Talk:English people/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Celtic, I think not!

England is not a Celtic nation and thus it's people are not Celtic. They have 'Celtic' influences on their culture but largely it cannot be declared as Celtic, it differs too much. The language 'English' is a West Germanic language and it's name is from the English who get their name from a West Germanic tribe that lived in the Jutland peninsula. Genetically are the English partly 'Celtic'? Yes and no. They share some of the same genetics however to claim a 'Celtic' gene (or Celtic genes) is as naive as to claim a Germanic, Slavic or Romance gene...it's a fantasy dreamt up by early 20th Century race theorists. The Scots may have some shared origin with the English (hence the Lowlanders spoke a form of English or Inglis since the early middle-ages) but that is neither here nor there, if there is a problem with this definition then it belongs in the Scottish people article...and even then there is founding in that it is classed as one of the Celtic Nations.

I'm sorry but to say the English are Celtic (especially based on genetics) smacks of British nationalism, is unencyclopedic, and is tantamount to vandalsim.

Category removed.

Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Germania was a part of Gaul, along with Britain. Gaul is the Celtic homeland. The Belgae, first foreign influences in Britain, were also from Gaul. The Anglo-Saxons entered Britain via Belgica, just like Caesar before them. At no point in time, were the Anglo-Saxons in Germania, thus not making them Germanic. Celtic is an umbrella term which includes Germanic, but the Anglo-Saxons are most approximately Belgic, if one wishes to attach Continental flavour in the categorical character of the English people. This is attested to by Roman writers on the nature of ethnic groups in that part of Europe and the contemporary close classification between English and Frisian. This is Belgic, just like Britain's first coinage. You are a Nazi agitator. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually 'Celtic' does not include 'Germanic', they are separate ethno-linguistic definitions. And I am far from a Nazi agitator and do not prescribe to any race theories. Please do not insult people with such ignorant claims. But I have realised who you are, you are Lord Loxley of old! That is why your post makes no sense and why you resort to childish insults! It goes against your racist Britano-Norman-Roman theory you have! Well done trying to fool everyone. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From top post by Sigurd Dragon Slayer: "to say the English are Celtic (especially based on genetics) smacks of British nationalism". I beg your pardon? 'Celticism' plainly exists in some sense but in the way people in Britain talk about it it's largely a myth propagated by nascent nationalism among smaller countries of the British Isles. On the other hand there's hardly any such thing as British nationalism, certainly not along ethnic lines; that's the whole point of a modern nation state. Is there American ethnic nationalism? No. To be honest, unless we're talking about historical definitions, I think this whole category is bananas, and your comments rather bear that out. I won't comment on points made in the post immediately above, I'm sure the author knows more about it than I do, but imo the article should indeed come under the category 'Celtic' because the Cornish are indeed English and also Celts by a number of definitions. Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But the Cornish are rarely classed as ethnically English but nationally English (and they have a very interesting culture), hence they are usually separated as a separate group and Cornwall is a Celtic Nation whereas England is not. Are the Swiss all Italians because some ethnic Italians live in Switzerland? No. By the way the Cornish have their own article for their ethnicity: Cornish people. And the above poster knows little of the subject or he would know that at the very least Germanic is a liguistic definition distinct from Celtic, and their is no reliable and accepted source to say the English are Belgic (it was a confederacy consisting of Celts and Germans) and the Anglo-Saxons did not all enter via Belgica, but most likely from a larger area comprising from Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, Germania, Belgium (Belgica), Northern France and many would probably have been living in what is now England from before the Heptarchy as mercenaries of the Roman Empire and Romano-British kingdoms. There is no source to state the English as Celtic, no official designation (unlike Ireland, Wales , Scotland, Isle of Man or Cornwall). So sorry, but no! Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect Sigurd? Wikipedia is dominated by Brythonist racists who want to distance themselves from most Europeans by claiming that they are descended from the pre-Indo-European group that teh Basques are also descended from; it is a ridiculous concept started in the Victorian era to make the inhabitants of Britain superior to those of mainland Europe.

Unfortunately, British nationalism is so widespread these days that the Germanic culture of England and the Gaelic of Scotland will soon be replaced by a Brythonic re-imagining. 86.131.255.122 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly England is not a Celtic nation. Part of the problem is the difference between the way the word "Celt" is used by non-experts and the way it is used by linguists. Most archaeologists avoid using the word to describe any of the pre-Roman peoples of Great Britain and Ireland these days. Celtic people are people who speak Celtic languages, the language of England is not Celtic, it is Germanic. On the other hand the term "Celtic" is often used erroneously to describe both the Iron Age peoples of Great Britain and Ireland and the modern peoples of several European states, including Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people. A reading of Simon James' excellent book "Ancient Celts: Modern Myth or Ancient People?" highlights the fallacy of imposing modern identities on ancient cultures. There is no evidence that the ancient pre-Roman peoples of Great Britain and Ireland would have identified as a single ethnic group called "Celts", and more importantly there is no good reason to believe this. Even more importantly there is no real evidence that the pre-Roman Iron Age inhabitants of Great Britain all spoke Celtic languages, as is often claimed, but remember that lack of evidence isn't "proof". Some scholars are starting to suggest that Germanic languages may have been spoken in at least the east of England and Scotland (let's not forget Scots language) since well before the supposed "Anglo-Saxon" invasion. Indeed it seems strange to me to suggest that the peoples of the North Sea suddenly "discovered" each other in the sub-Roman period after having lived on the shores of the same relatively small and enclosed sea for many millenia. The ancestor language of modern English may have come to Great Britain as long ago as the neolithic, but the truth is we just don't know, and probably never will. The simplistic analysis that claims that "genetics" proves that English people are "Celtic" is clearly nonsense, there is no genetic trait is associated with any culture or society. If the question is "Are at least some English people the descendants of people who spoke Celtic languages in the past?" then the answer is clearly "Yes", but his does not make these descendants "Celtic". I find it odd that anyone thinks they have the right to tell anyone else who they are, people know who they are and no one else has the right to tell them otherwise. Alun (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland

What about figures for English people in the Republic of Ireland? They are the largest minority there. (Stpaul 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

I had a look at the Irish census on nationality and on ethnicity and culture, but it doesn't seem to distinguish English people from Brits as a whole. We'd need an alternative source if there is one.Cop 663 13:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"it doesn't seem to distinguish English people from Brits as a whole".... there's probably a good reason for that. Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2008 (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)

I'm restoring this as prematurely archived. The issue isn't resolved. The footnote numbering is still messed up. I find the recent tendency to transclude infoboxes questionable in general, since it puts infobox content out of view of people who have the article on their watchlist. Much easier to vandalise. On Assyrian people, we even had a case of an edit-warrior moving the infobox to a template in an attempt to dodge a content dispute. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

English not an ethnic group

I have removed the section of the definition paragraph which quoted the OED as a source for the claim that the English are not an ethnic group. Whilst some people do argue from that POV, I feel they should set out their case in a separate paragraph. I considered leaving it in and countering the claims, but that seemed to be more likely to result in an edit war. I also removed the quote from Sarah Kane's play, as it echoes the Andrea Levy quote, which I think is more pertinent.--Cenwulf 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here, and I understand why you removed the passages from their present locations. However, I think it's important to keep the OED's definition in full, and I'm also not so sure that English ethnic nationalism is entirely about Anglo-Saxon ancestry (do ethnic nationalists really exclude people with Viking and Norman ancestry from modern English ethnicity?) What I've done is move the OED definitions to the top of the section, out of the 'Ethnic Group' section, so that they 'introduce' the two concepts rather than being used only about the first. I also put the Blasted quote back, because we need a quote that actually supports the concept of English ethnicity (Andrea Levy is opposing it). It would be great to find a better quote than this though, from somebody more thoughtful, but it's better than nothing.Cop 663 17:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between recognition of an ethnic group, and full-fledged ethnic nationalism: you can be member of a group, and then you can be a prick about it, or not. Whether the English are an "ethnic group" is entirely a matter of definition. If they aren't, what ethnicitiy do English people have? "ethnic British"? I doubt the Welsh or Scottish would accept such a definition of ethnicity. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point; I removed the 'ethnic nationalism' link from the intro since it's not right to tar everyone with that brush. Cop 663 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for Labour's stirring the pot of ethnic nationalism for another go at divide and conquer! "Evil" Britain is beseiged by hooligan balkanists! Another notch under the belts of barbarians everywhere! I love systemic bias and POV-pushing! Lord Loxley 19:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the image

The English people article probably has one of the worst images on Wikipedia. The trick is to choose recognizable and respectful people. It really looks fake and redicilous with this polit-correctness. I propose a new version:

Row 1: J. R. R. Tolkien * William Shakespeare * Charles Darwin

Row 2: Edward Elgar * Jane Austen * Isaac Newton

The current image selection is just absurd. I mean, not to include Newton? Darwin? Another problem is the includion of Royalty. The best thing is not to includ politics, esspecialy not royalty (which are contreversial. Many English people see in them useless parasits). And Kate Winslet?? What's so great about her? I mean, there are many actors, and she aint different from millions of others.

