Talk:English people/Archive 15

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 13

English Beatle

Ringo Starr would be a better example of an "English Beatle", since he's the only one of the four best-known members of that band who is not a descendent of Irish immigrants. Radiopathy •talk• 00:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The others are nonetheless English and if you are going to cull mention of anyone who has an ancestor born outside of England, the list is going to get rather sparse. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The picture above the infobox does not have many people; changing one picture to that of someone who is really English isn't going to hurt anything. Radiopathy •talk• 18:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Really English"?! Do you want to maybe stop now? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

John Lennon had never identified with being English and openly favoured his remote Irish ancestry. I agree that Ringo Starr should be here or better yet Mick Jagger seing as his family pedigree shows only English people going back as far as the 17th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The John Lennon article begins "was an English musician". It's an FA, so I'd be astonished if it went through FAC without his self-identification being checked out - so I don't think I'll bother looking for sources. As for "really English", if in the unlikely event that someone can be found without immigrant ancestry then they should be disqualified on the ground of atypicality. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol, as I read the last sentence wondered with what word you would end! -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue was swept under the rug, but it's a valid point to bring up. If this article is about ethnic English people (i.e. not people who simply live or were born in England), then some "English people", under the latter definition, will have to be excluded. To argue that John Lennon is ethnically English because he's English in the sense of Idris Elba is English (whose article is categorised into "English Actors", despite him being not of a lick of the ethnicity) is ridiculous. This is obviously hairy and draws in a lot of emotions, because of course where do you draw the line, but "if you are going to cull mention of anyone who has an ancestor born outside of England, the list is going to get rather sparse" is a straw man, Lennon was half-Irish not one-quarter, not one-eighth, not one-64th. If there's no threshold, then this article should become the British people article confined to England. --Inops (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This was not "swept under the rug" - there was simply no consensus to adopt Radiopathy's suggestion. The article makes clear that there are various definitions of "English people". There is no good reason to restrict the images in the infobox to just one of those one definitions. For example, Idris Elba (born in London) is quite clearly an English person according to many but not all definitions, and so there would be no good reason to exclude him - or, for that matter, to exclude John Lennon (born in Liverpool). Both are/were, of course, also British people in the sense of being UK citizens. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "swept under the rug" was a bit strong, so I'll apologise for that.

The article makes clear that there are various definitions of "English people". There is no good reason to restrict the images in the infobox to just one of those one definitions. For example, Idris Elba (born in London) is quite clearly an English person according to many but not all definitions, and so there would be no good reason to exclude him

If that's the case then perhaps Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people need to be brought into line (not to mention English American, which is one big WASP-fest), they detail the constituent native peoples of the Britain and Ireland, if this page is as you said, that wouldn't extend to this article. None of those article detail immigrates and their descendants. Most countries have an article on the people of a state (Chinese people, Argentinian people, British people) and separate articles on their constituent people (Han Chinese, Welsh Argentinians, Welsh people), why should the English be different? --Inops (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought the French, English, Hungarian, not to say Irish, ancestry of Scots at the Scottish people infobox already fits with an inclusive definition. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

...and a quick look at the other articles shows variously more English (e.g. Tom Jones isn't Welsh under these critera?), Scottish, Sierra Leonian and again Irish ancestry in these infoboxes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're distorting my argument. I didn't say if people have a one recorded migrant ancestor they should be excluded from the article. Most of the people I gather you're referring to at are least *part* the nationality their respective article covers, and a lot of cases are by a majority that ancestry. I don't particularly care either way this goes, let's add some diversity to the page if that's the policy. But change "English are a nation and an ethnic group" to something more line with the rest of the article. No need to be abrasive. --Inops (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was addressing your argument as it appears. They are all of the peoples of their respective articles. Many have ancestors from geographically distinct locations, for some the majority of their ancestry, but this does not make them less of their people. Ethnicity is not, or at least certainly not solely, genetic or passed on by ancestors. If you could highlight the abrasive part of my posts I'd be grateful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Inops, are you saying this article, English people, should be radically different from Chinese people ("Chinese people are the various individuals or groups of people associated with China, either by reason of ancestry or heredity, nationality, citizenship, place of residence, or other affiliations.", Argentinian people ("Argentines (argentinos in Spanish), also called Argentinians, are the citizens of Argentina, or their descendants abroad.") and British people ("British people, or Britons, archaically known as Britishers, are nationals or natives...)? I'd agree that the opening sentence is problematic; perhaps in consequence of beginning "The English" rather than "English people", by that careless use of "and" it immediately contradicts itself and runs counter to the following article. NebY (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying this page (if it is indeed about the ethnicity) needs to be more like (in my examples from before) the Han Chinese or the Welsh Argentinians articles, not the people (whatever ethnicity they be) of a country that American people and British people cover. --Inops (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. The English are a nation and England is a country. The United Kingdom is a state with territory that includes several countries. The Untied Kingdom has citizens, but its citizens originate from several nations and some self-identifying hyphenated ethnic groups. The problem you are going to run into by trying to come up with a clean definition is that different reliable sources used different meanings and as one can not be a citizen of England there is not going to be a clear legal definition as there is for a Briton. Although I suspect that just like for Scotland, there is a clean legal definition of the territory of England (the area excluding Wales where English law is enforced).-- PBS (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Thomas and BBC story

This[1] specifically discusses the BBC story. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes

It seems to me that an most of the edits to this page involved a new or unregistered user making an edit and it being revereted by a more established user. It means that the page is less stable than it would be if these edits were reviewed before they were made. Therefore I propose that pending changes

PC1: Review reversions from new and unregistered users

is turned on. -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. A lot of the IP edits are borderline racist, from what I've seen on my watchlist. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support it is a all to frequent problem ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Leslie, S. et al. Nature

A genetic study has been published in Nature:

Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015) — (see review here)

and has been widely reported in the British press. For example:

Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry The Guardian (Wednesday 18 March 2015).

