Talk:English people/Archive 13

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

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

re reverts

This and this are not, as written, appropriate for Wikipedia, failing as they do Wikipedia:No original synthesis and being essentially essay-entries. Moreschi (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There has also been a lot of discussion on various pages - one example is here - about the reliability of Stephen Oppenheimer as a source on such matters. His views need to be balanced against the more recent findings of other, more qualified, geneticists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We should replace George Harrison with John Lennon or Paul Mccartney

I never edit Wikipedia and I'm doing a project, but I listen to music and George Harrison is not a very good musicain, John Lennon and Paul Mccartney were the ones in the Beatles who wrote the great songs and sang.

You mean like this or this? Musical preference aside, the pictures are as much based upon availability and quality of image as anything else. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Or this? Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Smokey Robinson, James Brown and Radiohead seemed to think Harrison was pretty decent. Maybe your opinion will be worth more when you write a song that 150 artists cover. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The photo of George Harrison is of good quality, unlike those of Lennon and McCartney. He was a very good musician and song-writer, and his image should not be replaced. We had a consensus before and it was agreed that Harrison's image be used. Anyway, this article is on English people not musicians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal definition of English

Is there any definition of "English" according to British law? Please provide historical examples. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The english are definitely not a nation I GIVE NOTICE of an intention to adjust the article as such. Please discuss if interested. (The English are regarded as an ethnic group in law. The oxford dictionary def. is not relevent to the people of the uk as the act of union created a single nation politically and in every other way.) Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article on nation. You seem to be confusing issues of nationhood and sovereignty - they are not necessarily, and certainly not in the case of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea on wikipedia that the English, Scottish etc. are like nation like the Sioux is not correct, a misunderstanding of the definition of nation you refer to. The English, Scottish etc. became a single nation with the act of union. It was not just a binding of terrortries. Before that they were seperate nations. Everyone in Britain knew this until, I don't know - about 5? 10? years ago, when all of a sudden young leftwing people began to promotet he delusion/(lie in the case of some of them) that England, Wales etc. are seprate nations. The whole POINT of the U.K. is that they aren't. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange, because I'm not that young, not that left wing, and have known all my life that they are nations. They do not suddenly become less of a nation due to a forced political union or in the case of Wales being conquered. Jack forbes (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm neither young nor left-wing, yet I have always heard them referred to as nations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Six Nations has just finished, I believe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that refering to the Engllish etc. as nations is a fallacy, and is therefore unstoppable of course on the wikipedia - which is generally accepted as being unreliable. Although of course some people believed the fallacy in the past, it is a new thing that has only occurred in recent years for a larger number to believe it. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is more than enough cited material to establish that England is a nation, that has priority over your personal views of what should be the case --Snowded ^TALK 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In your faulty opinion. Note: I DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY YOU. Change your high handed and abusive targetting of me for bullying and discrimination or I will begin a complaints procedure against you. I have as much right to edit this site as anyone else. You need to accept that and stop claiming I don't. Stop claiming I am a tenth class citizen on here. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from citation evidence. This matter has been debated and resolved. If you want to raise it again then you will need to deal with the evidence assembled by other editors. If you think its faulty, then assemble evidence. --Snowded ^TALK 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No Winston Churchill?

I'm surprised Winston Churchill’s image isn't in the infobox. He's the greatest Englishman in history if you ask me. John of Lancaster (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

English citizenship?

Shouldn't the article refer to the fact that there is no separate English citizenship or nationality in law? Irvine22 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the lead that England is the largest country of the United Kingdom. There is no point re-iterating that there is no English citizenship. This is also about English people, not England. Jack forbes (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clearly relevant that English people cannot hold English citizenship, as there is no such thing in law. Irvine22 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The information that England is part of the United Kingdom makes your question redundant. For everyones information, Irvine has asked the same question at Welsh people and Scottish people. Jack forbes (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our goal should always be to be as informative as possible to the casual reader. It follows from the fact that England is part of the U.K. that there is no English citizenship and English people are British citizens in law and fact. Irvine22 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from those who don't live in Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I should think that most English people who don't live in Britain would remain British citizens. And then there are of course many people of English descent - Australians, Canadians, Americans etc - who would be neither English or British citizens. Irvine22 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per Welsh People --Snowded ^TALK 01:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What are these "citizens" you speak of? Subjects, all and one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Subjects and citizens. Irvine22 (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Entropy

I have not read this article since I took it off my watch list last summer. I am not impressed by the development of this article.

I think that the comments in the section #undue weight to nationalist groups and some guardian journalist, strange position in the article of the talk pageare not helpful and the rearrangement of the artile is racist (whether done intentionally or by chance). For example take the second paragraph in the lead

The largest single English population live in England, the largest country of the United Kingdom. They are a mixture of several genetically similar peoples. The earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Engla-lond), and the later norse Vikings and Normans.

So this impies that unless you are decended from someone who arrived before or after the Norman Conquest you are not English. That is a racist adjenda and carries a specific racist POV. This can be seen from what was removed from the same paragraph that existed when I last edited this page:

They are generally believed to be a mixture of several groups that have settled in the area, including Britons (or Brythons), Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. More recent migrants to England include people from Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and from many other countries, mostly within the Commonwealth. Some of these more recent migrants and their descendants have assumed a solely British or English identity, while others have developed dual or hyphenated identities.

-- PBS (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I hadn't picked up that change - I agree with your point, and have now modified the lede. The para which you say was deleted is in fact still there, but in the "Nationality" section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, but it reads like a bit of a fudge. Here, I think Irvine's point about no single English legal identity could be used to indicate that English is not a legally or formally defined thing - that is neither an ethnic nationality nor a civic nationality. A much better intro might read:

The English (from Old English: Englisc) are people from, or descended from residents of, England. This identity is often considered both a nationality or an ethnic group. The English identity as a people is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn. England is now a country of the United Kingdom, and the majority of English people in England are British Citizens.

Historically, the indigenous English population were descended from several genetically similar peoples - the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Engla-lond), and the later norse Vikings and Normans. Following the Act of Union in 1707, in which the Kingdom of England became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, English customs and identity became closely aligned with British customs and identity. Today, there remains no formal English citizenship and many English people are descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and the Commonwealth. Through their position at the centre of the British Empire, the English peoples are the source of the English language, the Parliamentary system, common law systems in many countries and a variety of the globe's most popular sports.

