Talk:English people/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

RfC on definition of 'English People' and claim that it tends to exclude people of colour and/or is false

Is the opening statement of 'English People' article misleading/false? In particular, is it easy to read as excluding some or all English people of color? BJACurry (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 'English People' opens as follows: 'The English people are an ethnic group and a nation native to England, who speak the English language and share a common history and culture. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ('family of the Angles').'

One editor has noted in the talk page 'It’s very easy to read that sentence as meaning that the English as an ethnic group and the English as a nation are one and the same.' The implicit problem here is that such a meaning runs counter to the fact that the English people are a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural people and nation.

I have focused upon the point that the opening statement is straight-forwardly false. I have said 'The opening statement claims that "English People share a common history and culture". This is untrue because sharing "a common history and culture" is not a necessary condition for being an English person.' The statement is untrue in the same way that the statement 'Swans are white' is untrue or the statement 'Audi cars are black or silver' is untrue. The opening statement precludes the possibility of being English and having a different history and culture from a perceived norm of Englishness, with Englishness defined, at least in part, it seems, in terms of an ethnic group.

Those who revert the attempts to edit the page have presented the following arguments (1) 'The lead can be fairly simple - and if necessary, unclear,' (2) That 'people who were born, or whose ancestors were born somewhere other than England' do still share a common history and culture with other English people. (3) Another editor is clear that the 'nation' is multi-ethnic whereas the 'ethnic group' is not, but has nevertheless reverted an attempted edit and stopped commenting early in the discussion. (4) Another editor is concerned that any definition must address the possible concerns of English people living overseas, stating that the article includes 'English diaspora across the world, which is why multiple problems could arise from nullifying the ethnic identity of people overseas'.

Comment on the opening statement and how this dispute might be resolved would be greatly appreciated.BJACurry (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. As with many ethnic definitions, the term "English people" is subject to multiple different interpretations, and the issue of definition is complex. One definition is that "the English people are a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural people and nation", but there are other definitions as well. Such complexities and differences do not need to be, and should not be, resolved in the opening sentence, but should be explained in the article itself. (MOS:INTRO: "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.") The issue could be substantially addressed by changing the clumsy words "...nation native to...", to "...nation in...", (or even, perhaps, "...nation in or associated with..."). (For the benefit of any new editors here, I already added the words "Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England" to the opening section.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Just to point out this user has indicated that he/she is currently based in the USA and writing a book that will use the notion of "family resemblances" to "develop our understanding of what race/ethnicity might be said to be". This would be against WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research as these are fundamental principles on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Meerta&oldid=1016283353. This user has also vandalised this page after warnings and has insulted editors. This leads me to believe this user is not acting in good faith and has indicated on this talk page this user will not compromise on his/here position. JJNito197 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The implication is that examples of the subject of the article do not need to share any qualities, which makes the subject meaningless. It also denies the evolving, shared culture between those English people whose birth or ancestry is from England and those whose birth or ancestry is not. I do not doubt the good intentions but to me the proposition effectively says that people with elements of birth or ancestry outside of England can have the label but they share nothing definitive or significant. Is it not this proposition which "tends to exclude people of colour", or makes the inclusion tokenistic? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the editor is writing a book, unless the they plan to introduce original research into the article. Is that the case? I don't know about vandalism. There was some edit warring, but after some discussion that seems to have stopped. Is it usual policy to disregard contributions here on the basis they previously reverted edits, even though that has now stopped? It doesn't necessarily indicate bad faith. I could point to the way my own suggestions have been misrepresented and bandy around assumptions of bad faith. This doesn't engage with the substantial arguments.