Has any one access to the full Nature article and the expertise to summarise it. If so does the "Historical origins and identity" may need tweaking? -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We should include this, though it mostly confirms the trend of other genetic studies. Actually it seems to allow a greater Anglo-Saxon genetic contribution than many recent studies. Genetic history of the British Isles is the most relevant article, and a fairly thorough account there should be summarized at other relevant articles like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested and copied the above over to Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The 30% value refers to Anglo-Saxon ancestry, which means that 70% is not of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Another blow to a fundamental factor in English identity as I also stated below. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B01C:E5B5:426F:5E1D (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You guys might want to also make some input into the last part of this discussion, regarding whether this study should be mentioned in the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Germanic classification

As with other Germanic-speaking peoples on Wikipedia such as the Germans, Dutch and Frisians, the English should be identified as a Germanic people. They speak a Germanic language and trace their national roots to the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms founded by the Germanic-speaking Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Indeed, the root of the words "England" and "English" can be traced to "Angle", the name of one of those tribes, as well as the land they came from, Angelin, which is located in Germany. Granted, genetically they descend from many peoples, including not just the Germanic national ancestors of the English but also the indigenous inhabitants of the isles, such as the Celtic-speakers and even earlier Iberian peoples but this does not necessarily mitigate their Germanic identity, as other Germanic peoples have origins in local non-Germanic peoples whose names and histories we've now long since forgotten. We need to identify the English people as a "Germanic ethnic group" or "Germanic-speaking ethnic group" in the beginning. Thoughts? Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look through the talk page archives. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

English people in former British colonies

According to the present information in infobox there are 40 - 70 milion English people outside UK. Actually these people are living in USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand more than 100 years and considered themselves as Americans, Canadians or Australians. Are we thinking them as English people?--Kargoncium (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kargoncium. I'm guessing (without checking the sources in any great detail, so excuse me if I'm wrong) that these figures come from census questions that ask about people's ancestry. Whether being an American or Australian of self-declared (and likely partial) English ancestry makes someone English, I don't know. I think you're right that most of these people probably don't consider themselves English. I've certainly heard Irish-Americans describe themselves as simply Irish, but I've never heard an American assert an English identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

English people in Great Britain

I have removed Scotland and Wales from sub-section Other communities of section English diaspora because those countries are covered in greater detail in the first paragraph of the section and it is unnecessary and confusing to mention them again later in the section. Also it is rather absurd to describe English people in Great Britain as "Other communities". Apuldram (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I'd like to ask fellow editors how does the gallery from the infobox help the reader. What's it's role? How does this gallery provide encyclopaedic content? Why is it better to include such a gallery in the article? Hahun (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, Hahun. I see you've posted similar questions on other articles, and I think it might be worth having a centralised discussion about the issue somewhere. As someone who edits quite a lot of ethnic group articles, my watchlist often shows edit warring over these galleries. At least the one on this page appears stable, unlike, say, the one at Indian people. I have broader concerns though, such as what the selection criteria for the galleries are. They strike me as possibly constituting original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past in various places, for instance Template talk:Infobox ethnic group (in the archives there) - which may be the best place to raise it again. Although many experienced editors deplore the practice of using collages - as I do - they seem to be popular in some circles and decisions seem to be left to editors on each article individually without there being a coordinated guideline. As Cordless Larry says, infobox collages are often the focus of animated discussion and sometimes edit warring - both over the broad principles of who should be included, and over the specific images chosen. In my personal view they have little or no encyclopedic value and should be deprecated in articles such as this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Cordless Larry that a centralised discussion would be the ideal solution, because we are talking about general arguments that apply for every ethnic group. I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research

I added an original research tag to the sentence "Although England has not for centuries been an independent nation state, but rather a constituent country within the United Kingdom, the English may still be regarded as a "nation" according to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: a group united by factors that include "language, culture, history or occupation of the same territory"". It was removed and I was asked to explain my concern here. The source cited is the OED itself, which provides the definition but does not support the claim that the English may still be regarded as a nation per that definition. We need a source for that claim, otherwise it is original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now provided a source which does support the claim, which I have modified slightly to closely agree with the source. Apuldram (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Apuldram, but the new source still doesn't support the claim that the English people meet the dictionary definition of a nation - it just supports the dictionary definition, like the previous one. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I have restored the status quo before your first edit on 15 June. It is hard to understand your point of view, or to find common ground, because you have not indicated which part of the dictionary definition you believe is not met by the English people. Specific attribution is not needed for, for example, the English are "a large body of people" or "inhabiting a particular state or territory". These are attributable, but, as they are obvious, attribution is unnecessary and would be clumsy. Bear in mind also that the definition uses or, not and; the English do not need to satisfy every word of the definition.
Please indicate which part of the definition you consider not satisfied by the English.
Please also do not restore your tab without consensus. At present you are (trivially) in a minority (the original editor of the paragraph and myself vs yourself). However, I may change sides and support you if you can explain why, in your view, the English do not satisfy the definition. Apuldram (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Apuldram

