Talk:English people/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Civilised discussion of improvements to the article

Moving swiftly on. This article is by no means perfect and it is, of course, fairly contentious anyway. I think the principle improvements it needs are:

• An explanation of the etymology of the word "English" and perhaps some mention of the academic debate over what ethnicity is;
• Perhaps a little expansion of the Normans and Recent Contributions sections; but
• Using in-line citations to more reliable sources than are currently being used, leading to:
• An academic bibliography and/or references section. The proportion of websites to books is too high. There are lots of good books on this topic and they should be used to support points instead of various news websites.

As is evident from the sections above, I am sure other people have suggestions? Wiki-Ed 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff Wiki-Ed. One thought, whilst I was browsing the article. The sub-header "Recent Contributions" seems a little misleading - my initial thought was that it implied recent contributions by English people (e.g. to the world stage or whatever) whereas obviously what we are trying to descibe is the recent additions in terms of culture / race / original country of origin etc. etc. I appreciate it's under the Origins header but at first glance just seems a bit odd. A possible rename, given it's location in the article could be Post Norman Immigration and to be honest there is possibly a case for a further section Post Victorian Immigration due to the changes bought about by the fall of the empire. I'd need to do some more research on that though. Thoughts anyone ? Pedro |  Chat  09:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They sound like sensible suggestions. I need to do some additional reading to support some of the points before I make changes. I wonder what happened to all the vociferous people who were here up until recently? Wiki-Ed 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knows! - I saw the WP:ANI thread and thought I'd pop over to see if I could help. I'm hoping to get leisure over the weekend to do some research on my suggestion above. Best. Pedro |  Chat 

"people living in england"

User Anwar saadat was correct about the use of this - "a large number of people living in England" not being relevant to an article on English people. This article is about English people, it is not about "people living in England". The information is perfectly relevant to the England article (though it is not clear if the figures given were specifically for England, or England & Wales or the UK as a whole. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to quote the full paragraph. "The gradual integration of migrants from India and Pakistan since the 1950s means that a large number of people living in England practise Islam (818,000), Hinduism (467,000), or Sikhism (301,000)." I don't see why this should have been taken out. These migrants and their descendants are English people therefore they shouldn't be excluded in my opinion. (84.13.245.18 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

It is nothing to do with exclusion. This article is about English people and not the country of England which has its own article and where that sentence is most definitely relevant, especially in that format. The sentence states, "people living in England" which means that those people are not necessarily English people. This article is about English people and not people living in England. In addition, the figures do not seem to be backed up by any source, for all we know the figures could be made up of English, recent immigrants and foreign nationals living in the country, which it almost certainly will include. Also,the figures could be for as I said above, England and Wales or the UK as a whole for all anyone knows, as there is no source given. The sentence, as it is worded, is perfectly relevant to the England article. Of course some English people practice various different religions including those above as well as for instance, Buddhism but the way it is worded it is only relevant to the England article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The same arguments could be used to remove references to Jews and Huguenots. Many of the people from the New Commonwealth are integrated or integrating and are culturally English. This article is about the English as an ethnic group as they are, not an ideal of what England is. Lumos3 09:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the point at all. The figures given for the religions state that they are for "people living in England" - which could and almost certainly will, include foreign nationals living in England - those who for instance are working or studying in the country and who have no intention of remaining in the country and becoming a British citizen and therefore part of the "English people". The figures are I presume taken from the 2001 census which is for England & Wales [1], and as far as I can tell from the source is not just the figures for England but also for Wales. Of course there are English people who are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu as well as Jewish, Buddhist etc as I myself fall into one of those categories. But the way it is worded with virtually the exact figures, is open to interpretation as it seems to be for both England and Wales, as well as being misleading stating "people living in England".♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's equally true that there are many people who are not integrating culturally, which is why it is possible to provide statistics like this in the first place. Although a country can be culturally heterogeneous, a "people" or nation must be culturally homogeneous. Of course this is semantics and religion rather confuses it. Someone claiming to belong to a religious group could be moderate or fanatical about it - the latter might allow it to interfere with other cultural beliefs and habits (eg. a pro-Sharia law Islamic hardline terrorist) whereas the former (eg. a go-to-church -once-a -year Christian) probably would not. Wiki-Ed 10:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. this is an article on an ethnic group. There isn't even such a thing as "English citizenship", there is no such thing as an English passport, only a British one. For this reason, a British Asian or Black British living in England is certainyl "British", but isn't any more "English" than a Scotsman living in England. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New structure for article?