I hope this isn't too much 'anti-English identity' - it's not intended to be - but hopefully its a fair and neutral over-view. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The only point in that I would question is the need for the phrase "..there remains no formal English citizenship.." which, personally, I think is unnecessary in the lede. But it reads much better than the current version (by which I mean this version, not any of the subsequently vandalised versions). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ghmyrtle, this is after all about the English people not England. Otherwise its an improvement and if we can get rid of the vandalism it would be a step forwards --Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to one of Snowdeds versions, but if anyone wants to revert it further to Ghmyrtles version then please do so. Jack forbes (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the broad support - I've tentatively inserted my version. I've removed the 'no formal English citizenship' line, but I think it is worth considering explaining somehow that English is not - anywhere - a legally defined thing (unlike many nationalities/ethnicities etc). This has implication for who is/isn't considered 'English'.Pretty Green (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The question of citizenship has been discussed before on this page - the majority view (with one notable objector) was that it would be better addressed at the article on England rather than in this article, which covers a set of people who do not necessarily live within that area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I appreciate it has been discussed and I appreciate the argument that 'English people' does not necessarily cover 'people in England'. However, the article described 'English' as a nationality. Now whilst nationalities are not inherently related to citizenship, they often are. I would have thought it worth stating that the nationality of English is not what many social scientists would call a 'civic nationality'; rather, if considered a nationality, it is an 'ethnic nationality' (contrast to say Emirati people which would probably be defined as a civic rather than ethnic nationality). --Pretty Green (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nation is used a lot in Wikipedia without the need to explain it each time. The lede says that England is a country within the UK so there is no ambiguity surely?--Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that I'd push and Wikipedia works by consensus, which exists, so that's fine. I just felt, when reading the article, that one of the causes for the wordy explanation in the intro, which delves into history and then explains that contemporary Englishness encompasses more than this, is the absence of an explanation that there is no formal definition of 'English people' in law anywhere (that I am aware of). Pretty Green (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI I made the 3rr report on our edit waring IP --Snowded ^TALK 17:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Green: "Wikipedia works by consensus, which exists, so that's fine." - I've observed the wikipedia for at least 6 years and that's not correct. It works by the authoritarian command of a clique of users. This has long been established. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is a problem: "English customs and identity became closely aligned with British customs and identity." because if true it is the wrong way around: "Many British customs and identity have became closely aligned with English customs and identity". When flying to the states British people have to be told what their nationality is (because the Americans want the nationality of the passport not the person). As for customs taking just the example: Betty's visit to Parliament for the Queen's Speech. Almost everything that is called a British tradition that pre-dates the union and many since are English traditions, where there are traditions in other parts of the Union they are identified with that region eg no one talks about a man dressed in a kilt as wearing traditional British dress. And those who march on 12 July to commemorate a very important "British" victory are not called British in the news media (or Wikipedia) but Orangemen "the Orangemen continued to march on 12 July which,..."(Battle of the Boyne). -- PBS (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your points there, but the intended sense of the that was that English customs and traditions have come to be considered British customs and traditions, which I don't think is contentious and which is what your first example suggests. Perhaps Customs associated with the English largely became associated with the wider British identity? The Orangemen is a slightly different issue but might reinforce the point - it is not described as British because it is inherently associated with NIreland and not England. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to differentiate between English political culture - according to the Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe, essentially parliamentary sovereignty andcommon law - which have become more or less interwined with British political culture, and English secular culture, which is more arguable. The same source describes English secular culture as rooted in Anglicanism and English literature, the national sports (football and cricket) and love of the countryside. The Scots and the Welsh have different religious, literary, and (with the exception of football) sporting customs.Pondle (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Orangeman is not a nationality, but a religious/political order founded by the Anglicans in Ireland in the late 18th century to unite the different Protestant denominations and social classes against the Irish Catholics. It is loosely based on the structure of the Masonic lodges, and most of the Orangemen self-identify as 'British.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the "historical indigenous English" desdended from Anglo-Saxons etc? How and when did they dissapper? Who replaced them to become today's English people? Are you saying that there was a huge demographic change in the White portion of the English population after 1066? It sounds rather confusing. If no-one knows about the origins of the white English people origins then they should say the "origins of the White population of the English ethnic group is unknown rather than write something to make it sound like there has been a huge genocide or emigration of the "Anglo-Saxons". That sentence is the most badly-written and misleading and confusing in the whole article. Yes, there has been Germanic-speaking kingdoms ruled by Anglo-Saxon monarchs but we don't know about the population of those territories at the time. Please change that silly statement and say that nobody knows the origins of the White people as Eruopean immigration has not been documented.86.156.199.108 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Genetically similar peoples

What does that mean? The Celts and Germans were two distinct groups of Indo-Europeans. Also the section Anglo-Celtic states that the main ancestral English were not Anglo-Celtic but palaeolithic, who pre-dated the emergence of Celts and Germans. The lead should be corrected. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What English ethnicity really is.

Ancestry does not come into ethnicity in the case of the English, otherwise only people of pure "Anglo-Saxon" origin would be classified an they are very, very few in number or non-existant, as there has been contanstant immigration into England throughout the centuries. Geography, being born and living all your life in England, is not really enough. I think that it is cultural. You are ethnically English by culture.

All those 'English Americans' are not English at all as they were not born here or live here. YOu have to be (geographically) English to be part of the English ethnic group. Ancestry from esrlier, indigenous "Anglo-Saxon" English people is not enough. The English have changed since then, for the better.

To those who think that the British Asians are (culturally) as English as the 'Whites', or English people of Eruopean origin who have lived here for many generations, yes you are geographically as English as they are because you were born and lived in England all your life. However, British Asians, generally, especially British Pakistanis tend to live in communities or areas of cities and towns where other people of Pakistani or Asian origin live. They have conserved their culture, yes, which is rich and beautiful. But it is not reduced to festivals where folk dancing might take place, as might happen with Ukrainian Americans, for example. Traditional Pakistani culture form a part of British or English Pakistani peoples everyday lives, and they disregard the English culture already here and set themselves apart from English people of non-Asian origin. Therefore, British Asians, by their choice have set themselves apart from the rest of the English or British population. A few even consider their religion (Islam) to be more important than the country they live in. Most British Asians do not consider themselves to be English (culture, and perhap even ancestry) but British (citizenship). Yes a few do pride themselves to be English (geographical) which is good. Some even want to adopt English culture completely and live among English people of other origins and intemarrying. They would be (culturally) English, therefore part of English ethnicity. But the answer would be that to be part of the English ethnic group, you must be both geographically and culturally English. Ancestry is only a consequence of intermarriage with an English person with more distant ancestry in England.

The European immigrants who came, such as the Poles or Italians, actually adopted English culture and immersed themselves in it, living with and intermarrying with the other English people. Yes, their original culture was similar, but they wanted to be accepted as English, not face discrimination or alienation and adapted.

However, some people might say that the Asian culture as practised by British Asians is just as English as the 'White' (I never like that term) or English culture of Eruopean origin. The English culture of European origin has been in England for almost 2 thousand years, Asian culture has only been in England for 50 years. Yes, you might say that White English people have adopted Asian culture, but there is a difference between having chicken tikka masala or curry once every week, and being fully immersed in Asian culture as British or English Asians are.