In conclusion, state your opinions here. If a majority will support my idea, i will upload my image. If a majority will support the current image, then the current image stays. M.V.E.i. 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about taking the 100 Greatest Britons and extracting the first few English names on that list? Including one or two still living? There is also the Greatest Britons which could be chopped in the same way, or a combination of a few from both. That way we get away from selection a list with a Wikipedia editorial POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a living person we could replace Elgar with Paul Weller in my proposal, if many will support that. M.V.E.i. 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So guys, take notice. There's a third potential proposal here. Besides mine proposal, and the current image, Philip Baird Shearer proposed to replace the upper (man) line in the current image. M.V.E.i. 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to drop the whole notion of finding images of "recognizable and respectful people", as those will always be subject to bias and opinion as there is limited space, and go for a neutral image of (a) random English people(/person). Take a look at the articles on Dutch people, Thai people and Arabs. It probably is the most neutral style.Rex 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK that's a fourth proposal, and a potential one to. M.V.E.i. 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as one of the creators of the image (which was arrived at after a lengthy discussion), can I ask you to explain your feelings a bit better before we start voting? "Fake and ridiculous" is very insulting and a bit more clarity wouldbe helpful.

• Could you explain which people you think are included for "politically correct" reasons, and why?
• Could you explain why it's OK to have writers but not monarchs? Great writing is a matter of taste too, e.g. many people believe that Tolkien wrote nauseating sentimental kitsch. And England is still a monarchy, which suggests that the majority of English people like kings and queens.

• Winslet is there because she is the star of the biggest box office success in film history, and as such is probably the most famous English actor in the world. Do you believe there should be no modern people in the image? Is that the problem?

Thanks for your input, and maybe it's worth remembering that no collection of images will ever make everybody happy. I am kind of tempted by the 'random English people' argument above. Just go outside onto a busy street and take a photo... Cop 663 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you got insulted, i just couldn't finds other words. I take them back in that case, i really should have thought first.

• • Eliabbeth 1, Gwynnd Winsnslet. Because it's obvious they were inserted just for being women. Newtonnd Darwrwing are much more recognizable and respectful.
  • Writers are creating people, like scientists and musicians. Monarchs are political leaders. Allre contreversrsial, all have oppositn, ththats why, as a political element, they should be left out.
  • I haven't kwn Winsnslet before that. She's not the only actor in the world, she's not the only actor in the film. The trick is to put those whore irreplacacable. My problem is not modern people. I already state that if a majority will like my version but say it wants modern people i can insert ul welelleror Alblbarn, or a member of Pink Floyd, whatever decided) instead of Elgar.

The random English people from the street suggestion was a good one, and a potential one, b i persononaly still like a collage idea. Nevertheless, i don't decide. Whatever the majority decides is what will be. I randomly left a simar messssegeou recicived to those who edited the article (from the latest history pages of the article), so as you can see, a long discussion will be held ti a desicicion is made. M.V.E.i. 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And sorry again. Your proposal does have it's logic which i just didn't understand (many actually would prefer your model, i a metetter of taste). M.V.E.i. 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC:::Wins

nslet is the least significant, but a major modern actress. Jane Austen is one of the creators of the novel in English, and a major literary figure indeed. And Liz 1? PC? They still call it the Elizabethan Age 400 years after her death. Darwin and Newton would be worthy additions, of course. --Stephan Schulz 09:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

we need a wider consensus of what is even the point of these "ethnic group collages". French people: Hugh Capet; Persian people: Cyrus the Great; [[Assyrian people [[As[ur-na-nasir-pal II]](!); to keep up with those, you'll at least need a mugshot of King Arthur (or, alrig Hengengest). The Germans are losing this arms race for antiquity with pathetic Mozart, they'll need to upgrade to Arminius. Seriously, this needs some sort of standardization, otherwise this sort of debate is wasted time. --[er:Dbachmchmann|dab]] (𒁳) 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of ethnic those have those, and most of those who have like those. And king Arthur was Welsh not English. M.V.E.i. 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, if you want to compare with other collages then try to compare with Italian people, Irish people and Scottish people. By the way, Italian people was reached by a discion concencensus. M.V.E.i. 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the whole thing is silly really. I'm in favour of deleting all these images as inherently POV. It really needs discussing higher up the chain, e.g. ate Ethnic ups Wikiproproject. By the way, I like the approach at Ainu people: just use one random old photograph of some anonymous people from the group in question. Much less fussy. Cop 663 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've raised the question of deleting all these imaget Wikipkipedialk:WikiProProject_Ethnic_groups#Images_in_Ethnic_ups_infinfobox_-_should_they_all_be_deleted.3F. Please add your views there! Cop 663 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No Change. I note that all the ethnic groups with "random people" images seem to show historic 100 year old or more pictures, like they are trying to avoid defining what the group is today and have to relay on some ideal from the past. The strength of the "chosen images" approach is that it can span a great period of historic time and can be inclusive of all aspects of the present culture incing wo ens achievient. t. ie I vote No Change. Lumos3 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC:Suges

gestion An idea though might be to have a series of group images moving through time. e.g. Harold's army at the Battle of Hgs (Bay (Bayeaux tapestry), Elizabethan crowd, 17th century crowd , 18th century crowd etco a contemontempory crowd scene , maybe Glastonbury or the Last Night of the Proms. Lumos3 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I love that idea! Cop 663 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. otherwise no change. bble|Alun 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ni If t If thats possible please upload it here. M.V.E.i. 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Whichever group of people get chosen to be representative of the English, somebody will always disagree with it, so I say remove the image altogether. The article has a list of famous English people. If someone wants to learn about those people they can follow those links. (89.241.234.47 17:15, 25 September 2007 (U

eci neci pae un angun anglais

[[:image:Golconde.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Ceci n'est pas un anglais - You can even get a tan from sitting in the English rain, 1953.]]

I think it would be best to have picture of some non-entity in a bowler hat. I believe Mr Magritte produced a whole heap of such images. But perhaps someone could create some sort of bowdlerised version, or just a picture of Thomas Bowdler who is far more influential than Wagglesword.Harrypotter 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So, any conclusion to this debate? (78.149.8.227 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

An image of King Alfred The Great should be in the article as this is about the English as a social group and Alfred did help (though that is an understatement!) the creation of England, though, the English as a group existed before him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Óðinn The Aesir (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Webber's research