Can another editor clarify for me whether reasoning can be used in talk pages in support of proposals, and whether tentative proposals for changes can be put forward as well as definite proposals, or is it all a matter of giving citations to some corpus of texts (anything else being considered "original research")? Meerta (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Meerta They do plan to introduce original research into the article, as they don't have a reliable source. I don't know how any body would want to import a racialist, tribalist, American-centric understanding of race and extrapolate this to British society and the identities within. Its quite simple to explain. Prove to the reader that English ethnicty doesn't exist for people within the England and worldwide, with reliable sources. Using 'Anglo-Saxon' or any other Germanic tribe as basis for English ethnic-idenity is a misnomer and factually wrong, applying this only causes division and "intertribal" strife within society. These grievances between races do not belong in healthy society. I do find it telling that you and BJACurry both used the example of 'family resemblances' as if its a reliable source, not a fringe philosophical theory. I can point out Advaita Vedanta and how we are not anything but Brahman. It is just that, a philosophical theory and is not to be used as a reliable source. JJNito197 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, most of my previous comments still stands, and I'd welcome another editor's clarification. But you do address my first comment about original research. I can't see any grounds for calling the request for comments here American-centric, tribalist or racialist. The "reliable source" for the opening sentence seems to be a children's encyclopaedia written by an American, and even that goes on to describe the genesis of English ethnicity as complicated and contentious. No one here (although clearly they do elsewhere, sometimes with malice) to my knowledge has suggested using "Anglo-Saxon" as a basis, rather it's been pointed out more than once that they are relevant in particular to an early usage of "the English", while in that usage it was not being used to refer to the inhabitants of the nation as a whole.

Only I mentioned family resemblances on this page. BJA only mentioned them in a note addressed to me on my user page. (I haven't seen it anywhere else anyway.) It's hardly a fringe theory. It's late Wittgenstein, and it is used and applied in various disciplines including classification. But what do you think I'm using it for? I mentioned it in passing, but I didn't think of it as a source. What is it a source for? This goes back to my question about sources and reasoning. I don't see other editors being asked to provide sources for every comment they make on the talk page.

I posted this after an edit conflict arising from BJACurry posting their suggestion below.Meerta (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Other editors aren't suggesting adapting the changes you both suggest? That reliable source is not a childrens book and nevertheless states English as an ethnicity. You and BJACurry are bringing this to discussion, the burden of proof is on you. Tell me, someone whos English and also ethnicially English, does that make that person English-English or more english than not? If English etnicity doesn't exist, do English people identify as their genetic components or colour of skin? It makes little sense why English ethnicity should not exist whilst Irish people, Welsh people, Scottish people, French people etc does. The argument is not cohesive. You and BJACurry are simply misunderstanding what this article is about. JJNito197 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a children's book, but it does go on to indicate that English ethnicity is not so simple. We have the OED to help clarify matters. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it's distinct the sense of nationality, which is easier to deal with and which you can likely offer a less controversial definition of, with less edge cases.

I don't believe some people are more English than others. The two concepts are distinct. Generally, ethnicity and national borders are distinct. Who are the English as an ethnic group? I'm trying to get the answer from the article but I can't see it. There is a connection and a continuity between many things but nothing that goes all the way through. It just seems to be assumed. The language is continuous, but the people aren't the same people they were when it developed here. The census classifies ethnicity into several groups based on identification with categories like White (English/Welsh/...etc),White Irish, Asian/Asian British Indian etc.