Supporting the England team does not mean you are culturally English. British Asians are indeed (geographically) English, as they identify with England for the say Spain. Therefore it is natural and normal that they suppport England against another country. Geographically, the English come from many cultures, Asian, Chinese and English. The other European cultures are generally practised by foreign-born European immigrants and honoured by their now English children and grandchildren as family heritage, but otherwise practise English culture.

British ASians are indeed free and welcome to live their lifestyle and practise their culture, but do not insult the English people whose families have lived here for many, many generations or whose immigrant ancestors came alone and fought to live here without any family with them to support them. They assimilated through difficulties. Do not insult them by saying that you are (culturally) as English as they are or your Asian culture is as English as their (original 'White') English culture. Your ancestors did not have the difficulties settling here because you came in groups with your family to support you.

But the answer would be that to be part of the English ethnic group, you must be both geographically and culturally English. Ancestry is only a consequence of intermarriage with an English person with more distant ancestry in England.

You have your beautiful Asian culture you can enjoy, the White and Black English people enjoy their English cultures.

It is important for (culturally and ancestrally or 'White') English people to respect British Asians and their culture but it is important for British Asians to respect other (culturally) English people, White or Black, by not belittling their culture. 'White' English culture have existed for many centuries, evolving, and is an important part of the English identity and English ethnic group. Both Black and White (culturally) English people who abhorr racism or any kind might not like their culture to be presented as less English than Asian culture.

If English symbols or shows of pride in English culture offend you, than it is because racists who want all non-White people out of England, usurp them to use against Asians and indeed Black people who are (culturally) English. These racists are terrible and present English ethnicity in a very bad light. It is natural to want to reclaim English identity and culture by including all English people of all cultures into the English ethnicity. However, English culture is open to ALL races. It is not the preserve of Whites, even though it is of European origin. Black English people have a variation of English culture in which the music is similar to Afro-American music, rap, hip hop, language is English but slightly different. They are variations of English culture, like the regional ones. But they are recognisably English, not completely different. Asian culture is completely different. Only adapted foods like curry and chicked tikka masala have been adopted into 'White' English culture.

This is what being English is about, not only geography but culture.86.156.199.108 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the Talk page is full of POWs of the different users. But you don't tell them off. Why because you agree with what they say and not with what I say. And some of the talk I find is horrible because it excludes many people from the English ethnic group because they have Welsh or Irish ancestry, even though they practised and contributed English culture and are important English figures. I include everybody, just that there is this evolving English culture and to be English, you must integrate with English people of other origins and adopt their culture.

It is important to respect other peoples views. I read other POW, might not agree with them. But I don't shout at someone or belittle their POWs just because I don't agree with them. However, I give my POW in a polite manner, without using an abusive or ridiculing attitude. It is against the rules to ridicule an idea you might not agree with.

If you don't agree with my idea, I respect that. Everyone is different in their opinions. But the polite thing to do is let people express their opinioins as long as it doesn't express hatred towards a group or threaten them with abusive language or attitude. I showed an appreciation for British Asians and their beautiful culture. I have said that it is nice that they support the England team, but they are not part of the English cultural group as they have a culture of their own which is different and thats what makes them unique. I think that Asian culture to exist along side English culture makes England the wonderful country it is.

I present my ideas in a nice way. Please respect my an other peoples ideas. It does not help to attack people because they do not think like you.86.156.199.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

I did not "tell you off", "ridicule" you, or "attack" you - I drew your attention to guidance, which I had no way of knowing whether or not you had seen. The fact remains that this page is not a forum for opinions, except in relation to the content of the article itself. If you have constructive views on how to improve the article, by all means pass them on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry. The article is OK as it is, by the way. Thanks for your advice.86.156.199.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

So why did you change the article a few minutes later? Please don't, until you win a consensus of opinion here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Re article's introduction

"The English are people from, or descended from residents of, England." This can't be correct. It would mean that anyone who lived for a while in England would be English and someone who was the kid of a couple who had only Scottish ancestors since before the Roman occupation but who had been resident in England a day, would be English.

"This identity is often considered both a nationality or an ethnic group." I accept that people don't want the wikipedia to be an encyclopedia but instead a club for friends, but until all claims that the wikipedia is an encyclopedia are removed from it and its publicicty campaigns, then there should be some listing of the status of the error/fallacy of the idea that there is such a thing as an English nationality.

"... the majority of English people in England are British Citizens." This is misleading. You can't be English unless you're British. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Following the Act of Union in 1707, in which the Kingdom of England became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, " This is ambiguous for people who're trying to find out about England, foreigners etc. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist.

"English customs and identity became closely aligned with British customs and identity." This is too political and incorrect/misleading. It's a bit of an insult to the Scots for example. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Through their position at the centre of the British Empire, the English peoples are the source of the English language, the Parliamentary system, common law systems in many countries and a variety of the globe's most popular sports." Again this is political opinion and racially biased. All British people, Scots etc. were involved in the Empire - and effects on the world of parliamentary system, sports ect. were not just done by the English.

"English peoples" is wrong. There's only one English people. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph about the origins of the English people, ie 'desdended from Anglo-Saxons, etc,', should be removed. This is speculative information. Historically, the indigenous English people were descended from similary genetic peoples etc. is just silly and misleading. This is not about the English of the past. This is about today's English people and their culture and contribution to humanity. Instead of making an assuption that the "Anglo-Saxon" population of the past was wiped out and replaced by later European immigrants, as nobody knows for sure about the genetic history of the English. Why mention it if know one knows.

Look at the article for the other European ethnic groups. Nothing is said about who or which Dark-Age Germanic, Celtic or other tribes they are descended from. Whether they are descended from other immigrants. Nobody knows as Eruopean immigration before around 1950 was not documented or analysed. Therefore, if someone else does not removed that silly statement, I might. Also, the article isn't about the history of immigration into the country. Well, it is not so importat to be in the introducutry section. Englishness is not about ancestry. It is about a nation. Who cares who they are descended from? In fact I shall removed it now.86.156.199.108 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of info is not a great idea. This does not constitute a discussion or a consensus. I suggest you seek both before deleting entire paragraphs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "Relationship to Britishness" section

"Another complication in defining the English is a common tendency for the words "English" and "British" to be used interchangeably." This isn't a "complication in defining the English". It's known and always has been known what English means.

"Kumar suggests that although this blurring is a sign of England's dominant position with the UK, it is also "problematic for the English [...] when it comes to conceiving of their national identity. It tells of the difficulty that most English people have of distinguishing themselves, in a collective way, from the other inhabitants of the British Isles"." I don't think this racist claim of this Kumar bloke should be in the article. English people don't have any "difficulty [in] distinguishing themselves, in a collective way, from the other inhabitants of the British Isles"." Anyway material such as this has been declared as "banter" by the authorities of the wikipedia which must be removed without discussion.

