Talk:English people

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (20 Dec 2004 to 22 Oct 2005)
• Archive 2 (21 Oct 2005 to 10 Nov 2005)

Numbers of English continued

quick recap and some observations

Here's where I see the biggest problems.

• Data on English identity from the 2001 census
  

Rex states above that:
All I know is that the CIA World Factbook figures are based on the 2001 census
and zzuuzz states:
The CIA factbook, which is a reputable publisher, says of the United Kingdom: "Ethnic groups: white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
But according to Reference #1 on the article page
The number who described their ethnic group as English in the 2001 UK census has not been published to date.
So where do the CIA get their info on English ethnicity? It can't be from the census data as they claim, as these data have not been published. I think this is enough to discount the CIA data as unreliable. Given that the data regarding English identity from the census are unavailable I think it is reasonable to question this calculation:
58,789,194 * 0.921 * 0.836 = 45265092.65 = 45,265,093
because the source the CIA claim for the 0.836 figure (the 2001 census) has not published this figure. So where exactly does this figure come from? Given that this figure is for the whole UK, then the number of English people in the whole of the United Kingdom (45,265,093) is much smaller (almost 4 million) than the total number of people living in England (49,138,831). Given that there are English people in the UK living outside of England, the figure for English in England will be smaller than the 45,265,093 for the whole UK.

• Arwel states that:
  

the ONS does not identify any such thing as an English "ethnic group": it identifies people by race and place of birth, so there were 44,679,361 white people resident in England at the 2001 Census
I think this is correct, the fact that the census allowed one to identify as a simple write in (which means that English ethnicity will be underestimated, as many will not bother), and that the data on English self identification have not been published, support Arwel's statement.
zzuuzz states that:
p52 of this reference says that English is an ethnic group in the census
but of course allowing people to identify as English in the census if they can be bothered does not imply that they necessarily recognise it as an ethnic group when compiling their stats (which they don't). The fact that the English question was an optional write in, confirms that it is not a mandated ethnic group.

• All data here are estimates, even census data are estimates as many people do not fill out census forms, or fill them out incorrectly.

• Whatever data are used it is important to put them in their proper context. Citing the source of data is all very well, but for a statistic to have any meaning its derivation needs to be understood. This is why it is wrong to accept the CIA figure without understanding how they have derived this estimate of English ethnicity in the UK. In this instance how can this be regarded as a good source?

• Verifiability is not the same as truth. WP:V: As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

• My preferred option would be to cite the numbers of people born in England currently living in the UK, and to quote the same figure for England (number of people born in England currently living in England). This has the advantage of including non-white English people as English, and how the figure is derived is extremely transparent.Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of people born in England:

• living in the UK: 44,028,981
  • living in England: 42,968,596
  • living in Wales: 589,828
  • living in Scotland: 408,948
  • living in N. Ireland: 61,609

refs: Scotland (Excel), England and Wales, Northern Ireland. zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how these figures are derived:

• United States: 30,000,000 (est)
• Canada: 15,000,000 (est)
• Australia: 12,000,000 (est)

They are very different from the sources cited for them

• official statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census showing 24,515,138 persons claiming English ancestry. 2000 (1990)
• 2001 Canadian Census gives 1,479,520 respondents stating their ethnic origin as English as a single response, and 4,499,355 including multiple responses, giving a combined total of 5,978,875.[1]
• The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports 6.4 million people of English ancestry in the 2001 Census. Up to two ancestries could be chosen. Recent increases in the number who identify as Australian suggest that this number is an underestimate of the true number with English ancestry.[2]

How can one give a number that is different from the source it is cited from?

These numbers are being persistently placed on the page, I believe against consensus, by User:Antidote and some anonymous IP addresses. You will see them in the article editing history if you look for reverts to my edits. The numbers have not been published, but admittedly 'guessed' by whoever put them there. Quote: estimations are more accurate than registered data due to many englishman of whom associate with colony; revert. They should be removed. zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think there should be a differentiation made between English and of English descent. I do not believe that one can claim that a person is ethnically English because they claim English descent. For example Irish people differentiates between Irish people and people of Irish descent.Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

They do not differentiate when using infobox numbers. In fact they count the total population of the island of Ireland as Irish. I agree that people who haven't lived in England, perhaps for a few generations, may no longer be English people. But they may retain some aspects of the English ethnic identity - customs, tradition, language, religion, etc., and this means they are part of an ethnic group - whether they know it or not. Self-reported ancestry is part of ethnic identity. zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, OK that makes sense. Alun 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of English in South Africa

The best reference we have to date is this:

1. ^ A 1996 study of South Africa by the US Library of Congress reports that roughly two-thirds of South Africa's 2 million English speakers can trace their ancestry to England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland.

zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of English in New Zealand

The 2001 New Zealand census asked: "Which ethnic group do you belong to?", and people could answer with several responses (including New Zealand European). The total who wrote-in 'English' in 2001, whether as their only ethnic group or as one of up to three ethnic groups was 34,074. In 1991, when there was a comparable question, it was 53,325. In 1996 the number was 281,895. The question in that year was broadly similar, but laid out quite differently. It said: "Tick as many circles as you need to show which ethnic group(s) you belong to", and English was one of the European options.

Numbers are from Table 2a of the 2001 Census: Ethnic Groups - reference report. There is more information about ethnicity in the New Zealand census including census forms, and this definition from 2001 [3]:

Ethnicity is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to. Thus, ethnicity is self-perceived and people can belong to more than one ethnic group. Ethnicity is a measure of cultural affiliation, as opposed to race, ancestry, nationality or citizenship.

An ethnic group is a social group whose members have the following four characteristics:

• share a sense of common origins
• claim a common and distinctive history and destiny
• possess one or more dimensions of collective cultural individuality
• feel a sense of unique collective solidarity.

zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but for me these people are still people with English ancestry but not actually English people. They should be mentioned in the article but not in the info box. People born in England and living in the US, Australia etc fine but not people who's ancestors sailed on the May Flower! On the Cornish people page we could include the decendents of the Cornish dispora around the world that claim Cornish ancestry as "Cornish people", just look at all these Cornish sites from across the globe:[4], however to do so would be wrong as they are people with Cornish ancestry but not Cornish people. Bretagne 44 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They say they belong to the English ethnic group. How can you disagree with them, and the people who publish the figures? I think this is an exemplar (unlike the CIA figure) because we know both what was measured, and who published it. zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The authors of every other athnic group article would appear to disagree with you. What a pity! Do you think that you could find out why the Irish people, the Italians, the Albanians, the French people, the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Norwegians ets all have their USA, Canada etc figures in the infobox? If they can, then so can we. Oh joy! Rex^(talk) 21:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the... um... "Cornish diaspora" has no figures. If you caould find a relaible source, which confirmed your speculation, but so far, no sources have been produced. The only Cornish diaspora I can think of are the people who entered themselves as Cornish in the last census outside of Cornwall. If you find a reliable source with figures, then we can use them. Guesswork is not allowed. Rex^(talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic group is more to do with culture than nationality or citizenship. Are you saying that once the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, they lost all traces of English culture and became Native Americans? Rex^(talk) 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at what makes an Albanian (like me) an Albanian. Check Albanians#Ethnic Albanians. Could that apply in our case? Rex^(talk) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in support of Rex. It's worth having a look at the ethnic group article as well. We are not talking about a nation, which IMHO is a racial group, and we are not talking about a state or a nation-state, which are political groups, though these articles might be worth reading to help clarify things. It's worth bearing in mind that although England is a nation, in this case we are talking English ethnic identity, not English national identity Alun 03:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jury system