It's a mischaracterization to say I think it doesn't exist. The situation is different from countries that have their own assemblines and parliaments. I was making a modest proposal for clarity, not just the first sentence but also the sub-heading. As I said, I've given up. I'm just commenting on this discussion now.Meerta (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. I thought you were insinuating the English ethnicity doesn't exist. I presume there is no monotonous genealogy to anybody, such is the beauty of the human race. Kind regards. JJNito197 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your points. Let's see if we get some new input now from different editors before discussing things any further. BJACurry (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You've already told me to "(stop) editing this page" on account of my weakness of intellect and have issued other shrill directives as to what is permitted in this discussion ("DO NOT ENGAGE IN THIS DISCUSSION WITHOUT ACCEPTING OR PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT TO COUNTER THE KEY POINT"). It is not your place to do this nor to extend your stifling of debate to other participants. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@BJACurry: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,400 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with User:Ghmyrtle's statement. This is not a new debate and came up as an issue in the Putney debates in 1647 as to whom the Levellers would give the vote. Irton argued that foreigners should not have the vote (along with English men who did not have a "fixed interest" by which I think he meant property). To read Irton's speach on who should be allowed to vote raises many of the issues being debated here, so I don't think we can come up with a unified definition in this RFC. It is much easier to define who is not English than who is English and what Englisness is because there is large grey [sic] area, this is all the more true because England is not a nation state, where these things have to be clearly defined. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This goes to my points really. The opening sentence and sub-heading baldly assume nationhood and ethnicity as simple concepts for England, and (what I have been trying to say most of all) read easily as if the nation is identical with the ethnicity. It's true as User:Ghmyrtle says that the main body of the article can go into that, but no improvement to these opening gambits is being allowed. The opening sentences of German Wikipedia's entry on the German people is far more nuanced, even though Germany, unlike England, is a sovereign nation. (Of course, some people think England is one.) Through Google Translate: "The ethnonym German is used in a variety of ways. In the legal sense, all German citizens, regardless of their German or other ethnic group, form the German national people; Equal persons with “belonging to the German nation in the ethnic-cultural sense” are Germans within the meaning of the Basic Law. Various subjective and objective criteria are given for the definition of Germans as an ethnic group, including German ancestry, German mother tongue, cultivation of German culture, commitment to German nationality and German history and belief in these similarities..."Meerta (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

These are very good points from Meerta. I have a question for User:Ghmyrtle about your recent edit – the one that reads "Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England". I think it would be helpful if I could better understand the thinking here. Could you perhaps explain this a bit further? In particular, could you give some examples of later migrations that might get excluded?BJACurry (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

See my posting to Talk:English people/Archive 14 quoting novelist Andrea Levy who asserted that she was "English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons.)" -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• This definition of "English people" is racist bullshit. English is a nationality, not an ethnicity. White British is an ethnicity, per the official statistics. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That appears to assume that white and non-white people can't share ethnicity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Firstly you're wrong about the statistical classification, secondly you're wrong about nationality, and thirdly I don't think you understand what racism is. In the context of the UK, British is a nationality while English, Welsh, Scottish (etc) are ethnicities; though the term British can also have an ethnic reference too. If Britain as a political unit didn't exist, English (etc) would be an example of both a nationality and an ethnicity. "White British" is an umbrella term, combining a racial category ("White") with an (in context) ethnic term, British. I'm of an English and Scottish background myself, therefore I am a holder of British nationality, with an English and Scottish ethnic background; I therefore also meet the White British categorisation. If I gained Nigerian citizenship, I don't become a member of the Hausa ethnic group. If English and Scottish are not examples of ethnicities, what is my ethnic group? Alssa1 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:JzG White British is a modern ethnicity, which includes Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, English and Irish sub-ethnicities. This article is about English people as a nation and ethnicity, which encompasses english people abroad (this article is not about demographics of England). Black British includes Nigerian, Ethiopian, Carribean and other African ethnicities. JJNito197 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The only racism I see here is from people denying that an entire ethnic group exists. The fact that they do it under the guise of 'anti-racism' is nothing short of malicious gaslighting to hide their real intent, which is the erasure and vilification of any English ethnic identity. Buccmaster (talk) 14:07, 01 May 2021 (UTC) — Buccmaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