Here's a list of Richard Webber's published research from the ESRC Webber's research. The website The Sunday Times links to in it's article seems to be a commercial one sold for marketing purposes, see here. Here's a list of research papers from the "Origins Info" site that The Sunday Times article is about Research Papers. There is a map of the UK where people's origins can be selected to search for high levels of people of specific origin in certain parts of the UK, but this does not state that these are "ethnic groups", just that these are the origins of people, see here. The website itself states "Each consumer on a customer file can be placed into one of 200 different ‘Origins’ types on the basis of their personal and family names. The segmentation could be used for example to identify people on a customer file whose ancestry is most likely to be from Ireland, Italy, Albania or Myanmar." [1] I can find no reference to "ethnicity" here, only origin. I can only conclude that this is simply a very poor piece of journalism from The Sunday Times. The media have a consistently poor record for covering this sort of thing, and the article from the Times seems to be a very good example of a journalist looking for "a good story" rather than accurately reporting what the website actually does. So I maintain that if we want to make the same claims that the Sunday Times does, then we can only cite the newspaper and not Webber himself. If we want to cite Webber then we cannot really make the claim for an English "ethnic group" only for origins in "England". I have found that the mass media really do not represent reliable sources at all for any sort of academic work, often journalists are not experts and are really looking for a story rather than anything else, so we generally get a confused and "spun" story. I am reminded of the BBC article claiming that Y chromosome evidence "proved" that 50-100% of "indigenous Britons" had been "wiped out" in "England" by invading "Germanic tribes" in the 5th century.[2] When I checked the actual academic paper it claimed only that there had been a 50-100% contribution of "invading" Y chromosomes to the extant English population,[3] meaning that the BBC report had conveniently overlooked the fact that 50% of people do not carry Y chromosomes at all and had (deliberately?) sensationalised a report of 50-100% contribution to 50-100% "wipe out". Further Y chromosome analysis has shown that there are no marked genetic differences between English and Welsh people, only a gradual variation between the west coast of Britain and the east coast of Britain. Since investigating this Y chromosome evidence myself about 2 years ago (for this very article actually) I have become extremely wary of any journalistic sources for academic work. This Sunday Times article seems to be equally dubious. Alun 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, and this is important to know. We certainly shouldn't be using Webber's work to 'prove' the existence of an easily distinguishable English ethnic group. Having said that, the Times article is interesting for its choice of words even if it is inaccurate: it demonstrates that people do use the words "English ethnic group" in print and some journalists seem to have a certain interest in 'proving' its existence (regardless of whether they're using it in a scientifically accurate way). Maybe the paragraph should be written along the lines of "the mainstream press have recently demonstrated great interest in the idea of English ethnicity, reporting the conclusions of scientific studies in such a way as to suggest the existence of a definable English ethnicity, although the conclusions of these studies have been sensationalized". Something like that, anyway. Could be worthwhile. Thanks again for clarifying this issue. Cop 663 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at rewriting as per above. Not quite sure about it but see what you think. Cop 663 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem in citing the Sunday Times article as a use of "English ethnic group". The real problem is with claiming that research has used this concept. As such I think your edit is excellent, you've clearly stated that it is the reporting that is making these claims, while also correctly pointing out that there is a real sense of English identity. Nice work. I might make just a small edit to the claims that both pieces of work are scientific, whereas Webber's work is certainly research, I don't think it is science, more social science. Nice job though. Alun 05:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think it is science, more social science" (snigger). So Alun, you'll not be visiting the LSE in the near future! With the changes now made I think we should alter the section placements by moving "The English as a nation" before "The English as an ethnic group". --Philip Baird Shearer 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a snyde remark. But the methodologies of so called "hard science" and "social science" are very different. Most people think of scientists as "men in white coats in laboratories", whereas a social scientist is more likely to be stood in the rain with clipboard in hand trying to persuade passers by to answer some questions. Social scientists do perfectly good research, I just don't think their research would necessarily be seen as science, though their data analyses clearly have important scientific and social policy applications. Maybe it's my bias, I actually do work in a lab and wear a white coat and actually work with DNA every day. I agree that the section about English nationality should come first. I tend to think that first and foremost English people are a nation, probably because English people are heterogeneous in origin and to a certain extent in culture even today. I was actually reading something just last night about how one could not really have thought of the English as a homogeneous nation even as recently as the time of Edward the Confessor: "Although it can be argued that England was already a nation in development under the expansionist West Saxons kings of the tenth century in the era after the famous conquest over the Vikings in the north, we should be missing the point if we view the events which led up to the battle of Hastings as being anything to do with notions of nationhood as we currently understand them. Certainly, in fact indisputably, the English people by the eleventh century were thinking of themselves as something much more than a mere loose confederacy of Germanic peoples, but to suppose that the power struggles of the eleventh century were fought over such issues is to misunderstand the essential dynamics of medieval politics". (from The Road to Hastings by Paul Hill). So English people were not really a nation by the time of Edward, but neither were they really separate ethnic groups either, they had, after, all been unified into a single state for over a century, though this state was very decentralised. Becoming a nation is a process, it takes time for people to think of themselves as a single people. I'm not sure that the concept of the English as an "ethnic group" is anything more than a modern idea, and that's not to say that it is not a very real and deeply felt identity, but it may be a product of the Victorian creation myth of mass migration and a wholescale land grab in the 5-6th century, giving English people the perception of a common origin, which is the definition of an ethnic group after all. Alun 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care which way round the sections go, although I slightly lean toward putting 'ethnic group' first for the purposes of the article's structure (the complicated nature of the 'ethnic group' definition is a useful precursor to explaining the 'nation' definition). Cop 663 14:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a good point, it may not be particularly important one way or the other. I don't have strong feelings about it. One can hold an opinion without feeling it's necessarily important. Alun 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian Jezza 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)==Decent== Why do English count themselves as "Anglo-Saxon" if most have norman routes. Shouldn't than in theory, make them actualy "Anglo Norman"?OsirisV 15:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But the English don't like the French. Cop 663 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very problematic area. The Anglo-Saxons founded England for starters, not the Normans(who are seen as the hostile force that unreasonably conquered it!). There is debate on how much genetic material they contibuted to the English people. One arguement says that they had little impact, that all the people of the British Isles are genetically the same. Another arguement says that the DNA of the Welsh and English are quite different. The Norman conquest was not a migration as the Anglo-Saxon/Dane was, being more a change of administration. The general populace would have remained Anglo-Saxon/Dane/Brython (English), with the Lords, landowners etc being Norman. Despite the conquest, English did re-emerge as the dominant language(albeit changed by Norman) and it is somewhat felt by Nationalists that the Normans 'merged' to become the English, as did the Danes before them. At a cultural level, again, Nationalists tend to refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxon out of respect for the founders of the country. Anyway, it's complicated. You could ask the same question of why Scots, Irish and Welsh call themselves Celts - they're as mixed up as the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.47.154 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

don't generalize when you say all english people hate the french because that certainly not true for a lot of us. Australian Jezza 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination

Many are discriminated by other countries especialy the US. By being portrayed being white cockneys. This is incorrect! For one thing the cockney end of london is small... and is also in the Black-friendly district aswell. Infact... i count the US discriminating the UK as a form of possible racism (the group form).OsirisV 15:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? This page is to discuss improvements to English People, not to debate. 84.12.47.154 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, they may have all the moneybags, but we've got all the brains. Mogtheforgetfulcat 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That its self is a racist comment and I still dont see what relevance this has to the article. I propose if that is there is no opposistion that is section of the discussion page be deleated beacuse of the racist remarks in this section. (Electrobe (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

The whole article is racist frankly. Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_24#List of English Americans. Badagnani 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the Religion section....

With all due respect to the contributor, it would appear as though this does not belong on this page:

"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)"

Bearing in mind the term English People, as we are talking here exclusively about the English people; those who can be identified as being a resident of England and who are culturally and ethnically English (i.e. having at least one English ancestor). Being born in England will probably make someone English, but just their nationality will be English and their ethnic group will remain that of their forefathers. If their parents came from America, they will be American (unless they are English American, in which case this gets complicated so please see the E.A. page). Similarly, if their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents originate from South Asia (say India) then they will be Indian, unless they preferred to be called British Asian. But please bear in mind that this doesn't make them ethnically English.

I have therefore taken the liberty of removing this piece- Immigrants from India, Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, are not English ethnically and this therefore does not belong in the article.

May I suggest, therefore, moving this information to a more suited page...the Religion in the United Kingdom page perhaps?

And as for the Hindu and Muslim populations.... it would make much more sense if, obviously, we talk here about the populations of ETHNICALLY ENGLISH (remember that term) people who practice the religions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice45 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2007

I am confused are you suggesting that anyone who is not Welsh is not English? If not, then for how many generations does a person's ancestors have to have been resident in England before they become English? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maurice45, please read the whole article: English ethnicity is a very complicated subject which is why this article discusses both English ethnicity and nationality on one page - it's very difficult to separate the two. Applied strictly, your rule would mean that we would have to remove all references to Normans, Vikings and Huguenots too, for example, making the article very short indeed. However, I do think we should state that most of the people referred to in that sentence do not regard themselves as English (as opposed to British), at least to judge from the National Statistics data available. Cop 663 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did the census give them the choice of identifying as none white English and how did you work out the correlation between that answer and the religious answer? For example from the census information how many English people are muslin, catholic and jewish? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The first article from the National Statistics website say that "People from the White British group were more likely to describe their national identity as English (58 per cent) rather than British (36 per cent). However, the opposite was true of the non-White groups, who were more likely to identify themselves as British." The other article states (as one might suspect) that most Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in Britain are non-white. What we don't have is any information on how many people who call themselves "English" people practice a particular religion, so we can't speculate on that but we can presume it to be a minority with those religions given the other data.Cop 663 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pfff. Yeah, I suppose it is. So remove it if you want. But this particular sentence has attracted a lot of ire so it does seem necessary to add a qualification. As a compromise one could alter it to "However, there is no data available as to how many adherents of these religions consider themselves English rather than British". Cop 663 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The original sentence ("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)") only raise ire if one holds views such as those expressed by user:Maurice45 who has yet to explain himself/herself about the number of generations needed to qualify as English. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW although a person may self identify as British, if they move from Northern Britain to Southern Britain they will still be seen by the Southern British to be Scottish event if they self identify as British. British is like European it is an inclusive term for a number of different nationalities. If one is not a first generation immigrant, one will tend to be seen by people in the other nations of Britain as belonging to the nation in which one grew up. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one can add that a British Asian person who moves to Scotland and self-identifies as English may still be regarded as Asian first and foremost by the Scots. Ethnicity often trumps nationality in the way people respond to others; it's not nice, but it's true. 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cop 663 (talk • contribs)

Definitions.