-- PBS (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Apuldram, it's not that I disagree that the English qualify as a nation, but rather that offering a dictionary definition isn't how things are done on Wikipedia. If we want to say that the English are a nation, we should cite a source for that rather than offering a dictionary defintion of a nation and our own view that the English match this. I don't see how this would in any way be clumsy. What is clumsy is what we currently have! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a pontential source, although I don't think it makes use of the dictionary definition of "nation". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a sky is blue type of proposition -- it is so obvious that most authorities do not feel the need to state the bleeding obvious. The following citations may help. The first that the English perceived England as a nation almost two centuries before most of continental Europe went thorough a similar metamorphosis ("Sceptred Isle"), the second that it still is.

Krishan Kumar (13 March 2003). The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 89–. ISBN 978-0-521-77736-0.
Mycock, Andrew Understanding the Post-British English Nation State, Springer -- As well as the text on the web page, See the "look inside" tab in the blue strip near the top.

-- PBS (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. I suggested using the first of those sources in a comment above. I suggest we delete the dictionary quote and just state that the English are a nation. It is the dictionary definition that is causing the article to appear to be original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleting only the dictionary definition pushes the need for an OR tab back to an earlier point in the paragraph. Maybe we should delete the whole paragraph. Apuldram (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the point of the paragraph is that England is a nation without a state. Can we just say that without citing the dictionary? Sources exist, such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Gallery

I have put the gallery of English people back in the infobox. It seems a helpful, useful and interesting addition to the article. Tigerboy1966 22:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so too. Marzmanthemartian (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219232357/http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-identity.htm?page=para017Master to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-culture-identity/quickstats-about-culture-and-identity.htm?page=para017Master
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/macepdf/Thomas-PRSB-06-Apartheid.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/606961/nat%20british%20social%20attitudes%20survey%20summary%207.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/PDR%202006%20Tables%2019-30.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion section

Here the section:

Christianity is the most widely practised religion among English people, as it has been since the Early Middle Ages,[114] although it was first introduced much earlier in Gaelic and Roman times. This Celtic Church was gradually joined to the Catholic hierarchy following the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by St Augustine. The established church of England is the Church of England,[115] which left communion with Rome in the 1530s when Henry VIII was unable to annul his divorce to the aunt of the king of Spain. The church regards itself as both Catholic and Protestant.[116]

The patron saint of England is Saint George; his symbolic cross is included in the flag of England, as well as in the Union Flag as part of a combination.[117] There are many English and associated saints; some of the best-known are: Cuthbert, Edmund, Alban, Wilfrid, Aidan, Edward the Confessor, John Fisher, Thomas More, Petroc, Piran, Margaret Clitherow and Thomas Becket. There has been one Pope from English background to date, Adrian IV; while saints Bede and Anselm are regarded as Doctors of the Church.

First: the religion section deal about English people, no mention about the non-English people who live in England, It's mention about famous religious figures as saint or pope who came from English background, and about the religions that been practiced among English people historically.
second: I removed Islam from the Infobox since it's a wide religion with presence that practiced among English people; most of Muslims who lives in England who formed 5%; are immigrants from South Asia (in particular Bangladesh, Pakistan and India) or Middle East or descendants of immigrants from that regions. And since the article is about English people not about non-English people live in England as User:Cordless Larry stated in my talk page, It shouldn't be added since it's not a historically practiced religions neither has distinguished presence among English people and it's formed a very tiny minority among English people.