typo? says that the actual definition is racist. Buccmaster responds by suggesting that unspecifed users on this page are being racist, which sounds like it's coming close to violating some rule or other. I don't want to go overboard, but perhaps we need to start being a bit more considered. I'm reminded of that line from a stand up comedy routine, "These days, if you say you're English, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail!" I'm happily English, along with a couple of other identities. I don't care too much about them one way or the other. I must admit, I'd never heard of "English ethnicity" exactly until I visited this page, but I can see a case can be made for it, ethnicity being distinct from race. On the other hand, the very source cited for its existence states that it is controversial, and a singular definition for it (beyond that it exists) doesn't seem to be available. I simply wanted to remove any possible confusion between England as a nation (again, not straightforward, but easier to get at than ethnicity) and England as an ethnicity in the sub-heading and opening sentence, which seemed a very modest change indeed, but there is no consensus on this.Meerta (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that people think the English (ethnic) identity is tied to one of the specfic tribes that migrated, not an potpourri mix of these various tribes. If we are going to include further reliable sources, like PBS pointed out, "White English" is an ethnicity in the UK and is stated in the English ethnic/census/police code whereas Asian/Pakistani English or Black/Nigerian English is not. Do you want to clarify this on the opening sentence? Also, how is it that Lebanese, Thai and Vietnamese people are not in the Asian British category and are designated as another "race" ("Any other ethnic group") in ethnic codes? Ethnicity is not tied solely to race and this website is helpful to clarify. I neither identify as white nor British, neither is my ethnicity (multiple ethnicities) tied those binary labels. The real racism comes from those racialists that pontificate about race when this article is not based on that at all. JJNito197 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Sorry I haven't responded to this. I would like to. I am currently moving house.Meerta (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My edits

I have made many edits, largely with the inclusion of wording taken directly from the studies listed in the article. A person called Matt Lunker is in opposition to all of them, or some, but just blanket removes the edits. I would like to know his opposition to them. The numerous studies throughout this article show the English have a shared ancestry (based on genetics, genealogy, and cultural heritage). The only tribes mentioned to be in the Anglo-Saxon migration are the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, but especially the first two. All of these are Germanic tribes, and their West Germanic character is important to mention here. The close kinship in language and origin between English and Frisian is important (Frisian languages are the closest languages to English, and vice versa; see Anglo-Frisian languages and Ingvaeonic languages). I included specifically the word 'Celtic Britons' in the opening paragraphs because as it stood, it gives an undue weight to the "Romanized" character of the Celtic Britons. Genetic studies show Roman contribution to English ancestry is extremely minimal or absent, and that the native Celtic population under Roman rule was essentially identical to that of earlier Iron Age Celtic ancient DNA samples. It is the native Celtic component that is predominant. The Celtic Britons also kept largely their Celtic language and culture, and did not adopt British Latin. Roman rule and Romanization was also nominal or absent in areas like southwest Britain and northwest Britain, and the local Celtic tribes were de facto in control; for this reason I think it helps to clarify that southern Britain was mostly under Roman control and Romanization, but not everywhere and not completely. Finally, I included a paragraph under English origins which goes into detail about the landmark 2015 study by Leslie, et al, showing the Anglo-Saxon contribution to English ancestry, regional differences, and the differences between the English regions and the Celtic region of Britain. 67.70.11.121 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Germanic and Frisian links

This has turned into a discussion of the subject, if anyone wants to open a new thread using sources, feel free