"Writer Paul Johnson has suggested that like most dominant groups, the English have only demonstrated interest in their ethnic self-definition when they were feeling oppressed." Ditto this racism. The English are not a dominant group, other British people have and have had equal rights. And the second part of the sentence is just the usual anti-English paranoid racism. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reading racism where there isn't any. By dominant, Taylor does not mean that the English have more rights than the Welsh or Scots, he means (amongst other things) that the English form the the majority of the UK population. His assertion that ethnic groups assert their identity when feeling oppressed is neither paranoid nor racist, it is a common observation that people have a stronger sense of identity when that identity comes under threat. Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about Taylor and unfortunately you've misunderstood my points. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was thrown by your use of the phrase "the historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote". Unfortunately you never finished the sentence and I assumed you meant he said what followed. Anyway, the point still stands that you're seeing racism where there isn't any and you've not understood what is meant by "dominant group". Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise. You must've been writing while I was still writing my post and taking that bit out. It was left in by mistake. Re your points. I don't see racism where there isn't any. Kumar and Johnson are both being discriminatory against the English. I call that racism because U.K. law does. (I've already explained why I think they're being discriminatory.) I made no comment about any dominant position of England in the Union in general, just on the paragraphs I quoted.

The paragraph didn't say: "ethnic groups assert their identity when feeling oppressed" and "that people have a stronger sense of identity when that identity comes under threat.", it said: "Johnson has suggested that like most dominant groups, the English have only demonstrated interest in their ethnic self-definition when they were feeling oppressed". This is obviously untrue and is obviously discriminatory. The English have no "problem" with their "identity". They know they're English and British, like any other group in the U.K. The idea that they have a "problem" is just a leftwing delusion/fantasy - a fashion. We never get any of this stuff with articles about Scottish people etc. (See for example the Scottish People, Welsh People, Irish People articles.) But it's always this approach of criticism of them in any article related to the English. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But this is just your personal opinion about the issue. As you can see from the quotes, the idea that the English have an identity problem is something that is often said in published books. If you think the section is biased, why not find some published authors who believe that the English DO have a concrete sense of their distinctiveness. Add some quotes from them into the section. Then the article can better express the diversity of opinion about this issue. Otherwise you're just saying "I have political differences with these authors, therefore they must go." Cop 663 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, Kumar isn't being racist, he's just saying the muddling of English and British is a common occurrence. The article quotes several other authors making the same point. If you disagree, find some published authors who believe that the English DO have a concrete sense of their distinctiveness. Then the article can better express the diversity of opinion about this issue.Cop 663 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC) BTW, I moved the Johnson quote to the section on resurgent English nationalism, as it seemed to make more sense there.Cop 663 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm English/British and use the two terms interchangeably - I don't have a split personality with regard to my nationality, and don't regard myself as having two nationalities or anything like that. Obviously, I also understand that the term British includes Scots and Welsh (etc.) whereas English doesn't, but being English the distinction doesn't bother me in the slightest. The English created the British identity, so it's no surprise that the two terms - for the English at least - are indistinguishable. Indeed, to try and create such a distinction is completely artificial. ðarkun coll 17:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Moi aussi. Cop 663 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The term British was used to describe people within the Empire well into the twentieth century. Until the 1961 Nationality Act, there was no distinction between British subjects born in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for restructuring article: please comment

Hello. The article at present has a rather clumsy structure (sections of 'ethnicity' and 'nationality' followed by a 'history' section) which results in a lot of repetition. For example, the stuff about whether or not the English are genetically similar to the Celts is given twice, in different ways, as is the stuff about the birth of the English nation, and the stuff about Englishness versus Britishness. To understand either subject well, the reader needs to jump back and forth between both sections.

I think it might be better to merge the 'ethnicity' and 'nationality' sections into the 'history' section. This would be easier to read, and would make clearer the way these subjects are related to historical changes.

I have created a draft, which you can read here.

User:Cop 663/English

Note that I have not changed any of the information: I have simply rearranged what exists already. Neither am I trying to push an agenda. I'm just concerned about clarity and readability. If you have comments or objections, please offer them. It's only a suggestion. Cop 663 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am against this reordering. For a start phrases like "and their relationship with the Romano-British is a matter of debate, and the notion of the English as descending primarily from Anglo-Saxon ..." implies to be English means "descending primarily from Anglo-Saxon" and a reader has to read to the end to understand what English means today. If one assumes that the English are a nation then the history becomes a national myth to support the concept of the English a nation, and it does not really matter how accurate the myth is, basically "1066 and all that".

What I an much more in a mind to do is put back the ordering of the sections first Nation and then Ethnic group. Put back in those quotes on nationality that have been stripped out and remove the history from the ethnic section and then merge the sections Nation and Ethnic group. -- PBS (talk)

I don't think it's fair to say that the restructuring promotes some kind of 'national myth'; the article very clearly states the numerous arguments against simplistic identification of the English with Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, there is a national myth of the English along those lines, and we have to describe and refer to it, whether we agree with it or not.

I do agree, however, that leaving modern sense of Englishness to the end is problematic, but the trouble is that there are multiple definitions of Englishness, and a sense of the history is necessary to actually explain them clearly.

You proposal is thoughtful though, and I would be interested to read a draft to get a better sense of what your ideas would look like in practice. Cheers, Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that your proposal promotes a national myth, it is that history is one part of what defines a nation and a national history does not have to be accurate, indeed usually accurate histories tend to undermine all national histories. For example Waterloo, is more complicated and interesting than the pop histories that are taught about it in schools and shown on TV tend to explain. Nevertheless Waterloo as depicted in Sharp is a fairly accurate picture of how the Battle is viewed in Britain. The point is that history does not define what it is to be English, it is just a facet of a shared identity. At least as important is the concepts behind common law a opposed to codified law. This tends to have a profound effect on how an individual their relationship with other people and the state. Likewise its Betty's government, not the peoples, government which means that English person's view of the state starts from a very different place from say a Frenchman's. The place they end up may be similar but the underlying world view is different. I was amused to her a Kiwi woman who supports the NZ government's drive to take the drinking age up to twenty misunderstand an opponent who called it a nanny state measure. She took that to mean grandmother state, and said she often took the advise of her nanny. I have never heard an English person jump to that meaning of nanny, because English people automatically think of Victorian type nanny in an upper class household. Of course many English people call one of the their grandmothers nanny, but because the term nanny was bought into politics by the Conservatives, they obviously meant the Victorian nanny because the English nearly all believe that the current leadership of the Conservative party had that sort of nanny in their nurseries.

This sort of thing permutes the language and is not usually commented on, for example others may have kings and emperors who are at times described as kings and emperors of nations (king of the Scots, King of the Germans, and Emperor of the French) but since the conquest it has always been "King of England" not "King of the English", the king (or queen) is the landlord and everyone within the kingdom are tenants (see Fee simple). When Victoria became "Empress of India" I suspect no one even considered that she could be an Empress of a nation (people) and not of a country/land. It is these sort of shared assumptions that help to forge a national identity.