Is there a reference for this statement:
the jury system (used in a few non-anglo-saxon countries in the world) is an English innovation.
And what does non-anglo-saxon country mean? There hasn't been an anglo-saxon country in existence for nearly a thousand years. Alun 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern Nation State of England

What does this mean?
These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex, forming what would eventually become the modern nation state of England.
I am intrigued by what is considered modern. The annexation of Wales was in 1536-1542, changing the borders of England forever and incorporating a different nation into it's borders. England as a nation-state ceased to exist at that time, and has never existed since. I would not call that a modern nation-state.
I think this is also wrong These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex.
According to the Athelstan article, Athelstan was the first de Facto ruler of England. This was achieved after the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. Paul Hill in The Age of Athelstan (ISBN 0752425668) gives the same date, so it would be 10th century. Alun 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. England as we know it began in the 10th century, not the 9th.--Mais oui! 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

St.George

Saint George, famed as a dragon-slayer, is also the patron saint of England. St George may be the patron saint of England, but I don't think he was English (It is said that George was born in a fuller's shop in Epiphania, in Cilicia, to a Christian family during the late 3rd century), and he is also patron saint of Georgia (the Georgian flag also contains the cross of St. George). Should some reference be made to Edward the Confessor, who was English, and Patron Saint of England: After the reign of Henry II Edward was considered the patron saint of England until 1348 when he was replaced in this role by St. George. Alun 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[5] [6]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [7]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you about eight times, Local Government Act 1988 established Cornwall County Cornwall as an ENGLISH County Council. Legally, now Cornwall is part of England. It doesn't matter when it ceased to be "independent". How were Northumbria, Mercia etc incorporated into England? There is no record of an Act of Union if that's what you are after. If they don't need one, then neither does Cornwall. Britannica and Encarta call Cornwall an English county. I can tell that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. Here's the gist: it doesn't matter what you can prove or think you can prove on your own. Even if you were to spend ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni di Stefano and found some "loophole" in the law which said that Cornwall is an independent country, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. Rex^(talk) 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In a way you can both be right. WP:NPOV is often misunderstood. It is OK to include a POV as long as an alternative POV is also included. This will lead to a generally NPOV article (from WP:NPOV: The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Of course both POVs need to be verifiable. So you can make the claim of no act of union, while also claiming that the 1988 Act is a de Facto Act of Union, you can even claim that this is not recognised if you like. The proviso of course is verifiability. I do think that, much as I sympathise with Bretagne 44's claim, a verifiable source is required. Just citing the maps as evidence does seem to constitute original research. Can you provide a third party verifiable source Bretagne 44 (for example the same claim made in a published work)? Alun 18:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had a clairvoyant vision. I saw Bretagne 44 bringing up that ridiculous Killibrandon Report again, according to which Cornwall, like Lancaster, should be referred to as a duchy in official documents. Cornish nationalists interpret this as meaning that Cornwall is an illegally occupied Celtic nation which was forcefully incorporated into England and that the British Parliament is not authorised to pass laws over Cornwall, in which case the legislation I cited above is null and void. Those maps don't mean anything, they also mark London; is London a separate country as well? Also, I don't think that the 1988 Act was a de facto Act of Union. It's just an example that as far as the Queen is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been). I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - seeConstitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one, where POV runs wild. Well, I feel I should cite something else: Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. When Encyclopædia Britannica says that Cornwall is something other than an English county, the new can assume that it's constitutional position has changed. Rex^(talk) 18:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. I agree Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, which is why it must be neutral, and why things must be verifiable. Remember verifiability is not the same as truth, and neutrality means providing both POVs. These are Wikipedia policies. If there is some way Bretagne44 can verify what he is claiming, from a reputable source, then he has the right to incorporate it into the article, just as you have the right to incorporate the opposite POV, with a verifiable source. I agree that the maps in and of themselves don't mean anything. My understanding of these policies on NPOV, Verifiability and no original research is that anyone can introduce a POV position if they have a reputable source to verify it, and as long as the opposite opinion is also introduced, and that these together will maintain neutrality. I do not think that you could claim this is propaganda because because both positions will be presented. At present I agree with you that there is no reputable verifiable source for these claims, but if Bretagne44 can produce such a thing (from a history or politics book for example) I don't think there is anything you can do about it except include both POVs. I can't claim to be at all interested in this Cornwall thing, I was just trying to be constructive and to find a consensual middle way, to repeat from the above quote from WP:NPOV, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. Alun 19:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking again about this, I am of the opinion that this is not an appropriate article to make these sorts of claims about Cornwall. These are political and historical points, more appropriate in articles like England or United Kingdom. This is an article on English people (first generation immigrants to England often self identify with English ethnicity, even if not with English nationality) which is far more inclusive than say the English nation. I suggest keeping political and nationalistic comments to the appropriate pages. The whole ethnicity thing is hard to define with regards to being English anyway, because English culture is so dominant in the UK. In a way all Britons are a bit ethnically English, even if the converse is not true (I say this as a Welsh person who would never think of himself as English, but who has three English grandparents). Alun 07:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what I find a bit unfair - English culture is so dominant in the UK. What makes English culture different to Welsh or Scottish? What makes Geordies and Cornishmen (as they are English) the same yet so dinstinct from Scotland for the former and Wales for the latter, regions to which they are historically so connected? If there is an English culture so dominant in the UK, it is one of the ruling class, or London, or the BBC, but it's not English culture, although it could be called, due to its epicentre, as AN English culture.Enzedbrit 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

REX you really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.

As to the Kilbrandon report or Cornish foreshore case being ridiculous well in comparison to what you write I think I would go for a Royal Commission and case law as being less ridiculous.

There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been).

So you are going to give your POV and then provide no support, i however have provided legal and historical facts that can be verified.

I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - seeConstitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one,

Again an unfounded insult which you cannot support in anyway, really very pathetic!

Bretagne 44 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

References

I am considering putting an unreferenced tag on this article because, population data aside, nothing here seems to have been properly verified with references. Alun 19:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Normans

Hardly anything about the Norman (French/Viking) addition to the Celto-Germanic pot. Ksenon 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

languages

To avoid a lengthy addition of edits in the language section by users wishing to let us know that the language they speak plus english is being spoken in England I removed the whole list and put commonwealth and non-commonwealth (commonwealth being relevant to England). Ciriii 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did the ancient Britons come from?

The article reads that the ancestors of the English people are basically the Anglo-saxons and the ancient Britons. It points out that the Anglo-saxons came from areas around Germany, Danemark and the Low Countries. Where did the Ancient Britons come from? Is there any evidence as to their origins?

Well, the celts came from mainland europe. But i believe before there arrival there were some other ethnic group already present there. --Lucius1976 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. Does anyone know the contribution in the modern English people that can be traced back to the Celts and to the inhabitants that were there before them? Is there any information about the origins of those people who where there before the Celts? Were the ancient Britons mainly Celts or did they come rather from these peoples who preceded the Celts? I know it's a lot of questions, but I think it is interesting and the article should also go into that if there is information available.