I as far as i understand user:Mutt Lunker consider the non-English descendants citizens as part of this article so he kept revert my edit of removing Islam from the Infobox, while User:Cordless Larry removed the data of census 2011 that gives information about the religions in England since according to him the article should be only about the English people not the citizens of England which include non-English as well, but the thing is the section of Religion it's only mentioned about the religion traditions that been practiced among English and famous religious figures of English background, so if there any intelligible reason for the content removing? and if non-English descendants citizens are part of this article as user:Mutt Lunker stated (That why kept revert my removing of Islam in the infobox); then the data census 2011 should be kept.--84.220.135.196 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The artilce state in the lead The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language.; While it's true Islam is the second largest religion in England and formed about 5% of the total population, but most of Muslims who lives in England are immigrants from South Asia (in particular Bangladesh, Pakistan and India) or Middle East or descendants of immigrants from that regions. Historically is not a widely practiced religions neither has distinguished presence among English people and it's formed a very tiny minority among English people; the Muslim ethnic English are a tiny minority (<0.4%), they are not large enough to be mentioned (<1%).--84.220.135.196 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The religion section of the article, deleted by User:Mutt Lunker, was relevant and IMO unobjectionable. Why was it deleted? Until a valid reason for its deletion is provided, the section should be replaced. Apuldram (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My reason for removal was explained in this edit summary. The IP editor added data on the religious composition of the population of England (and Wales?) from the census, without considering whether everyone in England is actually English. Incidentally, the data was described as being from the 2011 census, but the source suggests it was from the 2001 census. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not valid. The section deleted did not contain information from the census (2011 or 2001). What do you find objectionable in the proposed section? Apuldram (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It was in the version that the IP added this morning, Apuldram, so it is a valid explanation of why I reverted that addition. My issue with the text proposed above is that, partly because it has been copied from the England article, it is phrased to be about England (e.g. "The established church of England is the Church of England..."; "The patron saint of England is Saint George...") rather than the English people. It needs a thorough rewrite. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What you did this morning is not what is being discussed. What is wrong with the section that Mutt Lunker deleted? The first sentence of the section clearly talks about the people, not the country. It is unreasonable to expect an article about the English not to mention England at all. Apuldram (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I was discussing it because the IP stated that "the data census 2011 should be kept". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is little point putting a WP:3RR warning on a disposable IP address, so I am putting it here. My concern is that despite user 84.220.135.196 engaging in a conversation here by creating this section at 15:41, 22 May 2017 (although for reasons that are unclear to me the time stamp at the end of the signature on the page was 13:52, 22 May 2017 !!), the same editor made a large edit (consisting of 4 independent edits) two of which were clearly reverts (diff at 13:44, 22 May 2017; diff at 13:47, 22 May 2017) after 84.220.135.196 had started a discussion on this page. If the user who has been using 84.220.135.196 continues to alter the article without reaching a consensus on this talk page for those changes (disruptive editing) then I will block the IP address and also protect the article. -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, those edits were actually made by the IP before they started this discussion, PBS. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct I misread the time stamp in the history on the first edit to this page. -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry please read the whole section, I didn't mentioned the census of 2011 in that section. The section is definitely about English people, it's deal about the religions that been practiced among English people and about the famous religious figures of English background. The mention of the Church of England is important since is it's considered as the national church; so definitely there will be ention that it's that this church is the state church of England. and histrionically most of English diaspora been adherent to the Anglican Communion. And as Apuldram said It is unreasonable to expect an article about the English not to mention England at all. So again what your disagreement with this section? please to bring up the cenuse since this section don't mention at all.

Secondly user user:Mutt Lunker revert my edit when i removed Islam from the Infobox, While it's true Islam is the second largest religion in England and formed about 5% of the total population, but most of Muslims who lives in England are immigrants from South Asia (in particular Bangladesh, Pakistan and India) or Middle East or descendants of immigrants from that regions. Historically Islam is not a widely practiced religions neither has distinguished presence among English people and it's formed a very tiny minority among English people; the Muslim ethnic English are a tiny minority (<0.4%), they are not large enough to be mentioned (<1%). So if there any objection if I remove Islam from the infobox?.--84.220.135.196 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about the current situation as well as the historic and, whatever their ancestry, these people are English. Familiarise yourself with the discussions on this page and in the archives which deal with this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No see what the lead say The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. and see the numbers in the infobox " The 2011 England and Wales census reports that in England and Wales 32.4 million people associated themselves with an English identity alone and 37.6 million identified themselves with an English identity either on its own or combined with other identities, being 57.7% and 67.1% respectively of the population of England and Wales.", so it's clear this article it's doesn't include people of descendants of immigrants, and if - which according to you - the immigrants from South Asia (in particular Bangladesh, Pakistan and India) or Middle East or descendants of immigrants from that regions, and among English identity alone Islam is formed a very tiny minority and a tiny minority (<0.4%), so they are not large enough to be mentioned (<1%)?; secondly user:Mutt Lunker is there any intelligible reason for the religion section removing?.--84.220.135.196 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. Again, familiarise yourself with the discussions on this page and in the archives which deal with this. Also, everyone in England is the descendant of an immigrant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

user:Mutt Lunker you didn't answer me; is there any intelligible reason for the religion section removing? I got your point that Islam should be included. But you removed the whole section of religion; is there any intelligible reason please answer this question?.--84.220.135.196 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not asked this question of me, or addressed this aspect (although other users have touched upon it). If you get my point about what I was addressing, your last post is the very first indication of this after your sustained campaign clearly indicated otherwise. My removal of the religion section was but an accompanying part of a reversion of your latest of several removals of Islam from the infobox. There may or may not be merit in having a religion section in this article but as this version was clearly posted to enforce your campaign to exclude mention of Islam, it was treated as such and reverted, per WP:BRD. Your religion section appears on brief inspection to largely confine itself to historical facts about Christianity in England rather than a direct focus on the religions of the English people, particularly not the contemporary situation, and notably excludes mention of any faith other than Christianity or to the sizeable percentage of people of no religion. It is partial at best and would be better served simply by a link to the parent article, which is not partial, unless and until a more balanced summarising section is compiled for this article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of removing the whole section you could revert the last edit. and no, The first edit section was not only include Christianity; no-religion and Islam. But User:Cordless Larry removed the text claiming "This would need to be written to ensure that it's about English people, not people resident in England)", and he had issue with the censue of 2011. So removed the data of cenuse 2011 and left the section of Christianity. Till now no one give intelligible reason for removing the section.--62.10.73.240 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The new section

Here the new section and please read it all:

Christianity is the most widely practiced religion among English people, as it has been since the Early Middle Ages,[114] although it was first introduced much earlier in Gaelic and Roman times. This Celtic Church was gradually joined to the Catholic hierarchy following the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by St Augustine. Historically Anglicanism has been the predominant Christian denomination among English people and it's diaspora, in terms of both influence and number of adherents.[115][116][117][118]

There are many English and associated saints; some of the best-known are: Cuthbert, Edmund, Alban, Wilfrid, Aidan, Edward the Confessor, John Fisher, Thomas More, Petroc, Piran, Margaret Clitherow and Thomas Becket. There has been one Pope from English background to date, Adrian IV; while saints Bede and Anselm are regarded as Doctors of the Church.