The point I am making is that history is only one facet that goes into defining what English means, and a foreigner should not have to read through the history of the English before they get to a definition of what constitutes the English people. -- PBS (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you seem to think the purpose of the article is to "get to a definition of what constitutes the English people". I disagree; surely the article's purpose is to explain the various ways in which the English are defined, not to arrive at the best one. That's why I think the current introductory section is messy and repetitive: it's trying to do something huge and complex in as few words as possible. I'm all for describing the 'other facets' that go into English identity besides history, but that doesn't mean we need to begin the essay with a simplistic introduction. Am I crazy? Cop 663 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

undue weight to nationalist groups and some guardian journalist, strange position in the article

I don't think the section 'English nationality' belongs anywhere near the top of the page as it is a mostly a side-note about contemporary politics. The 'English Democrats' and this journalist are entitled to their opinion but a long quote from each? no. I'm sure the communist parties have something interesting to say about Englishness too.

The ethnic aspects are largely duplicated from the ethnicity section and really should be integrated there.

I will add that the statement: 'most political English nationalists do not consider Englishness to be a form of kinship' with or without my changes is unsourced (what is given only refers to one group) and will need to be removed if better sources cannot be found. So I'll add a "citation needed" for that. I moved the section, with no information actually being removed. I am going to revise the section again to make the very necessary changes as before, but I will keep it in its original place until the information can be reorganised.

It is really beyond dispute that this article is written like a personal reflection or essay so I am going to add that header. This whole article needs to be tidied up and stripped down.Urpunkt (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify precisely what your concerns are about "the whole article". It is an article to which many editors have contributed, with the resulting fault, in my view, that it does not hang together very well. It is also an article over which strong views exist about its scope and content. So, it would be preferable to sketch out areas of concern here first, see whether other editors agree, and then proceed to making changes where there is a consensus to do so - rather than taking on the article single-handedly. I question the need for the "essay" tag, but won't revert for the time being. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle, the article doesn't read like a personal reflection, it reads like a mishmash of different stuff by different people (which may be inevitable, given the subject matter). I also agree that Urkpunkt should outline the overall problems. However, I do agree with Urpunkt that the 'English nationality' bit is not very clear or well cited, and would make more sense following on from the ethnicity section. Cop 663 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the essay tag as it is clearly inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"However, I do agree with Urpunkt that the 'English nationality' bit is not very clear or well cited, and would make more sense following on from the ethnicity section." please explain why you do not think that nation should be first. -- PBS (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Entropy 2

After the the discussion above in the section #Entropy the same process is at work again:

Edit by 86.156.199.108 Revision as of 16:04, 9 May 2010 Made the sentence nonsensical.
The very next edit by user:Gaius Octavius Princeps Revision as of 20:33, 10 May 2010 removed the sentence as nonsensical.

It seems to me that the heavy vandalism and other inappropriate edits by IP addresses to this page is making it unstable, so I am protecting the page. This is not the fist time it has been protected for actions by IP addresses so I will set the protection to three months. I will revert the protection if there is in my judgement a consensus among established editors that it should be reverted. -- PBS (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

18:39, 22 June 2010 Gaius Octavius Princeps (Undid revision 368785197 by Philip Baird Shearer undo contentius addition. This needs discussed first)
21:24, 22 June 2010 Philip Baird Shearer(reverted out last change. The sentence was put into the article after a consensus was reached on the talk page. Se Talk:English_people#Entropy. Discuss ion the talk page get consnsus bfre removal.)

Reverted out last change by user:Gaius Octavius Princeps. The sentence was put into the article after a consensus was reached on the talk page. See Talk:English people#Entropy. Your reason given for deleting it last time was after an editor using an IP address had made the sentence "nonsensical" you removed it. I presumed that was because you had not looked at the history of the article and not that you disagreed with the wording of the original sentence.

Why do you think that the current wording of the sentence:

Today, many English people are descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and the Commonwealth.[1]

--is contentious? PBS (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article "23:39, 22 June 2010 Gaius Octavius Princeps (I do not see any agreement or discussion on the sentence you have added. A contentious addition that has no place in the opening paragraph of the article and is anyway covered later in the article)"

You have not answered my question why is the wording of the sentence contentious?
Consensus was reached see in the section "Thanks for the broad support - ... This has implication for who is/isn't considered 'English'.Pretty Green (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)"
See the second and third sentence in WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". -- PBS (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS alerted me to this. I stand by what I said earlier - that the statement is not contentious in itself and is supported by references further in the article. This reference alone [2], with the note that "As many as 6 million people in the UK have an Irish grandfather or grandmother" is enough, for me, to warrant the claim. The sentence effectively summarises the 'recent migrations' section of the page. That said, the lead as a whole is fairly poor! Pretty Green (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur its not contentious and I have restored it --Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

English vs. White

The demographics box says that the English population of England is 45.26 million. The "White British" population of England, noted in the England article, is 45.27 million. Does this mean what only .01 of the White British population of England is not English? Considering the amount of immigration from Ireland and continental Europe, that seems rather unlikely.

If "English" does describe a unique immigrant group, it seems to be one full of contradictions. First, it appears to include any white person who lives in England regardless of whether they or their ancestors were born there. Second, it completely ignores the "Mixed Race" population - would a person with three English grandparents and one Jamaican grandparent, for example, not be considered English anymore, even though it comprises the majority of that person's heritage? This is also complicated by the English American population, which would include anyone in the United States who reports any English ancestry even if it isn't the only or even the predominant part of their heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.119.190 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

On census forms there is an ethnicity choice between "White British" and "White Irish", there is no provision for being both. As I, and many others, am a mixture of British and Irish ancestry this tends to downplay hugely the Irish ethnic element in Britain. I tick both boxes just to be accurate and to register my distaste of the whole ethnicity enquiry.Urselius (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the figure from the infobox. It seems to be the result of original research, and if I follow the logic in the footnote, the calculation is actually the number of English people in the UK as a whole, not just England. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.147.174.245, 2 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please Change "Scotch" to "Scottish" or "Scotts" because...

Scotch is an alchoholic drink and only an alchoholic drink, albeit one of Scottish origin. The people of Scotland can only be referred to as Scottish or its common abrieviation, Scotts.

This is common mistake which frequently annoys Scottish people.

Thank-you.