"However, this definition is not shared by all writers, some of whom (wrongly) perceive the English more exclusively as an Anglo-Saxon", or at least a "white" ethnic group that shares a common ancestry."

The word wrongly has no business in there, it's POV. People are entitled to their opinions on both sides of the fence. You can't just stick in 'wrongly' because whoever wrote that thinks it's right. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Although England itself still lacks self-government

I think the statement "Although England itself still lacks self-government" is wrong for two reasons. The government of the UK is Her Majesty's Government so the English are neither more or less governed by themselves than any other home nation. If one also includes Parliament (in the American usage of government), then this is also wrong because the Parliament in Westminster is the English Parliament. One of the constitutional impediments to a United Kingdom Parliament under the Stuarts was the fear of loss of Parliamentary privileges by the English Parliament. For this reason the Acts of Union incorporated the Scottish and Irish Parliaments into the English Parliament they did not replace the English Parliament. Hence the silliness of Black Rod at the state opening of Parliament and all the other archaic stuff Parliament still has.

• This source lays out the bones of the argument (see 1604 and 1621)
  • FORM of APOLOGY and SATISFACTION, 1604 "privileges and liberties" are their "right and inheritance".
  • 1621 11 December James Answer Parliament's rights by "grace and permission of our ancestors". (You only have what we kings have given you)
  • 1621 18 December. The Great Protestation "the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England".

After that it was all over bar the shouting and the killing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The point being made is that there is no English parliament, there is a British parliament(as well as a Scots Parliment and NI/Welsh Assembly). England does not govern itself, the UK governs it. One of the marvellous features of devolution. There is a democratic deficit against England with the existance of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh/Northern Irish assemblies. What you say may be true - but it isn't an English parliament.84.12.47.154 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But if what I say is true then (1) none of the home nations govern themselves because they are governed by Betty's ministers and (2) the UK parliament is the English Parliament. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably if we changed the sentence to "England still lacks devolved self-government" it would be OK? Cop 663 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to make better sense. England has no devolved government that the other countries have that deals exclusively with local issues (and when I say local, I mean English!). Phillip - it maybe an English parliament - but it contains the British government. Don't twist the words, it's a legitimate complaint. There is no devolved English parliament dealing exclusively with English issues. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

87.127.178.28 Are you using government in the American sense? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. Cop 663 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Although England itself still lacks devolved self-government, implies that England will have it one day. That is a very political statement (because of the West Lothian question) and since Labour lost its bid to set up a regional assembly starting with the North East, probably a question to which Labour has no answer. It is also highly political at the European level as well, as Europe really does not want to deal with a single region called England with 50m+ people when most (all?) other regions within the EU are a lot smaller. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well only part of England lacks an elected assembly, London has a Mayor and an elected assembly. I've always found it odd that those who constantly mention the West Lothian question are consistently blind to the fact that at least part of England is devolved. Alun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only part of England? Don't you mean most? Besides the London Assembly is just another name for the Greater London Council in different offices (but the same leader) and is no answer to the West Lothian question. "with considerable devolved powers" what considerable powers does London have over and above those of the metropolitan counties? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes a part of England does not have a devolved assembly, that part which is outside of London, or if you prefer, a part of England does have a devolved assembly, I don't see any difference in these statements, a part is a part, however large a fraction it is. The London Mayor and Assembly have at least the same powers as the Welsh Assembly. It is incorrect to assert that all devolved bodies have the same powers as each other, as the article did. It is incorrect to claim that laws are different in Wales than they are in England, as the article did. Whereas Scotland has a Parliament with lawmaking and tax raising powers and considerable autonomy (and indeed Scottish law has always been different to English law, even before the new Parliament came into being), Wales does not. Wales has the same laws and taxes as England. I am not au fait with the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is also an assembly and so I imagine it does not have taxation and lawmaking powers either. In this instance your analogy to London being little more than a County Council applies to the National Assembly for Wales also. I have nowhere suggested that the London Assembly is an "answer" to the West Lothian Question, I have merely pointed out that the so called West Lothian question applies equally to MPs from London as it does to MPs from Wales, for example. The West Lothian question applies to Scotland simply because the Scottish Parliament has primary lawmaking powers, it does not apply to Wales, NI or London because these are assemblies, little more than local governments, as you point out. Furthermore devolution is not the same as federalism, there is no autonomy in the UK, these powers have been devolved, but all are subservient to Westminster. Alun (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting way too pedantic here, guys. I have rewritten it as follows, which I hope is more neutral: The concept of an 'English nation' (as opposed to a British one) has become increasingly popular after the devolution in the 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly. A rise in English self-consciousness resulted, with increased use of the English flag, and calls for a devolved English parliament. Cop 663 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But it fails to mention devolution to London. This seems to be deliberately inflamatory, portraying this as a "celtic" vs "English" thing, which it is not, London was offered devolution and accepted it in a referendum, just like Wales, Scotland and NI. The North East of England was also offered devolution, but rejected it in a referendum. The "us and them" stance of this section is not encyclopaedic and is not anything like a neutral presentation of what was proposed. Alun (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But this article isn't about Londoners or Northeasterners (is that a word?), it's about English people as a whole. The fact that Northeasterners rejected a regional assembly has no bearing on English nationalism, the subject of the paragraph in question. The 'rise in English self-consciousness' in relation to the devolution movements in Scotland and Wales is well-documented in the cited source (Krishan Kumar's book on the subject). Let me just stress that I have no political axe to grind in this matter and am not opposed to change, I just don't see anything inaccurate there at present. Cop 663 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that North Easterners rejected an assembly has everything to do with Englishness. It's about identity isn't it? It's about ethnicity and a sense of how people identify. The North East has no Ethnonym, people do not identify as "North Easterners", it is not an ethnic group. On the other hand people do identify as Welsh or English and they certainly identify as Londoners. Londoners are almost a different ethnic group to the rest of the UK, like most people from capital cities. The point is this, it is incorrect to claim that North Easterners are not English, as you seem to be doing, they clearly are English, and so they are supposed to be represented in an article about English people. It is also true that they had a referendum on devolution, which they rejected. It is also a matter of fact that London does have devolved status. The only purpose to ignore these facts is in order to make this whole section look like it is about "us vs them", English vs everyone else, it deliberately tries to imply that Welsh, Scots and NI people have been offered something that no English people have ever been offered. Well this is not the truth, the truth is that some English people were offered an unsatisfactory version of devolution, so they rejected it. Most proponents of devolution, myself included, have long believed that devolution can only work if everyone has it, what used to be called "Home rule all round". English people have clearly shown that when they get devolution they want it to be a representative assembly or parliament for their ethnic group, that is the English people (and ethnic groups are socio-cultural groups, not "racial" groups), and not some sort of artificial concept of "North Easter Assembly". So let's tell it as it is, support for English devolution from all over, but little support for regional devolution outside of London, which as a capital city is a special case anyway. Alun (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused... I wasn't saying North Easterners aren't English; I'm just saying the idea of 'the English nation' is fundamentally about 'everybody in England' and about difference from its next-door nations. Otherwise, I think we're saying the same thing... aren't we?! Tell you what, Alun, how would you rewrite the passage under discussion? Could you try something that more clearly says what you're saying here, because I wasn't getting that from what you wrote before. Forget it, you already did, I should try reading the article... :P Cop 663 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the London Assembly had everything to do with people in London thinking that there was a need for a city wide council to co-ordinate those things that were London wide and which could not be done at a borough level and to represent London, than it had to do with devolution. The Labour party may have wanted to dress it up as devolution and a regional assembly but that was to do with national politics and their attempt to solve the West Lothian question because given their parliamentary seat distribution it affect them much more than the other parties (with the possible exception of the Lib-dems but they are not going to form a parliamentary majority in any parliament in the near future). But I do not accept the idea that "Londoners are almost a different ethnic group to the rest of the UK" a Cockney is no more or less English than a Geordie or a Brummy. All three, and many more like them, identify with their home town, but the also identify as English. Having spoken to a few Mackems on the issue who said they voted against the regional assembly it because they could not stand the thought the regional assembly's capital would be Newcastle, I suspect that local regional politics and rivalries had as much to do with it as national politics, just as it did in London. If we are going to argue that London is as devolved as Wales and more devolved than the West Midlands then I think that needs a good quality paper published in a respectable academic journal to substantiate the claim. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, as of 2006, London's foreign-born population is 2,288,000 (31%). And that's just foreign born people. I read recently that over 50% of people living in London were not born in London. So yes London is very different from the rest of England. I don't see this as a controversial statement. The comments about the reason for Londoners voting for devolution are mere speculation on your part and could equally be applied to Wales. To claim that "Londoners are almost a different ethnic group to the rest of the UK" is not to claim that they are not English is it? I don't think so, people may have many ethnic identities. I am Welsh and I am British, these are not conflicting identities. Londoners have a strong sense of identity with their city as Londoners. North Easterners don't have a strong identity as "North easterners", though a Northumbrian might have a strong identity as a Northumbrian for example. I don't know what you mean by "as devolved as Wales". This makes little sense to me, either powers have been devolved, or they have not been devolved. Clearly they have. The point is this, it is incorrect to claim, as the article did, that NI, Scotland and Wales have "semi-independent political and legal systems". Clearly they do not have autonomy, clearly they are not semi-independent, clearly they derive their powers from Westminster, clearly we have a devolution of power and not a federal system, clearly only Scotland has a different legal system, which has been different since the Act of Union and has no relevance to devolution and it is clearly incorrect to claim that these three devolved institutions are identical to each other. It is also clearly incorrect to present this as if no English people have ever been offered any equivalent devolved status. I repeat, this ignores the facts and is not neutral, it s little more than some incorrect statements and biased reporting of facts in order to present a nationalistic point of view. Clearly parts of England have rejected devolution, clearly London is devolved, clearly all devolved regions derive their status from Westminster. These are all statements of fact. Of course the powers granted to the London Mayor and Assembly are different to those granted to Wales, the Welsh assembly has some powers regarding agriculture, well it would not make much sense for the London Assembly to have powers over agriculture. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to want to present this as your point of view and you seem to want to omit any citable information that does not add to the nationalistic tone of the article. Alun (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification please