Historically, the growth of irreligion among English people has followed a European-wide pattern of secularization; This made irreligion as the second-largest viewpoint on religion after Christianity.[122]

It's cover other faiths; Is there any objections about this new section?.--62.10.73.240 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As I've previously stated, it is inappropriate to use census figures for England without considering whether the population of England are all English (they're not) and whether all English people live in England (they don't). Incidentally, you also seem to be citing a source for England and Wales. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Then the the census figures for England been removed, and the section cover the other faiths among English people. Cordless Larry based in this point it is inappropriate to add Islam in the infobox as well without considering whether the Muslim population of England are all English (they're not) and whether It's large enough among English people live in England (they don't). Now the new section don't mention the data of census data for England; Cordless Larry is there any objections for this section.??--62.10.73.240 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There's still confusion between England and English people, I'm afraid - e.g. "After Christianity, a minority of the English population... A small minority of the English people...". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry the thing you have opinion different from Mutt Lunker who was saying that Muslims; Hindu of descendants of immigrants are part of the English people so i tried to covert that in this section. what I'm trying to do is making a balance here since you both has a different opinion. Anyway i removed this one; is there any other objections?. The section is very clear about English people not England.--62.10.73.240 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Mutt; I agree that English people can be Hindu, Muslim, etc., but that isn't the same as saying that everyone in England is English. For example, José Mourinho, Mark Carney and Raymond Blanc all live in England, but no one considers them English. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, no apparent disagreement. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry; Well the section is about English people; not about the population of England - e.g. " is the most widely practiced religion among English people... has been the predominant Christian denomination among English people ...There are many English and associated saints; ...A small minority of the English people practice ancient Pagan religions...the growth of irreligion among English people ..". So what the objections now?.

And yes English people can be Hindu, Muslim, etc. But is Islam formed a very tiny minority among English people; the Muslim ethnic English are a tiny minority (<0.4%), they are not large enough to be mentioned in the infobox (<1%).--62.10.73.240 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the source for the statement "A small minority of the English people practice ancient Pagan religions..."? It still appears to be the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess a study conducted by Ronald Hutton but not sure.--Jobas (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry No it was from the census but the vast majority of the adherence are native English. But I remove it now; do we have any objections here? The section do not had any mention of census, the other information are supported by academic books and all the section is about English people not the population of England.

The Ronald Hutton figures is about English population not English people.--62.10.73.240 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any problems with this section?- is about English people; not about the population of England.

Christianity is the most widely practiced religion among English people, as it has been since the Early Middle Ages,[114] although it was first introduced much earlier in Gaelic and Roman times. This Celtic Church was gradually joined to the Catholic hierarchy following the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by St Augustine. Historically Anglicanism has been the predominant Christian denomination among English people and it's diaspora, in terms of both influence and number of adherents.[115][116][117][118]

There are many English and associated saints; some of the best-known are: Cuthbert, Edmund, Alban, Wilfrid, Aidan, Edward the Confessor, John Fisher, Thomas More, Petroc, Piran, Margaret Clitherow and Thomas Becket. There has been one Pope from English background to date, Adrian IV; while saints Bede and Anselm are regarded as Doctors of the Church.

Historically, the growth of irreligion among English people has followed a European-wide pattern of secularization; This made irreligion as the second-largest viewpoint on religion after Christianity.[122]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.73.240 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, Do you have any objections for this last section?. It's clear about English people and diaspora. and supported by academic sources; there is no mention for the census.--62.10.66.152 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say without knowing what sources you are using for this. If you include the footnotes here, I will be better able to judge. The text also needs checking for grammar (e.g. "among English people and it's diaspora"). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppets

This article has for a number of years had problems with sock puppets. It still does and I've semi-protected it for a month. I've blocked User:Jobas as the sock master. I can't identify the IP addresses being used as socks. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219231823/http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-statistics/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-statistics/change-in-ethnicity-question.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921194331/http://collections.europarchive.org/ukparliament/20090701100701/http%3A//www.parliament.uk/actofunion/ to http://collections.europarchive.org/ukparliament/20090701100701/http%3A//www.parliament.uk/actofunion/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=eras&FileName=britain_3.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ejpress.org/digest/in_depth/on_anglo_jewry/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%2FIs_An_English_Backlash_Emerging.pdf&a=skip
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529194052/http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf to http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/PDR%202006%20Tables%2019-30.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as the question of religion is concerned i agree with the view that many have expressed here Islam is not an ethnic English religion that it should be highlighted under the section religion in the page.Please do consider and let us remove it.As highlighted there is only a very small percentage of ethnic English Muslims,there are larger number of ethnic English Buddhists,pagans,Eastern orthodox Christians or Jews than there are ethnic English Muslims,so highlighting Islam separately is not only factually incorrect but also malicious.Please consider my points and let us agree to present facts as Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.119.5 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This anonymous editor has been blocked for one month for disruptive editing and edit-warring across a number of articles dealing with religion and specifically for issues surrounding Roman Catholicism and Islam. DDStretch (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Related ethnic groups"