It's an interesting question. "Celtic" culture traces back to what is now southern Germany / Austria / Switzerland in the first millennium BC, which spread out into what is now France, Belgium, and the British Isles. However, it's questionable whether many people actually moved with the culture -- genetic analysis of populations in GB and Ireland have shown that the people in what are traditionally considered to be the "Celtic" areas, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, appear to have more connection with the Atlantic seaboard of France and Spain than with Central Europe, which agrees with the theory that sea transport would have been easier than land transport at that time. Analysis of the English population's genes show increasing influence towards the east from either Anglo-Saxon or Danish Viking origins (it's not possible to differentiate the two genetically); there is evidence of some Norwegian Viking origins among the populations around the Irish Sea. -- Arwel (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you talk to. Some people like the Mass migration model, which would have it that there were several prehistoric migratory events, linked to new technological inovations. So in the neolithic people actually migrated to Britain and bought farming with them. The same holds for the bronze age and for the iron age (which is associated with celtic people). This model generally assumes that the migrating people replaced the indigenous population. The cultural diffusion model holds that ideas and technologies diffused through contacts between neighbouring peoples, and that little actual migration took place. Both of these models have supporters in the academic commmunity. Recently studies on the DNA of modern peoples living in europe might show an element of truth in the mass migration model, but with the twist that the invaders did not displace the indigenous population, but rather mixed with it. This paper A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles seems to show that there is an indigenous genetic component to all British people,and this paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans gives strong evidence that most europeans are derived from both paleolithic and neolithic people. So the truth of the matter is that we do not know. Suffice to say that the best bet at the moment is to assume that the Ancient Britons were, like most europeans, derived from several source populations. Alun 10:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Sea Kingdoms : The History of Celtic Britain and Ireland " by Alistair Moffat is an excellent book if youre interested in the Celtic history of all of the British Isles and is rare in that it considers the Celtic history+influences of England and the English. An Siarach

The Belgae, who formed the most powerful tribal groupings in south-east Britain since before Caesar's time, were at least partially Germanic. This may account for the mysterious fact that Germanic speakers existed along the east and south coasts during Roman times, and probably formed the nucleous of what later became known as the Anglo-Saxons. TharkunColl 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

There is a column on the article titled 'related ethnic groups', which I find to be quite useless as it is so highly controversial and there are so many ways of viewing an ethnic group and defining how they are related, but it's there none the less. The inclusion of Germans as a related ethnic group to the English is not valid as if it is then most of Europe's ethnic groups should also be included. English people have some influence from the Teuton tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. These people came from the north west of the continent. They spoke a language which is a forerunner to both modern English and German. They were Germanic tribes, but not German. The inclusion of related ethnic groups as Danes, Frisians and Dutch covers the lands whence these people came and also represents the migratory patterns of people between these areas over the centuries. Including Germans implies that the German people whose extent reaches far from Britain and who are a blend of peoples that never came close to Britain would mean that the English and Germans are as related as the English are to the Italians or Spanish, both of which are groups that also shared ancestors with the English (and rest of the British). If it is indeed true, as some scholars have suggested, that areas whence the Angles and Saxons came were completely depopulated as those people moved to Britain, then there is no continuation to link the English with Germans. So include Germans as related people, but also include the French (Normans), Italians (Romans), Icelanders and Swedes (Vikings) and all those groups represented in Britain throughout the centuries: Jews, Russians, Spanish, etc. Enzedbrit 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok it makes sense to me to say that if the Danes, Frisians and Dutch are included, then these peoples represent the Teutonic contribution to English people. Thanks for your explanation. Alun 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Alun, I'm quite pleased actually with my argument there Enzedbrit 11:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Italians obviously have no link with the English and the Germans are much more related to the English than Italians are. Enzedbrit, you are forgetting that the Angles and Saxons came from areas which remain part of Germany, although it is thought that they would be more related to modern Frisians than to modern people from Schleswig-Holstein. In a cultural and linguistic sense, the English are Germanic and in this sense are more related to Germans and other Germanic peoples more than any other groups. If you are speaking in terms of ancestry and genetics, then the English would obviously also be related to the Celtic peoples of Britain, but would still also remain related to the Germanic peoples, including modern Germans. The Germans of northern Germany share genetic and ancestral ties to the Anglo-Saxons just as the English, Frisians and Danes do. The Romans do not represent modern Italian people and were an agglomeration of different peopels from all over the empire. The Normans were mainly Scandinavians who had assimilated much Gallo/Latin (French) culture and in no way represent modern French. In either case, both groups settled in Britain with very few numbers and did not leave a lasting demographic impact. The French, Italians, Spaniards,etc. obviously have very little or no cultural or ancestral relation to the English and clearly nothing that can be compared to what the English share with the Germans. Epf 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the idea that the English are "culturally" Germanic. What characteristics do the modern English share with the Germans that they do not also share with the French, for example? As far as "culture" is concerned, the English have far more in common with their insular neighbours the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. TharkunColl 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How are the English Germanic in a cultural sense, I do not understand this assertion, the Welsh, Scots, nad Irish have a far closer cultural affinity to the English than the Germans do. Can you enlighten me as to the nature of the cultural ties between the German people and English people? Given that English, Welsh and Scots people have shared the same Island for a millenium and a half, and have been part of the same state (the UK) for several centuries (nearly 500 years in the case of the Welsh and English), this seems like a spurious proposition. As for language, Francis Pryor states All I will note is that language is not necessarily a defining attribute of a particular ethnic group, and that the words and grammar of what was to become the English language were not solely derived from Germanic sources. Alun 17:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• As you know Alun, English language is a Germanic language and is based on the old English language of the Anglo-Saxons. Obviously there is much Norman French influence in modern English language but the language retains its original Anglo-Saxon base and further strong Germanic influences from Vikings, speakers of Old Norse. Yes the Scots and Welsh have a cultural affinity with the English but the cultural relation they have is much more from centuries of English cultural dominance and influence in the region. I should mention here that in "Germanic", I dont mean ethnic Germans, but the culture of all Germanic groups (Dutch, Frisians, Scandinavians, etc.). My discourse above was only there to show that the English obviously share more in common culturally with Germans than with other European groups of Southern Europe. English culture IS largely Germanic and its origins are from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. The French-speaking Normans (descendants of Vikings themselves) brought continental influences (mainly on language) and advances (feudalism, castles, accounting offices, etc.), but the culture of England remained to be predominantly Germanic. As well as its Germanic language (which even today shares more in common with other Germanic languages than any others), the culture of England, although it obviously is different from other Germanic peoples (say just as Danes are different from Dutch), it still remains to be classified as Germanic. I could spend all day listing the majority aspects of English culture and national identity which traces its roots to the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, from farming, measurements and work ethic to written documentation (e.g. of history), ruling classes, government systems (e.g. shires) and even naval traditions. The Welsh on the other hand have retained many strong aspects of their Celtic culture, not just language, that simply is not found with English culture. Even in Scotland where English influence has massively eroded away the original Gaelic culture and language (once widespread across the whole nation), the Gaelic elements remain that again is not found in English culture. I will end this discourse simply with this: identify to me the small parts of English culture and even national identity which are not Germanic (i.e. can not be traced to the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings) ? Epf 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Gaelic about all of Scotland? Tartan? Northumbria has a tartan. Gaelic influence? Cumbria was settled by Gaels, as was north Wales and parts of north west England. Original Gaelic culture? The Gaels arrived only two centuries before the Teutons and when they did arrive they supplanted the Brythonic culture. What links all of Scotland together as a culture that is distinct from England other than a Scottish national identity? Nothing. How do Scottish people live daily differently to the rest of the British? They don't. But all the British eat, work, live in houses and drink their tea exceedingly different to how the Germans, French, Spanish or Italians live. How is English culture more largely Germanic than Scotland or Wales? Aside from the fact that you'll hear Welsh in most parts of Wales and Gaelic in the Hebrides and other isolated places, not much. Bagpipes are no more alien to London than they are to Edinburgh, hedgerows and afternoon tea doesn't end at Carlisle and they eat Welsh rarebit in Sussex I can assure you. Enzedbrit 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are tartans for groups, places, regions and all sorts of things all over the world but the tartan along with the clan system still has its origins with Gaels and Gaelic culture. Cumbria was only very lightly settled by Gaels, as was the few areas of Wales and south-west England. They did not arrive in signficant enough numbers there to obviously leave an imprint anywhere near on the scale that they did in Scotland. The Gaels are largely responsible for the creation of Scottish identity and culture and their impact is still felt all over Scotland in varying degrees. Indeed the Gaelic culture did supplant the native Byrthonic and Pictish cultures, but this just goes to show how much of an impact the culture of the Gaels had there. Bagpipes in London still doesnt exclude the fact that they are from Scottish culture just as a Chinese restaurant in London doesnt exclude the fact that cuisine is from Chinese culture. It is a very ignorant and offensive statement to Scottish people around the world to say there is nothing that links the culture of Scotland that makes it distinct from England. Not that it matters though since its largely false. English culture is obviously more Germanic than that of Wales, since Welsh culture wouldnt be "Welsh" without its strong Brythonic Celtic elements that are not seen with English culture. Just because you can find cultural elements of a group around the world because of globalization doesnt take away the distinctive origin of such cultural elements to certain groups and peoples. Scotland overall is a thorny issue as it has alot of Germanic influence from both the English and the Norse, but its original Gaelic elements remain in varying degrees across the whole country and obviously the culture overall is still distinguished from that of England with anything from music, festivals and food to family traditions, languages, sports and politics/government systems. Although obviously also very much related, the distinctions between Welsh and especially Irish culture with English is even more pronounced than is the case with Scotland (English was only spoke by a minority of people in "Catholic" Ireland until the 18th century). Epf 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Language