In the regions with significant population box, does it include people with English ancestry, but who were not born in England? For example, New Zealand has between 1-2million people with English ancestry, but on cenus forms most of those will write "NZ European". Those who write "English" will only be those who were born in England. So a significant number of people with English ancestors will be missed out. 219.89.75.127 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the footnote next to the NZ listing, it explains it in more detail. The number refers to all those who wrote that their 'ethnic group' is English. How many of those people were born in NZ and how many were born in England? We don't know, so we just have to give the data as it is. Cop 663 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthem

England has no official anthem; however, the United Kingdom's "God Save the Queen" is widely regarded as England's unofficial national anthem.

This isn't correct. It's a weasel statement. Who widely regards it? I think it's more the case that it's used and this is likely legacy as GSTQ was used for all UK countries until Wales and Scotland started using alternate anthems. This has highlighted the fact the England are using the British anthem.

This sentence would better read:

England has no official anthem; however, the United Kingdom's "God Save the Queen" is currently used as England's sporting national anthem.

Would it be worth mentioning that there does seem to be some rumblings about getting England it's own anthem? See Anthem4England 84.12.47.154 (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The re-wording as you give it though would also not be strictly accurate either as not every sport in England uses GSTQ. Both Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory (LOHG) are both used as Englands anthems in some sports. Though quite why LOHG is used as Englands anthem at the Commonwealth Games (see England at the 2006 Commonwealth Games) I don't know as LOHG is a British patriotic song not an English patriotic song. I do agree that the wording should be England has no official anthem. However, the United Kingdoms GSTG is currently used, just the bit after needs to be different as GSTQ is not the sporting anthem, just some sports.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ethnicity

I am confused to what the term 'English people' means, this article includes only information on the indigenous people of England, and those who have emmigrated from it. I'm sure the Black, Asian and other such communities in England would consider themselves English. I think that this article should be renamed or include people of any race who where born in and/ or have been raised in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.221.119 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not read the article fully. Read this section for example, which does exactly what you say. If you want to know about 'all people who live in England' (as opposed to 'the English', a different matter), read Demography of England. Cop 663 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

English population in Argentina

the citation given does not support the 100,000 individuals mentioned and there is no evidence of an English group beyond the survival of a few cultural taditions. I am removing from the page. Lumos3 (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-British

What is Anglo-British? Someone has slotted that one in definitions without defining what it means. I've never heard of the term. I see what they're getting at - but I think it has no place there. Is there Welsh-British, Scot-British or Northern Irish-British? The terms have never existed.

It would be better to say what they really mean. That Ethnic Nationalists determine 'English' to be a native white group descended from Anglo-Saxons, Romano-Britons, Danes and Normans etc. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you Google "Anglo-British" it seems to be used by some historians to refer to mixed Briton/Anglo-Saxon cultures that existed in the Dark Ages. Seems overly pedantic in that context. Cop 663 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it follows from Romano-British. Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

POV nordic racialist crap

This is heavily slanted to a Germanic-Scandanavian mythology version of history. Please provide any evidence if you could, of the Celtic people and the Roman people who lived on the land, now known as England been entirely wiped out so as they are not part of what makes up an ETHNICALLY English person today? These people are part of the mixing pot which is the English people.

If we're going by the assumption that "English" can only mean "Angle", then that is like saying the "Saxons" in Southern England don't count as English, nor do the Scandanavians who arrived after, etc. In reality an ethnically English person is a mix of these things from history, Nordic, Roman, Celtic, Germanic.. non of these groups of people ever had a genocide commited against them while they were living on the land we now know as England, they simply assimilated together...

For example before Romans there were Celts, after centuries of Roman rule, when the officials (note history says nothing of the regular Roman people/colonists ever leaving) left there were STILL also Celts who formed many petty kingdoms such as that of Elmet for example, with a Romano-British culture.

English people is a different thing to Angles, that is why the two have different articles. (although the Angles, along with the Saxons are part of the web of the English) - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Could you please explain where in the article it says this?

• Where does it say that "English" can only mean "Angle"? It says "The first people to be called 'English' [my emphasis] were the Anglo-Saxons [note: Saxons not excluded] ... bla bla bla However, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in a land that was already populated by people commonly referred to as the 'Romano-British'" etc. etc. etc.
• Where does it say that the Romano-British people were entirely wiped out? To quote two passages from the article: "It is much more likely that a large proportion of the British population remained in place", and "[in] southern England ... the population there appears to be largely descended from the indigenous Britons".

Clearly you're very angry, but the article already seems to address the issues you raise. However, if you would care to add sourced material on Elmet, that would be very welcome, since it clearly belongs there. Cop 663 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As the other authors point out - this article goes a LONG way to point out that being English does not mean Angle. It says that NOWHERE in the article. It says the first people to be called English were Anglo-Saxons. Then it went on to say that anyone indigineous whilst the Normans were here were English. It states that SOME people(in definitions) believe it's a 'white' thing, whilst others believe in birth in England=English. It says that the 'wipe-out' thoery is likely wrong. Seriously, what are you babbling about? Evidence please. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Celts and the Romans have very little coverage compared to the other tourists (ie-Scandanavians, Germanic), seriously, that is what I'm "babbling" about newbie. The paragraph that is about Romans, has very little to do with the 400ish years they were on the island, but instead "babbles" on with an unsourced comment about North Africans instead. Which seems like it has just been randomly dropped on the page by an Afrocentric at the cost of substantial vertified info about the Roman people in England and the Celts before and after.