This edit on 16 May removed the links from this article to Germanic peoples and Frisians with the comment "What link do English people today have to Frisians?". This has since been reverted and re-instated several times without any discussion taking place to justify the removal of the links, whereas the article itself confirms that the Frisians were part of one of the major population groups that went to make up the English, an assertion that is backed up by four sources. In addition, the article on Frisian languages claims that the "Frisian languages are the closest living language group to the Anglic languages", the latter including English. I am no expert in the field, but it seems to me that, unless it can be shown from reliable sources that there is actually no link between the English and Germanic or Frisian peoples and their languages, then the links are justified and should be re-instated. In passing, it should be mentioned that links have been similarly removed on other pages, so any consensus here should be reflected on those articles too. Other editors are invited to comment. Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Firstly, if you wish to make a change of this nature, you need to prove the link between the two groups; they are not linked by default (see the concept of a 'positive' and a 'negative' claim). Secondly, you seem to be confusing language with people, they are not the same thing and it seems flawed to base your argument upon it. To give a comparable argument: there are an estimated 3million Basques in the world, however there are only 750k speakers of the Basque language. Your argument (as expressed thus far) would suggest that you believe that the 2.25million people who don't speak the Basque language, are not actually Basque people. In regards to the sources you cite, "The fine scale genetic structure of the British population", "Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history", and "Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons" do not mention Frisians or Friesland once. "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" does however mention Friesland, but I think you'll find it doesn't support your argument. Frisians are a people, Friesland is a province in which Frisians make up a minority of the population. The study took data from "313 males from seven towns located along an east-west transect from East Anglia to North Wales." and compared it to "177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway". I don't think that a study that compared a small amount of data from "Central English towns" (on a parallel from North Wales to East Anglia) to a small amount of data from "Friesland" generally (aka not focused on Frisian people alone) proves that the English as a people are 'especially linked' to Frisians as a people. Finally, the claim that you've quoted from the Frisian language page doesn't have a source on it, so given your concerns of non-sourced inclusions, it seems strange for you to cite it here. Alssa1 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC) The claim that Frisian is the language most closely related to English is not at all controversial, see [1], [2]: The English language came into being as a result of immigrations of tribal Anglo-Saxon groups from the North Sea coast during the fifth and sixth centuries. Whereas other insular Germanic varieties are in general rather conservative, the English insularity lacked this conservatism. English is considered most closely related to Frisian on every linguistic level due to their common ancestorship and to continued language contact over the North Sea., [3] English and Frisian are generally regarded as being more closely related to each other than to any other Germanic languages. --Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) This is the English people page, not the English language page. The consensus is to draw a distinction between the language and the people (hence the different pages). Alssa1 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Alssa1 Just to be clear: you made the initial change to the article; I simply followed WP:BRD by reverting it on the grounds that the article seemed to support the linkage, whereas your comment was a question suggesting you weren't sure. Either way, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the article is wrong, not on me to prove it right. I made no mention of the Basques so that is an Aunt Sally argument. Nor did I cite any sources, I simply pointed them out. So not only have you failed to follow WP:BRD by re-reverting, but you haven't provided any evidence for your position that controverts what this and other articles have said. I have no axe to grind here; I just want to see due Wiki process followed and a consensus reached that determines whether the links are in or out. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Bermicourt, an "Aunt Sally" argument is effectively a strawman. Given the fact that I did not say that you mentioned the Basque people, what you have said brings into question your comprehension. I introduced the mention of the Basques with the phrase "To give a comparable argument..." followed by "Your argument (as expressed thus far) would suggest...". I am not asserting that your position is X, I'm simply saying you appear to be suggesting X. In regards to WP:BRD (and to refer back to your now-deleted talkpage entry), you don't seem to understand the BRD requirements and/or only seem to follow them when it suits you (as I mentioned in the talkpage entry you chose to delete). Alssa1 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC) In my opinion "Germanic peoples" should stay at that point in the article, while "Frisians" should go. The English people are usually grouped within "Germanic peoples", ethnologically. "Frisians" makes little sense at that place in the infobox: You would have to list all "Germanic peoples" or none, for fairness' sake. Could we get a consensus for this reasonable, middle-ground position as desirable? You could then try to prove the uniqueness and relevance of your "Frisian connection" here. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC) I'm happy to support a link to Germanic peoples as I don't think that is in dispute. If there is, however, a particularly close link to Frisians (linguistically or ethnically) as the article(s) suggest, I would clearly support that too. What I am against, is the removal of material that appears to be properly sourced already without a consensus or even a valid argument and then a failure to follow WP:BRD when it gets reverted. That way lies Wikipedic anarchy. Bermicourt (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) It is in dispute, as is provided in my previous comment that seems to have been ignored. On what basis do you determine the link to "Germanic peoples", "ethnologically"? The sources (as well as I) accept that English is a Germanic language, but what makes a people "ethnologically" a "Germanic people"? The sources do not go as far as some have asserted. Alssa1 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC) I'm just calling again to say: Forget what I said earlier about a modern day grouping where "English people" would be a part of any "Germanic peoples". Forgive me, it was unreflected and outdated/backwards of me to say that. I'm sure I'd be hard-pressed to find a serious modern source for that, as this was of course only one of the roots in the English ethnogenesis. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Just as an update. I've had to revert more deletions of links between English and Frisian peoples/languages because this debate does not seem to have been resolved. The discussion affects a large number of articles including: Frisians, Saterland Frisians, Frisian languages, North Frisian language etc. etc. Please would all involved hold fire on making any article changes relating to this topic until we have a consensus on the way ahead. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) @Bermicourt: No, that is not accurate. You have reverted 2 changes on 2 people pages, not language pages. This discussion has nothing to do with language, it is about people. As I told you back in 8 July 2021: "...you seem to be confusing language with people, they are not the same thing...". You were told again that the nature of the dispute was not about language on 18 July 2021, and again on 6 August 2021. Can you explain how you can read and respond to this discussion, and then go around canvassing (copy+pasting I might add) language pages giving a false explanation of the nature of the dispute (example)? Alssa1 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Although English language is a Germanic language and related to Frisian, the same does not apply to people. This should probably be explained in this article to say that the English people are not Frisian, or Germanic, even though the language is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC) @Alssa1. I think you need to read the discussion above more carefully. I introduced the topic mentioning both languages and peoples and both words occur frequently above. You should also read the first sentence of WP:CANVASSING which clearly states that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Meanwhile please use the opportunity to enter the debate and provide evidence as to why there no links between the English and Frisian peoples instead of making deletions accompanied by comments like "Dunno why this is here" or "what relationship do frisians have to english people?" Bermicourt (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Bermicourt: I think you're missing the point somewhat. We are in dispute about a very specific thing, the purpose of this discussion is to rectify that dispute reasonably and amicably. To rectify that dispute, we should only be discussing things relevant to the nature of the dispute. So in this case, we should be discussing English people and Frisian people. Not the English and Frisian people + the English language, the Frisian language, your favourite restaurant, the last holiday you went on, and anything else you want to talk about at a given moment in time. If you want to discuss language, that's fine to do, elsewhere. Going around linking things that are not part of the dispute, is unproductive and needlessly confusing (as has been proved by the comments of other editors earlier on in this thread). The reason why I brought up canvassing was because you have gone to a number of different pages (some of them irrelevant to the dispute) and misrepresented (deliberately or otherwise) the nature of the dispute. Finally, are you familiar with the concept of, 'proving a negative'? Alssa1 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Bear in mind this is a discussion I opened, so I think I am able to say what the scope is. Moreover, others have joined me in openly discussing both people and language. So please refrain from sarcasm and personal attacks and contribute positively to the actual issue. Bermicourt (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) You opened this discussion by referencing my amendment. What is the purpose of this discussion if it has no relationship to our editing dispute? And of course people are going to respond to the discussion by referencing both people and language, if you have gone around telling people that the dispute is about both people and language. Though I will leave it to other editors to make a final judgement on it, I do not agree that it is a personal attack to complain about how you have behaved in relation to this dispute resolution process, and how it poses a barrier to a constructive resolution. You actually have to engage with what I have said, rather than misrepresent what I have said. Alssa1 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Native language (mother tongue and the historical language of culture) is without a doubt a part, among many, of ethnic identity. Frisian languages are without a doubt, the closest to English, and especially the North Frisian language, which is from the same geographic region as the historical land of the Angles. English and Frisian also form a linguistic clade, called Anglo-Frisian, according to most linguists, and without a doubt to a larger clade called Ingvaeonic languages, which includes English, Frisian and Low Saxon. There are also links in this article clearly mentioning that Frisians were part of the Anglo-Saxon migrants who settled and formed England and the English people (the Angles and Saxons had to go through Frisian lands in part on the way to eastern Britain). Old Frisian and Old English were essentially dialects of the same language, and were extremely interlinked peoples. Thus, the close relation of English (especially eastern English) to Frisians is not just linguistic in nature, but also in terms of ancestral origins. The close linguistic relation is because of a close ancestral and ethnic relation between the Anglo-Saxons and the Frisians. No historian disputes this. The Old Saxons, the Old Frisians, the Angles and the Anglo-Saxons were all closer to each other than to any other peoples. If there wasn't a close ethnic relation, than English and Frisian would not be so similar. But they are, and are closer to one another than to any other languages. The close relation between English and Frisians is like that between Poles and Slovaks, or the Danes and Swedes, or the Scots and Irish - the peoples differ, but they are also closely related and it is concordant with their close linguistic relation. There is no question that Frisians are the group most closely related to the English in language, ancestry and culture out of Germanic peoples on the continent. There was also extensive trade and cultural links between Frisia and eastern England (especially East Anglia) during the Middle Ages and the era of the Hanseatic League. 67.70.11.121 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) You fall into the same trap as the previous editor, language and people are two separate subjects and the conflation of the two is unsupported by any references. I also feel that your later statements undermine the case you're trying to make. There are a huge number of people around the world who speak English as their only or primary language/mother tongue, does that make all of them a related ethnic group in your eyes? Afro-Bahamians speak English as their mother tongue, are they related to the Frisians in your eyes? If you wish to determine 'relatedness' by language, they would have to be related to Frisians. Your position also raises a similar question: most Irish and Scottish people don't speak/have a knowledge of Gaelic, does that harm their ability to be 'truly' Irish or Scottish in your eyes? Alssa1 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