The Cornish language has been revived. It never 'died out', there were always people that spoke it - whether fluently or not I don't know - from the end of the 18th century when it is said to have died. There are thousands of speakers of Cornish, in Britain and abroad. Cornish is a living language. It is also a language of England. Cornish was spoken by people natively outside of Cornwall in diminishing areas until the 16th century (restricted basically to Devon). Most speakers of the Cornish language reside in England. Cornish people whether they like it or not are by location English and the Cornish language is spoken natively inside England. Should Geordie be termed a language such as Scots rather than dialect then Geordie too should be listed as a language of England, the same with a revived Cumbric if it can be proven that 50 people speak a revived form of the language. Cornish and English are the two native and spoken languages of England Enzedbrit 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the language was officially deemed exitinct for most of the 18th to early 20th century with supposedly the last monoglot speaker being Chesten Merchant in 1676. Even if the language continued through this time, it is known that it was only by a handful of speakers, only six were found in 1875. Cornish is a language that is indigenous to the present territory of England, but has never been a widely spoken language of English people. Even today, there are no more than 400 fluent speakers of the language, most of which are still in Cornwall. Many if not all of these people also identify themselves distinctly as Cornish more so than English. Just because 50 or so people speak Cumbric does not mean that it deserves inclusion as a language of English people or ethnicity. I guarantee more English people can speak French, Spanish or German fluently as a second language than either Cumbric or Cornish. Shouldnt they be mentioned under spoken languages too then ? Cornish and Cumbric are not the native languages of the English people and obviously never have been considered so. English and its dialects is the sole native language of the English people and always has been. Epf 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you must remove the Cornish language from the Cornish ethnic group page and replace it with English. If these languages are spoken by the ethnic group to which they belong then why should they not be included? Would you remove a native American language because it only has 100 people whereas the majority of that ethnic group spoke another language? Should it be relevant if it's not a first language (yet) of anyone or is only spoken by a few thousand or few hundred fluently as you say? Does this mean that Cornish isn't a real language? Cumbric was spoken by people who were English until the 11th century and beyond from Yorkshire to the north and west, Danish/Norwegian by people in Yorkshire itself, Welsh by people in Cheshire, Shropshire and Hereford, people who are likely to have no more nor less (likely very less) Anglo-Saxon blood now than they've always had - did they only become English when they started speaking English or when their dialect became intelligible to Estuary English? My maternal grandfather and his siblings were/are English and their first language is Welsh. I think you've been quite brash then to say that English is the be-all and end-all language of England and the English Enzedbrit 11:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to roll with this one but I'm not happy about it. I don't believe that the number of speakers, it being a first language or its restriction inside a country/ethnic area should matter if it is still a language of that people and this sullies the whole categorisation of languages in the section, and for these reasons too it should rightly jeopardise the inclusion of Cornish on the Cornish people page because the factors of its extent remain the same Enzedbrit 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand your point here. The very few people who speak Cornish as a native language more often than none take pride in their distinct Celtic Cornish culture and identity. The fact remains here that the modern ethnic group of English people has never spoken Cornish or Cumbric as a native language and those languages have never been considered synonymous with English identity. You cant compare 11th century Cumbria to the present day, and those Cumbric speakers people back likely didnt consider themselves English, especially if they were culturally Celtic or didnt have any English ancestry. The demographics within English regions have obviously changed throughout the centuries since then, especially with the growth of urban centres and internal migrations. Overall in England, indigenous non-English languages do not exist with people who would at the same time still consider themselves to be ethnically/culturally English. I'd also like to say I find it your grandfather's case very interesting since he was English and somehow learnt Welsh before English as this is very rare in general in Wales today (especially so with someone who is of non-Welsh descent), and would be even rarer in his time when the language was in even lesser use than it is now. Not that this has to do with anything, just thought I'd mention it. Epf 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the English and the British.

Genetic research is evolving so fast that new discoveries are tantalizing, in many cases shattering in relation to views held until now. I have noticed that this article misses crucial information that is being published now as a result of the revolution in genetic research, here you have some interesting links:

1. haplogroup R1b

2. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

3. http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

HCC

I’ve pointed out before how totally meaningless it is do take Genetics as something far more important than it is and the inclusion of the Bretons - who share NO linguistic, cultural, real historical ties with the English shows what a nonsense this is. The English are not Celtic, and the last time I bothered looking at anything regarding DNA/Genetics they were quite distinct from the surviving Celtic peoples and there was plentiful evidence of genocide against the Britons in early England. I really cannot get over how ludicrous the inclusion of the Bretons is on this list of related peoples and I thought I was used to seeing nonsense put up on the ethnic group pages. An Siarach

If the English are not Celtic, then nor are the Welsh (since their language has so much Latin in it that it should better be classified as a Romance language). TharkunColl 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The English are Germanic - their language, origins, race are all Germanic. The Welsh are Celtic as their language, origins, race are all Celtic. You are talking nonsense with regard to it being better classified as a romance language. It is predominately and genetically Celtic with some other influences - just as English is predominately and genetically Germanic despite its considerable influences from the Latin languages. As soon as linguists and historians start classifying Welsh as Romance and English as Celtic then I'll give these views some credence. An Siarach