83.147.174.245 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The word "scotch" appears twice only in a quote. For obvious reasons the quote cannot be altered, otherwise it wouldn't be a quote. Though thanks for being bold and requesting the change. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Migration and ethnicity

I removed some material from the section on migration and ethnicity. The article's introduction states that it is about the English as an ethnic group, so presenting data on the overall population from different ethnic groups in England isn't really appropriate here. This material belongs at England instead. Also, some of the migration material related to the UK as a whole rather than to England, and it wasn't clear how recent migration related to the topic of English people. While many migrants have, of course, assimilated into an English idendity, others haven't and therefore don't generally consider themselves to be English. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also added some material on ethnic minorities and their relationship with English versus British identities. Comments are welcome on how to further improve this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Population

Why are figures of the English population in places like South Africa listed in the info box as the count up to roughly 2 000 000 people, which is more than places like NZ which are listed--Scottykira (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What?--Kurtle (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference for resurgence of English identity

I'm not convinced that the BBC reference provided is the best source for a claim about a resurgence in English identity. I replaced it with an academic reference, though it has now been added again. While I welcome additional references (particularly since one has to have access to the journal in order to read the source I added), I'm not sure that the claims of an SNP politician are the best source for a statement of fact about the rise of English national identity. There are all sorts of reasons why he might have said such a thing, including to promote the idea that the UK should be broken up, and I don't think we can consider him an NPOV source. What would be better would be actual survey data on English identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening "now". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the age of the reference is a problem, since it is being used in support of a claim about the rise in national identity in the late 1990s. Perhaps that needs to be reworded to "since the late 1990s", though, because I think that's what it intended. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for better sources, perhaps this is worth using? It notes that "Most of the decline in British identity is taking place in England, where once again less than half of the population now says that 'British' is the best or only way to describe their identity. Fifteen years ago, fully 63% of people living in England went for the British identity options. Today the figure is down to 48%. The proportion who opt more naturally for an English identity is commensurately on the rise". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the most recent British Social Attitudes survey is here, although it specifically refers only to attitudes in England and Scotland towards devolution and Scottish independence. It says: "Support for the idea of an English Parliament has increased from 17% in 2007 to 29% now. The proportion who think England should continue to be governed by the UK Parliament has now fallen below half (49%) for the first time, and is well down on the 69% who were of that view in 1999." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I've made use of that source and some others to expand and hopefully improve this section of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked it - including the heading, as the opening paragraph of the section questions whether there is a "resurgence". What should we say about the conflicting evidence of the two 2007 surveys - one giving 61% support for an English Parliament, the other one only 17%? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, Kumar notes that support varies according to the way the question is framed. Perhaps the 61 per cent poll simply asked whether people wanted a parliament or not, whereas the 17 per cent one presented them with a range of options and most people went from something short of an English parliament? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now replaced the source for the Newsnight poll with the original BBC article, and it did simply pose people with a yes/no/undecided choice, whereas I imagine that the BSA question was more nuanced. The BSA question also forms part of a much larger survey, in which people are perhaps more considered in their views than they would be in a poll solely on an English parliament. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the text needs a (non-OR) explanation of the range - reading it, the text goes from 16-19%, to 61%, to 17% (rising to 29%), referring to different sources - which is certainly confusing. Should there be a sentence stating simply: "Recent surveys of English identity have given widely varying conclusions" - or similar. The 61% figure stands out as odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit makes things a bit clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

CL you asked for a citaion at 21:36 on 8 February 2011, I supplied one at 22:21. I am not sure why you asked for a citation because you could have used the footnote 16 but I assumed that you wanted some other person than Krishan Kumar who is already cited for that information in another section. Yet when you replaced my citation you chose to use yet another citation by KK. It seems to me that it does not hurt the article to have another sources as well as KK making the assertion, which is plain to see from the change of usage of flags by English supporters of English national teams during the 1990s. While I agree with what you have said about statistical data there is no reason why opinion pieces from reliable sources should not be used as well and a as I said in my comment when I re-added it "No need to delete one citation just to replace it with another. Political Scots are probably a good weathervane for English nationalism".

Ghmyrtle you wrote "I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening 'now'." Anything in the last 30 years is recent for a nation that has existed for well over 1,000 years. The change took place in the 1990s but that is still recent, and I do not think it should be changed to since the 1990s. The change started to happen after Maggy's victory in 1979 and the regional polarisation of MPs during the 1980s. The Scots couldn't stand her and that started to open up a divisions that exist to day.

The survey date is probably not the best to tackle this issue, a lot of it concerns specific situations, in the Commonwealth Games England is represented, but in the Olympics it is Britain as the questions during those events and the answer would probably be different. Take the example of Andy Murry in tennis, the talk is always about 75 years since the last British (no talk about the last Scotsman). Of course the London media is very good at claiming English when it an English man or Woman and saying Briton when the person is from the Celtic fringe.

As for support for an English Parliament. The current Westminster parliament is the English parliament, because it has carried through all the privileges and traditions of the English parliament (and not those of the others). The pantomime of Black Rod at the opening of a parliament being one of the more flamboyant ones. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether the Kumar book attributes a rise in English identity to devolution, so I didn't want to use that as a source. I haven't replaced it with another Kumar article, but with an article from the Economist. I'm somewhat confused by your recent edit because your new wording suggests that the rise having been caused by devolution is a fact, whereas the material later on makes it clear that not everyone agrees that this is the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've checked the footnote you suggested above and it is a reference to a book called The Rise of English National Identity, published by Cambridge University Press in 1997. I can't for the life of me find any record of this book existing. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my inaccurate edit summary - I hadn't realised PBS had commented here. Anyway, I've reverted his changes - I can't see any way in which they are more encyclopedic, helpful or accurate than Cordless Larry's version earlier, which I support. Statements from 9 years ago are just that - in discussing the current position and recent developments, they are of historic interest only. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, regarding this edit, I wonder if the phrase "non-English MPs" is potentially confusing. It's not the identity of the MP but the constituency they represent that matters, and an English MP and an MP representing an English-constituency are slightly different things. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree - done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is with the sentence "A rise in English self-consciousness has resulted, with increased use of the English flag". What is the article saying this is a result of? The West Lothian question, or the actions of the Campaign for an English Parliament, or something else? A change of wording needs to clear this up. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the sentence cites Kumar, so what he said needs to be identified more clearly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is to the apparently non-existent Kumar book. I presume that it should be to his The Making of English National Identity (CUP, 2003) but, not having a copy, it's hard to verify exactly what he says. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statements from 9 years ago are relevant for things that append in the 1990s. I wonder how you think that anything that happened 10 years ago is not current on a history that stretches over 1,000 years. Ghmyrtle I was going to revert your revert because I had made some other changes in separated edits to which you had not commented, but I see that CL has already done so.

I reverted the start of the section to that which was there yesterday I am more than willing to discuss alternative wording (although devolved powers just the most obvious manifestation of nationalism in the other parts of Great Britain (Ireland is somewhat different) that the English have been reacting to. As I explained in the edit history "some commentators" implies most do not agree yet no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited.