We have lots of debate above about whether certain people (black, Muslim, Huguenot, Celtic, etc.) can be regarded as "English". The debate is endless because some people believe that anyone who lives in England can be called English if they self-identify, while others believe that the English are an ethnic group that does not include 'outsiders' even those who identify with English culture. But this encuclopedia is supposed to be NPOV. Therefore, the important thing is that both views are commonly held and so Wikipedia should describe both views.

Here's one way to do achieve this:

• Section 1: Englishness as an ethnicity
  • Describes the origins of the English and the various groups that contributed to the gene pool
  • Describes the people outside of England who regard themselves to be ethnically English
  • Describes (with quotations) the beliefs of those who consider the English an ethnic group that is still distinguishable from others
• Section 2: Englishness as a culture
  • Describes the cultural ideas and works that are associated with the English and (the language, cups of tea, Church of England, being polite, etc.etc.) and describes their spread around the world
  • Describes (with quotations) the beliefs of those who say one can be culturally English even if ones ethnicity originates from outside England, e.g. a quote from somebody like Chris Eubank would be good here
• Section 3: Englishness as geographical locator
  • Begins with a link to the article Demography of England
  • Describes (with quotations) the beliefs of those who say that 'Englishness' and 'people living in England' is the same thing regardless of ethnicity or culture

This is just an idea, but it enables every point of view to be expressed, instead of trying to enforce one view or the other onto a subject that is too slippery to be nailed down. What do people think? Cop 663 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this isn't a case of a dispute, it's a case for disambiguation. This is the article on the ethnic group (your section 1). Your 'sections' 2 and 3 have their own articles, which can obviously be linked from here. "English" can also refer to other concepts, such as "living in England", for which we have demographics of England. English culture is discussed at English culture. English is the relevant disambiguation page where these various meanings can be listed. In order to discuss Black British at this article, we would need a source that claims they are ethnically English (which I argue is nonsense and will at best appear in polemics). --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the article needs a better name, because 'English people' is ambiguous. This passage on WikiProject ethnic groups says there is currently no consensus on the ideal names for articles on ethnic groups, so the title of this article could reasonably be changed to English (ethnic group). Would users of this page support that change? Cop 663 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a clearer description of what English ethnicity actually is, otherwise we can't say who does or does not fit into that definition. (84.13.251.170 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

No we don't. We need to describe common ideas about what English ethnicity is. It's not our job to decide what it "actually is".Cop 663 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

no it doesn't. If you can show that there is another meaning attached to "English people", this would be a case of English people (disambiguation). This article states up front that it is treating an ethnic group. See also WP:DAB. I grant you that "English people" might also mean "the people residing in England", but we already have a full article on that, at demographics of England, which is linked right from the first line of this article for people who might be looking for it. What is the problem? --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that it doesn't "state up front". The disambiguation line says "This article is about the English as a nation." The intro line says "The English are a nation and an ethnic group". And when I look at Wikipedia's definition of "nation", it says "while traditionally monocultural, [a nation] may also be multicultural in its self-definition". Which returns us to whether the 'English nation' can be defined as a multi-cultural entity, doesn't it? Or am I confused? Cop 663 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

no, you are right, "nation" is a fuzzy term -- as is "ethnicity" of course. Ethnic identity changes over the centuries. "Nation" here is obviously used in the ethnic sense, since England isn't a sovereign state. The entire article on nation deals with such ambiguities. Common descent is just one among several things that make up a nation. If there are claims that there is such a thing as "Black English" or "Asian English", as opposed to "Black/Asian British", they can by all means be discussed. If there are claims that the UK is undergoing ethnogenesis, we can also refer to them. This would mean that there will now be a "British people", and that English, Scottish, Welsh etc. are historical ethnicities that have ceased to be clearly defined. This will anger the nationalists, of course, but I suppose it is a possible view. The trick is to find a notable source for it, otherwise, we cannot discuss it. The problem here is that even if there is '[a nation] ... multicultural in its self-definition', this will be about British, not English identity. I doubt you will be able to argue that the various Caribbean or South Asian subcultures located in England have more in common with English culture or the "English nation" than the Scottish or the Welsh, who are obviously excluded from the term "English". --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The English are a nation not an ethnic group. British is a term for a person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom. And as for Britain undergoing a "ethnogenesis" one would have to explain why the identification with the four nations within the United Kingdom is stronger now than it was at the height of Empire. This is typified by the flying of the Cross of St George at English sporting fixtures rather than the Union Flag. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can and do argue that the various Caribbean or South Asian subcultures that are integrating into English society and are located in England have more in common with English culture or the "English nation" than the Scottish or the Welsh, who are obviously excluded from the term "English". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect mate it's not about what you argue, it's about whether there are any published sources that make such an argument. Are there? Cop 663 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not your mate. English National Ballet, English National Opera, English National Stadium, English National Parks, English National Curriculum From the first couple of pages of Google seach on ["English National" site:gov.uk]. Google ["English ethnic group" site:gov.uk] returns two pages both from local government sites: one from Hounslow the other from Lambeth. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm aware that there is an idea of an English nation that exists irrespective of ethnic background. But as somebody else pointed out further up the page, there is also the idea of an English ethnic group:

• "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)

The question I'm asking is, which should this article be about? Or, better still, how can it be written to reflect both ideas? Cop 663 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointing to the "English National Ballet" in this context is pure sophism. A reasonable citation would be along the lines of

Peter Mandler The English National Character. The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair, Yale University Press (2006), ISBN 978-0300120523.

viz, a source which actually discusses the topic, as opposed to terminological contortions and hand-waving. If it turns out that the "English nation" is a concept separate from "English ethnicity", we might need further disambiguation. English nation might need to disambiguate between "English nation", viz., English people, and "English Nation", viz., England. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a concept of a "multi-ethnic English nation", yes, this article should address it. But you should stop confusing this with the UK or British "melting pot". It is undisputed that the British nation is an ethnic melting pot, of which the English nation is just one component. That the English nation should be a 'melting pot' in itself is a concept I am not familiar with. WP:CITE will do the trick, but just claiming it is so is pointless. A rough google search seems to confirm my impression. "multi-ethnic Britain" gives 40,000 hits, "multi-ethnic England" a mere 124. Of these, about half refer to an article title School segregation in multi-ethnic England (2003). This doesn't seem to go beyond a basic statement of "there are many ethnicities living in England today", without alleging that the English nation is in any way "multi-ethnic". Here's another interesting quote,[2]

Britishness runs like a litany through Greg Dyke's McTaggart Lecture, reiterating the hope that the BBC's distinct national identity may continue to single it out from the dozens of other channel offerings in the digital revolution. Presumably Dyke means multi-ethnic Britishness, not Englishness, although the BBC's Royal Charter horoscope (0h 1/1/27) links strongly to the quintessential English national horoscope, the coronation of William the Conqueror on Christmas Day 1066.