New article in Nature:Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age

"Present-day people from England and Wales harbour more ancestry derived from Early European Farmers (EEF) than people of the Early Bronze Age1. To understand this, we generated genome-wide data from 793 individuals, increasing data from the Middle to Late Bronze and Iron Age in Britain by 12-fold, and Western and Central Europe by 3.5-fold. Between 1000 and 875 BC, EEF ancestry increased in southern Britain (England and Wales) but not northern Britain (Scotland) due to incorporation of migrants who arrived at this time and over previous centuries, and who were genetically most similar to ancient individuals from France. These migrants contributed about half the ancestry of Iron Age people of England and Wales, thereby creating a plausible vector for the spread of early Celtic languages into Britain. These patterns are part of a broader trend of EEF ancestry becoming more similar across central and western Europe in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, coincident with archaeological evidence of intensified cultural exchange2–6. There was comparatively less gene flow from continental Europe during the Iron Age"[4] Doug Weller talk 15:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

According to alfred the great

We English come from five tribes of Britania. Welsh, Scott, Pict, Britton's, Latin. Source Anglo Saxon Chronicles. 2604:2D80:DE82:8400:45E:232B:C40E:FD89 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is not a reference to the origins of the English but to nations of/languages spoken on, the island of Great Britain, English being one of them: "English, Welsh/British, Scottish, Pictish, (Book-)Latin". Alfred was not the author. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably getting confused with Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People: "This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth. The Latin tongue is, by the study of the Scriptures, become common to all the rest." DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It may paraphrase Bede but I think it is the opening passage of the Chronicle, in this version at Gutenberg translated as "The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin". According to this Quora dialogue "geþeode", translated in that quote as "nation", should be translated as "language". Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Y, that’s it. DeCausa (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Genetics

Do the English genetically descend from Anglo-Saxon conquerors, or from the preceding population? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a forum to ask questions about the subject of the article - it's here to discuss improvements to the page itself. If you would like to propose a change to the article's text, and have a reliable source to support the change, please propose it. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Regions With Significant Populations...

There were 459,486 English people living in Scotland (almost 10% of the popultion) at the time of the 2011 census (and likely a far, far larger number than that with full or partial English ancestry depending on how far back you go, but I don't have data on that). Why is this not mentioned in the infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

English_people#English_diaspora Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And is that the infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not. It does, though, contain the answer to your question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It contains the answer to my question of why the large English population of Scotland isn't in the infobox? I don't think it does contain the answer to that question, does it. Now do you maybe want to stop acting obtuse and directly answer why the large English population of Scotland is not in the infobox.

The English populations in all the other countries listed in the infobox are also mentioned later in the article. So why is the English population in Scotland not included in the infobox when it's clearly a good deal larger than some of the other current infobox entries. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it reasonable that you would hold attention to the end of the first sentence: "it is not possible to identify their numbers, as British censuses have historically not invited respondents to identify themselves as English". It would just as much be OR to claim all these people, without evidence, as Scots born in England. Perhaps the stat in the adjacent table should go. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mutt, but I think the IP does raise a possible confusion in the top part of the infobox: "regions with significant populations" which says 37.6 million in England and Wales and does not mention Scotland. This is clearly explained by the source, which is the England and Wales census, but the way it is presented is a touch misleading and I think the whole number is debatable. In that same census one can put identity as British rather than English or Welsh or others, which is presumably why the number is so very much less than the population of England. There are many reasons why people would choose to call themselves British rather than English, but the decision would be personal choice and is not an objective measure with clearly set criteria.