Linguistically speaking, both Welsh and English are better understood as Creoles - Celtic/Romance and Germanic/Romance respectively. How familiar are you with Welsh, by the way? How come almost all its vocabulary is Latin? TharkunColl 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Historically at some point perhaps they may well have been accurately described as Creoles - although if we were to class all languages that have undergone a great deal of change under the influence of another there would be far fewer 'languages' and far more 'Creoles', but to do so now simply doesn’t make sense. I’m familiar enough with Welsh to scoff at your silly attempts at insinuating some kind of superiority and as for the influence of Latin - as a result of the Roman conquest and rule as you well know. I happily invite you to start up a topic on the Welsh language and English language talk pages regarding their seemingly correct designations as Celtic/Romance and Germanic/Romance Creoles as these places are where you really should be putting forward such opinions. An Siarach

It may be that the native British language (whether it was Celtic or not) was totally replaced by a Latin derived language as in the rest of the Western Empire, and that modern Welsh is a mixture of this, and Irish - the Irish conquered and settled in large areas of western Britain at the same time as the Anglo-Saxons in the east. But my point is simply to refute notions that there is any such thing as a "Celtic" or "Germanic" race, as you suggested earlier. TharkunColl 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You’d be hard pressed to find me saying anywhere that there is a Celtic or a Germanic race as I've said no such thing. There are however Celtic and Germanic races - people with origins in the original Celtic and Germanic groups. As for your theories regarding the possible replacement of the British language ( which was Celtic, I’ve NEVER seen anyone dispute this ) by a Latin language which then formed Welsh in combination with early Gaelic - I’ve never come across anyone putting forward this rather incredible theory. The Gaels settled North West Britain and had some very small, and very short-lived, enclaves in Wales/England. Quite simply the ideas you’ve put forward are quite incredible and totally new to me and I don’t think it would be presumptuous of me to say they would be incredible and new to most people with a knowledge of the relevant periods, peoples and languages. An Siarach

I’m not sure what you mean with ‘’short lived enclaves’’ in England and Wales. They didn’t up and leave, they can’t have. They might have become absorbed or dominated by the Norwegians in Cumbria (a new theory I’ve read recently is that the Angles hardly got a foot into Cumbria at all) but traces of their presence remains, and North Wales has always been a target for Irish migration, starting who knows when. I am sure too that there were Celtic races but that is achronistic (is that the word or the context?) or rather is not the case today. I’m not even sure that ‘race’ is the right word. Tribe, perhaps? The Celtic speaking peoples wouldn’t have seen each other as somehow kin as opposed to Germanic speakers – they were all different tribes. The Brythons of Britain had as much to contend with from the Irish than they did from the Teutons, and both of the latter invaded and settled in Britain driving out the native culture (but hardly the people). If you want to say that the English are a Germanic people and the Welsh and Scottish aren’t, the ONLY basis for this is that they live in a country (which is part of a larger, older country) named for a Germanic tribe whence comes a Germanic language. Culture, blood, identity – it’s all British and wonderfully indigenous Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi An Siarach, can you reconcile these two posts of yours I’ve pointed out before how totally meaningless it is do take Genetics as something far more important than it is and The English are Germanic - their language, origins, race are all Germanic. The English are not racially Germanic (how can you claim this while also saying that Genetics is not important, you are contradicting yourself), they are a mixture of an immigrating Germanic people and indigenous people (it is absurd to talk of Celtic people, there is no evidence that peoples speaking Celtic languages formed any sort of homogeneous cultural or racial group), English culture is also a mixture of indigenous and immigrating people. Most archaeologists see continuity in the archaeological record, and Genetic studies (and it is you who have made the point about race, you cannot have it both ways) confirm that all the peoples of the British Isles have an indigenous genetic component. Invasionist theories are out of date, and probably wrong. To try to claim that the English are exclusively Germanic (and I use the word advisedly as an adjective of German) and somehow racially and culturally distinct from the indigenous population of the rest of Great Britain is to ignore the facts. This is an English people article, these articles are based on Ethnicity. I think that it is totally inappropriate and incorrect to make racial claims. Alun 12:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not contradict myself. I express a personal opinion that genetics is of no great importance and then point out a factor relating to genetics that most would find pertinent with regard to this topic ( but which I happen not to consider of any direct significance). It is not absurd to talk of a Celtic people. The fact that they formed no real unified group ( and it is absolutely absurd to say they did not form a cultural group - this is precisely what they were and even those coming out with the tired old "they never called themselves Celts" tripe accept this as fact - and argue that this is all that they were ). The English are predominately Germanic and hence a Germanic people - influence from Romance or Celtic cultures cannot change this. They are culturally distinct( or at least were until some 50-100 years ago when the last enclaves of Welsh/Irish/Scottish(which is to say Gaelic) culture and language fell to the spread of anglicization/modernizaiton) from the other inhabitants of Great Britain ( and to avoid confusion in this context "English" covers all the English speaking peoples regardless of where they may be ). As for the last bit regarding 'racial claims' well I’ve cleared up your misunderstanding over my use of the word - which is based entirely in the historical context - and I couldn’t give a two figs over race or genetics as they have no direct bearing on ones language and culture - which are the only meaningful markers of ethnicity. An Siarach

The English weren’t culturally distinct 100 years ago or even long before and never have been. My favourite example – as I’m sure you’re all aware! – is my mother’s Northumbria. Their dialect, dress and outlook has always been far more aligned with southern Scotland than southern England. The English west country is highly distinct from the north, the western Midlands are from East Anglia, and so on. Are these all Germanic cultures compared with a Celtic culture into Wales and Scotland? No, they’re not. English speaking people in Britain have been the majority of Scotland and Wales (and Ireland) for centuries. If we are to discuss genetics, the differences between the English, Welsh and Scottish are so minimal when compared with other ethnic groups spread out in large countries that they lose much of their distinctiveness, except of course for a few inbred individuals in pockets of north Wales, Yorkshire and the western Isles. Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are just expressing your opinions as if they were solid facts. In the end it is of little significance. What counts on wikipedia is verifiability and neutrality, this means that you have to accept that other people will have a different POV to you, as long as they can verify it you have no right to exclude it from an article. I do not know what source you are using to claim that the English are predominantly Germanic, can you provide one? Your criteria for making the distinction seem to vary, you refered me to the Germanic people page yesterday, but this just lists people who speak Teutonic languages, it has no relevance to ethnicity. and it is absolutely absurd to say they did not form a cultural group - this is precisely what they were and even those coming out with the tired old "they never called themselves Celts" tripe accept this as fact. I do not accept this as a fact, no one can prove this, this is just a theory, there is no consensus in the archaeological community, and it is just wrong to claim there is. Alun 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, what I am expressing (other than my already admitted and clearly stated POV on genetics) is the orthodox opinion expressed in the very articles dealing with the topics on Wikipedia and in the wider communities dealing with each area respectively. An Siarach

Thank you for admitting that you are expressing orthodox opinion and not fact. Please accept that other opinions exist that are equally valid and have as much right to be expressed here as the outdated. Alun 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's Francis Pryor as a source, to support what I say about other points of view Simon James has cojently argued that the Celts themselves probably never existed as a distinct cultural entity. I take it you will aknowledge this as a reliable source. Alun 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that the problem here lies in mixing different concepts:

1. Language cannot be confused with "race", if we may still use this term.

2. Concepts like Celtic or Germanic are related to languages, which they take as the main reference.

3. Ferdinand de Saussure, the most prominent linguist of the 19th century and father of European Structural Linguistics, already pointed it out in his Cours de Linguistique General.