In terms of notability, "multicultural Englishness" seems to be a matter of humorous quips in newspaper columns. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who you mean by "you should stop confusing this with the UK or British "melting pot" however if it is addressed to me, I have no such confusions. It is a self circular argument to say that to be English one has to have a genetic make-up of x and only those who have that makeup are English. Who decides on what genetic factors are English? To follow such definitions leads to blood line racism, "Yes I know you think you are German, and yes I know all your acquaintances think you German, and yes your family has lived in Germany for generations and yes you are Christian, but unknown to you three of you grandparents were Jewish so you are not a German". AFAICT there has never been that attitude in Britain, and until 1912 it would have been next to impossible to say with any certainty where most English peoples ancestors came from more than a few generations before. This is also reflected in modern legislation, unlike the German nationality laws, one is only British by decent for 3 generations. Which of the following are not English: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Lenny Henry and Michael Portillo? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing, in effect, is denying that there is any such thing as an English ethnicity - an attitude that would get very short shrift if you tried it with the Welsh or Scottish, I imagine. As for your question - Gordon Brown and Lenny Henry obviously aren't English (but for different reasons) - Blair was born in Scotland but is, as far as I know, ethnically English, and I'm not sure about Portillo - half Spanish and half Scottish, perhaps he tries a little too hard to be part of the establishment. Added: I've just checked up and Blair turns out to have a very colourful family background. He's English though - an ethnicity recognises itself. That is not true for Lenny Henry or Portillo, who are of obviously non-English ancestry. A person who's parents were Welsh, Scottish, or Irish, but born and brought up in England, would probably be regarded as ethnically English by other English people (unless he deliberately identified with his parental culture and adopted its peculiarities). The further from the British Isles you get, the less likely this single generation assimilation would be. And, on the thorny issue of racism, it is not racist to say that blacks aren't English. What would be racist would be to say that blacks aren't English, and should therefore be treated worse. TharkunColl 10:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No I am not denying that there is some ethnicity, if a person settles in a country and their descendants remain there, then over generations unless there is a very taboo against it there will be inter marriage and descendants from both parents. But to argue that until such inter marriage takes place descendants of immigrants can not be English is I think a very strange attitude to take. If one uses that line of argument then anyone in Australia, New Zealand or the United States who has no aboriginal ancestry are not Ausi, Kiwi or an American, because they are still an English/German/Dutch/... or where ever their multiple ancestors came from. I think what you are saying is racist, how many parents or grandparents do you need to be English to be considered English? What happens if you parents qualified as English under some quaint blood line rule, but you do not (because the combined percentages were not enough) then what nationality are you? If one has to get into such positions to decide on whether a person is English or not reminds of the Nuremberg Laws. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PBS, you are shooting a strawman position that nobody even suggested. What is or isn't intended by "English ethnic group", "the English", "English nation" is a matter of consensual definition. You need to cite reliable sources to establish that, the taller your claims, the more respectable your sources will need to be. The question here isn't that after a few generations in England, descendants of immigrants will blend with the host nation. What is under dispute is that all ethnic subcultures in England automatically form part of the English people. dab (𒁳) 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No I am not shooting strawmen when TharkunColl writes: "As for your question - Gordon Brown and Lenny Henry obviously aren't English ". There is a difference between generlised traits that make up a population and the people that make up that the population. What I mean by this is that the average height of men in England may be taller today than those born fifty year ago, but it does not mean that all twenty year old men are taller than all seventy year old men. Just because one of the common traits among English people is a genetic link, that does not make a fourth generation Kiwi of English decent English and Michael Portillo non English. Although a genetic link plays a part in defining the English population it is a small part compared to being born in the country, growing up there with the usual education, cultural and sporting biases, and other social traits that go into making up the various classes that the English people identify with. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my point when I said we need a clearer definition of what English ethnicity is. I mean what is the common concensus on its definition? Where do we take our sources from? (84.13.243.156 12:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

of course. It's as simple as WP:CITE. It is nonsensical to call a definition "a self circular argument" when a definition is, by definition, conventional, not deductive. We need to show what the general consensus is, not criticize it. Nobody ever said Englishness was determined by ancestry (genetics) exclusively, or even primarily. Ancestry is always only one among several components of ethnic identity. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PBS said, "But to argue that until such inter marriage takes place descendants of immigrants can not be English is I think a very strange attitude to take." Eh? I said nothing about intermarriage. Let me quote myself: "A person who's parents were Welsh, Scottish, or Irish, but born and brought up in England, would probably be regarded as ethnically English by other English people (unless he deliberately identified with his parental culture and adopted its peculiarities). The further from the British Isles you get, the less likely this single generation assimilation would be." So, in other words, I specifically stated that people of other genetic ancestries could become English (but it depends on their degree of similarity). And there is no such thing as a "Kiwi" ethnicity either (unless you mean the Maoris). TharkunColl 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading list

I think we all need to do some reading or this will just go round in circles. Here are some places to start. Please add more if possible. My guess is that none of these promotes some kind of simple definition, but instead discusses the various ideas about the subject. Cop 663 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Robert Young The Idea of English Ethnicity (Blackwell, to be published in September - preorder your copy today!!)
• Mary Floyd Wilson, English Ethnicity and Race in Early Modern Drama (CUP, 2003)
  • I skimmed this. It's about Renaissance theories of English ethnicity, centering on 'geohumourism' (the belief that particular climates affect the temperaments and physical characteristics of ethnic groups). Not much use for describing the present day, but would be interesting within a 'history of the idea of the English people' section. Cop 663 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Pauline Greenhill, Ethnicity in the Mainstream: Three Studies of English Canadian Culture in Ontario (McGill-Queens, 1994) (according to a reviewer, "there have been very few studies of the English as an ethnic group either in Canada or anywhere else")
  • This is an interesting book. The central point is that English Canadians tend not to think of themselves as an "ethnic group". The author argues that this is because the English have been the dominant culture in Canada, and so tend to see themselves as "normal" or "mainstream" and everybody else as "ethnic". She goes on, however, to show that they still possess deep-seated ideas about their ethnic distinctiveness despite this. Cop 663 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• David Moore, The Lads in Action: Ethnicity, Identity and Social Process Amongst Australian Skinheads (Ashgate, 1994) ("The focus is on the construction of English ethnicity in multicultural Australia")

