mate. Anglo-saxons, Normans, Norsemen, etc - they all contributed to the English, but the Britons are the solid majority base of us, however you are free to continue your self-hate - don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Gazh 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

comment: this is the article on the English people. England as an entity emerged in the 9th or 10th century. Anything predating this period should be covered in extreme brevity, with barely more than a brief sentence linking to the main article. There may or may not be valid disputes concernings the Romano-Britons, but they should certainly not be argued on this talkpage. We have Sub-Roman_Britain#Genetic_evidence. If someone feels like expanding this into a full article on genetic studies regarding the contribution of various tribes to the Anglo-Saxons, I am sure they will be welcome to it, but this question has no place here. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Motives for keeping establishmentary propaganda the status quo

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Calling me a vandal and then for an RFC by two committed Germanicists, is absolutely a red herring from those boys crying wolf.

Wiki-Ed plays the blame game, when he has done nothing to help the article. What has he contributed, but noise? Blah, blah, blah. It's all Loxley's fault! He paints this issue as if he is "above it all", when he has never done anything to deserve such smugness. I get accused of "forking". Listen to the deciever mislead himself! Those who take advantage of systemic bias to push forth political and ethnic stereotypes against all odds and all opponents, are not worth listening to. TharkunColl and Wiki-Ed believe the English people are not Britannic, but Germanic. They believe that if Catholic in the present era or from a Roman area in the past, certain tribes are not included, such as Normans and Bretons in France. If the peoples are Protestant in the present day or from a non-Roman area in the past, like Danes or Saxons in Germany, then they are part of the English people. It is so obvious that pro-German and Nordicist propagandas violate Wikipedia policy on the face of it all. There is no way that such blatant POV can be neutral, even if a major prejudice. I especially love how they downplay the Romano-Briton nature behind England. Classic! Lord Loxley 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:English people/Archive 8

Contents

On Dynastic Propaganda of Napoleonic (ex-Whig) Tories

Stereotypes of English people

dynastic propaganda used as "truth" about commoners

Confused? English are not Anglo-Saxons

Normans vs Saxons/Danes, Forgotten Romance Britons

See also section

Ethnic group or "nation"?

Re-directs

Obsessive vandal

Request for comment

Motives for keeping establishmentary propaganda the status quo