4. In the 21st century this has already become very clear, in fact we can take four European languages as an example:

French: France and Haiti.

English: Britain and Jamaica.

Spanish: Spain and Guatemala.

Portuguese: Portugal and Angola.

According to the ethnic concept based on language we could consider the Haitians French, Jamaicans English, Guatemalans Spanish and Angolans Portuguese.

That concept is perfectly possible, but linguistic ancestry cannot be confused with genetic ancestry. Obviously, according to genetic acestry those populations would be classified in other groups with peoples that do not speak their languages.

And I do think that genetic research is important, in fact, very important to trace back population movements. Until now no such powerful tool was available, now it is. An it is important because it helps also shape history. For example, it was widly believed that the English were predonminantly Anglo-Saxon not only because of their language, but also because they could trace back their ancestry (genetic ancestry, by the way, which means from father to son all the way down) predominantly to the Anglo-Saxons, and it was also believed that the original inhabitants of the British Isles had been exterminated or almost exterminated. Now all those theories are being proven wrong precisely by genetic research.

Anyway, it is understandable that these new findings will take some time to assimilate, because they are so different to what was thought until now, and they may create a conflict in the feelings of identity of many people. HCC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.248.169 (talk • contribs)

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. Alun 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the article underplays a little all these new findings. It should be noted that they are based primarily on the Genographic Project by National Geographic. I think that up to now no individual, team or university has come even close to the magnitude of the work that is being done in this project, with the possible exception of Cavalli-Sforza, but I think that the Genographic Project is even larger in scope. HCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.248.169 (talk • contribs)

There ia also a cultural element to ethnicity that needs to be addressed, but much of this discussion seems to be people just expressing opinions with no real debate. I don't understand the claim that English culture is Germanic and somehow different to Welsh and Scottish culture, I also do not see any great similarities between Scottish and Welsh culture, except for those that they also share with the English. I think it would be better to discuss the sources of peoples POVs and try to come to a consensus on how to incorporate all points of view. There is clearly a POV that somehow English people are ethnically Germanic and distinct from the rest of the people of Great Britain, I personally find this difficult to believe. Even if one does subscribe to this POV then one has to accept that British/English people have shared the same Island for over a millenium and a half, and the claim that some sort of ethnic apartheid occured during these centuries doesn't strike me as very believable. Nevertheless I am prepared to accept that this is a valid POV, contingent on properly verified sources. There is also the question of Scots, which is also a Teutonic language, so should we consider the speakers of Scots Germanic as well? If one accepts that the English are the descendants of the indigenous British inhabitants of Great Britain (which they are) and also of some immigrating people (who possibly but not certainly constituted an invading force), that the observed cultural change introduced by the Anglo-Saxons may just have equally been introduced by cultural diffusion over several centuries (and no one disputes that there was some migration, but Danes settled in the Danelaw at the end of the nineth century, and there certainly doesn't seem to have been any great displacement of indigenous people) and that the English language is not necessarily an indication of mass migration or a rapid cultural change, then it is also a reasonable point of view that the indigenous culture changed over time (as it had in previous times). Most archaeologists now point to greater continuity rather than any rapid change. From a linguistic point of view Welsh serves as a good example here, at the start of the 20th century the vast majority of people spoke Welsh as a first language in Wales, indeed immigrating English people who came to work in the heavy industries of South Wales in the nineteenth century had to learn Welsh. By the 1940s Welsh was a minority language. In A History of Wales John Davies argues that the Welsh gave up speaking Welsh voluntarily. He reasons that the internationalist nature of Socialism (strong in Wales) and the progressive nature of Non-conformists led to a consensus that language could be a barrier. He also argues that there is no evidence that coercive measures like the Welsh not had any significant impact. No one is arguing that there was a mass migration in Wales at the beggining of the 20th century, nor is anyone arguing that Welsh people gave up their identity or culture, they just stopped speaking Welsh. Alun 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There were Germanic speakers in England throughout the Roman occupation, often serving in the armed forces. In particular, since the time of Carausius at the latest, large numbers of Saxons were settled along the south and east coasts (see Count of the Saxon Shore). It was in these exact same areas that kingdoms describing themselves as Saxon emerged in the Dark Ages (Wessex, Sussex, Essex, etc.). Carausius himself was a native of the Rhine area and so would have been sympathetic to neighbouring peoples such as the Saxons and Frisians. This, I suggest, is the true origin of the English language in Britain. TharkunColl 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. Is there a supporting source? If there is then it might good to include this information in Anglo-Saxons and Sub-Roman Britain. Unfortunatelly it is not wikipedia policy to include original research, and so edits must be based on published material, so a source for this would be very good to have, it would add nice balance.Alun 10:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Oxford History of England series - Myers, The English Settlements. Also check out the volumes by Salway, Roman Britain (for Carausius) and Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England. Another interesting source is Pryor, Britain AD, who disputes the idea of any sort of Anglo-Saxon invasion at all (even of just a warrior elite). TharkunColl 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I’ve not doubt that there were Germanic speakers during the Roman occupation and it’s good to see some sources for this! Thank you. Surely though they would have been all over the Roman territory of Britain? Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'm reading Britain BC at the moment and have a copy of Britain AD waiting to be read. I'm keen to include some sources other than genetic ones in the pages, as some of the historians there seem to be suspicious of my edits regarding the genetic research (my degree is in genetics so I have been trying to remedy some of the groser distortions of the findings). There seem to be a lot of historians on these two pages, but few biologists or archaeologists. Genetics and archaeology seem to concur on this, it's the historcal sources (written much later and by undisputably biased people like Bede) that seem to get most of the attention. It might be worth including some of this stuff in Immigration to the United Kingdom as there is a lot of stuff on pre-historical invasions there also. Thanks for the sources. Alun 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