I note that the "related ethnic groups" section of the infobox has recently been populated. I've been increasingly conscious and concerned about the arbitrary nature of what is and isn't included in this section in this and ohter articles. Is there any guidance about inclusions for this section and how it should be supported? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's been mostly left to local consensus. The only discussions I'm aware of have been at WP:ETHNIC, although I'd be surprised if there haven't been others on local article talk pages. It is briefly mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Ethnic groups and the burden of evidence in reference to its inherent ripeness for OR. A search of the archives yields plenty of discussions about it: [2], but I don't see any major guidance there either. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 8#Related ethnic groups seems to be the longest one.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'll have a browse. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Germanic, again

@R9tgokunks:, as, per it's edit history, you are an evident watcher of this page so you will be well aware that every few weeks over the course of years, someone simplistically shoehorns in the classification of this people as "Germanic", generally at the start of the lede. Then, and consistent with the general tenor of the copious discussions in the talk page archives (just search on the word "Germanic", then take the week off while you plough through it), the term gets reverted. I think the last instances of this were on the 7th and 8th of April, there were ones on the 30th November and the 4th December... in September... Whether or not you agree with it, my removal of the category was patently not vandalous or an "experiment" (good heavens) and would seem entirely consistent with these regular removals of this categorisation in the article text. If it's a "blatant removal of common knowledge", it's blatantly removed pretty regularly here, by a variety of editors. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss reverts (preferably before reverting)

I can't really start the discussion, other than to say please outline any objections to my edit here.

I am reverting to the version of the article with the contributions I made to encourage discussion only - please revert this back (unless you have no problem with my changes) and discuss here. I will not attempt to restore my contribution until discussion has taken place. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to establish that there is consensus for a change, not on others. Once your bold edit had been reverted, you shouldn't have made it again but instead posted your proposal here. I reverted your latest edit because it lacked sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This was a significant changeto the meaning of ht estart of the section, to the exact opposite of theoriginal content. It's questionable that this would have been made even once without discussion, let alone three times. The IP needs to explain the edit and attempt to get consensus, or leave it alone. Reverting again (supposedly to encourage discussion) when he or she had already been undone twice and asked to discuss it on the talk page is not acceptable. Meters (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@CordlessLarry apparently it says on one of the Wikipedia policy pages "don't revert just due to no consensus". I did have a link to that page, but a user I had been communicating with on this matter has been quite rude and deleted everything. It is more important to me to discuss this than to get involved with somebody else's ego.

Anyway, I have already made attempts to encourage discussion, to no avail. I just don't get the culture here on Wikipedia, apparently, so I would appeal to you and other editors for help in the matter. Because, unlike the message I was left suggests, I felt that my contribution to this article was constructive.

First of all, thank you for commenting here. I will attempt to explain my contribution (although I had thought that the text itself was explanation enough! :)

In the original paragraph, the suggestion was that the concept of an "English nation" was older than the concept of a "British nation".

I did not contradict that statement with my edit, although I did remove it.

Historical evidence tells us that the British people, under different translations, existed well before the Angles came to live in, and give their name to, England.

This was also long, long before the rise of "nation states".

I gave established historical facts in the article, though I did not provide links to sources. I can provide them, I'm sure.

I'm interested to hopefully find out what objections there are to this. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, before any of us can comment more on the proposed changes to the content you are making, we need to see the evidence in the form of reliable sources. It is this lack of them (apart from your say-so) that is one of the major stumbling blocks here, and forms part of the reasons why you were repeatedly reverted. It isn't that we don't trust in your own belief that what you are proposing is correct, but we do need to come to our own informed opinions about it, and, as I've said, that requires evidence. We are all fallible, and sometimes our own opinions are biased in ways only others can see, which is why we all need complete disclosure here in order for any of us to proceed. DDStretch (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP replaced "The concept of an 'English nation' is far older than that of the 'British nation' " with "The concept of British peoples is centuries older than the concept of English peoples." That is a a significant change to the meaning of the start of the section, and since I took "nation" and "peoples" to mean the same thing it appears to be a direct contradiction of the original statement. If the IP does not intend "nation" and "peoples" be the same thing perhaps he or she could explain why he or she believes the "English nationality"section should suddenly be discussing peoples rather than nations? Meters (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that objections to the edits can be made on logical and/or conceptual grounds as well as factual, and, of course, these logical/conceptual issues need to be handled as well. The confusion that exists between the term "nation" and other apparently similar or related terms (people, country, etc), make the whole area a bit of a minefield, and so all aspects of what was the proposed changes need to be discussed sensibly and calmly. It is clearly a contentious area, and we must take care here to avoid the differences of opinion becoming something rather worse than it is now. In particular, we should take care to avoid any political issues overtly colouring the discussions. DDStretch (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The statement that "The concept of an "English nation" is far older than that of the "British nation"" seems to be sourced to a single author (Kumar) in an offline book (which I don't have). It's clearly contentious and/or open to misinterpretation - particularly because of the various possible meanings of 'British nation'. The statement should be either clarified or removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have access to the book, but the reference is to pp. 262-290, which is rather unspecific, making verification difficult. When Cop 663 first added this material, it read "The concept of an 'English nation' (as opposed to a British one) has become increasingly popular after the devolution process in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland resulted in the four nations having semi-independent political and legal systems". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The change in wording was made by PBS here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case I think that the current wording is a misinterpretation of the source material, and the change by PBS should be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Nice sleuthing , Cordless Larry. Meters (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem as if reverting would be best. DDStretch (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, too (and thanks, Meters). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made that change, but altered "..England still lacks self-government..", which implies a process in a way that seems non-neutral to me, to "..England has no devolved government..". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and it is a good alteration to the wording. DDStretch (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a fantastic compromise! The paragraph now doesn't pit the age of one term against the other, like a pissing competition, but maintains the general gist of the subject matter.