As the OED dictionary definition mention previously, there is no problem when talking about English as an ethnic group in a foreign national population, but in England they are a nation not an ethnic group. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple. The "English people" can be regarded as a nation, or they can be regarded (less inclusively) as an ethnic group. Google the phrase "ethnically English" and you'll find many people who believe the latter (some of them scary right wing nutters, some of them not). I'm trying to find a way we can describe both concepts in the article. Cop 663 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing such a search threw up this article 100% English -- I would quibble with your comment about "some of them scary right wing nutters" and put the nutter quotient much higher. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Google "about 1,980 English pages for "ethnically English" -wikipedia." and "about 215,000 English pages for "English Nation" -wikipedia." That means the ratio of crude unfiltered page hits between "English Nation" and "ethnically English" to about one hundred to one. That makes it a very small ratio to justify giving much weight to concepts of "ethnically English" --Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but most of your hits for 'English nation' are dealing with England as a political entity, not with the idea of the 'English people'. I have demonstrated above that English ethnicity is a serious academic subject. And are you seriously saying that the idea of English ethnicity has not been important in the past? Let me stress that I am not actually opposed to your principles - I am just trying to find a way to make the article clearer, so that readers can understand why someone might hold your point of view. Cop 663 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that some background reading would be good. There are lots of interesting (debatable) points, but as dab says, we need to work on what we can cite, not what we think. The biggest book I have on my bookshelf is a tome:

• Norman Davies The Isles, A History

Which goes to great pains to be neutral, so much so that I got confused and never finished it. Looks like it's time to try once again. :) Wiki-Ed 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous English people image and RexImperium

The person (User:RexImperium) who is putting up the version [3] of this with people who are obviously not english should be disciplined by the adminstrators if it continues. That's vandalism, disruption, POV editing, etc. Black people are not "English" just as Welsh people are not. "English" only means an ethnic group. There is no excuse for that kind of vandalism of this article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary defines English as

–noun 3. the people of England collectively, esp. as distinguished from the Scots, Welsh, and Irish

There is nothing that says that black people, or any race for that matter, cannot be English. (RexImperium 11:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Fourdee, it is not true that "'English' only means an ethnic group". See the discussion above. Cop 663 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Says who? I see a few editors asserting people who live in England should be included in this article (obviously not). I'd go so far as to say that any person without any actual (or with only a miniscule amount of) anglo-saxon blood is not english but rather a briton or whathaveyou. At any rate, the article already says "The English (from Old English ænglisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England." The "people of England" does not mean "immigrants to England". If you have no (or extremely few, percentage-wise) ancestors who spoke old english you are not english to me but perhaps that is extreme. The term is used, as the definition cited about indicates, to distinguish English people from the other ethnic groups around them. Someone who is predominantly Norman has an ethnicity of "Norman", someone who is predominantly a dane has an ethnicity of "Danish", someone who is predominantly celtic has an ethnicity of "Celtic". English is the name for the descandants of the Angles and those few germanic tribes closely related to them who spoke a similar language. I for one am certainly not going to sit by and watch the name be stolen by promoters of destroying what's left of that identity. Calling half-danes and half-celts and half-normans English is one matter (and widely accepted) - calling negroes and asians English is offensive and not true. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Words mean different things in different contexts. If I'm talking about people who are subject to the laws of England (some of which are different to the laws of Scotland) it's perfectly OK to call an Asian person who lives in Bolton "English". But if I'm talking about the direct descendants of the Angles, then it isn't. The problem with this article is that it's trying to talk about both at the same time, which is why we have so much aggro.