In Scotland we know there is a significant population of English people, but we don't know how big it is. One possibility is to change the top part of the infobox to either just have a UK flag, or else add Scotland's flag. Also I would like to delete the 37.6 million figure.

Northern Ireland is trickier. The proportion of English people living there is probably lower than in Scotland or Wales but not insignificant. Northern Ireland's population, like Wales, is low though so it doesn't make a huge overall change to numbers - adding the flag is also debatable, which is why it may be easier just to have the UK flag.

These infoboxes on all ethnic group pages are always so debatable! Sometimes messing with them leads to edit wars. My feeling is sometimes less is more though.

Does anyone object to the above proposed changes? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these infoboxes are always contentious. The selection of what to include in sections such as the regions one often seems arbitrary to me, but works better when the article is about an ethnic group within a state, where there's a single set of geographical distribution statistics rather than a mish-mash of different national measures. I don't really know what the best approach is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "it is not possible to identify their numbers, as British censuses have historically not invited respondents to identify themselves as English" doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited, which is just a list of ethnic group tick boxes from the 2001 Scottish census. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Sirfurboy:, though my point was the general confusion and lack of clarity as to the significance of these figures and the related ones throughout the article, though particularly, since the IP advanced it, that there was not a sound basis for their interpretation (any more than alternate interpretations, such as the number being a monolithic group of Scots who happen to have been born in England).

I'll also note it may have been in better judgement to simply revert this returning block evading sock of User:92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

True. By the way, as an American with British citizenship I always say British, not English. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What relevance does this have with anything we're talking about? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up about the block evasion. Looking at the sock IPs edits, I do see a very definite similarity to some comments we saw from the IP elsewhere. At this point I feel disinclined to make any changes, although there may be a more general discussion needed regarding what figures we present throughout the article, and why. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

And I thought it would be reasonable that you could distinguish between people from England living in Scotland (which we DO have a solid and reliable figure for) and the far, far larger number of people in Scotland of English descent (which would be more difficult to arrive at a reasonable figure for, as I already clearly stated to you before you responded passiveaggressively by posting your little link). Clearly I was wrong. Funnily enough, in the Scottish people article the number of people in England who were born in Scotland IS listed blatantly and clearly in the infobox. Imagine that. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "It would just as much be OR to claim all these people, without evidence, as Scots born in England." Wouldn't it also be OR to claim people who were born in Scotland were 'Scottish', regardless of where they live in the world? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Aaaand of course, we're just going to totally ignore that point aren't we. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Even if there were a service level agreement for response time to good faith editors with pertinent on-topic questions, as a chronic IP-hopping WP:NOTFORUM sock, that should not be your expectation. I occasionally engage in other activities and checking for your latest word has not been a priority since yesterday morning. Knowing that you have been clocked again, you will read what you will into a concise response. Let me remind you, this is the English people talk page. Did you perhaps mean "Wouldn't it also be OR to claim people who were born in England were 'English', regardless of where they live in the world?", or would that not satisfy your WP:POINT? It is as applicable, likewise to the multitude of "Foo people" articles re "Fooland". You believe that the non-OR position is that to remain Foo-/English, those born in Foo-/England must remain there and that to live elsewhere discounts one? Hm. Or perhaps the focus was intended to be whether all people born in Fooland are Fooish in the first place. Some will be, some won't; if we don't have RSs that discuss it, we don't either. I addressed the matter you raised regarding the source you used. Extrapolating this to the approval of the use of other sources regarding other matters in other articles is not pertinent. There may be things that are wrong elsewhwere in Wikipedia. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"Engla" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Engla and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Engla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Privybst (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)