I wonder though, whether user PBS should be informed of the change to his edit. I hate to open a can of worms in that sense, but you guys have given my proposal serious consideration, and we should probably extend the same courtesy to PBS.

Thanks to ALL of you. :)

One last thing with regard to the paragraph though: it now suggests that there are four semi-independent political and legal systems. In fact, so far as I'm aware, there are only three: Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Unlike the other three countries, England doesn't have its own devolved political institution. However, it's more complex than that because England and Wales are often treated, combined, as a single legal entity (see England and Wales). This is obviously due to the Romans' perception of their territory of "Britannia", which stopped north of Hadrian's wall. How much actual control the Romans had of the land in Wales beyond the mountains, I do not know! --75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I pinged PBS in my comment above, and they can still contribute to this discussion. Incidentally, a more recent book by Kumar has been reviewed thus: "Kumar's insistence on the relatively recent formation of an English national consciousness and the enduring shadow cast by Empire undergird his singularly important contribution to debates about England's past, present and future". I take it from that that the previous wording was not an accurate summary of his view, so thanks to the IP editor for raising this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The British nation came into existence in 1707 with the act of Union. Prior to that the Stuart monarchy had claimed to be monarch of Great Britain, Ireland and France using royal prerogative, but it was not recognised by the English Parliament. Whether one take James I deceleration or the act of union England existed prior to that. Prior to the creation of the nation state of England there was never a Kingdom of Britain. The closest to it would have been as a province of the Roman Empire, but even that did not cover all of Great Britain. -- PBS (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion between the concepts of nation and state here, or rather that we are using those terms to mean different things. My understanding is that a nation is a group of people with a common sense of history and culture, but not necessarily a state. The coming into existence of the Union was the creation of a state rather than a nation, used in that sense (a British nation might have existed before 1707, or emerged after - I don't know enough to say). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote, above, "The confusion that exists between the term "nation" and other apparently similar or related terms (people, country, etc), make the whole area a bit of a minefield". I know it has exercised people on other parts of wikipedia with respect to issues to do with the UK from as far back as I've been using wikipedia (the early 2000s). I think your summary of it as being "a group of people with a common sense of history and culture, but not necessarily a state" sums up the consensus view quite nicely. DDStretch (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior to 1707 there was no "common sense of history and culture" (other than a hatred for the rule of the Major Generals), indeed many would argue that there sill isn't. For example there were strenuous attempts after the act of union to use the terms "North Briton" and "South Briton" for Scotland and (and less so for England), as for example the The Royal Regiment of Scots Dragoons were renamed the The Royal North British Dragoons (see the article North Britain). As I wrote above there were attempts by James VI/I to use the term Great Britain in his proclamations, but he was unable to persuade the English parliament to agree to a union. In this sense the trappings of statehood that occurred in 1707, with a government led propaganda campaign to persuade the "British" that they were one big happy nation, was similar to those that were introduced with the EU: flags, unified parliament and propaganda to persuade people that the EU is something more than a free trade area.

So I put it to you Cordless Larry that to claim that there was a British nation with "common sense of history and culture" before 1707 is like claiming that there is a European nation. Western Europe shares certain common cultural similarities but few would claim those amount to a "common sense of history and culture" that makes the EU a nation. The EU may one day become a nation, but it does not exist as one at the moment. "The concept of an 'English nation' is older than that of the 'British nation' and the 1990s witnessed a revival in English self-consciousness" is I think a statement of fact. What sources do you have that there was a popular recognition that a British nation ("nation is a group of people with a common sense of history and culture") existed prior to 1707? If you want evidence that the English nation existed as a popular concept prior to 1707 then one can not do much better than look at the transcripts of the Putney Debates. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To quote myself, "a British nation might have existed before 1707, or emerged after - I don't know enough to say". However, it isn't clear to me that the Kumar source supports the statement "The concept of an 'English nation' is older than that of the 'British nation'". If it does, then it would be helpful to have a more specific page reference; otherwise, we could do with other sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? WP:SKYISBLUE. It doesn't need a source called Kumar for this basic fact. Johnbod (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Johnbod. However looking at the text of Kumar's book it is clear that he states it implicitly, but he does also mention it explicitly. Here is an example

The nature and effect of those identifications is the subject of later chapters. Here one might just sketch some of the major themes. Firstly, there is the story of how, from the time of the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707, political elites attempted to build up a sense of 'Britishness' that might override, or at least accompany, Englishness. The English – along with the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish – were urged to see themselves as part of a large enterprise, a political project, that was catapulting Britain into a leading position among world powers. … The empire – especially the 'second British Empire' of the nineteenth century… In all this the English could not but be aware of their leading role; by the same token, they were equally aware of the need not to trumpet this as an English achievement, but to see it as a joint effort by all the British nations.^[1]

Is that explicit enough for you Cordless Larry to support the sentence "The concept of an 'English nation' is far older than that of the 'British nation'"?