As to the link to the footnote I gave it was an assumption of good faith to a footnote on the same issue not because I have checked it recently. However a little browsing turned up this and a little create use of search facility for "Jeremy Paxman" and other terms allows the pages in the book to be read, so it was a simple dating mistake. I have now fixed that and reformatted all the other Kumar in-citations. -- PBS (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PBS, regarding your point that "no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited", I've taken a look again at the sources and you're correct that they don't really deny that there has been a rising identification with Englishness (though the Condor et al. reference denies that there has been a decline in Britishness in England). What I have more of a problem with, though, is the material introduced in your edit that attributes this to devolution ("spurred by devolution in the 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales"). This is something that several of the sources dispute. Can I therefore suggest that we go for a first sentence of "The late 1990s saw a resurgence of English national identity". This can be supported by the Kumar book and the Economist article. We then have a sentence about the survey data, and then the third sentence can read "Some commentators have attributed this to the devolution in the late 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, although others question whether devolution has in fact led to a rise in English national identity and argue that survey data fails to portray the complex nature of national identities, with many people considering themselves both English and British". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above I am not wedded to the previous wording but when changing something just added, that one thinks is incorrect, it is better to revert to the original than to put in yet a third set of words. So I did not introduce anything I reverted to the previous wording that I happen to think is better than the current wording. The point is that devolution is a manifestation of rising nationalism in the other parts of the UK and the rising of nationalism in England is a reaction to that. The reassertion of English nationalism is reactive not proactive, and the best indication of the rise in Englishness is the rise in the use of the Cross of Saint George which up until the 1990s had been relegated to use on some Anglican Churches depending on which was their patron saint. Now the Cross of Saint George flies everywhere when an English national team is playing football, a generation ago (1966 world cup) it was the union flag. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what do you think about my suggested wording above? I think we can expand upon the flags point at the same time as clarifying the Kumar claim about this (see below). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That last point should have read "(see above)", obviously. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sources dispute that rise in English nationalism was a reaction to the rise in nationalism in Scotland and Wales of which devolution is the most concrete example? With an unsophisticated general Google search it is easy to find papers that support that interpretation Here are some political sources that says it was.[3][4](page 10) [5]

Here is a paper taken from a search of ac.uk: Sheila Watson (lecturer in the Department of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester): ‘England expects’: Nelson as a symbol of local and national identity

However, research in the Norfolk Nelson Museum suggests that a debate is taking place at a local level about what it means to be English and museums are one of the public places where symbols of English national identity are being re-examined and re-interpreted. ... Thus English identity rooted in a white past could be seen as being constructed in opposition to ethnic minority identity in a multicultural present. However, this is too simple an interpretation. Within the museum devolution was also cited as a reason for an increased English self awareness along with a grievance that the English are not allowed to take pride in history if it means offending another country (here the French).
— pages 144,145 (last and first paragraphs)

The paper makes a number of other points including:

This
general conflation of Britain and England which is common everywhere in England is well
documented (for example, Kumar 2003: 234, Colls 2002: 377)
— page 141

A search on "The English Question" also throws up a lot of papers. this one gives an overview. As include the "West Lothian Question" perhaps we could tease out the rise of English Nationalism and separate out the constitutional question with a paragraph on "The English Question".

--PBS (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Condor et al. paper suggests that the rise in English identity at the expense of British identity that was expected as a result of devolution has not materialised. The Kenny et al. paper also dates the rise in identification with Englishness to before devolution. I agree that most commentators put it down to devolution, but that point is that not all do. We need a wording that conveys that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See also this on the trend predating devolution. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The implementation of devolution took place under the last labour government but that was not when the question was first raised at a national level for example the discussions that bought about the West Lothian Question happened back in November 1977. Devolution has been an issue since the 1970s. AFAICT was not until then that that the inhabitants of Great Britain (or at least England) had given any thought to whether there was a distinction worth thinking about for well over a hundred years. Also I think that for many people in England the question of Britishness or Englishness--my on-line spelling checker has "Britishness" but not "Englishness"!--is to a degree irrelevant, as the two are closely linked. For a Scotsman (or woman) to be asked this question has implications of independence. But practically and legally England would be the successor state to Britain if ever it were to be a breakup, (inhabitance of countries like France and Germany would not even have to change the common name they use for the UK!) so the distinction is to a large degree academic, which is why most English people have to think about it and probably do not give answer to the question the gravity other members of the union would. -- PBS (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The most common genetic fingerprint of British people actualy belongs to the Celtic clan and not Germanic tribes.

Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago.

A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.38.205 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 April 2011

Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British Isles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Germanic

As with the German people article saying the germans are a germanic people so does the english people article ,it also gives more clarification and more useful informationGermanlight ^{Say Something} 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. firstly, it's dsiputed that the "English" are "Germanic" since there is a significant celtic element and also some experts believe that only a Germanic ruling elite came to england and the majority continued to be the pre-existing celts. secondly, the English now include large numbers of people who immigrated in the last century, particularly from the Carribean and the Indian sub-continent. (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle said : Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British IslesGermanlight ^{Say Something} 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The introduction needs to give a balanced picture, summarising the further explanation in the main text. The established text does that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt , the truth itself is the most balancedGermanlight ^{Say Something} 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Sykes' views. Read the article. "Germanic" is just an over-simplification. It is contradicted by the second paragraph of the lead (as well as the rest of the article). Don't edit war. You need consensus to change an article and you don't have it. And by the way, Wikipedia isn't about the "truth". DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Germanlight, who began this thread, has been indef blocked as a disruptive sock. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

english are not an ethic group

In England, you've got the Anglo-Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Picts, Irish, Britons, and Romans. How is this much different from France where you had the Gallo-Romans mixed with Franks, Normans, Burgundians, Iberians, Basques? In both cases you have a Celtic-Roman base conquered by Germanic tribes. Wiki claims that English ethnicity exists, yet French doesn't. When did French ethnicity become politically incorrect? Was it during the Revolution, the Empires, or one of the Republics? and if you look at the thread above black or asian people can be a part of the englishmen which means that bantu people from south africa and the chinese, please look for more information in the french people talk page Volykr yilevas (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that a term like "ethnic group" refers solely or primarily to genetic history. It doesn't - according to our article it refers to "a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." This article's lead also says that "some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth." I don't believe that the current wording of the opening sentence is perfect, but I do think it is preferable to your wording (which in any case was ungrammatical). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Volykr yilevas is a blocked sock of User:Chaosname (aka User:Germanlight). DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User:Deano545

Please discuss here and don't edit war. "Germanic" is over-simplification. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Deano545 is a blocked sock of User:Chaosname (aka User:Germanlight). DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