And your definition of English ethnicity is highly extreme. I regard myself as English but I have no idea whether I have Norman, Danish, Saxon or Celtic genes or (more likely) a mixture. I suspect you don't know either. Does that mean we're not English? Cop 663 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No of course people who we call English are mixtures to varying degrees of those groups. But let's say someone with brown eyes and the surname Jones or Rogers or whathaveyou who is from western england from a family native to that region and whose parents and relatives have a similar appearance and background - is that person best called english or are they more like a briton or welsh? I'm not saying there is some absolute standard for English, only that it primarily means descendants of ancient angles, jutes, saxons and frisians in Britain who in practice have norman, celtic, danish etc. admixture today. This is to my understanding closer to how the term is used to distinguish English from other ethnic groups in Britain. And no, of course I would not classify myself as "English" since it's a small part of my ancestry. At any rate, to insert negroes as photographs of English people is extremely misleading and I dont see anything justification for trying to make a clearly ethnic label (for which to my knowledge there is no present day citizenship to which one could even been naturalized) into a label for residents of the region called England. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As to which English are from which groups, I did see a detailed study of haplogroups in central England that found that for one thing, the people there were the most similar to Frisians (neighbors of the Angles) of all other modern populations, and that the Welsh had a markedly different set of haplogroups. It should be possible to look at one's surname, genealogy and genetics and get a good idea of which sort of background one comes from but of course mixture is increasing dramatically especially in urban areas in which case it is moot or impossible. In past generations people were more aware of which ethnic group a surname or family belonged to and while English isn't necessarily used as a synonym for Anglo-Saxon I think it is close. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation Tag

I have removed this tag for the second time - both placed by the same IP. Although this is a sort of sweeping statement, it would seem also to be self evident by the following text and not a controversial statement requiring citation / verifiability per WP:V and WP:CITE. It would probably be preferable to have a referenced source on this but I don't view it as essential within the spirit of those two policies, and the acompanying list of artists / scientists in the prose of the article. Pedro |  Chat  13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New 'Definitions' section

Hello, I have done some reading, and I've created a section headed 'Definitions'. Since most of the arguments on this page are between those who see the English as an ethnic group and those who see them as a nation, I have cited sources to demonstrate that both views are current in present day discussions of the subject. The view that the English are definable by ethnicity has been expressed by geneticists, statisticians, and the forthcoming UK census (and yes, by racist bigots too). The view that there is a multi-cultural English nation (as opposed to British one) is expressed by the OED and by English nationalists who seek self-government or devolution for England. I'm not sure where we go from here; my gut instinct says this article would be easier to write if it was split into two pages: 'English (ethnic group)' and 'English (nation)', the latter being a much longer article. But obviously that's a controversial choice. For now, I'd be grateful for any feedback on the 'Definitions' section, which may contain many errors and false assumptions, as I'm not an expert in the field. Thank you. Cop 663 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done I think that is a step in the right direction. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There would be no practical difference between the English (nation) article as defined above, and the Demographics of England article that already exists. TharkunColl 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There would be a big difference. The Demographics of England article is just a list of statistics - informative, but dull. An article on the 'English (nation)' would be about the history of the idea of the English as a nation, the debates over who belongs and who doesn't, and perhaps material on 'Englishness' and the popular image of the person who is 'more English than the English'. There is tons of material for a great article on this - see Krishan Kumar's book on the subject, The Making of English National Identity, which I strongly recommend (if you've got a lot of time on your hands!) Cop 663 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The new article is a brillaint one. Nicely done :) 79.67.124.227 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics of England and the British Isles

The British Isles are probably one of the best researched areas in the world from a genetic pòint of view. Why is there no article about it? I propose making one and leaving a link to the article here. Jane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.137.20 (talk) 10:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jane, and welcome. You could expand the article on the British Isles if you wanted, or create a new article if you wish. Be bold and go ahead! Pedro |  Chat  11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article 'Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland' is mostly about genetics, but it's a real mess. You could try starting there and tidying it up. Cop 663 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Poltical agenda

It is clear that most English people would regard what are here called the "nation" and the "ethnic group" to be the same, so what's all this guff here about the nation being "more inclusive", etc.? This is obvious POV. Why are the English constinuously denied the right to express their identity, without being branded as "racists"? TharkunColl 10:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the concept of the English ethnic group does not apply to everyone who is an English citizen. I believe thats where the distinction needs to be drawn. (NovusTabula 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi Tharkuncoll, thanks for your comments, but could you give some examples? The word 'nation' (as defined in the dictionary) is less connected with race than 'ethnic group' is, but if you could find some examples of people using "nation" and "ethnic group" to mean the same thing, that would be really helpful. The distinction between these two words is certainly vague and this section of the article needs improving. No political agenda is intended. Cop 663 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In this article "(This is my England") Andrea Levy makes some points including some on her own ancestry and also says "I am English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons.) ... But national identity is not a personal issue. It is political. It cannot be decided at the whim of the individual. Englishness must never be allowed to attach itself to ethnicity. The majority of English people are white, but some are not. If we say otherwise, it is in tacit agreement with the idea of racial purity, and we all know where that dangerous myth can lead. Let England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland be nations that are plural and inclusive." --Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Philip, that's really helpful, and could be worked into the article. Tharkuncoll, I agree with you that it's possible for the English to "express their identity" in a non-racist way, but the article will remain unbalanced until we can find some quotes from people doing that. Cop 663 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"This article is about Welsh people who are considered to be an ethnic group and a nation." from Welsh people.