The majority of the legions and the people involved in the invasion and colonisation of the area known now as England were Southern Europeans, take a look at the legions such as Legio VIIII Hispana and Legio XX Valeria Victrix. Things like this are given NO mention, when after the Celts these were a highly important stage in defining what the English people would become today. Its not weighted very evenly at all, we need a section clearly with the word "Celt" and "Roman" in the section header and a more even and fair coverage of them. I'd like to suggest that the anon does not remove the tag till its sorted. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that you seem to be speaking with some access to sources, then it seems like you might be the right person to make these additions, then, rather than wasting more time complaining about the material not being in the section, or beginning what might turn out to be an edit war concerning a template added to the section, then. This does assume that your sources are verifiable and capable of being cited.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you have avoided the replies to your original complaint/s. You now advocate sections on Romans and Celts. People on the island before the Anglo-Saxons were not English, nor did they refer to themselves as. The Anglo-Saxons brought their language and culture to these people. The Danes further changed the English, as did the Normans. The things you talk of happened pre-England and the first 'English' people. Whether they shaped the English today - well that's for you to argue here. What evidence do you have that the 'Celts' were highly influential on English People apart from contributing DNA? Romans didn't, they were long gone - so they only influenced the 'Celt's and created the 'Romano-Britons'. I would agree that the sentencing is not perhaps as good as it could be when talking of the Romano-Britons - and it would be good if you could improve this. I would disagree that Romans and Celts need separate sections on the basis that they were not the original English People of the time. They would have been the Waelas (The Foreigners) or Britons. Only by the time of the Normans, are all peoples non-French then referred to as English and by then the 'Celts' have either adopted Anglo-Saxon 'English' culture or emigrated to Wales/Cornwall/Brittany. You raise an interesting point though in the Kingdoms that existed after Roman times and continue to exist at the comings of the Anglo-Saxons - to what do we refer to these people? White43 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need more material on Celtic Britons in England and their connection with the other peoples in England, no doubt about that, but the solution is to add them to the article, not just sulk. I presume the problem with calling people before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons "English" is the non-existence of "England" as a concept before then. Did Celtic Britons differentiate between people from the-region-that-would-become-known-as-England and the-regions-that-would-one-day-be-the-rest-of-Britain? This is an interesting question but sourced contributions are needed. Cop 663 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the Anglo-Saxons were differentiating between themselves and the Britons - I can't remember where I read that, it was in a Kingly decree or Bede referred to them separately. They are problematic in the sense that as DNA testing seems to indicate, the English are as much 'Celtic' as the rest of the British Isles with Germanic DNA at varying degrees. The issue is that at first it was just the Anglo-Saxons who were the English, the 'Celts' were eventually absorbed culturally and linguistically. They had little impact(we don't see the culture in language or place names) and were never originally 'English'. If this article is all about tracing the roots of the 'genetic' English people by DNA then it needs to be utterly changed. As it stands, it defines the first English people in terms of a group of people who first called themselves that and then the influences on them - Danes and Normans. It is already discussed from a DNA angle that there appears to have been no 'wipe-out' theory, but perhaps it should be elaborated upon that the Romano-Briton people more than likely merged with or were absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons/English.

Although Yorkshirian points out that Elmet was a Romano-Briton kingdom during Anglo-Saxon times - this was conquered and absorbed into Anglo-Saxon kingship(much like Dumnonia which would largely be absorbed into Wessex), what remains of that culture? I don't know, I don't live there - but Yorkshirian seems to indicate that the 'Celts' were a major impact on English culture - they weren't - they were conquered - so again, I disagree that we need headings for 'Celt' or 'Roman' - why would we have Roman in the first place - they influenced the 'Celts', not the Anglo-Saxons? All that's needed is a few better written sentences to explain what became of the Romano-Britons and how their DNA is now part of English People.White43 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer Cop 663, the Angles, the Saxons and the Romano-Celts (the Celts themselves of course had kingdoms centuries before the Romans landed, like Brigantia) had many petty kingdoms dotted all over the place at the same time, really blotted in seeminly random places, there was no concept of a unified "England" until Wessex conquered the remaning parts of the North of what would become England (much to the displeasure and contempt of the people there).

The Anglo-Saxons, although an important part like all the others, are highly overstated in what is an English person, mostly because they contributed the name "Angles" to "England", though those two groups themselves are very different (note that the oldest and most historic name for this island in general is Albion). Anybody who claims the Celts are not a highly significant part of the English people has either, not read a history book, or has a hidden agenda (note the whole, English, Scottish, Irish nationalist relationship and the words "Celt nation").

Until it can be proven that there was a genocide commited against all the Celtic people in the land which would become England, then there is nothing to prove that they just dissapeared, they are very much a part of the web of what is an English person to this day. As for why should the Romans have a section? Ummm, once upon a time, they came over here, colonised the entire area of what would become England, staying incontrol officially for around four-hundred years. Unless you can prove that all of the people who came with the Romans left, the colonists, then they have a valid place as part of what makes somebody ethnically English. Again, Angles and English people are a different thing White43, and if you have a problem with the Celts and the Roman colonists, you might want to get a blood transfusion and move away to Iceland because their DNA no doubt flows through you in some form. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Celt"? That's just a modern term. If you mean speaker of a Celtic language, then I think it's worth pointing out that the Belgae, who where already settled in what is now the south and south-east of England when Caesar came, were mainly a Germanic speaking people. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that as though it were cast-iron fact, when it isn't? There's no concensus among scholars on whether that's true or not, afaik only Oppenheimer has theorised this. Personally, I don't think it fits at all with the collective evidence we have of the time. (Nebulousity (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

The BBC certainly don't think the 'Celts' existed in Britain [4] White43 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, the points you are making are totally sensible. However, it's worth repeating that the article already says this. It says "Traditionally, it was believed that a mass invasion by various Anglo-Saxon tribes largely displaced the indigenous British [...] However, archaeologists and historians have found minimal evidence for this", etc. etc. If you think more is needed, please, use your knowledge and start editing the article. Cop 663 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I echo what Cop663 says Yorkshirian. This article, if you read it correctly points out that DNA evidence indicates that there was no wipe out theory, please point to the offending lines. This article does not say the people disappeared and indicates that the Romano-Britons make up English people today.. At no stage do I indicate that the Angles and English are the same, at no point have I said that I'm some sort of German and there's no need to get offensive. White43 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AS well as echoing what the others, just above, have said about the article with respect to Yorkshirian's comments, I would just like to restate what I said, above: if Yorkshirian thinks the article is deficient, and if he is talking from knowledge of verifiable sources that can be cited, then it is far better for him to edit the article or make specific proposals for edits (say here), rather then just saying the article is full of "Nordic racialist crap". Making positive contributions (as I've suggested) would seem to me to be more clearly examples of endorsing the ethos of wikipedia and team-working, though of course, it cannot be guaranteed that everyone shares these common goals and approaches.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not change the heading of The Anglo Saxons and previous inhabitants to The Romano-Britons and Anglo-Saxons? Hopefully Yorkshirian will then add some extra information. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cop 663 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, let's not resort to cheap shots. Saying that the "Celts" had a major influence on English culture due to genetics can be seen as "Celtic racialist crap". So I suggest you think from a wider perspective before making such bold claims. This article already as enough (or two much) about a people that existed prior to the English people. The first people to call themselves 'English' were (as much as it hurts some to admit it) a Germanic tribe from what is now Denmark and part of Germany and possibly a slightly larger area. Do you actually think that the Germans are 100% 'genetically pure' Germanic (can you even be 100% genetically pure?!) or for that matter anyone 100% genetically Celtic?

On the same note, if the article says that the 'wipe-out theory' (which I personally think didn't happen...I think it was in between both view points) is unlikely or that it didn't happen, then this article is now violating the POV in the other direction. The article should not have an opinion on the matter as opinion is divided. It should state the views from the leading sources on both sides.

And from my own opinion again. Don't use genetics as prove of everything and anything, it can lead to some avenues that I doubt many wish to go down again.King In Yellow (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a quick re-look over the article, and I don't see where there is any slant or bias to it. (Nebulousity (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Yorkshirian has yet to come back and prove his accusations. I guess it annoys him that English culture derived from a Germanic source since he is so blatently a Romano-Briton supporter(go see his talk page). This article is not biased at all, I have asked Yorkshirian to point out where he thinks it is. He was also requested to make changes if he thought it needed it. So far, he has done nothing. White43 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of Yorkshirian's complaint