There are precious few sources used for verifiability in this article. I have marked a few in the History section (and not all at that). Given that the thre core principle policies on wikipedia are verifiability, neutrality and no original research this is really quite pathetic. If you make an edit you need to verify it from a reliable source. If you do not do this then it can be removed at any time. Editors are responsible fro verifying their own edits. If you do not have a source for your edit then you should find one, you might find that you are actually wrong. If you want to generate a good article, then you need to do this for credibility. Currently the only properly verified sections are the info box and the section on Y chromosome analysis (that I did). See also Citing Sources and Wikiproject fact and reference check.Alun 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, indeed alot of referencing is needed here, but do you not agree that alot of information can be considered "common knowledge" or agreed upon by users editing the article ? This seems to be how most articles are created on Wikipedia and most contain large amounts of non-sourced information. Epf 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the policies Epf. I do not write them, but they exist for a reason, these are policies and not guidelines remember. As I say, what you think is common knowledge may be wrong. Wikipedia is full of people making occasional entries and including what they think are facts, often they are wrong. I have done it myself, gone to get a reference for a fact I know only to find my memory faulty. I have also seen so many incorrect facts included in wikipedia over the last few months (for example, that the Hyksos perpetuated Akenaton's religion, but the Hyksos had been expelled from Egypt 200 years before Akenaton came to the throne, so this was impossible, it was in Monotheism) I don't see the point of editing wikipedia if one is not going to check their assertions. The discussion above is a good case in point, no one is prepared to supply verifiable sources to back up their argument, and An Siarach left the discussion PDQ when I asked what sources he was using. There is also the problem with edit wars, there seems to be an increasingly militant air about editors regarding their opinions, which has led to edit wars, these are futile in my opinion and are a waste of time and energy, it's a bit pathetic IMHO to just keep reverting someone else's edit. There is never any point in blind contradiction as has accured on so many talk pages. Get sources before making edits, reference them while making the edit and include all points of view for balance. This is a good philosophy and it's a shame that most people just seem to want to propagate a single point of view to the exclusion of all others, and don't even bother to reference their edits. The talk page exists to make queries, suggestions and for debate as to how to include the various POVs, it's not there to claim one POV is better than another, and anyway this claim is in breach of the neutral point of view policy. Alun 06:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Alun, all information on here should be cited with references of some sort, but with most articles in Wikipedia, large portions (in many cases the entirety of it) are not, which is partially why Wikipedia pretty much has no credibility in academic circles anywhere. Sources take alot of time to gather though which most normal people don't have, especially if those sources are not available online. Most people on the discussion boards dont source their claims, including even yourself in the same discussion you quote your having with An Siarach above. The fact is that much of the debates are on topics that are subjective and have little or no official source or references to draw upon. The same sources by some users are even taken from different angles to support opposing POV's, no matter which one is factual or not. For now though, I really think you should take alot of the icons off because over half the articles on Wikipedia can be labelled with those throughout the whole of each article which just goes to show how much POV, whether right or wrong, is found in this free "encyclopedia" if it can even be called that. Epf 06:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't always cite sources on talk pages, but I do always cite sources when I make edits, and I do provide sources when I am asked to do so on talk pages, this is something I haven't always done, but I hope I have developed this habit as an editor. If I try to find a source for a talk page and find I am wrong I always admit my mistake and appologise, I see no merit in fighting to the bitter end for something I am wrong about. We are all wrong sometimes and there is no shame in it, which is why I have made the point about militancy. If a single source gives two points of view, or can be interpreted in two ways this is a good thing and doesn't preclude this from being included in the article. There are lots of pages which don't cite any sources at all, and these should be labelled with the same template as here, the unreferenced template at the start of the reference section. I am only concerned with a few pages on wikipedia, and it is those pages which I am currently trying to get fully referenced. I will point out to you this statement that is included on the verifiability, neutrality and no original research policy pages: The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. The Seax article is one I have done some work on, it is only a stub, but I have worked hard to try and include as much information as I can find and know about, I have also redirected about four other pages to it, like Scramaseax. It may only be a stub, but it is fully referenced (all my work) and I keep an eye on it to see if any erroneous information creeps in. You will see that I have tagged the last addition as it is not referenced. I will remove it in a week or so if no reference is forthcoming. Alun 10:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true Alun, I agree with that you are saying. Its just that so many articles don't have referencing or only have little referencing and most of the information in each is based on agreeance between users from common or un-sourced knowledge. Obviously it would be ideal for every article to be completely referenced, but I think the WIkipedia community knows that this simply is not the case with so many articles currently. As long as the information entered into articles is agreed upon from a neutral perspective of various users, that is what is most important, especially when not all information can be specifically sourced/referenced (even in recognized encyclopedias like Britannica). Epf 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

British pages

You state that ethnicity is 100% related to appearance. This is utter bollox. Most Maori in New Zealand are fair skinned and resemble Europeans, the same with many Native Americans. Some white people identify as black and vice versa, or Asian, or Indian. Enzedbrit 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no need to be offensive when making a reply. You have posited several straw men. First you deliberately misquoted me by claiming I said: "ethnicity is 100% related to appearance", when what I actually wrote was "appearance is 100% related to ethnicity". Also, the entry was about the ethnic English, not "British pages". Your protest is a straw man, because no one stated that only the English have light skin, as you appear to be claiming. The ethnic English are predominantly descended from Anglo-Saxons and some small mix with Celtic, and Normans etc., but all are light skinned northern European in appearance, not Negro, Asiatic, or other brown Aboriginals etc., so simply stating in the intro that they are 'light skinned northern European', is completely accurate.

Please remember that article is about ethnicity, not nationality or citizenship—ethnicity is your genetic bloodline but nationality/citizenship is your passport. I've yet to see a native American that looks like an English person as you imply, but even if they did it would be totally irrelevant because the English would still be light skinned regardless of who else on the planet also has fair skin. You state: "Some white people identify as black." I really don't see what such comment are going to achieve, some dogs think they are cats or humans, some humans think they are Jesus or Moses, but none of that has anything to do with their factual ethnic inheritance, so why are you muddying the waters with such irrelevant material, maybe you should post your claims under a mental illness article? Where do you think humans get their ethnic features from if they are not inherited from their parents? Of course, our physical appearance is 100% related to our ethnicity, we are only the sum of our parent's genes and their ancestors. I really don't know why you made such a bit fuss about such a small accurate entry, and saw the need post straw men arguments. My post was concise and totally accurate. If you have any valid arguments then make them, but please refrain from vandalising other's posts, especially when you have given no good reason. Would you like it if everyone did that to your posts? Zenjin 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite paranoid. Stating something is utter bollox is not being offensive nor is debating on your talk page vandalising your page. Don't make such accusations. Nor are the English predominately descended from Anglo-Saxons, but rather ancient Britons. Please consult modern findings which support this, not Victorian ideas of racial purity. Ethnicity is not 100% related to appearance. Ones appearance might be an indicator of their ethnicity but not always. Being a member of a certain ethnic group can suppose ones physical appearance but not always. Stating the English are a fair skinned northern European ethnic group is a stereotype and is false. Enzedbrit 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some white people do identify as black. This isn't muddying waters or being irrelevant. You don't understand the complexities of subjective categorisation nor of ethnic identity. If you have a black parent and a white one, and in this instance the white parent has never been in the picture, and you look white, but identify as black, that is everything to do with ethnic heritage. The world is not black and white. By talking about cats thinking they're dogs, you are demonstrating your ignorance with regards to the subject that you're editing, and such fobbing off of the subject to me shows you could be quite racist yourself Enzedbrit 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Calling me ad hominem names like 'paranoid' will not validate your false arguments. 2. Your straw man about my 'personal page' is also incorrect; my vandalising comment was clearly about the article page, not my page. 3. White/light skinned Anglo-Saxons and white/light skinned; Celtic are all white/light skinned, not Negro or brown skinned; again you desperately grasp at straws and fail to comprehend the blindingly obvious. 4. If ethnicity were not related to appearance then why do your comments contract all known scientific evidence? Maybe in your imagination if a light skinned man were raised on rice 'n' peas and jerk chicken he would develop a Negro completion along with an Afro and large lips? You need to lean about genetics my friend, as you are sadly in need of some accurate information on hereditary genes producing our ethnic appearance rather than possibly gangster rap, a fried chicken diet or multi-culti political delusions. 5. You claim the factual reality that English people are white is a "stereotype" is feeble and a non-argument, seeing as we all have eyes, and anyone living in England (you don't) can see the light/fair colour of skin of the natives all around them physically everyday, and see the large differences to African or Asian immigrants. Please note: A suntan is not classed as ethnicity, even in Australia!