References

^ Krishan Kumar (13 March 2003). The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-0-521-77736-0.

-- PBS (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that's fine, PBS. If I was being pedantic, I might just quibble with the inclusion of the word "far" based on that passage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, though. I just looked for other sources for this, and came across this secondary coverage of Kumar, which appears to suggest that he considers that Britishness came before Englishness. The views of other editors and insights from other sources would be welcome here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the start of an English sense of nationhood is usually placed about a thousand years earlier than the period Kumar seems to be talking about, we may presume that he is talking about waves strength or weakness in Englishness vs Britishness in recent periods. Really this is one of the lamest threads I've ever seen. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, then let's replace that Kumar citation with something else. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence has actually been in the article for a while, has it? The section could do with a rewrite though. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's been in since this edit way back in 2008 (as discussed above). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Two reviews of papers on English nationalism prior to the existence of the British nation.

"Mining an impressively wide and deep range of sources, Hilary Larkin's study demonstrates that Englishness in the early modern period was not the preserve of poets and potentates. ... Nor does it address the aspect of English identity we might call Britishness, which Larking regards as comparitivly underdeveloped in this period" (Schwyzer, Philip (2015). "The Making of Englishmen: Debates on National Identity 1550–1650. Hilary Larkin. Studies in the History of Political Thought 8. Leiden: Brill, 2014. xi + 348 pp. $167". Renaissance Quarterly. 68 (3). University of Chicago Press: 1084–1085. doi:10.1086/683932. ISSN 0034-4338. )
"John Milton clearly inherited a rich and powerful sense of national identity. In line with this, this article seeks to answer three questions. First, what was the national identity Milton inherited? Second, how did he try to reimagine it? And third, how did Milton react to the collapse of popular support for the Commonwealth between 1649 and 1660? The article starts by introducing the national story into which he was born. It becomes clear that the national identity which Milton inherited was not so much a state of being as one of becoming. For many years, Milton considered his greatest achievement to be the Defensio, his 1651 defence of the English people. He offers a kind of regenerate nationalism, a divinely inspired narrative in which the stony can always be taken out of the nation's heart should the nation prove responsive to God's grace." (From an abstract of Stevens, Paul (September 2012) [November 2011]. "Milton and National Identity". In McDowell, Nicholas; Smith, Nigel (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Milton. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697885.013.0019.)

-- PBS (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of primary sources that mention the "English Nation" during the Civil War and the Commonwealth. Here are two as examples:

Other famous tracts that could be included are Gerrard Winstanley's "A Declaration from the Poor oppressed People of England directed to all that call themselves, or are called Lords of the Manors, through this Nation", or the Levellers' "An Agreement of the Free People of England. Tendered as a Peace-Offering to this distressed Nation". All of these primary sources include mention of the English Nation, and all of them were published more than 50 years before the acts of Union that created the British nation. -- PBS (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And Scotland Too.

Most writers fail to observe that Scotland is also an English country. The name Scotland obscures the facts.

Until the Norman Conquest the Kingdom of Scotland comprised the Highlands or Scot-land' plus its English provinces in the Lowlands.

Following the Norman Conquest of Northern Britain led by King David however the situation became reversed. The Kingdom of the King of the Scots was henceforth based in Edinburgh in the 'English' Lowlands. The Highland or Scottish part of the original Kingdom became a Celtic backwater, a mere province of a Northern English or Anglo-Norman kingdom.

This of course why the 'Scots' speak English rather than Scots Gaelic. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.164.68 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's difficult to know whether this is an attempt to stir up conflict, or whether you simply don't realise what is meant by the requirement that we avoid synthesis and original research. Either way, I think this comment can be safely ignored as being irrelevant to this article. DDStretch (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No OR about that - read some Scottish history. Really it should be addressed in the article, with sources. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. But without sources, it's difficult to tell fact from fiction. DDStretch (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

“Most writers fail to observe...”. Enough said. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but most writers on "English people" are retired journalists writing crap.... (all RS of course). Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All the confirming facts can be read on existing Wikipedia pages. See Bernicia, Lothian, Northumbria, King David I, and related Scottish history pages. Or if one prefers a quotable book one might read The Dialects of Lowland Scotland by James Murray. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.218.152 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Odd Article... Agenda?

The unsubstantiated statement that the English are of French origin since the Ice Age (apart from more recent arrivals) really does need reliable verification sources before being included on the page. With DNA evidence also pointing to the fact that Anglo Saxon genetic input is also in a minority, the article also phrases several things oddly: 'Many historians, while making allowance for the limited survival of the Britons in England, hold to the view that there was significant displacement of the indigenous population after the Germanic migrations.[37][38]'

This ends a particular section of the article, becoming effectively a 'last word', while earlier the article links DNA evidence to the contrary.

(86.132.143.172 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC))

Fairly typical, read past the lead in most articles like this and you'll see the same POV pushing.

The unsubstantiated statement that the English are of French origin since the Ice Age (apart from more recent arrivals) really does need reliable verification sources before being included on the page.

Not sure exactly what part of the article you are referring to. But granted France and the French per se didn't exist until the medieval migrations.

With DNA evidence also pointing to the fact that Anglo Saxon genetic input is also in a minority, the article also phrases several things oddly...

You have my support in correcting these POV issues.

Rob984 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

[1] Krishan Kumar (13 March 2003). The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-0-521-77736-0.

[1]