Just because English is by a slim margin linguistically Germanic, doesn't mean that the culture of England is Germanic. It is entirely otherwise and even Scotland has more of a Teutonic culture. Scotland has never had Mediterranean connections, but England had them up until the Anglo-Spanish War, when Elizabeth consciously chose to redirect the nation's destiny by tying with the Dutch, whom were contenders for the King's affection via Anne of Cleves. This is only a progression from the Anglo-Burgundian alliance sealed in textiles, becoming instead about colonial plantations and piracy on the Spanish Main (does anybody consciously think of the oldest alliance with Portugal?). It's one of the reasons why James Stuart was invited, to consciously work against the ancient traditions and have England be above custom, as prime innovator in European politics (e.g. 1st class Protestant country able to throw its weight around). Who cares about the names of these countries in the British Isles and tying their etymological definitions with absolutist ethnolinguistic fascism? "English" and "Anglo-Saxon" are "false friends". One thing is for certain, is that while Scotland, Ireland and Man all had varying degrees of Celtic and Germanic antecessor kingdoms, England herself largely apes the Roman Province of Britannia. Capital, cities, roads, church, language & borders all descend primarily from Britannia. Some of these Roman conventions were conveyed by the English into their neighbour countries, such as the bicameral system of parliament. Patricians, plebians and a governor is what Britannia had and that's what the UK has today. Even the foederati system employed by Vortigern was adopted by the English, when hiring the Hanoverians to fill the shoes of the Stuarts. Patterns repeat themselves; these practices ultimately deriving from Britannia and not Germany or Scandinavia, although their Nordic type of identity was assimilated or became conflated with that of the British, in ancient times and later on. It would be safer to say that the Nordic countries owe some of their culture to the British example than otherwise. Of course anyways, any Englishman who argues otherwise is a traitor. There are enough diehard traitors though, so they won't do anything to sustain our heritage, being mislead by the Nazi venom. Those peoples chose the Aryan mysticism though, while the English chose British Israelism. It is obvious where true English leanings go. More than any other dynasty, the Tudors symbolize the English people in a comprehensive and expansive manner. The Welsh are not any different to the English than the Isles are to the Scottish, or the Ulsterman are to the Irish. The contrary notion is implosively sectarian and rabble-rousing. Divide and conquer the people with distrustful suggestions about their own blood, kith and kin. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say anything of the kind. It does not say that English = Anglo-Saxon. You are describing a fantasy version of this article. Try actually reading it. Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sure as hell suffers from tunnel-vision between the "ancient Nordic glory" and the newfound embrace of multiculturalism, with hardly a note on the actual inhabitants. It in effect, denies the weight of the common people of these isles and outsources English identity to foreigners in almost every way; from mercenaries and pirates to recievers of racial equality bills. It's totally skewed in that way, presenting ethnicity in propagandic terms. In fact, it sounds like the Mountbatten heritage (during the Hanoverian-Victorian-Windsor period, it was more German-heavy in character) and their contribution to contemporary Britain. Oh, glorious Duke of Edinburgh, we shall ape your heritage (just like William of Orange and the Georgians) and your racial-slave economics! Fairness to everybody but the true commons! There is no way to say that the old commons is the new middle class and that non-White Britons are the commons. It is all out of the hands of the true Britons. Because the BNP listens to the lies of this ethnolinguistic fantasm, they themselves cannot be said to be nationalist according to merely and innately British terms either. These are the same people who use eugenicist DNA studies to prove their own point of view and blot out the native British, so what we see here in this article, is all the same as that. It is pointed out above that the Belgae were "Germanic", although Belgica was different than Germania, yet both were part of the Gallic--meaning Celtic--people. Furthermore, Belgian coinage was the first foreign type to be duplicated in British mints, but during a time preceding the Germanic migrations elsewhere. It must be pointed out that "Germanic" meant the people on the Rhineland who crossed the river and broke the Roman legions, partly by infiltration and turning on the government they had been employed by, which set the stage for the future Holy Roman Empire and Latin Empire, with the violence of the Dark Ages due to the military dictatorships these "Germanic peoples" spread across Europe and only became legitimized by Papal temperance, in favour of the Belgic Salians. Who's to say that the Anglo-Saxons were more Germanic Gauls (e.g. Ripuarian Franks, "East Germanic") than Belgic Gauls (e.g. Salic Franks, "West Germanic"), in this sense? Belgica was not part of Germania, not even when Hitler overran the Maginot! Since Gallic means Celtic, the Germanics are all variants of the Celts and not the haughty kind that their ethnographic posturings have declared. Scandinavia was like the countryside, while Gaul was like suburbia and Rome was the city. The Germans were a part of this like the British, both Gallo-Roman tributaries but the Britons in a naturally stronger position. The Germans were only able to distinguish themselves through warfare, having few other commodities to commend them. They are not so different though (rudeness notwithstanding), so all this debate becomes is mootness. It is especially this way, because of demagoguery. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above comments were made by a user formerly known as Lord Loxley. He is easy to spot from his tediously lengthy and often completely irrelevant replies, and his rabidly anti-English, pro-Roman and pro-Norman sentiments. He has attempted to insert his POV into articles relating to the English many times. TharkunColl (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? What evidence? I've done nothing but complain about stereotypes that I feel are unwarranted. There is no evidence to support this truncated POV about the English people, in which it would exclude the main body of people and only support the upper class (whether Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Scots, Dutch, Germans), as well as other foreigners who've immigrated here for economic reasons since the Empire. While some foreigners are accepted into "patriotic canon", the rest are left to the dust of the earth. This is what happens when people get away with violation of NPOV principles. I am not the one motivated by pride in some obscure monarchist glory that reaches back to the Heptarchy, thinking it graces me. I'm not the one who avidly reads Tolkien for nationalistic mysticism. I just don't think that England is a country that merely came with the RECENT Anglo-Saxons to Britain, but that it was a British accumulation from previous periods. England already had Gallo-Roman immigration and Greek visitors, with a stone age culture that went across the Channel. England today has the Chunnel and throughout the Middle Ages, her closest neighbour was the source of more land under the belt of the monarchs for most of the time. I'm not the one stirred by false pride, engineered with ethnolinguistic fraud that is wholly jingoistic in definition. Think about that the next time you are so proud of all non-English peoples, mistakenly believing they are English, from your aristocratic notions of heredity and descent. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, I have no idea what you're talking about Lox. TharkunColl (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling an opponent somebody else is only a cheap shot to avoid what they have to say. The English are primarily composed of pre-Anglo-Saxon people, because any invasion since then has always been aristocratic or monarchist and not of the common people, who did in fact experience a blend with the Romans. Ever hear of "Atlanto-Mediterranean" classification of people? Your predilection for claiming other people are anti-English is just a redirect from your own leanings. Tolkien was a foreigner who grafted his own ancestry onto the Anglo-Saxon upper class history, along with co-opting the Greco-Roman imagery. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

24.255.11.149, could you provide a reading list of books that support what you're saying? You probably have some good points buried beneath your finger-wagging and ranting, and I for one would be interested in knowing more about this subject from calmer writers. Cop 663 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, not this guy again. (Nebulousity (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Updates

I note that someone has now added on a further four images to the original eight. This in itself isn't a problem, except a quick visit to those peoples pages has them all down as 'British'. I'm not sure that the demographics is relevant or even in the right place. The heading is about English as an ethnic group, not the demographics of England. White43 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the demography would sense in the 'later immigrants' section, since that is what it's about. Having a section headed 'ethnicity' is silly a lot of the rest of the article is about ethnicity. I don't object to the presence of black or Asian people in the title picture, but they should be people who verifiably self-identify as 'English' not 'British'. Cop 663 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough - somewhere in this article, it says that many from ethnic minorities identify with being British, as opposed to English. There again, you could include a 'native' who would say they're English-Welsh. Also, I'm a little concerned no discussion took place of the inclusion - who selected those personalities? Are they the best ones? White43 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's an aesthetic issue, in that the new photos are bigger than the older ones... Cop 663 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Who ever added that bottom row can't count. The title of the picture still says 8. And how are these modern non-entities (with the arguable exception of Kingsley) in any way comparable to Alfred, Elizabeth, or Shakeaspeare? It is just ridiculous. TharkunColl (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be removed and proper discussion should take place as to whether to add more people(and who) to the page. The pictures are incorrectly sized as Cop 663 points out. White43 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How does one edit the info in the infobox? White43 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to edit Template:English populations Cop 663 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought seen as this article is about the English "people" which is today a very diverse nation, and not exclusively about the English 'race', it would be more fair to show that in the montage. If you all disagree with me on that, then fair enough, change it back. (MJDTed (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

MJDTed - your contributions are most welcome - but it would perhaps have been better to discuss your changes first here. The eight people selected were debated from historical and contemporary people. The people you have selected are random black and asian contemporary personalities. If you feel we should include more people from ethnic minorities, then we should shortlist potential candidates. You didn't include any Jewish people - what about Benjamin Disraeli? Plus, do those people actually consider themselves English? As this article details - many from ethnic minorities prefer to be identified as British, rather than English. Six of the people in the current photos were English as it was pre-Union. In order to maintain the continuity - it would be prudent to select 3 people from a historical background who are not ethnically English and then include a contemporary figure. White43 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that's rather strict, as it's hard to find famous black or Asian people in English history before the twentieth century and certainly not pre-Union. But I agree that we need really famous, important and significant people, not minor pop stars and people on Celebrity Big Brother. And we do need some evidence that they call(ed) themselves English. It's not easy, but I'm sure it can be done, with some research. Cop 663 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be nigh impossible to find out if someone like that calls themselves English - I take your point though - there's unlikely to be anyone significant before the 20th century - but slapping a bunch of contemporary celebrities is not the right way. Now, how about Benjamin Disraeli, Ben Kingsley, Trevor Macdonald, Mary Seacole? problem is, no of them have ever professed to being 'English'. There could be some people that take umbridge at the fact that we're 'claiming them' to be English. White43 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better criteria would be those who are generally referred to as being English. Like for example Monty Panesar, who was born and brought up in England and plays for the England cricket team, I don't see how how that doesn't count as being English, again, seperating it from the racial definition. (MJDTed (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, that might work, if you can find an incredibly famous sports star who played for an England team. I don't know anything about sport, so I can't judge whether Panesar is suitably important or not; are there more significant cricketers? But also, just doing some googling might turn up self-identified English non-whites; the articles on Keira Knightley and Christian Bale have citations proving their self-identification as English, so you might be able to do the same with other people. Cop 663 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try finding some, but as White43 said it will probably be hard to find direct quotes. (Nebulousity (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