6. If someone is mixed race, then they are mixed, not black or white, regardless of what they may affiliate with due to political leanings or ethnic black supremacist views etc., and none of that has anything to do with the physical genetic reality of what they are. If you wish to muddy the waters with your political views, then take that political material and post it under black supremacist or wherever, but please don't bastardise articles based on your own unscientific views, or your racial political identity opinions because you are totally off topic. 7. You post trite third grade quotes like "the world is not black or white", as if that has even remotely anything to do with it! People are black, white/light skinned, and everything in-between, but that does not somehow bastardise light skinned people or demand they are no longer allowed to have their skin tone mentioned, you appear to be promoting a racist anti-English, multicultural political agenda, which is not a NPOV, or factual at all, regardless of it possibly being due to your own highly confused ethnic background/identity and political leanings. PS. Please don't dump your stuff on my page again, if you wish to remove it from here, then post the lot on the Talk section of the ethnic English page because that is the subject. Thank you. Zenjin 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1.Wow, you’re a real hypocrite. You have thrown some pretty nasty comments to me in your retort yet pack a sad about being called paranoid.

2. Removing your comment isn’t vandalising, it’s cleaning up graffiti. What are you on about with straw-man this and that?

3. I repeat - What ARE you ON about????

4. You have said that ethnicity is 100% related to appearance. I have negated that comment. You have said that if you are of a certain ethnicity then you must resemble a colourised view of that ethnicity and this is not true. Your comment about a Negro being raised on peas’n chicken makes no sense and isn’t even slightly related to what I was saying, and it’s also a comparison I find offensive – the fact you thought it necessary to bring in is worrying. You have not the right to tell someone how they should self-identify. That’s not PC or multi-cultural, it’s simple democratic fact. Scientific knowledge is also not related here. This isn’t about genetics or science or anything extra-worldy. This is about someone having the right to define their ethnicity based on what they know of themselves. It is about the right of someone to claim to be a Briton/English/Scottish/Welsh who is black, white, yellow, brown or red because of their heritage. It is racist and cruel to inflict the alternative, and it’s very akin to Hitler. He told millions of people that they weren’t Germans because they didn’t look right, and killed lots of them for it. The English people are predominately descended from the ancient Britons who were the first people to live in Britain and are the predominate ancestors too of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish. Were these people fair skinned? Probably, probably not. I have cousins who are just as pure-blood Britons like myself who have jet black hair, brown eyes and a very definite olive taint to their skin, and some would have us believe that this is the characteristic of the ancient Briton. So are they less British than me because they have a year around tan?

5. Why did you bring in Australia and suntanning? Australia, by the way, where thousands of Aboriginal people are white skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed – are you to tell them they must identify as ‘whites’? I don’t live in England? Congratulations, that means NOW’T mate! To assume an ethnicity based on physical appearance is not a sin – we all do it – but it isn’t solid gold fact. And how do you know that those African or Asian people aren’t half or ¾ British blood but happen to show more of their non-indigenous British ethnic heritage?

6.You’re very brave to want to tell someone that the must classify as mixed race. You are very much off-topic, and totalitarian. You’d do well in Turkmenistan or China – they do what they’re told as well. If someone has a black parent and a white one and has dark skin but identifies with their white side, whatever ethnic group it is, then that is their right. Labelling someone as solely mixed-race is quite out of fashion, and quite racist. Sure, people can identify that they have mixed heritage, but they have every right to identify with whatever aspect of their heritage they wish and IF they so wish to do so.

7.If anything, I am exceedingly pro-English and definitely pro-British. I have spent many moths on here defending English history from those that wish to strip it of any Celtic identity. What I am not going to do is tell someone that they can’t be English because they’re not white, no more than I could tell a Maori that because they are as pale and fair as I that they cannot be Maori. I know first hand how damaging labels can be. I have never felt so in-line with organisations such as the Runnymede Trust before, but you are one heck of a bigot. I am sure that you will find allies against my comments on these pages, yet rather than because they agree with you, it is because they don’t like me and would agree that black was blue if it meant an opposing view to Enzedbrit.

P.S. I shall ‘dump’ my stuff on your talk page if I shall so wish. It is not your possession but part of the Wikipedia forum. Your User Page I shall not touch, but if you are unhappy with public contributions to your talk page, then I suggest you withdraw your username in its entirety. Enzedbrit 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of your reply is not worth responding to due to its extremely low tone and its obsessive straw men that pop up every other sentence making obtuse links where they do not exist. Besides the lies and misquotes you write, your argumentation obviously has a massive ego and a political problem with reality, and you believe using any label is ok if one simply wants to, regardless of the physical reality involved. You are also massively confused between ethnicity (genetics) and nationality (a passport) an example of this absurdity is here: "It is about the right of someone to claim to be a Briton/English/Scottish/Welsh who is black, white, yellow, brown or red because of their heritage." As the saying goes: A cat born in a stable is not a horse, much less a pedigree racehorse. Someone of obvious Negro origin is clearly not ethnically (genetically) English, even if they do have a piece of card and paper called a British passport—that's Nationality to you, not ethnicity! Please learn that ethnicity is not a chosen option, it's a DNA based heritage, and the article is about the ethnic English not some political left-wing tripe about how someone Negro can be deluded into thinking they are white native English just because some minority worshipping, left-wing Anglo-phobic group may want to include them.

You should post your highly inaccurate and subjective opinions on a Marxist political page, not an ethnicity page. Mixed race people can call themselves what the heck they like, but that does not validate it as a genetic reality, and it has zero effect on the colour of the English peoples' skin. Again, for the umpteenth time, the article is about ethnicity, not political delusions of left-wing minority inclusives or minority supremacists. You are deluding you thoughts and political opinions for physical heritage. Why the heck can't you see the blindingly obvious difference? You may live in Australia, but are clearly blind to the fact that the English see their own every day in the millions and they are light skinned, not Negro or brown despite your Marxist political protestations. You also appear to have a problem with Anglo-Saxons with your obsession with "ancient Britons" and the Welsh. Besides the mountain of other off topic ineffectual material you wrote, it is all hopelessly irrelevant, as the ethnic English are quite obviously light skinned, just as are the ethnic Germans, Scandinavian and native Polish. You can wallow in your Anglo-phobic politics all you like deluding yourself that Kunta Kinte's second cousin was Queen Victorians mum, or whatever absurd political machinations and notions you may conjure up, but your denial of physical reality has clearly lost the plot. English people are light skinned/white northern Europeans, not Negro, brown aborigines, ethnic Japanese, or honey coloured Malaysians, no matter what political labels you can manufacturer. Just as a cat born in a stable is not a racehorse, although your politically correct stance seem to be anyone who calls it a 'cat' is a seething closet Nazi. LOL. Zenjin 11:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading this interesting debate, and without getting into the subject matter, Zenjin is obviously the kind of racist bigot that should be isolated in Wikipedia. By the way, Zenjin, if you want to know about the genetic make up of the English, here you have an interesting map: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf HCC.

I don't think calling people "racist", "Hitler" or "totalitarian" helps the debate about this article at all, it's just personal abuse. I think if the conclusion is that one does not have to be white to be ethnically English then shouldn't this be followed through by adding 'Pakistani', 'Indian' etc. to the 'related ethnic groups' box? Hundreds of thousands migrated from Pakistan and India to this country, it seems inconsistant to add 'Danish' and 'Dutch' but not those as well. Likewise for the 'religion' box.--Johnbull 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we must be respectful. But just read some comments above. I think they are not acceptable. On the other hand, let's go back to the main issue and have a look at the map, because I think that if people here think that genetic lineage is most important in ethnicity then the article does not reflect very well the real lineage of the English. You cannot have it both ways. HCC.