English/Welsh

From the article: "Another complication in defining the English is a common tendency for the words "English" and "British" to be used interchangeably. In his study of English identity, Krishan Kumar describes a common slip of the tongue in which people say "English, I mean British". He notes that this slip is normally made only by the English themselves and by foreigners: "Non-English members of the United Kingdom rarely say 'British' when they mean 'English'"." There is a passage in Kingsley Amis's memoirs which would, rightly, extend this to cover the South Welsh (talking about the 1950s), also using the terms interchangeably. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're saying that Kingsley Amis argues that "British" and "English" are often elided in south Wales? That's interesting but I'm not sure whether a memoir is the best source for this, considering that the existing source is a proper academic study. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He of of course was an academic, & did have the advantage of living there for several years. I wonder how big Kumar's sample size was, and so on? In areas like this, one should not rely wholly on individual papers. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that the Kumar quote is based on academic research (I'm not aware of his methods, so I don't know whether there is a "sample size" to speak of), whereas from what you've said the Amis comments are just a passing reference in a memoir. It would be good to see the source before commenting further, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that attitudes have changed in Wales a lot over the last 60 or so years - there is almost certainly a much higher awareness of Welsh identity now, for a whole range of reasons. (I live in S Wales, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In countries such as Germany, the common term for British is English. However in England I would suggest that people frequently say British/Britain when they mean English/England. Such as "Cricket is the summer sport in Britain", this mistake happens because so many English people do not have a clear differentiation in their minds between England and Britain. Something which for generations from the act of Union in 1707 was strongly encouraged by successive British governments of all hews to suppress individual nationalism in the constituent nations. -- PBS (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to believe that most would identify themselves as English (provided, of course, that they are actually English by ancestry). I identify myself as English, never British, but that may be affected by my expatriate status. JH49S (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed at Britishness - also (to an extent) at English national identity, an article in need of considerable improvement. One relevant point is that many, many people in all parts of the UK have mixtures of English, Welsh, Scottish, etc., etc., ancestry, often within the last couple of generations. Some may identify with one or other nationality, others may feel that "British" approximates to covering all the angles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. It may be confusing to people of other nationalities without personal experience of being two things at the same time. And I feel that "British" does not cover all the Angles. (Sorry, I couldn't resist it). JH49S (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect text

Per WP:BRD, I'm starting this to discuss the original IP's change to the article. the ethnic group known as the English and their descendants world wide is not proper English, for one. Worldwide is a single word. Also, if English is an ethnic group, it only follows that their descendants are also of that ethnic group, to state that the descendants of an ethnic group are also of that ethnic group is unnecessary. The edit also removed the fact that the article is about the English as a nation, which, viewing the lede, makes that undoubtedly true. - Sudo Ghost 06:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetic theories have no place in the intro.

I shall remove the lines that are as follows "Historically, the English population are descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Danes, Normans and other groups." as it has little place in the intro, is controversial and racist, and to my knowledge (as evidenced by the gap between the "Normans" and "and other") written by banned member/sockpuppet Yorkshirian who was constantly trying to make articles conform the British nationalistic philosophy of himself and his many alter-egos. There is already a section about genetics and who is to say that the "Danes" and "Normans" and "Brythons" are more important than say the Irish who emigrated here in very great numbers (about 20%-30% of the populace having some recent Irish origins) or the Scots (again of diverse origins including Anglian, Gaelic, Brythonic (including Pictish), Norse and a littany of other immigrant groups such as modern Irish peoples (who likewise have genetic descent from Gaels predominately, the Danes, Normans, Brythons (and modern Welsh), French et cetera. Likewise choose any group such as Germans who are likewise genetically descended from many groups including Saxons, Franks, Swabians, other Germanic peoples, Gauls, other Celts, Raetians, Slavs, Magyars, Huns et cetera. Frankly this section is nonesense and implies that the English are somehow unique compared to other Europeans, or Eurasians or any group in the world, for that matter. It also puts too much emphasis on genetics and thus "racial" origins of culture which aren't accepted by many in the scholarly community. Also the part about them being "genetically" similar while true in some regards to the majority of the genentic types of the various groups listed, is ridiculous as the modern English population are diverse with origins in India, China, Korea, Japan, Iran, Arabia, West Africa, East Africa et cetera, who are evidently not regarded as "genetically" similar by many editors ("genetically similar" is actually a very hard to determine as ALL humans can be claimed to be "genetically similar" depending on what one means by the phrase). It is also unsourced.

I have noticed that this whole page also needs a lot of cleaning up as well. Much of the information here is is unsourced nonsense, the opinions of editors or advertisements for fringe views (the theories of Oppenheimer, of whom an entire section leads up to the conclusions of, are regarded as fringe. Almost no linguistic agrees with his views on language and much of the genetics is controversial in light of new research into the genentic origins of the Basques amongsrt otheres). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---You shall not.Such an edit to a long standing intro is hugely controversial and you must gain consensus, and sources, first. 'Genetically similar' is evidently a true statement. I will expand upon this when I get the timeGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gaius Octavius Princeps. Sorry, but I cannot perceive anything racist in the lines you refer to, and I am assuredly not BNP-inclined. As far as the entry you have a problem with goes, it's accurate as it stands; I expect it to continue to be so until proven otherwise. Naturally, should you have some verifiable sources you should feel free to expand and improve on the section to give readers more accurate information. But to summarily remove a section because you have perceived a flaw amounts to the same thing as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Please do not do it without consensus.

The most significant error I see is that the section reads "... the English population are ...". The verb should be singular to agree with the noun, so I've corrected it.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

i said that swedes are germanic

From the history of the article:

20:06, 13 October 2011‎ Wolfnegative (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Swedes are germanic)
21:00, 13 October 2011‎ Radiopathy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455425288 by Wolfnegative (talk) Germanic is mentioned later - appropriately - in the paragraph)
08:10, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (i said that swedes are germanic)
08:14, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455499977 by Ducherboy (talk) See talk page.)
08:19, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (the npov issue is resolved)
08:20, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455500746 by Ducherboy (talk))
08:21, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455500781 by SudoGhost (talk))
08:23, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455500862 by Ducherboy (talk) See the talk page, and use it, instead of hitting undo.)
08:24, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455501020 by SudoGhost (talk) Scratch that, I'll just wait for SPI.)
19:33, 14 October 2011‎ Radiopathy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455501089 by SudoGhost (talk) the sock is blocked)
00:30, 15 October 2011‎ 219.83.100.205 (talk | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455579404 by Radiopathy (talk) please , SudoGhost knows what he is doing)

I have blocked the page for three days and I have reverted the page to a version on the 11 just before this revert war started. What should have happened is that Radiopathy the editor who revert the first change should have explained here on the talk page that WP:BRD was in operation and that (s)he had reverted for these reasons. ...

-- PBS (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK now I understand Wolfnegative and Ducherboy are socks of a well known sock master.

The edit by Radiopathy at 19:33, on 14 October 2011‎ is has a misleading lable :"undid revision 455501089 by SudoGhost (talk) the sock is blocked" what it actually was could have been better explained as "revert to the edit of 08:20 on 14 October 2011‎ by SudoGhost". Now that I know that all the edits on one side were by a sock master, and that the last one is a duck for the same person, I will alter the block to prevent IP addresses from editing article for three days. Let me know if there are any further problems and for the record please explain here on the talk page why the edits should be reverted on their lack of merit rather than because of the person who made them. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)