"The Scottish people are a nation and an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland." from Scottish people.

Once again I ask - how come the English are not allowed to be both an ethnic group and a nation? TharkunColl 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The first sentence of the article reads "The English (from Old English ænglisc) are a nation and ethnic group". How is this different from the Scottish and Welsh ones? Cop 663 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. There just seemed to be an agenda to separate the two concepts. And, incidentally, shouldn't the "æ" in ænglisc be capitalised? TharkunColl 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nation" is a very loose word and means different things in different contexts. But it can be used to mean groups of people who are bonded in some way that is not necessarily racial, and in that sense it means something different from "ethnic group". I think it's acceptable to use "nation" in that sense within this article, as long as we explain which meaning of the word we are using, otherwise readers might indeed get confused. Cop 663 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

...Indeed

It would be better on the whole, if people like TharkunColl did not rely on a heavily propagandized version of what makes an English person by heritage. The version currently promoted is in line with the extremely charged and jingoistic, pro-Bismark era of Queen Victoria, Charles Darwin and Rudyard Kipling. It is not the historic view of English people as they saw themselves in the Plantagenet, Tudor or even Stuart era. The traditional view of the English held by both themselves and the Welsh, is that they are foederatii successors to the Romans in Britain. This is like the French or Burgundians in Gaul, Lombards or Ostrogoths in Italy, Visigoths or Suebi in Spain and Vandals or Alans in Africa. These tribes succeeded or filled in the void left by a crumbled imperial infrastructure that they were partially assimilated to and halfheartedly promoted according to their station as allies or subordinates of Rome, although the description of events by folklorists is much less technical than I am showing it as. A simple comparison is: England succeeds Britain = Holy Roman Empire succeeds Roman Empire. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were merely the British wing of Roman foederati, invited by Vortigern, a native British ruler following Roman tradition of outsourcing the Roman military after the last legion left to protect the City of Rome in 410. People like Vortigern hoped that they could use the "Anglo-Saxons" to repel the Gaelic invaders and also take over the rest of Britain, by expanding back to the Antonine Wall and even further, if the situation turned for the better. Incidentally, this is also what was done during the Irish Plantations, the invitation of William III and the Hanoverians. Unfortunately, modern day Anglo-Saxonists can't get beyond the era of the Kaiser and notions of the mythological Teuton. This is how they distort the meaning of what an English person is ancestrally, always in a kulturkampf to deny or play down the Roman nature inherent in England's constitutional background as the chief British country. Perhaps the Germans themselves don't have much Roman inheritance, because the tribes they sent elsewhere acculturated in Roman lands rather than Romance instutitions being promoted in the heartland of Germania. So what? That does not make for a negligable Roman background for the English, any more than other Germanicized, ex-Roman lands like France, Spain or Italy. The demarcation of the English from the others, is definitely a political agenda and painfully recent as well. It was one of the issues which led to the Great War in 1914.

TharkunColl is once again, on the loose and obstructing neutrality by insisting on class warfare between the commons and lords, native and foreign in his own estimation for one particular period in English history only. That has to stop, since it has been proven that the English were ruled by other social groups from foreign language speaking lands than Normandy. Oh and equating English with Anglo-Saxon is another "hot water" declaration that bigots never stop doing. I see that the section on Logres (the Romano-British) was converted into a playground for Social Darwinism and scientific racism. Who wants to save Wikipedia from hatemongers? Golly gee. Lord Loxley 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

infobox

why is the infobox transcluded from {{English populations}}? Most articles have their infoboxes in plain view in the article text. Transclusion messes up footnote numbering: the infobox is shown at the top, but the footnotes are numbered as if it was at the end. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is weird. We should move it, shouldn't we? Cop 663 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why not. Any one else know why it's transcluded? I can't see any damage in moving it, but let's just check. Pedro |  Chat  09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it because it clutters the page and makes it difficult to sift the main text from all the formatting when editing. (NovusTabula 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Good call - it's better - thank you. Pedro |  Chat  11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)