There's also a question of proportion. The eight on the current picture were chosen after lengthy discussion as representing English people from successive periods in history, different social classes and different areas of fame. It was also decided to reflect the balance of sexes as it exists in the population. Applying these criteria to ethnic minorities - and remember we are talking about the whole of English history here - would probably not yield even a single individual. And most certainly not a whole extra row tacked onto the bottom. We must also be very careful not to include anyone just because they are from an ethnic minority and happen to be currently experiencing five minutes of media hype. They must be in the same league as Alred, Shakespeare, Jane Austen, etc. Disraeli is about the only reasonable example I can think of off hand. TharkunColl (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But then neither are Damon Albarn or Kate Winslet in the same league as those you mentioned imo. (MJDTed (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, but they were selected as two contemporary, accomplished English people. As far as I can see, apart from Disraeli and Andrea Levy - who else not of English ethnic background and of some significance claims to be English rather than British? As Tharkuncoll says, we must be careful not to just tack on another 4 faces for the sake of it. Let's keep Political Correctness out of this. White43 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, in the contemporary pop culture category, I would have gone for Paul McCartney and, though it's more difficult to think of a woman who is head and shoulders ahead of her peers, I agree that Kate Winslet isn't the best choice. Some people have suggested Margaret Thatcher in this position, and this may not be a bad idea as we don't have any other politicians (well, non-royal ones anyway). TharkunColl (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are considering all of them now, I am surprised that George Stephenson was chosen yet Isaac Newton was not, since Isaac Newton has an international reputation within science that I don't think is exceeded or matched by Stephenson's reputation within engineering and/or technology. If we were able to, I would propose replacing Stephenson with Newton.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Darwin would be another scientist of equally massive stature, but if we could only have one then Newton is probably better. And while we're at it, is there a better choice than Nell Gwyn? TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts Nell Gwyn, as an actress, represents theatre so she's probably okay, and is still a household name and nicely bridges a chronological gap as well. There are many women from later on, in the 19th century one could think of, but almost all of them are writers, and we already have Jane Austen. So, here is what I propose:

• Men: Alfred the Great, William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Paul McCartney.
• Women: Elizabeth I, Nell Gwynn, Jane Austen, Margaret Thatcher.

TharkunColl (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Nell Gwyn a household name? I can't say I've ever heard of her before. (Nebulousity (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I think Thatcher was rejected last time as she is a politically controversial figure whose inclusion will cause revert wars. I for one don't want her representing my people. (If you disagree, imagine if I suggested Tony Blair instead...) Cop 663 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually can't stand her. But she is undoubtedly one of the most influential Englishwomen of recent times - perhaps all time. Maybe it would be the equivalent of having Cromwell in the male row. And why not? He is certainly one of the most influential Englishmen of all time. As for Blair - I think he will be forgotten in a couple of years. TharkunColl (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But she isn't worth the edit wars. I think we should go for important but uncontroversial figures that are unlikely to cause kneejerk deletions. Otherwise it just causes endless fights that distract from writing the article. Cop 663 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the need to avoid edit wars, which is why it might not be such a good idea to have Margaret Thatcher as one of the people. I agree that Charles Darwin would be another, equally influential, person to include, and I did consider putting his name down before. But I considered Isaac Newton to be of greater influence and importance, and also I was aware that various creationist agitators might take it upon themselves to cause problems. For other women, Florence Nightingale, and Emmeline Pankhurst might be put up for consideration, though not for any strong feelings that they should be included at the expense of more worthy women, on my part.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those two suggestions are really good, especially Florence Nightingale I think. TharkunColl (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I think replacing Gwyn with Nightingale or Pankhurst would be good. I'd never heard of Gwyn. I like the idea of Newton. Is there any milage in Isambard Kingdom Brunel? I know he was half French, but alike Disraeli - would he be considered English? He's not remembered for being French. I was also going to suggest Freddie Mercury - an example of someone who's considered English - but ethnically isn't. There's David Bowie as well. As for a very famous non-controvertial English woman, I'm struggling to think of anyone bigger than Winslet - perhaps Keira Knightley? White43 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keira Knightley is controversial in that she's a talentless bimbo who is a disgrace to her nation :) Actually, I think we put Winslet there on the grounds that she was the star of the most popular film ever made, and hence is probably the most recognisable English actress in the world, love her or loathe her. But Dame Judi Dench might be good. BTW if people are opposed to Damon Albarn (professional Englishman though he is), a Beatle would be the ideal replacement, IMO. Cop 663 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we slowly working our way around to no change again? I'd say the only two to change might be Albarn and Gwyn. Again - Disraeli and Mercury might be contenders(for the purpose of the PC crowd!). 87.127.178.28 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are, and I think you may have overlooked the arguments which favour Isaac Newton over and above George Stephenson rather.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in agreement over Newton. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Newton should definitely be in there. (78.149.9.0 (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Saxons page

Out of interest - has anyone seen this on the Saxons page?

Saxon participation in the Germanic settlement of Britain was very strong and at times dominant, so that particularly in today’s southern England, the basic population is thought to descend essentially from the ancient Saxon people.

Ummm.... White43 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen it before, but I've changed the statement to something more accurate. (Nebulousity (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed a lot of contradictions among the various pages on Anglo-Saxons, Saxons, History of Anglo-Saxon England, etc. etc, not to mention the alarmingly-named Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion and takeover of Britain. They all need tons of work. It's terrifying. Cop 663 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The invasion and take-over of Britain? I was almost drawn into expletives! Well, that one at least needs to be renamed Anglo-Saxon migration. Well chaps, it seems our field has grown a little larger. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have to take it on our ourselves to make sure those articles aren't misleading or unfactual. (84.13.247.196 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

Ethnopedia...

From the article - "The English as an ethnic group: It is unclear how many people in the UK consider themselves ethnically English." So what!? It's irrelevant. Although... it is a good indication of how piss-poor the article is, or at least how badly conceived. Ethnicity isn't what you think you are, that's cultural identity. Goodness knows how many Americans think they've been abducted by aliens. That doesn't mean they have been. Honestly, in the nicest possible way, what the heck is the point of this article? Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, defining ethnicity is quite complicated. There's no simple catch-all definition. (NovaTabula (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

How would you improve the article, Hakluyt? Cop 663 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Population figures are misleading

The population figures in the infobox aren't that meaningful in my opinion. For example for the US census figures, you have many people claiming multiple ancestries. Now all these ancestries get counted seperately in the census. So it's misleading to lump those all together as English people, unless anyone with some English ancestry is by definition 'English'? I thought it would better to break the figures down into those who are of British English nationality and those who claim part or full English ancestry. (NovaTabula (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Go for it. Cop 663 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Wait a minute, this is already done in the section immediately beneath 'Total population'. It shows how many people there are in England and how many in other countries. So giving the distinction twice is pointless. It would be better to simply remove the 'Total Population' section, but the template doesn't seem to permit this. Cop 663 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a bit clearer now about where the population figures are coming from. (NovaTabula (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

• Nova, this article is about those who are English ethnically and/or by nationality. Those figures are from the censuses of those nations (all actually an undercount of the actual numbers of peoples with mainly or significant English or British origins, see British people). Only two responses were allowed and a very large amount were signle responses. Many of these people may have stronger English identity than others. Descent is important in ethnic identification. For the UK numbers, those include people of English descent within the UK as well (indigenous to England), not simply people are English via nationality. The numbers below do not need to be specified twice so I am re-inserting the 90 million total number. Epf (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the US census 2000, you have 60 million people claiming multiple ancestries. These each get counted separately in the census. So if a person claims English and Dutch ancestry, that adds to both totals of those claiming English and Dutch ancestries, but does that mean that person is then by definition ethnically English or ethnically Dutch? or both? That's why I think the distinction needs to be made. (NovaTabula (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I've added a qualifier note at the bottom that as a compromise on the issue. (NovaTabula (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC))