Talk:English people/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

religion

Hello, perhaps the religion section of this article could be touched up a bit. For example, Jewish English people are given quite a mention but not Hindu or Moslem. According to the demographics of England article..?

Muslim: 3.1%
Hindu: 1.1%
Sikh: 0.7%
Jewish: 0.5%

I have nothing against Jewish people, but why are they singled out above the other religions..? User:Dan Carkner 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because there are people whose ethnicity is English or British and whose religion is Jewish, but very few whose religion is Muslim or Sikh? I think though that the number of indigenous British people whose religion, if they have one, is not Christian is so insignificant that any inclusion other than Christianity is irrelevant to the facts that are trying to be presented. Enzedbrit 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Having just read over the religion section again, why does it bother talking about Irish immigration or Jewish immigration? The article is meant to be about people who are of a particular ethnic group, not who live in a particular country. Enzedbrit 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's all kind of a fuzzy area. But you don't want to just say that all English are Christians and Atheists-- in the end it depends on how you define English. Dan Carkner 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is about defining the English. The way it has gone, it has done so on an ethnic/racial basis. Black and Asian people living in Britain who aren't Christian can claim to be of English or British ethnicity if they have that blood, that is, an indigenous parent or grandparent or something less diluted, and if there is a sizeable proportion of these people in the UK who aren't Christian but Hindu or Muslim, then yes, there is a basis to include those religions as religions of people who are of the English ethnicity.Enzedbrit 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a religious section and a need for a religious section? Surely the figures only reflect the people living in Rngland, not the English people? Secondly, I don't see how it's so relevant that it needs to be but in the fact box? (Stpaul 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

I don't know why there is a religious section. Maybe the infobox contains one by default. If you think it is a good idea to remove religion fromthe infobox then I would agree with you, but we need to see what the general feeling of other editors is. I don't think that religion is a big issue in England, most people are not religious, though would probably describe themselves as CofE. Alun 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't historically Calvinist peoples (Huguenots and Presbyterians) have a greater ethnocultural relationship with the English (Puritans) than others? This would mean the areas which have had significant Calvinist movements: France, Scotland, Ireland and the Holy Roman Rhineland (Palatines). Incidentally, these very places were on the royal coat of arms as displayed by King William III of England. While most people see Orangist activities and politics to be controversial, they would not deny the basically close cultural relationships in the Calvinist web. This is not so for the Lutheran issue (am I right?) that developed as a result of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which alienated the common man in those times by introducing truer foreigners than William actually was. William's Orange-Nassau territories straddled the old Duchy of Burgundy; the English and Burgundians were allies and trading partners for a reasonably long time. Lord Loxley 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The assumption that some people self-identify as English is questionable at best. The article on Scottish people does not make a similar distinction, and I think we should use that article as a template.Homagetocatalonia 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it questionable that some people self-identify as English? Are you implying that no one self-identifies as English? In that case there would be no English people at all, which is rather a strange thing to claim. Scottish people does not have a religion section at all, so how can it be a temlate? I can only assume that you are implying that the descendants of recent immigrants do not self identify as English, to which I can only answer that anyone that holds this view clearly has no idea whatsoever about modern England, I personally know several people who are muslims and of Pakistani origin that strongly identify as English. See: Asian recruits boost England fan army Alun 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a member here, so wouldn't want to edit anything, but was slightly surprised by some of the comments above. This page is supposed to be about the ethnic group known as the English. It clearly has at the top a link to the demographics of England as a nation, but this article is not about England as a nation. Therefore in the religion section on the template it should not include Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc, because these are not religions in which you will find significant numbers of ethnic English people. Yes those religions exist in England, but that is a seperate matter that has no sway over ethnicity. It would be rather odd to a person of English ancestry living outside of England to be informed that their ethnicity ranks Islam as a religion that apparently occurs amongst their kin. Please could this be edited by someone who has the power and authority to do so, for the sake of accuracy. 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What? So a person who is ethnically English who is a muslim can't be English according to you. But some foreigner who knows nothing about English ethnicity, but who thinks they might have some English ancestors does count as ethnically English? Ethnicity is nothing to do with descent or ancestry, it's to do with identity. I personally know many English Asians that are muslims, they are certainly more ethnically English than I am, and I have three English grandparents. I am Welsh. Ethnicity is about identity. Alun 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he's talking about proportionality. As far as I can see, most English people are agnostic nominal Christians (the Christian majority was confirmed in the 2001 census), and most Muslims etc consider themselves (and are considered by the government, e.g. in the census data) as "ethnic minorities" (does this imply that they are not ethnic English?). In my opinion, the largest religions should be there only, as otherwise it would be opening the floodgates: the article currently mentions Buddhism and not Mormonism, despite the fact that there are about just as many Mormons as Buddhists in the UK. I also think that "Christianity" is too vague: we should specify the denominations in order of their membership: Anglicanism, R. Catholicism, Methodism etc. Islam should definitely be there, but the smaller groups should be grouped together as "others" in my opinion.--Rudjek 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know aboot the numbers myself, but I have many friends who are English of Chinese descent. Should a mention be made towards their religion? I also think the Jedi thing should be mentioned since more than 250,000 ppl stated it as their official religion.Halbared 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say this again. You are confusing those whose ethnicity is English for those who live in England. The two are very different terms. Alun what you are suggesting is most bizarre. Firstly you seem to believe that the number of ethnically English Muslims is large enough to warrent comparison with ethnically English Christians. I can assure you this is not the case. Most English Muslims trace their ancestry to the Indian subcontinent, or to Africa, they certainly do not trace their ancestry to England any further than the last century. Ethnicity has a hell of a lot to do with descent and ancestry, it is not simply about identity. Again, I believe you are confusing the meaning of being ethnically English, ie having English ancestry, and being 'of' England, ie someone who lives in England. The two are different, they are not the same. Again, you cite English Asians who are Muslim as being more ethnically English than you, someone who has three English grandparents. That is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard. The ethnicity of these English Asians cannot possibly be English, you have just noted that they are from Asia, and will have an ethnicity that corresponds to this. You on the other hand are ethnically English because of your ancestry. This should be a very simple idea, I am bewildered you find it so hard to believe otherwise. Please read this article [1], I'm afriad to say, they are not ethnically English, even though British Asians live in England, and may identify with England, it doesn'tchange their ancestry. 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous/Pre-Roman

Someone has changed indigenous to pre-Roman on the history page. I have reverted this but feel then that this should be discussed. The British people, including the English, as detailed in this article, are the indigenous people of Britain. We are so because we are the direct descendants of the first people to live in Britain. There has been cultural shift but not genetic/blood shift from our aboriginal ancestors. The term indigenous has been applied here to differentiate between the various groups of peoples that have contributed to the English people in genetic and cultural terms. The use of indigenous Brythonic people is used to show that before the Roman occupation, the culture of our ancestors (in what is now England) was Brythonic. I believe that indigenous is the correct word to use here; others might have a differing opinion. Enzedbrit 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "Brythonic", which is what the link leads to, is primarily linguistic in meaning, and refers to a Celtic language. There is evidence that an earlier language was spoken in the British Isles prior to the introduction of Celtic, so the use of "indigenous" might give the false impression that Celtic was the first language spoken here. How about something like "prehistoric" instead? TharkunColl 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think prehistoric is appropriate as pre-Roman Britain wasn't prehistoric and we still know a relative lot about these people. You're right that Celtic languages weren't necessarily the first people, but the term indigenous is to my thinking still correct. Indigenous Brythonic speaking people perhaps? The same could be true today of the indigenous Germanic speaking people of Britain - we're still indigenous although we now speak a Germanic language. Enzedbrit 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, okay. At least that makes it more clear that the phrase Brythonic is primarily linguistic, rather than ethnic. TharkunColl 07:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, some linguists and archaeologists now think that Indo-European may have been introduced into Great Britain as long ago as the early Neolithic, and Celtic languages developed in situ as it were. This view tends to be held by archaeologists who do not see any evidence of mass immigration to Great Britain after the Neolithic. Francis Pryor (Britain BC) and Barry Cunliffe have both written about the lack of archaeological evidence for mass immigration after the Neolithic, and Barry Cunliffe in Iron Age Britain states that many linguists now think of the origins of Brythonic Celtic as indigenous. It's a POV, but one that can be verified. Alun 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to accept that the Brythonic languages evolved in Britain. Enzedbrit 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How quaint; TharkunColl only believes that prehistorical issues are relevant to modern ethnic character when it suits him and you, Enzedbrit. We can go over the suppressed Celtic languages and culture in talks of the English, but nobody dare mention Anglo-French relations on pain of ostracism and accusations of trolling or vandalism. English and French languages have things in common. Answer for your political POV! Lord Loxley 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

English Channel vs German Ocean?

Come on TharkunColl; which happens to encapsulate English ethnic identity more? Would German culture be something English are, while English culture is something English are not? Keep thinking ill of the Norman Conquest. Defame Emma of Normandy for all you really care. I have placed this here, because you wanted to have the last word on my (and our) talk pages. For those unaware of the dispute, his desertion of the argument is here: User_talk:Lord_Loxley#Third_.28and_final.29_reply_to_User:Lord_Loxley. Lord Loxley 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Anglo Britain (race)

"in York and Norfolk, here the Germanic male sex chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, with indigenous Y chromosomes comprising about 40%"

By "indegenous," does this mean Celtic, the indegenous race/people of Britain? --Rainsey 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Germanic genes which are mentioned are taken from people of the continent and are compared to people in Britain whereas the indigenous genes are taken from people in Ireland whose location is least likely to have succumbed to invasion over the past few thousand years. There is no Celtic race but a collective Celtic identity that was born in the 18th century based on a cultural and linguistic heritage and spread out to encompass entire national regions. The quote in question means that the people sampled in these areas had a heritage that is 40% encompassed of the people that have lived in Britain before the first invasion of any tribal group, whomever they were, which is regarded as the first to alter the native culture (by something that is regarded as alien). Often, Celtic culture is regarded as being indigenous or the culture of the indigenous people of Britian prior to the Roman occupation which, classed as the native people. So, if the people in that part of Ireland are the same make-up of those in Britain prior to the Roman occupation, then those in the English samples today have a heritage which is 40% pre-Roman (Celtic, as you have put it) and 60% Germanic or other.

A lot of people would have it that the English aren't indigenous but the Welsh and Scottish are. This is based on an assumption that all English people are of one genetic composite and all Scots and Welsh of two others. This might sound nice, but isn't right. To compare these English samples to other indigenous peoples around the world, for example New Zealand, the indigenous people on average are far less than 40% indigenous blood. Whether people wish to regard the English, Scots and Welsh as separate peoples or not, the fact remains that they are all descended from the same people, are genetically similar and in same cases more similar to people elsewhere in Britain than others within those same home nations, and are distinct from the continent, and all have just as much claim to be indigenous. What will be seen more of in the future as Britons become an increasing minority in Great Britain will be an awareness of this ancient link to their island as has been seen in other countries colonised by non-native peoples. Being European doesn't make one any less an aboriginal. Enzedbrit 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous genetic markers are usually compared to those of people from the Basque Country. This is based on the assumption that people in the Basque Country are genetically more representative of the paleolithic human population of Europe. The assumption is that there has been very little movement of people into the Basque Country after the paleolithic. These are usually refered to as a putative paleolithic genetic markers, because there is no hard evidence that this is true, but all science is based on certain assumptions that are made, and this is the assumption for most genetic studies of this type (Basque Country markers are ubiquitously used as a reference in this sort of study). The study found that on the whole people in the British Isles have a larger putative paleolithic component than Germanic component (Germanic components were identified from samples taken from Denmark, Northern Germany and Norway, and some samples taken from Friesland in a previous study were also used. The areas in England with the highest incidence of Germanic markers were York and Norfolk, but even here a substantial component of the material was of indigenous (ie paleolithic) origin, some 40% of Y chromosome markers from these areas were indigenous. The east of England is known to have been settled by Danes in the 9th century, they formed the Danelaw, and it has proved impossible to distinguish between Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking genetic markers, so we really do not know if we are measuring an Angle contribution or a Danish-Viking contribution, or the cumalitive effect of both. It should be noted however that the Germanic component of areas believed to have been settled by Saxons (rather than the Angles of the North-East) is rather less than those observed in the areas known to have been settled by Danes in the 9th century. Given that Y chromosomes are only carried by men, and are inherited exclusively from their fathers, it may be the case that the Germanic component of the entire population of these areas could be significantly less because we do not know the contribution of Danish-Viking/Anglo-Saxon women to the population. If the settlement of women was significantly smaller than that of men, then the total Germanic contribution to the gene pool of these areas might be rather less than the stated 60%, or if you like the modern population is descended from 60% Germanic men and 40% indigenous men, but we don't know these ratios for their female ancestors. So the simple answer to your question is that indigenous means the very earliest human inhabitants to occupy Europe after the end of the last major glaciation, ie some 12,000 years ago. Alun 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is first time I have used wikipedia and find it a fascinating place. However I doubt whether this subject can ever be brought to a conculsion given the apparently vast amount of published works that in their turn give some form of creedance to any POV.

Cited works on wikipedia need to be published, but they also need to be reliable sources, and only majority and significant minority points of view should be mentioned, the points of view of tiny minorities should not be mentioned. Saying that neutrality is achieved by including all significant minority points of view. Alun 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"So the simple answer to your question is that indigenous means the very earliest human inhabitants to occupy Europe after the end of the last major glaciation" -- I thought the "indigenous" peoples referred to in the study were Celtic peoples... Unless you're assuming the Britons are a descendant of those migrators to Europe.-Rainsey 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by Celtic peoples. The study refered to, which is cited (A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles) uses these criteria for determining what is indigenous. That is indigenous genetic markers are those similar or the same as Basque genetic markers, these are assumed to be very close to those of the earliest paleolithic people to have repopulated Europe after the last glaciation. It is almost certainly true that if the current population of the British and Irish Isles is largely descended from the paleolothic population of the British and Irish Isles (and current estimates are that about 80% of modern Britons are the descendants of paleolithic Britons), then the Celtic speaking peoples of the Iron age were also descended from the paleolithic population of the British and Irish Isles. Is this not common sense? Celtic speaking people were descended from the paleolithic population, and we are descended from the Celtic speaking population. Simple. Alun 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For my part I had just negated the use of 'Celtic' as an ethnic term and the last part of your sentence, I am sorry, implies you have read neither what I nor Alun has written, not that we are authorities on the subject but you've not given us the courtesy of reading us before responding. Enzedbrit 03:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Cornish ethnicity

I have removed it because:

1) There's a Cornish people page were all this has been thrashed out.

This is not relevant, please provide verification, there is non on the Cornish people page that I can find. Alun 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean its not relevent the whole Cornish people page clearly points to the fact that many Cornish people think of themsleves as Cornish and not English; i am one of them.

Bretagne 44 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cornish people article is not a verifiable source and neither are you. Alun 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

2) 37,000 people claimed to be Cornish on in the last UK census.

The link to the census on the Cornish people references section has no such information on it. Alun 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By Cornwall County Council: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11425&articleaction=print

From the ONS: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/consultations/downloads/2011Census_assessment_eilr.pdf#search='Cornish%20ethnicity%20results'

Bretagne 44 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, I'll have a look again, but on a quick viewing these data are not present in either of these links. If they are why don't you add them to the article yourself? Alun 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

3) The citation was probably put there by an English nationalist in the first place.Bretagne 44 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this reason. Is it meant to be some sort of insult? It certainly is not a valid reason for not providing a cite, and seems to be deliberately inflamatory. It was probably me who requested verification, but I do this a lot, even for things I know to be true, when I have no material to hand for verification. I even do it to my own edits if I do not have a proper source when I make the edit (for example when I am not at home). Anyway it is the responsibility of the editor who makes the claim to provide verification. All wikipedians have the right to demand verification, in fact without proper verification the edit can be removed at any time. Asking for verification does not imply that the person making the request disputes the claim, it is merely a note indicating that the claim needs to be supported with a reliable source. I have had a look at the Cornish people article and there are citations that clearly do not support the claim being made. Alun 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You do this a lot do you, perhaps you should spend more time looking for information than adding pointless citation marks. I have clearly proved that there is a phenomena of Cornish national identity and therefore have removed the citation, again!

Bretagne 44 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I do it a lot. I also do spend my time looking for information, in fact most of the work I do for my wikipedia edits is spent searching for verifiable information, even information included by other editors. I have almost certainly attempted to find on line verifiability for this information myself and failed, which is why the cite request is still there. Citation marks are not pointless, if you don't think that verifiability is important, just what are you here for? I get the impression (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you are not really interested in building a verified encyclopedia at all. Rather you are more interested in promoting your own personal nationalist agenda. It is perfectly acceptable to request a citation, in fact it is expected that wikipedia editors provide their own citations when they make an edit. I am not requesting you to do anything other than conform to what should be the norms of wikipedia behaviour. Here's my recent edit list so you can see that I do in fact spend a lot of time requesting and providing verifiability for edits and discussing content issues on talk pages.[2] I will insert the citation request tag one more time, if you remove it or a citation is not forthcoming within a week or so I will remove the comment altogether. Please familiarise yourself with the verifiability policy and read the fact and reference check and common knowledge guidelines, if you do so you will understand my position better, rather than assuming that I am acting in bad faith.Alun 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have clearly proved that there is a phenomena (sic) of Cornish national identity. You have proved nothing of the sort, I seek verification. Remember verifiability not truth. No one disputes what you are saying, but if you make these sorts of claims then you need to provide a verifiable source. As far as I am aware wikipedia does not recognise such a thing as proof, only verifiability, no original research and neutrality and their accompanying guidelines. Why don't you just provide cite to the Mebyon Kernow website or something? Alun 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I have found a reference that I think properly verifies that there is some opinion that Cornish people are not English, in fact in the article an Historian claims that Cornish people are no more English than Welsh people.[3] I modified the text of the article a little so that it is properly supported by the cite, but the general meaning has remained the same. Alun 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But Alun, being Cornish or English isn't about blood! It's about self-awareness and subjective identity. Cornwall is in England so the Cornish are English. That's how it works. It's the only way it CAN work. Enzedbrit 20:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, it doesn't matter to the article or citation. The article says that some Historians claim, which is true as there is a source supporting it. It is quite right to argue that Cornwall is part of England from one POV, but the fact that the other POV exists needs to be mentioned, as per the neutrality policy. The cited article doesn't limit itself to the biology of Cornish people, after all indigenous British people are all descended from the earliest paleolothic inhabitants of the island, the article mentions both cultural, linguistic and political reasons why some Cornish people do not consider themselves English. I'm a bit confused by your post, you say that being Cornish or English isn't about blood! It's about self-awareness and subjective identity. I would agree with that analysis, but you go on to say Cornwall is in England so the Cornish are English, which is the exact opposite argument, as it implies that it doesn't matter how they feel (ie self awareness or subjective identity) they are politically part of England and are therefor English. I would argue that Cornish people can be Cornish and British and English, but that if some do not feel English then we can cite it and accept it, but we certainly cannot deny it. Alun 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The same is true for any group of English people though Enzedbrit 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The same is not true of any group of English people. We are not dealing with truth, we are dealing with different points of view. What is true is that some Cornish people believe that they are not English, and we can verify this, we do not argue that all Cornish people are not English, as this is not true and is a breach of neutrality. If we can find a source that claims that another group of people living in England do not identify as English, then we can include this in the article, but we need to express it in a way that doesn't make it a fact, but a point of view. I'm not aware of any other part of England where it is claimed by some of the population that they are not English, but I'm no expert. There's a group calling for Mercian independence, but then presumably Mercians would not claim not to be ethnically English.[4] Alun 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Alun that you're just plain wrong here as I know first hand that there are many people who are in my eyes English because of origin/history/etc. but who do not regard themselves to be such, and I am referring out of hand here to people who regard themselves not as English but Northumbrian. I'm certain that if many people knew how we are debating ethnicity here on this article that they would indeed claim to be something other than English. People are saying that they are Cornish and not English and the arguments they are putting forward are by no means unique to Cornwall although there is definite political motivation behind such feelings, and with the climate and propoganda of today their numbers can only but swell. And yes, in time I'm certain you'll see the same for Mercians. Enzedbrit 09:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of my above comment is wrong? I'm not disputing anything you are saying, I'm pointing out that we have a verifiable source for Cornish people who do not consider themselves English, this doesn't apply to all Cornish people, or even a majority, but it's a POV that is from a published source. If we can find a published source, for example for Cumbrians, that shows that some Cumbrians don't consider themselves English then we can include this POV as well. My point about Mercians is that Mercia was an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, and therefore would be what we call today ethnically English (or Ethnically Anglo-Saxon if you prefer), the same claim cannot be made for Cornish (and possibly Cumbrian) people. The only thing we are lacking for other groups of people who live in what is now England, but who don't consider themselves ethnically English is a citable source. With a citable source we can, and should, include any and all of the indigenous people of England that don't consider themselves English, but we do need a verifiable source from a reliable source. Alun 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an issue among all this that is too easily forgotten. Englishness, Northumbrian-ness and Cornishness are not tangible, provable concepts and in fact aren't a lot more than a personal preference. None of them can be proven, if we accept that birthplace does not denote "nationality". Cornwall is rammed with people born in England with no Cornish blood, who "feel they are Cornish" or are "spiritually Cornish". You can't prove it, or prove otherwise. That's why the arguments about this sort of thing are just so much hot air. I can declare that I'm Scottish (I've only been there once) and no-one can prove otherwise. Britishness is the only thing that can be proven, with a passport or suchlike. Personally I consider myself Cornish and British, and that England is not a proper country - that's my point of view. Points of view are everywhere and almost infinite, so do they all need to be proven and documented? Isn't there a certain amount of futility that comes with this kind of territory? Or are we only documenting points of view held by a certain number of people? Where does that begin and end?

That's the legacy of the Union between the various regions that make up the UK. Everyone wants it all ways, so they can be British and Scottish, British and English, British and Northumbrian etc. Officially, and in terms of what's verifiable, we're all just British and anything else is in our heads. Bretonbanquet 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

None of them can be proven, if we accept that birthplace does not denote "nationality". Cornwall is rammed with people born in England with no Cornish blood, who "feel they are Cornish" or are "spiritually Cornish".

You are quite right, which is why ethnicity is about the group one identifies with. All indiginous British people are descended from the very first inhabitants of the island, but we don't identify socially or culturally as paleolithic people (when was the last time we did a bit of hunter gathering?). Ethnicity isn't just about blood, or more accurately descent, it's as much to do with language/culture/society and even politics, so it's about identity. Many people in the UK have multiple identities, English and Scottish or Welsh and British, there are no hard and fast rules, it's not citizenship and it's not birth, no one has any right to dictate to anyone else what group to identify with. There is a name for people who try impose their discredited ideas of ethnic identity or ethnic purity on other people, they are called racists. Please note I am agreeing with you here.

Englishness, Northumbrian-ness and Cornishness are not tangible, provable concepts and in fact aren't a lot more than a personal preference.

We don't need proof, this is an encyclopedia, we require verifiability, if we can show that some people identify (or in your parlance, personally prefer to be identified as) as being Cornish not English using a reliable source then it can go in the article. We are interested in what people believe (as long as we can verify it), not in some concept of provable truth. Remember verifiability not truth. Alun 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's pretty much what I wanted to hear :o) Given then that Wikipedia is not out to prove any concept of Englishness, more to just verify that there are various modes of Englishness and non-Englishness that people identify with, I am confused by some of the categories I see on various articles. I see categories for musicians, such as "English singers" and "English guitarists", which are surely problematic when it comes to actually deciding who goes in and who doesn't. I would not be popular if I tried to have a huge debate on them, since most people seem to think that if a singer was born in Middlesbrough, he's in the "English singers" category. That drives me nuts, and you saying that "no one has any right to dictate to anyone else what group to identify with" makes me feel a lot better. By categorising people as English or Scottish without having any clue whether they identify with those concepts, are we not being very un-wiki?

Does anyone know of any Wiki project designed to address this kind of thing? Bretonbanquet 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We're getting off on a tangent here, but I believe there are projects for Category sorting and Categorizing. However, I think that, in the categories such as "English singers", it is referring to nationality, not ethnicity. Take for example Category:American singers, as there is no such thing as an "American ethnicity", it can only mean "singers from America (the US)". Perhaps they would be better named "Singers from Scotland", "Guitarists from England", etc.

Origins

There is a report of what sounds like an interesting paper concering Anglo-Saxon immigration and the genetic composition of the modern English population at [5]. Perhaps somebody could have a look at the paper itself, since media reports of this type of study are not always reliable. Rhion 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had a look for the paper online but cannot find it. The BBC are a bit crap, they don't cite the paper at all, or even give it's title, just the name of the publication. It may not be published yet, but there is at least one mistake in the BBC article Genetic research has revealed the country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic Y-chromosomes.[6] This work is not definitive and may be wrong.[7] I may be able to access the paper when I go back to work as we have access to most of the major molecular biology journals there, but I don't have access at home. Thanks for the info. Alun 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the abstract fot this paper and it's a bit sensationalist and doesn't seem to really provide evidence, It's based on a computer model of what ifs, so all it's really saying is if there was a small Anglo-Saxon population, it could have become biologically dominant if our computer model is accurate.[8] For one thing it is assuming that there is a 50-100% Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome occurence in England, there are two problems with this proposition, firstly they cannot differentiate between Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking Y chromosomes, so is it Anglo-Saxon or Viking Y chromosomes they are measuring? The second is that the 50-100% only seems to apply to York and Norfolk, and not to other areas of England. Journalists get this sort of thing wrong all the time and a proper reading of the original paper is required for a definitive cite, journalists are not interested in being neutral or properly verifying their articles, they are only interested in a good story and I have seen several examples of journalists overstating or even deliberately distorting scientific results in order to get good copy. I should be able to get hold of a copy of the paper from work when I go back on Monday, we have access to most molecular biology journals online there. Alun 12:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to just comment on this: "a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."

If this "Doctor" confuses language and genetics he is not even worth the efforf of reading him.

I tend to agree with you. I get the impression that this group of researchers are out to sensationalise their findings, presumably in the hope of getting greater funding in the future. The original paper (Y Chromosome Evidence Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration) recieved a great deal of media coverage, much of which was a distortion of the actual findings. But the results of their original paper were limited to say the least, taking as they did samples from a simple cross section of Britain from East Anglia in the east to North Wales in the west. They found a large proportion of genetic markers on Y chromosomes in the east of England that were similar to samples of Frisian origin, the so called Germanic genes, with little evidence of these markers on the Y chromosomes of Welsh men (which were more similar to markers on the Y chromosomes of Basque men). This lead to all sorts of claims in the media that Welsh people are genetically different to English people, and ignored the fact that there was also a hight prevelance of indigenous genetic markers in the English samples as well, and even claims that somehow Welsh and Basque people are closely related.[9][10] A far more reliable study done by UCL, A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles showed that there does seem to be a greater genetic contribution to the York and Norfolk areas by people coming from North Germany, Denmark and possibly Friesland, but that this does not apply to the whole of England, even in the south of England which was supposedly settled by Saxons. The paper also states that it is not possible to distinguish between Danish-Viking and Anglo-Saxon genetic markers, so are they measuring Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Danish genes? No one knows even now. This paper didn't get anywhere near the exposure of the original paper because it's results didn't support the sort of racial differences that seem to be considered sensational by journalists. Now they are claiming that even with a small migration it could still imply a large Anglo-Saxon population relative to the indigenous one. Both the first paper and the last are reliant on a great deal of supposition, and upon computer modelling, the first model was to try to simulate the effect of a mass migration on an indigenous population, the second to try to simulate a small population out competing a larger one on the basis that the smaller population had a selective advantage. It's all very well, but it only seems to apply to central England (a point made in the New Scientist article [11]) but generally ignored by others, and it is also highly contingent upon the accuracy of their numerous assumptions. The reliability of any science decreases the greater the number of assumptions made, and in the New Scientist article this point is made well by another scientist commenting on the work. It seems to me that this work must be interpreted in light of what assumptions have been made, and how good their computer models are. What they are probably claiming (and I haven't actually had a chance to read the paper yet) is that this is possible rather than this occured. Alun 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And here it is, a terrible piece of journalism purporting to be an article about science, but full of mistakes, misunderstandings and sensationalist rubbish.[12] Even the first sentence is wrong Anglo Saxons were the first apartheid racists, who said they were the first? And racists, all societies were what we would call racist at that time. Alun 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I believe it can be useful for the discussion, I am offering a link to this paper by Capelli et al. on British Y-chromosome distribution and to my own clinal reconstronstruction of their results on a map (for easier visualization). (Legend: blue: over 50% Nordic, red: c. 100% Atlantic, the rest gradation in 10 percentual point stripes). Only York and Norwich are clearly more Danish-Saxon than Atlantic. The rest of England is mixed with rather higer "native" presence (on average, England seems 2:1 more Atlantic than Danish-Saxon).

I must say that some of that Danish-Saxon component may have come in prehistory (Maglemosian culture, Megalithic currents), not all is necessarily historical Anglo-Saxon or Viking input.

Also Denmark (and genetically akin Nord-German areas) is not so alien to the Atlantic genotype (c. 50% R1b, simmilar to that of England or France, clearly larger than Germany or Scandinavia proper) and that may cause some confussion.

Hope this is of help. --Sugaar 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The paper you link to A Y chromosome census of the British Isles extensively cited in the article. I do like your map. I have been thinking of trying to produce something similar myself, but did not really know how to do it, I'm certainly not very competent with graphics. Alun 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Clumsy sentence

"Some people concentrated in several English counties, generally further from the south and west, notably the Cornish and the Cumbriaans claim to have a noticeably stronger connection, culturally, linguistically and politically, to the ancient Britons; As a result of this some historians claim that Cornish people can be considered distinct form English people.[18]"

I have trouble parsing this sentence. Maybe "notably the Cornish and the Cumbriaans" should be in parentheses. Also, forget the semicolon and start a new sentence.

Sorry if I'm violating convention in any way with this comment, as I'm new here. --BLHersey 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is quite bad. And what's the generally further from the south and west, Cornwall is the most south-west part of Great Britain, so how can it be further from the south west. How about

In some areas, notably Cornwall (and to a lesser extent Cumbria), some people claim a stronger ethnic connection to the ancient Britons, consequently some historians claim that Cornish people are distinct from English people. Alun 05:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, much better! Thanks! --BLHersey 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though if British history was actually tought, then everyone who is indigenous would feel this connection to the Britons, from whom we're all descended. I like Alun's point - whence did we come? Mars? Enzedbrit 11:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?

Why exactly is the neutrality of the article disputed? That tag seems to have been there since June, but I cannot find the problem on the talkpage and there doesn't seem to be any active discussion over the article's neutrality at the moment. Does anyone mind if I remove the tag? --Rudjek 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there has been some debate about the closeness of the ethnic bond between English people and certain peoples from continental Europe. In particular is has been claimed repeatedly on this talk page that somehow English people are more closely related to German people and French people than they are to Welsh, Scots and Irish people. There has been no evidence presented to support this except for an apparent confussion between linguistic groups and ethnic groups (ie this sort of logic, speaking a Germanic language=ethnically German). There has also been an attempt to imply that the Norman conquest made English (and British) culture more French, so the French are a related ethnic group. I think this is why the disputed neutrality tag is still there. Most debate about these issues seems to have stopped, I'll remove the disputed neutrality tag and we'll see if anyone wants to replace it. Alun 05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I correct you. There is and has been evidence presented by other editors on WIkipedia. There is no definitive proof yet whether there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon mass migration to the British Isles..however there is indeed some evidence for the theory. Also the ENglish culture was founded by tribes (or members of tribes) from the continent and so the Frisians, Danes, Germans...etc..are a related people to the English through cultural bonds if nothing else. Just because you do not like the idea that the English are a Germanic (or related to a Germanic) culture does not mean that the evidence that they are indeed a Germanic culture, is false. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

There is and has been evidence presented by other editors on WIkipedia.

I have seem no evidence presented, maybe we have a different idea as to what evidence is. You do not appear to have read my post. There has been no evidence presented that somehow English people are more closely related to German people and French people than they are to Welsh, Scots and Irish people. Indeed there has been no verification for the inclusion of any ethnic group as related to the English. It remains simply a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion that we should remove this from the infobox untill such time as someone produces evidence for English ethnic relatedness to any other group. Alun 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no definitive proof yet whether there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon mass migration to the British Isles..however there is indeed some evidence for the theory.

I don't think anyone disputes that Germanic tribes came to what is now England in antiquity, indeed there is plenty of evidence that they came as mercenaries of Romans, it is the extent of migration that is disputed. Most archaeologists these days are sceptical of mass migration to England at this time. It's acceptable to state that both theories are valid. The paper you link to is well known to me, it has several flaws that have been well documented on this talk page.Alun 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the ENglish culture was founded by tribes (or members of tribes) from the continent and so the Frisians, Danes, Germans...etc

This is not a fact, it is a theory. I would suggest that English culture can equally be said to have derived from the indigenous Romano-British culture. Read Francis Pryor's Britain AD and you will see that there is more than one perspective on this.Alun 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

are a related people to the English through cultural bonds if nothing else.

See below for a detailed discussion of this. I would dearly like to know what these apparently mythical cultural bonds are. I see no cultural practices that the English have that they share with Frisians or Danes but don't also share with Welsh or Scots.

Just because you do not like the idea that the English are a Germanic (or related to a Germanic) culture does not mean that the evidence that they are indeed a Germanic culture, is false.

Germanic is a linguistic term. English people speak a Germanic language. I do not understand what Germanic culture is. Modern English people are not Anglo-Saxons, their society and culture would be alien to us, just as the society and culture of Vikings would be alien to a modern Dane. If these cultures were related a millenium and a half ago, then there is no reason to assume that there has been continuity on either part. These cultures have been separated over such a long time that divergence has made them extremely different. On the other hand England has been part of the same country as Scotland and Wales for several centuries, they have culturally and linguistically converged. You cannot pretend the last 1500 years has not happened. What we need know is how English people identify themselves today, who do modern English people think are the closest to them. This is not a history article, it is about a modern people, and it is not just about descent it is about identity. Please read the detailed discussions below about how modern English people identify. Alun 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

I have included only UK and Irish peoples as ethnically related. My reasoning is thus:

We are interested in English people as they are today. It is true that a millenium and a half ago (or thereabouts) some people migrated to what is now England from the continent, bringing a germanic language with them. Modern English people are the descendants of those people and the original inhabitants of the areas settled. We don't know the actual scale of their contribution to the English gene pool, it appears large in some areas (though never to the complete exclusion of native genetic markers), but much smaller in other areas.
I don't think the simplistic arguments that basically go related language=same race or ethnicity=same race/descent hold water, ethnicity is, as much as anything about how people/s self identify, and how they identify other groups as related or not to the group to which they belong, this identity is based on common society/culture/language/politics/country etc. So the peoples living on the British and Irish Isles have much more in common with each other than they do with any continental people.
The dominant language on these islands is English, tiny proportions of people speak other languages as native languages in addition to English, but we all speak English to a native level, I do not think it is true that the Frisian language is the most closely related language to modern English (as someone claimed), I think the Scots language is.
People living on these islands have a shared history and ancestory that goes back millenia, even in the case of the descendants of Norman people it is very nearly a thousand years, assuming a generational span of 25 years that means 4x10 generations (four generations per century, with ten centuries), this is a whopping 2⁴⁰ ancestors, or to express it numerically 1,099,511,627,776 (or a British Billion (American Trillion)) this is far larger than the human population of the Earth today. We are almost all certainly quite closely related to each other, this amount of reproduction must have led to quite a bit of mixing of any incoming genetic material with indiginous material. It is also obvious that we are much more likely to find our reproductive partners close to where we live (rather than in continental Europe). Due to the industrial revolution and the subsequent mixing of people for a smaller but significant 8-10 generations (256-1024 ancestors), and the fact that most modern English people live in cities or industrial regions, where mixing must have been at it's greatest, it strikes me as just plain daft to try to claim that English people are somehow biologically more closely related to continental peoples than they are to other peoples on the British and Irish Isles.
Culture, there has been some debate that English culture is closer to that of Germanic speaking peoples than it is to non-English peoples of the British and Irish Isles, I have seen no evidence to back this claim up presented on this talk page. Indeed as a Welshman I do not think it is true, or provable, it just seems to be the opinion of certain nationalist people with an axe to grind. Culture has changed dramatically over the millenia, we are culturally very different from our ancestors of just a century or so ago and we have very few recognisable cultural ties with peoples from a thousand years ago. Modern culture revolves around popular culture, television, music, newspapers etc. in these regards we share a very homogeneous culture, most of these media are broadcast/printed on a UK wide basis (think of EastEnders, Coronation Street, the Nine O'Clock News (or even Not the Nine O'Clock News), The Sun, The Guardian etc). I could walk in to any workplace anywhere in the UK or even Ireland and have a conversation about the telly we all watched the night before, and the BBC is the epitome of this. Even in non-popular culture we all study Shakespeare at school, there are numerous Irish, Welsh and Scots playwrights, novelists and poets who have contributed to the rich English language literature of the British and Irish Isles (James Joyce, Dylan Thomas, Robbie Burns to name just three of the top of my head). To claim that English people have a closer cultural identity to continental people than they do to the other peoples of the islands they share is just nonsense.
Given all of these considerations, and bearing in mind that we are not talking about how people from a millenium and a half ago might have been related to continental people, I think it is fair to claim that the very closest ethnic groups to English people are those that share the same local geographic space (the same islands), the same language, the same history, have the most similar cultural references and who are most related by descent. It seems a nonsense to me to try to claim that Frisians and Danes have a similar level of ethnic relatedness to the English as the Welsh, Irish, Scots, Manx and Cornish peoples. So let's stick to closely related ethnic groups, or otherwise we might as well just call it an European ethnic group and have done with it. Alun 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

it is debated whether Scots is a language in its own right or merely a dialect of English.69.157.126.241 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The English people trace a great deal of their culture and ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons and to deny such is just simply unfounded and unsupported. The Frisians speak the closest modern language to English and share other cultural traits as well as a great deal of their ancestry with most English peoples (i.e. to the the Anglo-Saxons). English people trace their ancestry to "Ancient Britons", Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings, so I don't see how you can not include continental groups. The main component of English culture is also Germanic, derived from the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and even to the the Normans. What little left of it is "Celtic" is debated and insignificant compared to the Germanic elements which created the foundations for "English" identity. 69.157.126.241 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The English people trace a great deal of their culture and ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons and to deny such is just simply unfounded and unsupported.

Where is the evidence of culture being traced to the Anglo-Saxons? Please provide evidence that modern English culture is significantly more similar to Danish, Dutch or Frisian culture than it is to modern Welsh or Scots culture. As for ancestry, so what, we are talking about ethnic identity, many modern Scots are also descended from Germanic speaking peoples, or where do you suppose the Scots language comes from? You need to show why you think that modern English people would identify themslves ethnically as equally related to Danish or Frisian people than Welsh or Scots people. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence against such great amounts of English identity and culture from being traced back to the Anglo-Saxons and Danish-Vikings. I am not arguing that modern English culture is more similar to continental groups that to Welsh or Scots culture, but I am saying that there is still many shared elements in common which is worth mentioning. IT should be noted there is a great deal which the Welsh or (especially) Scots don't share with English culture. You need to show how English people wouldn't identify having an shared ethnic elements with Frisians, Danes , etc. The English have alot in common with their insular neighbours, but they also share a great deal with certain continental groups. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

so I don't see how you can not include continental groups.

I gave my reasons, we are not talking about what ancient Anglo-Saxons might have identified with, we are talking about modern English people, I can find no evidence that modern English people identify ethnically as anything other than English and British, just as many Welsh and Scots people also identify as British. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the peoples identify their ethnically as British ? Exactly. Where do you think modern English trace their culture, language and ancestry from ? ANglo-Saxons, ancient Britons and Danish-Vikings. Those ties still exist between those modern groups, especially in terms of language, culture and genealogy. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided evidence for this below. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The main component of English culture is also Germanic, derived from the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and even to the the Normans.

Where is your evidence? This is a sweeping statement which only reflects your opinion, what is especially Germanic about English culture? and could you please be more specific about what the main component is? I might suggest that the main components of English culture are writers like Chaucer and Shakespeare. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that it is not Germanic ? Please do tell me what from English culture does not have its origin in Germnic culture or language ? I konw there are various elements, butthe majority derives from the people who founded English identity and language, the Anglo-Saxons. I might suggest that Shakespeare wrote in a Germanic language, Middle English. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are avoiding a direct question by asking a question. I have made no claims as to the origins of English culture, you have. I simply asked you to elucidate the what it is in modern English culture that is so Germanic that it is similar to modern Frisian culture, but different ot modern Welsh or Scots culture. I get the impression you can't do this. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What little left of it is Celtic.

I do not recognise such a thing as a homogeneous ancient Celtic culture.[13] It is an invention. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Celtic culture was homogenous, but that doesn't refute the fact that very little Celtic (Brythonic) cultural elements remain in English identity and culture. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And what Anglo-Saxon ones do? We are not culturally the same as our ancestors, it is true that little Brythonic culture remains, it's also true that little Anglo-Saxon culture remains as well. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The terms "Celtic" and "Germanic" are linguistic. Therefore, the vast majority of the entire population of the British Isles are Germanic, because they speak English. If genetic ancestry is deemed important, then the vast majority of the population of the British Isles is descended from indigenous stock. TharkunColl 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "indigenous stock" ? It is known from archaeological evidence that the British Isles were hardly isolated from Paleolithic, Neolthic, Bronze Age, etc. migrations, which begs most people to question whether the Ancient Britons were one unified people. Besides this point, the population is also derived from other groups, including Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavian Vikings. In terms of genetic ancestry, it is currently highly debated just how much the peoples of the isles are descended from various groups, including "ancient Britons" (whatever this term means). In any case, from various evidence (genetics, culture, literature, history, archaeology, surnames/family history, etc.) it is known that the English do trace some portion of their ancestry from Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings. Just because they share "indigenous" or "ancient Briton" genetic elements or other cultural elements with the other insular peoples, doesn't warrant continentel groups from being omitted. 69.157.126.241 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is known from archaeological evidence that the British Isles were hardly isolated from Paleolithic, Neolthic, Bronze Age, etc. migrations

Most British people are descended from the original paleolithic inhabitants of Europe.[14][15] Most archaeologists do not now support large scale migration theories. (see Francis Pryor, Britain BC and Britain AD) Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, SOME academics do not support large migration theories, and even many of them do not reject the idea completely, they only insist it isnt as straightforward as previously thought. That is only ONE genetic study which only shows that many British men may have Y-chromosome dating back primarily from "Paleolithic" times. It is in fact widely accepted, especially in archaeological circles, that there has been various migrations to the British Isles. This is easily seen by Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age (arguably), etc. artifacts and structures in Britain.

Every man has a Y chromosome dating to paleolithic times, they must have got them from someone living at that time!!! There are many genetic studies that support the fact that most British people have European paleolithic Y chromosomes (geneally with the R1b locus). I have only provided one. I could give you a lot more, I do have a degree in Genetics after all :) Large scale migrations to Great Britain are generally discredited. You seem to be unaware of recent developements in archaeology. Alun 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

begs most people to question whether the Ancient Britons were one unified people.

Is anyone here claiming that they were? I certainly would not claim that this is the case.[16] Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You consistently claim they are the same people derived from Paleolithic times. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I consistently claim that the population of the British and Irish Isles are mainly descended from the earliest paleolithic inhabitants that colonised Europe after the end of the last major glaciation. I don't think anyone would dispute this, where do you think they came from? This occured about 12,000 years ago, I have never claimed that culture and language have remained static over the course of the ten or so millenia (about 400 generations) following this event. This would quite obviously be an absurd claim. Alun 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the population is also derived from other groups, including Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavian Vikings.

So what? These people did not live in splendid isolation, we are not our ancestors and we do not have the same cultural/social/ethnic identities as them. We may be derived from several culturally and ethnically distinct peoples, but we are not necessarily culturally/socially/ethnically similar to other descendants of those people with whom we have been separated for over 40 generations. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming such things and yes I do acknowledge that the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings intermixed with the native Britons. But the fact is the language, identity and much of the culture of England traces from those peoples and therefore they share similar cultural traits with other peoples directly descended from them (Frisians, etc.) as well as shared ancestral/genetic traits. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would stop refering to your opinions as facts, at best these are theories, we don't know what happened in the period imediately after the Romans left, and to claim some sort of perfect understanding about it seems to fly in the face of academic history and archaeology. Academics have postulated theories and ideas, no one but you claims these are facts. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because they share "indigenous" or "ancient Briton" genetic elements or other cultural elements with the other insular peoples, doesn't warrant continentel groups from being omitted.

You are quite right, but this is not the reason I have given. Modern English people identify as British and English,[17]] not Germanic, you cannot superimpose some thousand year old deffinition of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity on modern English-British people. If you want to talk about the ethnic identity of Anglo Saxons do it on the Sub-Roman Britain or Anglo-Saxons articles, because it is not relevant to the modern world. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your own POV and most English people will acknowledge they speak a Germanic language and have numerous elements of their culture, history and identity deriving from Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings. You are not only incorrect on how Anglo-Saxons and Danish-Vikings influences are not "relevant to the modern world", you are ignorant of history. Modern English culture traces much of its origins to Anglo-Saxons and Danish-Vikings and therefore it is VERY relevant to the people today. The name of the people and the language aren amed after them for goodness sake. 69.157.126.241 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for this most English people will acknowledge they speak a Germanic language and have numerous elements of their culture, history and identity deriving from Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings. or is it just what you think most English people would do? When you say most in this way it is little more than a form of weasel words unless yo can show a study supporting it, if it is your opinion then you should state that I think most English people....etc. Alun 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Since the population of the British Isles have been freely mixing for 1500 years, any Anglo-Saxon element in English ancestry is also shared by the Scots, Irish, and Welsh. TharkunColl 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by freely mixing ? Whatever Anglo-Saxon ancestry of the English, especially in the east, would not be equally shared by the Welsh and especially not by the Irish. I can see this argument for the Scots of the south-east and borders area, but they would also have Pictish and Gaelic(Irish) ancestry. 69.157.126.241 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

English migration to the Welsh coal mines was large and well documented in the 19th century, most south Welsh people are probably descended from English people, even if they don't know it. There was a lot of mixing in the industrial revolution. Whatever the truth about biology, the people of the islands share a common language, culture, history, politics and geography that none of them share with our continental neighbours. To try to impose a historical and disputed identity on these people (that English people are ethnically or racially Germanic and Welsh, Irish and Scots are ethnically and racially Celtic) is a nonsense. Live in the world as it is today, not how you think it should have been 1500 years ago. Alun 19:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, live in the world today, based on what these people believe and on historical, cultural and genealogical facts, not your own biased, British Supra-nationalist opinion. Yes, I agree there was English migration to the coal mines of south Wales and I'm sure many people there do have different amounts of English heritage. What levels of "mixing" was there though during the industrial revolution and what are you drawing this from ? Yes the people of the islands do share a common language, the English language (notice it is called "English", not "British") but they also have their own distinct languages which they do not share. They do share culture, history and politics with each other but they also share similar things with continental peoples. The peoples of Britain share many elements but also have differences. In terms of the English, they share current similarities in culture, language, history and genealogy with other Germanic-speaking and continental groups, especially the Frisians, so how can you omit them ? I am not trying to impose the identity of these peoples as "Celtic" or "Germanic" (although in a linguisitic sense, the English are Germanic since they speak a Germanic tongue), but it seems you are trying to impose an equally non-sensical idea that there is one British Isles people. 69.157.126.241 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks, you can be banned from editing if you do, there is no reason for you to call me names just because I disagree with you. Please do not think that you can make assumptions about my beliefs based on a few comments here. If you knew anything about me you would percieve that it is ludicrous to call me any sort of nationalist. In fact it must be apparent to you that your position is more nationalistic than mine as I am taking a pan-nationalist view. I have provided quite a lot of evidence for my point of view. You keep making the same statements over and over again, but I can find no real evidence for your claims. Please read my comments above about your previous statements and respond to them with evidence for your stated position (I have comprehensively replied to your previous two posts, it would only be courteous of you to reply to my queries). You have failed to address any of the salient points I have made regarding your position. The fact that Welsh people, Irish people and Scottish people are different from English people is not in dispute here. We are talking about related ethnic groups not the same ethnic group. You have provided no evidence that:

English (people) share current similarities in culture, language, history and genealogy with other Germanic-speaking and continental groups

that they do not also share with Welsh or Scots people. Please be specific about what it is that English people do that is so similar to Danish or Frisian or Dutch people that Welsh or Scots people do not do, I would be thrilled to find out. I am Welsh and lived in England for four years from 1995-1999 and I could find precious little to differentiate them from Welsh people. I would dearly love to know what secret German things they do that they keep secret from us non-English Brits. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your own unfoudned opinon and just becasue you have no background in the subject or are unaware of such cultural differences doesnt mean they don't exist. Reading your page, I find that you are of English ancestry fort the most part anyway so you already don't have the same upbringing as many native or ethnic Welsh who are of Welsh descent. I told you already that the English people share aspects of langauge, genealogy, history and culture with especially Frisians, but also Danish people, Dutch people, etc. Read the infomration on their respective articles, read up on English history here on Wikipedia, English language, the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, etc. and all articles threading from such topics for a start. Describing the Germanic roots of many elements of English culture will take time to explain. You must also remember that the cultures of Scotland, Wales and Ireland have equally important non-Germanic elements not seen in England. Those nations therefore have a mix of Brythonic and Gaelic cultures along with Germanic. In terms of genealogy and etymology, you alrady know how the English are related to Frisians, Danes, etc. 69.157.126.241 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen mate I am Welsh, I had the same upbringing as the children I went to school with (a Welsh language school). Both my parents were born in Wales. You do not have the right to decide what I do and do not understand. You know a little bit about me, this does not make you an authority on my life. You do not seem to be able to state what Germanic things English people do. This is because it is nonsense. They don't exist. You are trying to imply that modern English people have the same cultural practices as Frisians from the 5th century. This is quite evidently not true. If the so called Germanic culture of the English was so apparent that they were obviously ethnically related to the Frisians then you should at least be able to state what it is. But you can't. As far as I can see the most Germanic thing English people do is to drink beer (which Germanic tribes invented). Given that the Scots language is a Germanic language, maybe you should go to the Scottish people page and claim they are a related ethnic group to Frisians as well. I have read extensively around Wikipedia, the pages you are refering to are not about culture, they are about history. You seem to have got into a situation where you have made a claim you cannot support, but you keep making it over and over. please state explicitly what cultural things English people do that they learned off their Frisian ancestors 1500 years ago that modern Frisians also do today that sets them appart from Welsh and Scots people. As far as I can see you don't know. Alun 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not it at all Wobble and in fact you simply are too stubborn to accept any other opinon than yours because of your own personal issuess on the subject area. I will provide you with what s Germanic about English culture but it takes times since its difficult to establish what is English and what is Germanic or what from characteristically English culture traces its origin to the Anglo-Saxons. These elements DO exist since it is Anglol-Saxon culture which formed the basis of English identitiy and made the culture distinctively "English". With that in mind, there were also other subsequent Germanic cultural and lingusitic influences from the Vikings and Normans. You must remember that I am speaking of GERMANIC not GERMAN cultural elements. It is difficult to examine exactly what is what in cultures. For example it is hard to detect what is Gallic, Germanic and Latin in French culture but that is what their culture is labelled as. Clearly the Latin elements are more idetifiable than the "Gallic" since that is what their langauge is based on. In England, the same can be said about the Germanic elements since that is the base of its language and whatever Brythonic/pre-Brythonic elements left over are very hard to detect, if at all. As for your own personal ethnic identification, you did not have the same upbringing as others since they are descended from different families, obviously. You consider yourself Welsh, but I and many, if not most others, would classify you as Welsh-English since you are of both English and Welsh descent.

"A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal." - Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. 69.157.126.241 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

you simply are too stubborn to accept any other opinon than yours

There is no point in getting personal. I am entitled to disagree with you and to argue my point. I fail to understand how I am being any more stuborn than you.Alun 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will provide you with what s Germanic about English culture but it takes times since its difficult to establish what is English and what is Germanic.....These elements DO exist since it is Anglol-Saxon culture which formed the basis of English identitiy and made the culture distinctively "English".

You amaze me. You keep stating that English culture is Germanic, but you now need to go and find out why it is, because you apparently don't know. So I get the impression that you have decided it's Germanic first without any basis for making this claim and now you need to go and try to find a source to support what you have said. Alun 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I told you before, it is hard to distinguish what is the origins of English customs, as to whether it is Bythonic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, etc. however, much of what is English obviously developed from the base original culture and language of English people and England which was that of the Anglo-Saxons. Need I say any more ? 69.157.126.241 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. How can it be obvious that English culture is different form Welsh and Scots cultur, but at the same time hard to distinguish. I would suggest that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. By deffinition what is ovious cannot also be hard to distinguish. You are tying yourself up in linguistic knots because of your inability to actually produce any evidence for this. What is obvious to me is that you have decided that English people share a culture with Frisian people that they do not share with Welsh or Scots people. Because you have decided this it must be true, but now this obvious thing is hard to distinguish. Your arguments seem to be a) English people speak a Germanic language, therefore they must be an ethnically Germanic people (but there is no such think as Germanic ethnicity, and Welsh and Scots people speak Germanic languages, in Scotland they even have the Scots language, does this make Scottish people a Germanic people?) and b) English people are descended form Anglo-Saxons who were Germanic, so they muct be racially Germanic (but English people are equally, or possibly mainly descended from Brythonic people as well). This also seems to ignore the 1500 years of history since these times. I have stated before that I do not think that exclusively racial or linguistic arguments are sophisticated enough to describe the complex relationships between British peoples. They certainly cannot be used to define the modern relationships between the peoples because they rely on interpretations of what people think might have happened 60 odd generations ago. Alun 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In England, the same can be said about the Germanic elements since that is the base of its language and whatever Brythonic/pre-Brythonic elements left over are very hard to detect

No this is not what is required. You need to find out what is specifically English that is Germanic, you may find that much so called Germanic cultural elements (and I don't believe such things exist) that occur in England also occur in Wales and Scotland. They have to be exclusive to English and Frisian people, or they do not suport your claim. Alun 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You consider yourself Welsh, but I and many, if not most others, would classify you as Welsh-English

Neither you or anyone else has the right to dictate to people what ethnic group they belong to. A mere coincidence of biology does not define the socio-cultural conditioning one undergoes as a child or adolescent. There is a word for people who want to classify others into racial straight-jackets. I am angry and offended by your remark. I don't give a flying fuck what you think, you have no right to racially classify me, you know fuck all about me. Don't try to demean my opinion by impugning my motives. I have no issues with anything, I am interested in producing a neutral article, looking at your recent edits you have introduced a great deal of POV into articles that were more neutral before you edited them. If anyone has an agenda here it seems to be you. Alun 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ones cultural and ethnic identity is not down to just his own personal views or opinions on oneself, it is also based on those in the persons surrounding society and culture and how that person is treated by others. "A mere coincidence of biology" ? C'mon pal. Your genetic familial heritage is a large part of who you are and where you come from, but in any case, your familial heritage is also how you develop socially since it is them who you interact with most when your young and in development and this in turn affects how you interact with others in your society. Actually, I have introduced more factual views into some articles and made them more neutral since they were leaning towards one persons or one groups own POV. I am not "racially" classifying you as I am not speaking about race, which is a taboo area that deals with the classifcation of humans into biological sub-groups. I am talking about cultural and ethnic identification here which in part is based on ones ancestry. Do you really have to swear ? Wow. 69.157.126.241 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

it is also based on those in the persons surrounding society and culture and how that person is treated by others.

As I say you don't know anything about how people in the surrounding society think, you appear to understand nothing about Welsh culture or society. Welsh culture is generally assimilative. Many (at least tens of thousands) people have moved to south Wales from England over the last century or so, if you were to go into a pub in Cardiff and start telling the descendants of these people that they are all English you would either be laughed out of the place or get the shit beaten out of you. You clearly know nothing of Wales or Welsh society. Alun 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

but they also have their own distinct languages which they do not share

All people who live in the UK and Ireland speak English as a first language. The fact that other languages exist does not alter the fact that we have a common language that none of us shares with any continental peoples. Isn't this obviously important when it comes to related ethnic identities?

English has become a worldwide langauge and it is the native language of millions and millions of people around the world. Im sorry to inform you, but it is something you DO share with continental and other peoples around the globe. It is ignorant to to claim "All people who live in the UK speak English as a first language" since there are many people in Wales and in Scotland who speak Welsh and Scots Gaelic as their first language. Yes, almost all the peoples in the British Isles can speak English (there are very few Irish monoglots left in the West of Ireland), but only the English have exclusively English as their only native and traditional tongue. The Scots, Welsh, and Irish all have languages they do not share with anyone else. In any case, English shares much in common with Frisian and they are the only members of the Anglo-Frisian classifcation under West Germanic languages. 69.157.126.241 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All people in the UK do speak English as a first language, that does not also preclude them from speaking another language as a first language. My sons speak both English and Finnish as first languages, I spoke Welsh as a first language untill I left school, one doesn't have to choose you know. Alun 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first langauge means yourn ative tongue, i.e. the one you learned first and which is spoken at home. There are many people who learned Welsh or Scots Gaelic first in the UK and there are people, albeit very very few, who are Welsh monoglots.69.157.126.241 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A first language is one where the speaker can speak fluently and without a foreign accent. People can have more than one first language, please see First language. Most languages learned before puberty can be learned to a native level. The terms first, native, and mother can be misleading. It is quite possible that the first language learned is no longer a speaker's dominant language, and therefore no longer the first language. Young immigrant children, whose families have moved to a new linguistic environment may lose, in part or in totality, the language they first acquired. I do not believe that there are Welsh monoglots any more, there may have been some left twenty or thirty years ago, but any left alive today would be very old indeed, Welsh people do go to school you know, and in north Wales where most Welsh is spoken at home there are very few Welsh language schools because there is no call for them, parents of children there want their children to be able to speak English. Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

you are trying to impose an equally non-sensical idea that they are one British Isles people.

This is related ethnic group, not the same ethnic group. I am merely pointing out that English people are much more closely ethnically related to Welsh, Irish and Scots people than to any other ethnic groups. To claim that English people are more closely related to Germans or Dutch or Danes than to Welsh or Scots is to pretend that the last 1500 years has not happened, no acts of Union, no intermarriage etc. No one has claimed they are a single British people (though a large majority of people in Great Britain identify as English and British, Welsh and British or Scotish and British, I have provided a link (in one of my responses to you above) to a survey conducted in 2003 which shows that 69% of Scots, 79% of Welsh and 83% of English identify at least somewhat as British), you cannot win an argument by claiming I said something I did not say.

I urge you to read my comments about your previous posts and respond to them, especially about the specific things that English people do that are the same as Germanic people but different to other peoples of the British and Irish Isles. Alun 20:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link from one survey claiming that people identify as British is dealing with nationality and not ethnicity, ethnic identity or ethnic origin. Even so, the vast majority of the respondents all claim their own "nationality AND British" with a slight majority claiming their "nationality exclusively" and "their nationality first and then British". I am NOT arguing against the view that English are more related to other insular groups than to other continental peoples, but I am arguing that the English are also significantly related to certain continental groups (eg. the Frisians) more so than other peoples. Just because they may be "more closely related" to other insular groups, does not mean that their important ties to continental peoples should be omitted. 69.157.126.241 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

slight majority claiming their "nationality exclusively" and "their nationality first and then British".

This comment seems a bit confused. I get the impression you are trying to distort these data to support your opinion when they quite clearly do not. You cannot claim a group that has positively identified as British for the anti-British group. This is Misuse of statistics. Alun 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the survey does not state what the question asked to the people who responded was. In the case of Great Britain (not Northern Ireland) it is safe to assume that nationality and ethnicity are the same (see Nation and Ethnic group and you will see they are very similar concepts). My argument is that it does indeed mean they should be omitted. Otherwise you should include French and any other number of peoples (Italians for example, Britain was a province of the Roman Empire after all. Keep it simple is what I am saying, include those that are obvious and closest. Alun 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Romans left very little impact on the people of Britain and what few settled here were easily absorbed into the population. They had nowhere near the demographic or cultural impact of the Anglo-Saxons. In the case of Britain and this survey, it is not safe to assume nation means ethnic group or ethnic origins since many of the people may be only referring to where they were born or their citizenship. Nationality and ethnicity can be both related and different concepts. In the case of this survery, we really don't know for sure. 69.157.126.241 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Romans left very little impact on the people of Britain

What's this? Don't you think Christianity was a large impact? Alun 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the survey that many people identify as British, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your opinion. In complex cases like the indigenous people of Great Britain, nationality and ethnicity are often conflated. Indeed I would claim that in respect to the indigenous people of Great Britain, nationality and ethnicity are the same thing. This is because, whereas it is apparent that a person from an ethnic minority, an English-Pakistani for example, may identify ethnically as Pakistani and nationally as English, for someone who is both ethnically English and nationally English, the distinction is not really apparent, and probably doesn't exist, the same applies to Welsh and Scots people. For example the Office for National Statistics recognises White or White-British, White-Irish and Other-White ethnic groups, with a more detailed inclusive level of ethnic classification including Welsh, Irish and Scots. So in this classification English, Welsh and Scots ethnic groups are included within the White or White-British ethnic group. It is clear here that Irish people living in the UK can identify as White or White-British and then as a sub group of Irish within this group, or they can identify simply as British-Irish.[18] People in the survey above cannot be refering to citizenship as there is no such thing as Welsh or Scottish citizenship. People in the survey were asked which groups they identify with, if they identify to the country they were born in, that is their prerogative. These data clearly show that you have at best a perfunctory understanding of the complexity of the people living on the British and Irish Isles. Alun 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sensitive Wobble, I am not making a "personal attack". I am refuting your own biased POV. More to follow later... 69.157.126.241 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making a personal attack by calling me names. A refutation does not require that you are personally offensive. In fact you have not even made a refutation because you have provided no evidence. You claim that my POV is biased, but I have at least provided evidence and sources for my replies to your comments above. You do not appear to have had the courtesy to even read what I have written before you fly off the handle. I am happy to accept anything you might want to include if you verify it properly. I have searched extensively on the net for verification about related ethnic groups for the English and can find nothing at all. Personally I would be happier to remove this section from the infobox alltogether as I don't really believe in the idea of related ethnic groups. As it is I am prepared to accept that the ethnic groups of the British and Irish Isles are related because of their long histories living on the same group of islands, their use of the same language and their similar cultural practices (drinking Tea for example). Alun 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then you must acknowledge the simlar cultural practices between the English and continental groups. Also, there are other elemnets to culture and ethnicity besides cuisine (i.e. tea; also, many people in the Isles are not fond of drinking tea, especially in Ireland). Justb ecause you havent found anything on the net specifically titled "related ethnic groups" doesn't merit omisson of the topic. Obviously groups of peoples have closer links than others as you admit such by including insular peoples to the section. If you include insular peoples, then you must include continental peoples, especially the Frisians, who share aspects of history, language, culture and genealogy with the English. The closer geographic proximity of the other insular peoples obviously does not merit the exclusion of other groups. The English share more in common with Frisians, Danes, etc. than many other continental groups and even peoples in the Isles themselves. For example, it could be argued that an Englishman from York shares as much or more in culture, language and ancestry than a native Irish speaker from the Aran Islands, or a native Scots-Gaelic speaker from the Hebrides. Finally, I am not making personal attacks by calling you names and I have no idea where you are getting this from. If we are to continue this discussion, I ask you to not be so easily offended since I have no idea what exactly is offending you. 69.157.126.241 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As I say I will acknowledge these similar cultural practices when you actually tell me what they are. Constantly refering to these practices, but never actually being able to articulate what they are just makes me think that they just don't exist, you don't have any evidence for this and you have singularly failed to produce one example of a Germanic cultural practice that the English do that is not also done by Welsh and Scots people (beer drinking for example). Drinking tea was just an example of a British thing that continental people don't do. It's odd that you mention Ireland as not a great nation of tea drinkers because a few years ago I came accross a tea website that showed that Irish people have the highest per capita tea consumption in the world, followed by the UK obviously. I really wish you'd stop repeating yourself, you provide no evidence or verification, I do not accept your opinion as fact. I have produced quite a lot of evidence for my position. Alun 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Insular peoples are going to be listed on the "related ethnic groups" section, then they need to have references as well as to what they have in common, unless we are listing all the groups based from common knowledge. Also, it is important to remember that the Frisians speak a language and have a culture more similar to English than the original Brythonic and Gaelic cultures of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The Anglicisation of Wales, Ireland and Scotland is due to English historical policies and actions and is a form of cultural genocide to some people (as is peoples attempts at trying to push some unified British people based on English culture and language). In any case, much of their respective cultures and language remain, especially in Ireland which is as much Gaelic (Celtic) as it is English (Germanic-based). English culture is having the same affect on world cultures (first from the British empire and now from Anglo-American culture) as people around the world now share many aspects in common with English culture and speak English. I have also produced evidence for my opinion and drawn from alot of the same sources as you. You have provided mainly POV and "common knowledge" yourself, so maybe you should stop repeating yourself. Its funny you say Irish people have the highest tea consumption in the world because I have never seen such non-sense, although I have seen studies that say the Irish have the second highest consumption of beer per-capita in the world. In any case, many peoples and countries around the world drink tea, including many continental Europeans, and the beverage itself is not characteristically British (it was spread everywhere by the British from India). 69.157.126.241 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Insular peoples are going to be listed on the "related ethnic groups" section, then they need to have references as well

Are you now suggesting that we remove the insular ethnic groups? I think that all groups that have not been verified should be removed untill such time as someone finds some verification (including insular ones).Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anglicisation of Wales, Ireland and Scotland is due to English historical policies and actions and is a form of cultural genocide

Not according to John Davies the Welsh historian (see A History of Wales), Welsh people gave up speaking Welsh because it was in their interests. It's almost impossibly to coerce someone in to giving up their language. Stalin failed in Estonia and I think you might just find he was a little more persuasive than the English. Fundementally no government can dictate what language a family speaks at home, only the family members can do that. The fact is that Welsh people started speaking English because it put them in a better position economically, they could get better jobs elsewhere in the UK, also with the advent of mass media in the twenties it must have been easier to learn English, when people started to listen to the radio etc. Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

it is important to remember that the Frisians.....have a culture more similar to English than the original Brythonic and Gaelic cultures of Scotland

I don't think anyone can claim that the original language of Scotland is Gaelic, in fact Gaelic is thought to have been introduced to Scotland at about the same time as English is to England, presumably by the same sorts of methods as the Anglo-Saxons used, (cultural genocide I think you called it, where is Pictish these days?). I don't know what you are talking about when speak of original Brythonic and Gaelic cultures, there must have been considerable cultural heterogenicity within the Celtic speaking tribes of Great Britain. To claim a common culture is absurd and I'm sure these peoples would not necessarily have identified as Celtic, or have recognised each other as than anything other than foreigners, they spent enough time fighting each other. You have provided no evidence that English people have a closer culture to Frisian people. I don't know why you keep stating this when you can't support it with a citation, I'm not asking for much, if it's that well established it should be easy.

Here's a nice quote from Simon James's website (it's about Celtic culture (how closely modern and ancient cultures are really related)) but I think equally applies to ancient Anglo-Saxon and Frisian cultures and how they might relate to modern English people. If we are Celts, and they were Celts, then it is all too easy to think that they must have fitted with our ideas of what Celts are, or recently were. They must fit into the Celtic 'cultural package'; yet that package is largely a modern construct, cobbled together from fragments from different times and places..... the Ancient Britons, Irish, and indeed Gauls, may have been very different from us and, if we could meet them, they would actually seem far more alien than we have imagined.[19]. It's worth having a look at Simon James's Ancient Celts Page with some well reasoned arguments as I wrote my own first book on the Celts I became increasingly aware that the differences between the ancient peoples-now-called-Celts was at least as deep and important as their common 'Celtic' culture. What is widely thought of as the Ancient Celtic 'cultural package' -- warriors, Druids, abstract curving-line art, etc. etc. -- may be largely a modern concoction, drawn from sources very widely scattered in time and space. So I don't subscribe to the we are Celts and the English are not point of view, though I accept it as a valid point of view it is not the only one and there is plenty of evidence of diverse cultural practices in Great Britain and Ireland in the Pre-Roman period. Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Britain is a good source. Alun 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also produced evidence for my opinion

So where have you hidden it? because I can see no references or links in support of your claims in your posts here. Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You have provided mainly POV and "common knowledge" yourself

I have provided a lot of sources to support my position, you have not, how can you claim you have when a simple glimpse at your posts shows no links to supporting external verification. There is no such thing as common knowledge on wikipedia. My statement about common knowledge was in support of removing the related ethnic groups section all together, because it's only based on common knowledge and not supported by any verification. Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish people have the highest tea consumption in the world because I have never seen such non-sense,

Another example of me being able to support what I say with a verifiable source, while you cannot. Please take a look at this website and understand that your opinion is not fact, other people can find reliable information that can contradict your opinion, you need to accept that sometimes you are wrong.[20] There are also cultural references to the presence of tea in Irish culture, think of Mrs Doyle in Father Ted, she is only funny with her obsession with tea because it has some basis in reality, like all humour. Alun 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Being able to support with a dubious and unreliable source, yes. That is one survey which I find ridiculous. Tea is drank by lots of people everywhere and is more popular in India and China probably more than anywhere else. Do you ever listen to any others opinon but your own ? I think you have some messed up views on this subject that arent as widely supported as you claim in the academic world (this issue is hotly debated, there is no current consensus), but whatever. 69.157.126.241 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds do you refer to this source as dubious and unreliable? Your attitude seems to be that any information that does not conform to your pre-conceived ideas is automatically false. In fact this is an absurd possition to take, you are in effect stating that your unsupported opinion carries more weight than any other material irrespective of it's origin. Your comments have largely been those of personal opinion, sometimes you claim that your opinions are shared by most peole, but I have no idea who these most people are. To me most people would represent a majority in a survey or opinion poll that could be cited. Claiming that most people hold the same views as you, without being able to support such a position is just a form of weasel words. You attitude here is the same as that for the survey of British people above. Evidence that you don't like you choose to disregard. This cherry picking of information speaks volumes about your attitude towards neutrality. I have provided much evidence for the position I have taken with regard to ethnic identity in Great Britain, you have provided little except your opinion and that most people agree with you. Your continual regection of verifiable and reliable sources combined with your inability to provide sources of your own lead me to think that what you really want to do is make the article reflect your personal opinion. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:CITE Alun 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Offence caused earlier. You seem to have been quite supprised by my reaction earlier to your comment about British nationalism. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain why it is offensive. In the UK a British nationalist is a member of the British National Party which is a neo-fascist racist party. By calling me a British nationalist you were effectively calling me a nazi. Now do you see why it is offensive? Alun 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do see now and it was not my intention. When I say British Nationalist, I didnt mean to associate you with that political party.I was referring to your ridiculous view of "One British Isles People". 69.157.126.241 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not like it because it doesn't fit into your nationalistic and as far as I can see largely unfounded perceptions, but the citation I gave earlier does show, quite categorically that a large majority of people in Great Britain identify to a certain extent as British.[21] This is a fact and is supported. If you are not prepared to accept this then it says more about how little you actually know about the peoples of Great Britain. You cannot just dismiss a properly conducted survey of how the peoples of Great Britain identify themselves just because it contradicts your opinion, this is disingeneous to say the least, and strongly implies that you are not really interested in producing a neutral article, as you want to cherry pick the data you use. Identity in Great Britain is complex, often how people identify very much depends on context. Whether a British nation or British ethnic group exists or not seems to be a matter of opinion. Some people would argue strongly that it does, others that it doesn't. I do not think it is particularly important how it is classified one way or another, but I do think that it is just incorrect to claim that there is no such thing as a cultural and social bond between the peoples that live on the island. This bond is strong and, whatever you may think bears most of the hallmarks of ethnicity. It is also important to remember that people are very sophisticated in how they percieve themselves, to most people identifying as British does not mean that they are any less Scots or Welsh or English, and why should it? In the survey mentioned 64% of Welsh people identify as both Welsh and British, 60% of Scots identify as Scottish and British and 63% of English identify as English and British, these figures are remarkably similar, and show clear majorities in all of the countries. With regard to Ireland the situation is far more complex and I think one could argue that the only ethnic group in Ireland that strongly identifies as British is the Ulster Scots group in the North. I have tended to avoid mention of Ireland, I think Ireland is a very different case, it's a different island and at least part of it is a different state, I think it would be accurate to claim that in the case of Ireland the connection is much less strong, though I think generally we do have an affinity for Irish people, and British citizens have certain rights there, I think (though I'm not sure, my memory is not what it was!!!!) British citizens can vote in Irish elections and are eligible for Irish citizenship (and vice versa). Alun 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You state above As I told you before, it is hard to distinguish what is the origins of English customs, as to whether it is Bythonic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, etc. however, much of what is English obviously developed from the base original culture and language of English people and England which was that of the Anglo-Saxons. So you are saying that something that is obvious is also hard to distinguish. How can this be so? These concepts are mutually exclusive, it is either obvious or it is opaque, it cannot be both. Alun 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To the unidentified user, having read this, I must say that I concur with Alun. It does appear that you place too much emphasis on differences between the English and the rest of the British which, in all honesty, do not exist. Aside from an identity that one is English, for example, there is no difference in culture, life or genetic make-up between them and the rest of the British. As for Frisians, the English language is closest to Frisian but the Frisians are continental and life is just so different there. Let's try to discuss things on here first, before changing the article, even though I doubt there are many more people than us that actually read it. Hwyl fawr! Enzedbrit 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Request for Comment: Peoples related to the English

I have been keeping an eye on this article for a couple of months. As it is obvious that the conflict is not going to go away, I have taken the liberty to place this request for comments. The origin of the dispute is about whether Bretons, Danes, Dutch and Frisians should be added to the list of related people to the English. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I am under the impression that one of the main policies of wikipedia is the verifiability policy. It has long been a problem with related ethnic groups that they are difficult to verify (at least online). I cannot even find any reference to a definition of related ethnic groups with a google search. I would like to see this section removed from the info box completely as I'm not convinced of it's merits. Be that as it may the definitions of what constitute ethnic groups have varied from the purely racial (only descent counts) to the purely linguistic (English people are ethnically German because they speak a Germanic language), neither of which are particularly accurate or reflect the realities of the situation. There has been a fair amount of nationalistic posturing, with English and non-English nationalists stating that there are greater differences between English people and Welsh, Scots and Irish peoples than really exist. These are largely based on events that may or may not have occured well over a thousand years ago and tend to ignore the more recent history of the various constituent parts of the UK. If there is to be a related ethnic groups section then I think it should reflect the realities of the present, which is that the peoples of Great Britain have a shared culture that goes back centuries that they just don't share with any peoples of continental Europe. If we are to include Danes, Frisians and Bretons, then we should also include French and Germans, in fact we should probably just include all Europeans and have done with it. Ultimately we are related to all these groups, it's the degree of relatedness that is disputed. I simply think that in that case we should include only the very closest of related groups, and that would be the other peoples of the islands of the archipelago. I am aware that we should not accept concepts such as common knowledge. Given that these are all unverified anyway (and I have placed unverified tags in the references section in the past but they have been removed at some point, I stopped editing this article for a while) and seem to be unverifiable I think it would be best just to remove them all and let people draw their own conclusions. Alun 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Wobble, you make some valid points in this paragraph that I agree with, but also you make alot of unfounded claims. Ethnicity itself is a touchy subject and its definition includes various elements. It does primarily consist of shared/common ancestry (kinship and descent) as well as cultural, behavioural, religious, familial, linguistic, phenotypic/genotypic traits which may or may not result of such descent. We are debating whether certain ethnic groups should be included under this subject based on their level of similarity or relation to English people. This is obviously a highly subjective subject area, even if relying solely on shared genealogy/kinship and descent. There is no need to argue for the inclusion of the other Insular peoples, but if they should be included, then why not other groups who are closely related to the English (even if not considered by some as being as similar). The French should not be included since they have only had limited influence on the English language with little similarity in terms of culture. The French have practically no significant relation with modern English in terms of shared ancestry (that is what can be traced in historical records). Some argue against this by citing the invasion and influence of the Normans. This however is flawed by the fact that 1) the Normans settled in very small numbers and were easily absorbed into the English population 2) the Normans themselves were primarily Norse or of Scandinavian descent 3) their culture was a hybrid of northern French and Scandinavian elements 4) their langauge was a Norse-influenced Oil language different from standard Parisian French 5) other than the language, what lasting influences and impacts on English culture they did have were not uniquely "French" and were common of most continental Kingdoms and nations of the Middle Ages. As for the Germans, it is questionable whether they should be included since they do not share a great deal with the English other than limited linguistic and cultural similarities as well as possible shared ancestry with especially northern Germans. Getting to the matter at hand: whether the Frisians, Bretons, Dutch and Danes should be included under "related ethnic groups". The Frisians should obviously be included if any such subject is to be in this article. They may not share as much in common with the English as the other Insular peoples but they do share a great deal in common in terms of 1) language: English and Frisian are the only members of the Anglo-Frisian branch of West Germanic languages and are closer to each other than any other langauges 2) shared ancestry: the Anglo-Saxon based surnames still form the majority of English surnames and most English can trace varying degrees of descent to the Anglo-Saxons. Even going by the one or two inconclusive y-chrom. analyses of some British populations ("A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" (pdf) Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration), there is clearly a significant "Germanic" line of y-chrom. descent in such studies in the sample populations in England, especially in the east of the country. The "Germanic" samples taken to compare were from Friesland, Schleswig-Holstein and southern Denmark. The Anglo-Saxons who migrated to England included Frisians and the peoples were very closely related speaking the same language (Anglo-Frisian) and inhabiting the same geographic region (the German Bight) 3) Culture: the national identity and creation of England as a Kingdom traces back to Anglo-Saxon England as well as the origins of disinctively "English" culture and language. Although evolving over time and receiving other influences (Scandinavian, Norman, etc.) they persist to the modern day. Many of these cultural traits are shared with other Germanic based cultures and peoples, including the Frisians. The Danes should be included mainly because of their shared history with the English, influences on English culture and language (especially Northern English dialects) as well as their significant shared ancestry with the English (due to Danish Viking settlment), especially those from northern and eastern England. As for the Dutch, they do not have any more reason to be included than the Germans would (being speakers of a Germanic-language and possible shared ancestry), while the Bretons would only be able to make a case based on shared ancestry (like the English, also descending from Brythons) and arguably shared history during the reign of the Angevin Kings of England (see history of Brittany). I am not arguing really for their inclusion anyway as much as I am for Frisians and Danes and I strongly believe these two peoples should be included if you are going to maintain keeping the related ethnic groups section. 69.157.126.241 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This type of argument, i.e. one that provokes a large amount of strong personal feeling and can subsequently develop into a heated row, is often blighted by a poor definition of the topic in hand. "Related ethnic groups" is such a horribly vague term that differences of opinion are practically guaranteed. All ethnic groups are related to the English, some more closely than others. Where is the line drawn? 1000 years ago, 5000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? What is guaranteed to prolong the argument is that very little of what some people are saying is verifiable to the satisfaction of Wikipedia. Arguing whether the English are more closely related to Frisians or to the Welsh is ultimately futile when nothing can realistically be proven either way. I have had many run-ins with people who like to remove all mention of Britain from articles and replace it with England, either believing that they are one and the same thing, or that anything with a vague connection to England is English and not British. The point is not that they are wrong, but they cannot prove they are right. Englishness, like Welshness, Scottishness and Cornishness, is not a provable concept but an attitude with which people identify, often for reasons other than descent, place of birth etc. Likewise, one's opinion of the relative closeness of other ethnic groups to the English depends on personal experience and POV, in the absence of clear facts. So, without the prospect of any verifiability for any measure of relativity between the English and any other ethnic group, the whole question of "related ethnic groups" should be abandoned. The alternative is an infinite extension of this current dispute. Bretonbanquet 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very much a matter of degree. Of course, the English are more closely related to Europeans than they are to others. But if this info box actually has any use at all (which I doubt), then it has to reflect what the people themselves think about their kinship. The truth is that the English feel almost infinitely more akin to the Scots, Irish, and Welsh than they do to any Continentals - and this fact still remains true even if the feeling is not reciprocated. TharkunColl 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here I must agree. This is, I believe, another firm argument in removing the section which is 'related ethnic groups'. To be honest, I had never known that there was so much argument amongt British peoples to be so detached from each other until I got involved in this forum and others like it. I, for one, am purely British first and foremost. It's my island, and although I'm happy to relate to regions within it, the island's identity has existed for so long, not the modern countries that have divided it. Enzedbrit 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if you're going to call something related then you should either cite your sources, or define your criteria for a relationship. Of course you can't really do the latter without violating WP:OR - something I think one or more contributor has been doing in arguing for the inclusion of these groups. I am in agreement with those who say that virtually every group is related and this is all a matter of degree. I personally don't find the related groups infobox information useful at all. Perhaps it should be in the See also section where the nature of the ethnic relationship can be elaborated - possibly in a timeline or sprinkled throughout the article or something instead. TharkunColl makes the point that the related groups should be what the English people think - ie, which ethnic groups do the English think they are related to? This would be a fine approach, if there was a reliable reference. Otherwise, without a source which says which ethnic groups the English ethnic group are related to, I agree they should all be removed from the infobox. I think everyone involved in this discussion has said as much. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone could argue that places like Goole, Crowle or if you want to push it Epworth and the Isle of Axholme do have some relation with the Dutch, but I really doubt local people really think this way anymore. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have the section. I think it the related groups box, we should have those that share similar cultural traits on the continent such as the Germans, Dutch, Danes, Swedes...etc...As I think histroy is an important part of current culture an dlike it or not they have a shared history with us. Their days of the week are another case in hand, all derive from the same Goddesses that were shared with all the other Germanic Pagan peoples and in this sense I mean the early English. They also are related by language. The Frisian language is the closest language to English, unless you count Scots as a language rather than a branch of English, either way the language is very close. Our Yule celebrations (as well as the word Yule > Jul) are also very similar to the Scandinavian and other Germanic peoples. Our folklore again is similar and derives from the same source, a lot of the time. In areas such as Northumbria the folkloric creatures still in many cases retain their old Germanic names (such as Dvargar for Dwarves or Dwarfs). And can anyone here say that folklore and folk customs are not important to a nations cultural identity and self view? Like it or not we are related to the continental nations and the Northern European ones even more so. The same goes for the other inhabitants of the British Isles, they share customs, language and traditions and also share a country (United Kingdom) so they are related. I don't see the problem with any of these groups being added. Not that it matters, I doubt this would change anyones minds. I just feel if this section is not re-added Wikipedia would lose another once of integrity. I'll speak more on each of these points later, when I am less busy! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

some responses to above comments:
This is all very much a matter of degree. Of course, the English are more closely related to Europeans than they are to others. But if this info box actually has any use at all (which I doubt), then it has to reflect what the people themselves think about their kinship. The truth is that the English feel almost infinitely more akin to the Scots, Irish, and Welsh than they do to any Continentals - and this fact still remains true even if the feeling is not reciprocated. TharkunColl 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not doubt they would feel more closely related to other Insular groups, but I also believe, from my experience with people who are English, that they obviously feel more related to especially Danes and Frisians but also Dutch (especially if from the east of England) then to say French or Italians. [[User:|User:]] 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have a very limited experience of English people. Have you actually ever been to any of these places you claim to know so much about? Alun 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does that really matter ? Does one have to visit a certain place to know about English people ? English peopl and culture are spread around the globe and I have read much into this subject area. Do you in turn have expertise in this field of study ? Exactly. 69.157.126.241 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You claimed to have personal experience of people specifically from the east of England. Now it seems that you have never been to England at all and have learnt all you know about the English from books. TharkunColl 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've had personal exprience with English people from all over England, but not in the UK itself. I myself am of mainly German and Flemish descent, but I know many English people from the UK as well as those of English descent who live here in the USA. I've also learnt much from books and other media. Whats your point here "TharkunColl" ? 69.157.126.241 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone could argue that places like Goole, Crowle or if you want to push it Epworth and the Isle of Axholme do have some relation with the Dutch, but I really doubt local people really think this way anymore. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have the section. I think it the related groups box, we should have those that share similar cultural traits on the continent such as the Germans, Dutch, Danes, Swedes...etc...As I think histroy is an important part of current culture and like it or not they have a shared history with us. Their days of the week are another case in hand, all derive from the same Goddesses that were shared with all the other Germanic Pagan peoples and in this sense I mean the early English. They also are related by language. The Frisian language is the closest language to English, unless you count Scots as a language rather than a branch of English, either way the language is very close. Our Yule celebrations (as well as the word Yule > Jul) are also very similar to the Scandinavian and other Germanic peoples. Our folklore again is similar and derives from the same source, a lot of the time. In areas such as Northumbria the folkloric creatures still in many cases retain their old Germanic names (such as Dvargar for Dwarves or Dwarfs). And can anyone here say that folklore and folk customs are not important to a nations cultural identity and self view? Like it or not we are related to the continental nations and the Northern European ones even more so.The same goes for the other inhabitants of the British Isles, they share customs, language and traditions and also share a country (United Kingdom) so they are related. I don't see the problem with any of these groups being added. Not that it matters, I doubt this would change anyones minds. I just feel if this section is not re-added Wikipedia would lose another once of integrity. I'll speak more on each of these points later, when I am less busy! Sigurd Dragon Slayer
Whatever the history, the fact is that the modern English perceive all those Continentals as foreign and alien, in a way that the other peoples of the British Isles are not. Folklore is all very well, but it is massively less important that everyday life and language. TharkunColl 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigurd, I think you should pay attention to Zzuuzz and TharkunColl's comments above, they are relevant. We do need to define what is related and what is not. We can't include groups just because we are of the opinion that they are related. And as he says if we start to define what level of relatedness is acceptable, this would constiture original research. Alun 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have paid attention, but have you to me? Only you can answer that. I do not believe this to be the case. As the unnamed user has said in the East and North of England many people do consider themselves related to the Dutch and Danes, sadly due to the wars it has become unpopular to consider yourself related to the Germans. But the fact still stands that most English people do consider us connected to various continental groups (that have been mentioned), as well as the other British peoples. I do think that we need to take into account culture, history and tradition to define who is a related group, and not just opinion's on who is foreign. I am not saying certain groups are related because it is my opinion, but it is both reading up on the subject and also first hand experience of people in the country, specifically the North, East and Centre of England (I do not visit the South much). Evidence for the fact that many in the UK consider themselves (at least culturally) related to the Danes and the European Continent, can be seen at York, where the inhabitants take great pride in their Viking (Danish) heritage. So we should have the related groups box, and not just a bias one with only the other British peoples, or for that matter continental peoples. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Removing of the Related Ethnic Groups box

I think someone's behavior has been childish and uneccesary. There was no group in that box that were not mentioned as being connected to the English in the main article. The Scots and Welsh are connected obviously because they are from Great Britain and still share a large percentage of DNA with many in England. The Danes, Germans (in this case meaning North-Western Germans) and Frisians are mentioned as they are related to the Anglo-Saxons who are whether you like it or not the founders of the English nation and still are the largest percentage in the Gene Pool (that is Germanic Y Chromosome being strongest in Central, North and East England) and are thus genetically indistinguishable from these people. Their cultures are very connected due to shared history. So I shall put it back and nothing is unsourced and almost all the other Ethnic Groups have such a box! I will not let Wikipedia become a one opinion site! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

still are the largest percentage in the Gene Pool (that is Germanic Y Chromosome being strongest in Central, North and East England)

This statement is based on a misunderstanding of the science, Y chromosomes only represent half of the population (men), Germanic Y chromosomes are only in a majority in certain parts of England (eastern-central england), and we do not know the contribution of Germanic women. Please check your sources. Also see A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles Alun 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That sentence was not a misunderstanding. I should have said male, as you had probably guessed. Please do not be so pedantic. I know about this subject very well. I have even stated it's faults in another discussion...there are many!Sigurd Dragon Slayer

How can I possibly know your level of understanding? If you make a statement that is incorrect I will respond to that statement. You claim two things that are incorrect, firstly that Germanic Y chromosomes are the largest component in the (male) gene pool, this is not in fact correct. Y chromosome coverage in England is heterogeneous, with some areas of England having few if any representation of Germanic Y chromosomes. Germanic Y chromosomes only form a majority in certain areas, generally the areas settled by Guthrum the Old and his followers when the Danelaw was formed (so roughly East Anglia, up to and including Yorkshire). Most areas of England seem to have about a 50:50 split between indigenous and Germanic Y chromosome markers, with some areas having a very small representation (notably, and unsuprisingly Cornwall). See the Principal Components plot in this paper A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles Even in York, the place with the highest representation of Germanic Y chromosomes markers these represent only about 60%-70%, meaning a 30-40% indigenous male input, the indigenous female input into the gene pool may have been greater and may well mean that the total contribution of Germanic people to the local gene pool (in York) may have been substantially less than 50%. You also claim that because Germanic Y chromosomes represent greater than 50% of the Y chromosomes of England that this makes the English genetic makeup genetically indistinguishable from these people. This is clearly not true, there is about a 50% contribution to the English Y chromosome gene pool that is derived from indigenous people, it is therefore more accurate to state that the English gene pool is very much different from the Danish/North German gene pool. The English gene pool is derived from an admixture of these two groups (indigenous and Germanic) at best. I do not know of any study that claims that the English Y chromosome gene pool is exclusively of North German/Danish origin, or that it is indistinguishable from it (and the only way it could be indistinguishable from it is if it was entirely of Germanic origin). This is either a deliberate distortion of the data or another misunderstanding of the science involved. I also urge you to look at this paper Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England, which also claims about a 50:50 split for indigenous and Germanic Y chromosomes (they quote a median continental ingression into England of 24.4-72.5%, with a mean of 54.1%). Indeed the evidence as it stands indicates that English people are equally the descendants of indigenous people as they are the descendants of any possible invading peoples, just as the article currently states. Alun 12:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there are those that do indeed say that the Y Chromosome is predominately of Frisian, Danish or North German stock. And there are many in the acedmic world who claim that the modern English are not equally descendants from both indigenous and settling peoples, such as those that suggest Offa's Dyke was a genetic barrier for instance. I personally believe that everyone in England has both British and Germanic blood, but that doesn't mean everyone would agree with me. It is the haplotype frequencies are indistinguishable. I urge you to read this one http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008 which in my mind is the best even if it is small in scope. Also again I will say this so everyone understands it, testing the Y Chromosome only reveals one thing, it reveals what your father's Y Chromosome was, so it will say either Germanic or British...etc...when you are in fact mixed British/Germanic...etc...you have thousands of ancestors and only one is being tested. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Ah, but there are those that do indeed say that the Y Chromosome is predominately of Frisian, Danish or North German stock. I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There are assumed indigenous Y chromosomes (similar to Irish and Basque) and there are assumed Germanic Y chromosomes (similar to Frisian or Danish/North German, depending on the study). The most recent data seem to indicate that there is about a 50:50 split between indigenous and Germanic Y chromosomes in England as a whole, both A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles and Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England give similar figures. The paper that claims Offa's Dyke was a genetic barrier is in fact claiming that no Germanic Y chromosomes entered Wales, leaving the Welsh relatively free from any Germanic Y chromosomes. It makes no comment about the extent of indigenous Y chromosomes in England. The paper you link to, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration (it is the same paper) is well known to me. It describes a computer model designed to simulate the extent of immigration necessary in a single event that would produce the level of Germanic Y chromosomes seen in their samples. Their samples are not representative of the whole of England, as the area they sampled from was East Anglia and Central England, an area subsequently shown to be unrepresentative of England and to have a greater than average proportion of Germanic Y chromosomes. the area is also a problem area because their data are contaminated by Danish-Viking Y chromosomes that are indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes, which they thought they were studying. If you actually read A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles you would know this. The paper Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration states that there was an immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool and also notes that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number. This fits in well with the A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles paper's estimate of about a 60% non-indigenous (ie Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking) contribution for York and Norfolk. Indeed this paper states that their results provide significant evidence that there has not been complete population replacement anywhere in the British Isles. You really don't seem to understand this work at all. I do not need to have the significance of Y chromosomes explained to me, I have a BSc in Genetics and am perfectly au fait with the concept of hereditary and how it relates to genetics. I fear it is you who are hopelessly confused by this work. Alun 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway irrespective of what the Germanic contribution is to the moder English gene pool, this does not really have any bearing on relatedness to English ethnicity does it? We need to understand how English people identify rather than relying on what genetic research tells us, genetic evidence is not proof of how a population identify themselves and how their group is related to other groups. Here's a nice piece on English Civic Nationalism from the Campaign for an English Parliament that raises some good points about Englishness, though I'm not sure how relevant it is. Detail about genetic analysis and descent should be included in the body of the article where it can be commented on thoroghly Alun 05:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. We are related to the Danes, Frisians, Swedes and also the other British ethnicities, through cultural ties, traditions, and our own views. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

So we need a citation that specifically states that Englis people generally see themselves as related to Danes and Frisians (I think the Swedes thing is just nonsense). Alun 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The box was removed because there is no verification for the information contained therein. What we need is a citation that states specifically what ethnic groups are related to the English. As far as I can see it's really a matter of opinion and extent. Nevertheless without proper verification the information is subject to removal at any time. Being connectied to the English does not necessarily constitute being a related ethnic group. I urge you to read the talk page before you unilaterally make these changes. You will observe that the majority of people on this page do not support the inclusion of the related ethnic group box. Please start new discussions at the end of the current talk page. Alun 12:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the majority of people on this discussion page only wish that the related ethnic group box be defined in what it entails, not permanently removed. 69.157.126.241 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I disagree. Having been here for as long as I have, I think that the opposite is true. Enzedbrit 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

69.157.126.241, have you actually read the RfC above, your comment indicates that you have not. We cannot define it as this would entail original research, this is against policy. I am currently of the opinion that we should include all groups for which we can find a citation. Citations must be specifically about ethnicity, not about the editors interpretation of ethnicity. One cannot claim for example that just because there are linguistic similarities between two groups that this proves a related ethnicity, neither can one say this for biological relatedness. We need to find a reference that is specifically about how these groups identify their ethnically or nationally relative to other groups. I am becoming sceptical that English people can even be considered a single ethnic group rather than a nation, England is very diverse internally, and it certainly developed from several different related ethnic groups that were originally seperate nations. this work states of ethnic groups that, unlike nations "common myths and historical memories" may be much more plausible; since ethnic groups may be much smaller than modern nations, the often quite implausible myths of common descent that modern nations espouse (and that may have been created or radically adapted by modern propagandists) can have much more credible equivalents in the case of ethnic groups. For example all the talk of a Frisian relationship with English people may only apply to certain places in England in the east. I do not believe there is any evidence that the original kingdoms of the Heptarchy would have viewed themselves as a single ethnic group, possibly they would have percieved each other as related ethnic groups but not a single entity. The chapter from the book is very good and I will aquire a copy of the book from amazon [22] because I think it may well have some usefull information. Alun 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If the English of the heptarchy did not consider themselves part of the same "ethnic group", then Bede would never have entitled his book A History of the English Church and People. TharkunColl 13:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't that partly Bede's purpose? To promote the view that the peoples of England were one nation, didn't he even introduced creation myths for the various peoples of Great Britain in order to promote the idea of a kinship? Whatever the bonds between the various English peoples were in the Heptarchy, they had different names for themselves and each other, so one must assume they recognised each other as different in some way. All I'm saying is that I'm getting more sceptical, it's probably impossible to know just how these very early Angles, Saxons, Jutes et al. identified with each other, I'm certainly not trying to define them. It is also the case that England was not unified untill the Battle of Brunanburh in 937, and even subsequent to that there were ethnic groups in England that were not considered English. As late as 1003 Danish settlers were not considered English as this is when Aethelraed II ordered the St. Brice's Day massacre. A bit later it seems that the English were the English and the idea of being Anglo-Danish seems to disappear. Maybe this was something to do with the Danish Kings in the eleventh century, maybe it was to do with the oppression of the Normans who as foreign conquerors just saw the English as one nation to be oppressed. I don't know, but I don't think we can consider the English of the Anglo-Saxon period to be equivalent to the English of the world as it is today. But then I think you agree with me on this don't you TharkunColl? Alun 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun, could i just ask why you feel that it is you, and only you that is responsible for what information is posted on a public page? I, like many people on here are english and would like to have a say about what is written about our history. At least put it to a vote, if the majority of people want a box that has english people's related ethnic groups then include it on the public page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpayne (talk • contribs)

could i just ask why you feel that it is you, and only you that is responsible for what information is posted on a public page?

How can you possibly claim to know what I feel? Alun 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I, like many people on here are english and would like to have a say about what is written about our history.

See History of England, this is not a history page, it's a page about the ethnic group. Alun 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

if the majority of people want a box that has english people's related ethnic groups then include it on the public page.

This is not the point, and shows a clear misunderstanding of the problem on your part. I would very much like to include a related ethnic group boix, the problem is one of verifiability. We need citations in support of what groups are actually related to the English. The reason that I removed the box was to stop a silly edit war that had developed, whereby the page was getting reverted constantly. So it makes sense that we try to get some verifiable info here. For example your edit included Dutch, Frisian and Welsh people, but not Irish or Scots, how can this be justified? English people have shared a language, culture and island with Scots people for the last three hundred years, where is the ethnic similarity between English and Frisian or Dutch people? This is the crux of the problem, and it's simply a question of one's point of viewe. By asking for this information to be verified I am simply conforming to the wikipedia policies on neutrality, no original research and verifiability. I fail to see why you think I am being unreasonable because I am trying to stop an edit war and am making sure peple can justify their edits properly. Alun 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recoment that you read the request for comment above. Alun 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun with respect just because people fail to recognise that they are ethnically related to the dutch and frisians does not make it untrue, isn't the whole point of this page to educate? If you are to include an ethnic box, could you at least include in it it 'Germanic and Celtic' elements thereby eliminating all of your confusion around welsh, irish etc. You know that the english are ethnically related to the dutch and frisians, and I can provide eveidence to back this up. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008

Also again I ask, who put you in charge of keeping a public page, that is representative of my history as much as yours?

Thank you, Alex Payne, 16 Walsall

Alex, you are refering to a research paper that is well known to me (I first came accross this paper some four years ago, I have a BSc in genetics and so am fully au fait with what it says, and more importantly what it means), you may not fully undertand this paper, it is a technichal paper about a computer model that has been used to determine if there could have been mass migration to England some 1500 years ago. This single paper does not represent the entire body of work on this subject, in many ways it is unrepresentative of the majority of the work in this field. I strongly suggest that you read some more recent papers, I recomend A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles, and if you are really interested in genetics there is a whole plethora of papers relating to the subject on one of my sub pages User:Wobble/useful links. Most importantly one should not be confused by the title of the paper, it doesn't really provide evidence for mass migration, so much as give a possible scenario for mass migration. It makes no claims about the ethnicity of the migrants whatsoever. The most important thing about this paper is that it has been superceded by other, more recent papers that have largely discredited this paper. One of the problems with this paper for example is that it's sampling area is generally unrepresentative of England as a whole. Their sampling areas in England were generally within an area that ecompased the Danelaw, this area saw substantial and recorded levels of Danish-viking settlement in the ninth century, this is not disputed by anyone, but it is impossible to distinguish between the so called Anglo-Saxon genetic material and the Danish-Viking material, so what this paper claims as Anglo-Saxon migration is indistinguishable from later, recorded Danish-Viking migration. If you want to be technical about it, their Anglo-Saxon samples are in fact contaminated with Danish-Viking samples, and they cannot tell them appart. Furthermore ethnicity is not about genetics, or race. Ethnicity is about society and culture. If one wants to claim that Anglo-Saxons were culturally similar to ancient-Frisians then that may indeed be a fair point, but English people are not Anglo-Saxons any more than moder Frisians are ancient Frisians. At the time you are talking about the respective cultures and societies would be indistinguishable from the modern nations.Alun 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

- just because people fail to recognise that they are ethnically related to the dutch and frisians does not make it untrue

It doesn't make it true just because you claim that it is true. I am generally interested in verifiability, your source is not about ethnicity, it is about genetics, if you want to show ethnic relatedness you need a source that shows shared social and cultural traits between Frisians, Dutch and English that is not shared by other groups. The other thing about ethnicity is that it is how people percieve themselves, so in actual fact if English people do not percieve themselves as related to Frisians or Dutch people, then they are not ethnically related.Alun 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

- who put you in charge of keeping a public page, that is representative of my history as much as yours?

No one is in charge of this page, but your assertion about me being in a minority of one clearly shows that you have not read the Request for Comment on this page, where most of the respondents either wanted to remove the Related Ethnic Groups section, or fond it confusing or misleading. Wikipedia may be the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but it does still have rules, and three of the most important rules are those of verifiability, neutrality and no original research, all I have done is to sugest that we remove the related ethnic groups section untill we find a reliable source that gives a list of groups that are related ethnically to the English nation. I have been looking hard for such a source, I am currently reading Catherine Hills The Origins of the English and Language and Nationalism in Europe, I shall shortly read Bryan Sykes Blood of the Isles and Stephen Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story, the latter two are books about genetics, rather than ethnic identity. This page is not about History, I do not understand why you think it is, it's about the nation, if you are interested in history then go to the History of England page.Alun 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I think we need to do is to create a page called something like Ancient migrations to Great Britian and include all of the various theories about Anglo-Saxon migration there, with all the evidence, archaeological, historical, scientific, genetic (which in fact supports a very low level of migration from the continent and descent mainly from Brythonic people for the modern English population) etc. This way we can seperate the ethnicity debate from the debate about migration to Great Britain. But I really think that you must understand that English people are not Anglo-Saxons, we cannot claim that because Anglo-Saxons some 1500 years ago were related ethnically (I mean their material culture, (possibly) religion, building practices, language etc.) to ancient Frisians and Dutch that it follows that moder English people are as well. England has undergone a lot of social and cultural changes over the last 1500 years, indeed it has undergone a lot of social and cultural changes over the last 100 years, one cannot just ignore the last 1500 years and claim that we and modern Dutch people are the same as our ancestors of 60 odd generations ago.Alun 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: as far as I can tell, English are related by language to: (1) other English-speaking peoples (logically), what includes most of British ex-colonies (white or not), (2) Germanic speaking peoples, significatively Frisian, (see Germanic languages), but not Dutch, which is closer to German, (3) Indo-European speakers of all sorts (particularly Western IEs and, among them, Latin-Romance and possibly Celtic). By genetics they are quite clearly in the Western European group, understanding by that Europeans west of the Alps-Rhin-North Sea line (plus Denmark maybe), or, being more flexible, extending it to include all Cold War Western Europe approximately (without Greece).

It's a big lot, I must say. --Sugaar 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I'd appreciate it, if you weren't as patrionising and downright arrogant, thank you. Can i remind you that the box clearly states that peoples are ethnically 'related' not identical but related. How can you deny that the english are in no way related to the dutch, frisians, or celts? And this is about history Alun, as our history (e.g. germanic migrations) as defined who the english people are today.

I'd appreciate it, if you weren't as patrionising and downright arrogant, thank you.

Eh? Insult me then thank me. I don't get it. Don't be such a hypocrite. If you want people to be civil to you, you could try not initiating a discussion by attacking them. Thank you. It is a breach of wikipedia rules to make personal attacks, so please don't call me arrogant or patronising, I have made no personal remarks about you, there's no reason to be offensive. I fail to see how I have been either arrogant or patronizing. You have failed to provide any evidence for your claims, so I see no reason to accept them. I have a right to give my side of the argument just as much as you do, you need to learn to accept that other people will have different opinions to yours, and that they have every right to hold those opinions, just as you have every right to your opinions. I disagree with your arguments, and find them unconvincing, live with it. Alun 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

the box clearly states that peoples are ethnically 'related' not identical but related

I know this perfectly well, but you still need to provide evidence in the form of a citation from a reliable source. I am following wikipedia guidelines and policies here. One of the problems is that no one seems to know, or understand what a related ethnic group is, I can find no reference to such a thing in any of the papers or studies I have read, I have looked in vain for some sort of academic definition of what constituted relatedness when used with regard to ethnicity, but can find no such definition. I think the box is therefore a red herring, I don't think it is possible to find supporting citations for any group in this box, and believe me I've tried. Alun 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

history Alun, as our history (e.g. germanic migrations)

I am following archaeological and genetic orthodoxy here, genetic evidence seems to point in the direction of little Germanic migration, indeed the vast majority of the population of England seem to be descended from the pre-Roman Brythonic peoples, with a very small Germanic contribution. Archaeologists are also sceptical of a Germanic migration. So in fact it is you that is poorly informed as to your history. I urge you to read some up to date texts, for example Britain AD by Barry Cunliffe or The Origins of the English by Catherins Hills. You will percieve that in academia the invasionist theories are generally discredited. Whatever the truth I fail to see what this has to do with being English, these people were not English, they were German, being English is far more than being descended from some mythical invading barbarian Alun 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is how one thinks of English identity. As Catherine Hills points out, there are at least three seperate periods of history when one can think of the English originating, 10,000 odd years ago, when the last Ice Age ended and Europe was repopulated; during the sub-Roman period, when some historians think the south and east of Great Britain started to be Anglo-Saxon; or when England was unified during the tenth century. I don't think there is any real evidence that Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as a single people untill the time of the Viking attacks. I think there is much consensus that it was the incrasing ferocity of these attacks that forced to Anglo-Saxon people to unify or be enslaved. This was followed by more and more cooperation between the various states, especially between Mercia and Wessex (traditional rivals), culminating in the union of the two large states partially by Alfred the Great (who was King of the Anglo-Saxons) and his son Edward the Elder the first King of the English. But it was not untill the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 that Athelstan finally unified what we would now recognise as England. In these times people followed the allegiance of their masters, so it follows that the political union of England probably preceded the perception of a unified people. There also seems to be a consensus in the books I have read that the union of England was not inevitable, and had it not been for the Viking raids the Kingdom of England may never have existed. So when did English people start to think of themselves as English? It's always a question of perceptions, and no one is right, but we need to try to include all points of view here. You say you are only interested in facts, but there are no facts here, just theories. This is the crux of the matter because this is an article about ethnic identity and not about history or genetics or descent. Alun 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

lmao omg -'I have a BSc in genetics and so am fully au fait with what it says, and more importantly what it means), you may not fully undertand this paper,' don't insult my intelligence please.' you don't think that's being patrionising?? my god, lmao. Also Alun, i have never once said that I haven't accepted your opinions, but I get kind of annoyed when people think that they are in charge of a public page. You asked me to give proof that English people are ethnically related to the dutch and other europeans (so i could edit th page, which you then re-editied), you asked me to provide you with evidence and I did just that. Alun it seems to me that you are basing this on your wn opinons and judgements, as you feel that it's wrong to class groups ethnically. The fact is though, you can, and the fact is that english people are ethnically related to other european peoples whether you like it or not. Also, I think it's absurd that you or anyone else doubts a germanic migration. 65% of english people have blue eyes, we speak a germanic language, and our DNA is identical to that of other germanic peoples for no reason at all, is it? I know that this has nothing to do with ethnicity, but you brought up the theory that doubts germanic migration to england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpayne (talk • contribs)

lmao omg -"I have a BSc in genetics and so am fully au fait with what it says, and more importantly what it means), you may not fully undertand this paper," don't insult my intelligence please. you don't think that's being patrionising?? my god, lmao.

Well, no it's not patronising at all. I stated that I knew the paper well and also that I had a relevant academic qualification, so that you would be under no illusions that you were talking to someone who understands what they are talking about. Scientific journals do not publish material that is readily accessible to people without the relevant training/qualifications, I suspect that without significant scientific study, at least to higher education standard, it would be very difficult to understand the paper and the conclusions it draws. I know nothing of your academic credentials, and merely pointed out that you may not have fully understood the paper, it's got nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with education. For example I would not expect to be able to understand a complex legal ruling that a lawyer would, does this does not make him more intelligent? I am sorry if this offended you, it was never intended to, I have dealt a lot with people on wikipedia who use this particular paper to claim that it somehow prooves a germanic descent for English people. The paper itself makes no such claims, anyone who reads this paper and thinks that it shows that English people are all of Germanic descent clearly has not understood their conclusions. Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Alun, i have never once said that I haven't accepted your opinions, but I get kind of annoyed when people think that they are in charge of a public page.

No one is in charge of this page. But wikipedia does have rules, it's not a public page, it's an encyclopaedia. This is not a repository of personal opinion or half baked ideas, there are rules. If you want to contribute follow the rules. Read WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

you asked me to provide you with evidence and I did just that

No you didn't. You provided a paper on genetic research that shows that about half of the men (and it's only men) from central England share some genetics with people from accross the North Sea. The paper you gave as evidence has since been shown to have some systematic problems, namely:

The areas sampled seem to have the largest germanic component of anywhere in England. They are therefore the extremes of the English gene pool and are unrepresentative of the whole of the nation/ethnic group.
The areas sampled in England also correspond to the Danelaw, it became apparent after this paper was published that it was impossible to differentiate between Danish-Viking and Anglo-Saxon genes. So the claim of mass migration is therefore brought into doubt, they could be measuring Danish-Viking influence and not Anglo-Saxon (see Guthrum the Old).
A later and more thorough paper A Y chromosome census of the British Isles indicates that their estimate of 50-100% contribution of germanic Y chromosomes is closer to the 50%. York has the highest proportion of germanic Y chromosomes of any place in the UK, and it has about 60%.
A Y chromosome census of the British Isles seems to show that only the east/central England (more or less York down to East Anglia) shows any evidence of large Germanic contributions to the male gene pool, and even here there is also a very large Brythonic indigenous contribution as well.
A Y chromosome census of the British Isles shows that, rather than a single genetically homogeneous Anglo-Saxon population, England has a population mostly derived from the pre-Roman indigenous population of Great Britain, there are small contributions by Germanic peoples from accross the North Sea (mainly Danish-Viking and earlier Anglo-Saxon people), the higest occurences of which are in the east, as one would expect, but even here the largest contribution seems to be in York, at 60%, meaning a 40% Y chromosome contribution that is not germanic even in York. These data do not address the contributions made by women, and if less germanic women contributed to the gene pool then the contribution of Germanic peoples to the whole gene pool would in fact be even less than the 60% cited for York. So the genetic evidence indicates that England has a patchy Germanic contribution, but also that there was never a complete displacement of the indiginous population. Like it or not you are almost certainly genetically more like Welsh and Scots people than like Frisians or Dutch.
Oddly enough the archaeological record seems to be very much in agreement with the genetic findings. Here's Catherine Hills conclusion:

In the period 400-600 Britain was fragmented. Some territories retained British leadership, language and culture while others lost it, over variying periods of time, to incoming Germanic alternatives. How this happened is partially answered in principle, if not in precise detail, in the written accounts of leaders and battles. All forms of evidence are consistent with the establishment of an elite whose cultural, and probably biological, ancestry, lay in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. They took control of eastern Britain, probably piecemeal and over a long period. What that meant in terms of population remains elusive because much of the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. The situation is unlikely to have been the same in all parts of England. In some places new rulers may have displaced only the native elite - and married some of their daughters - while elsewhere that were followed, sooner or later, by many humbler settlers. Not only may the 'English' in Hereford and Somerset be closer to the Welsh in ancestry than to the East Anglians, but the populations of Wessex and Northumbria may have been different from each other long before the Vikings settled in the north. The origins of the English by Catherine Hills

Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it's absurd that you or anyone else doubts a germanic migration. 65% of english people have blue eyes, we speak a germanic language, and our DNA is identical to that of other germanic peoples for no reason at all, is it? I know that this has nothing to do with ethnicity, but you brought up the theory that doubts germanic migration to england.

No one has denied that there is a Germanic contribution to England, in terms of material culture, language and population. The debate is how large was the contribution. Most modern estimates are that immigration was on the small side, there was no mass migration with complete population displacement.Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF has blue eyes got to do with it? Blue eye colour is common across northern europe and has bugger all to do with being Germanic. Here's what the Eye colour article says about British and Irish eye colour:

Ireland and Great Britain also have high proportions of blue eyes, with estimates of around 70% for Ireland [23] and about 60% for Britain.[24]'

Please not that they cite their sources. I'd also point out that I live in Finland, where about 90% of people have a blue eye colour, and Finns are most deffinitely not Germanic. By your argument the Irish are more Germanic than the English. Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

English people speak a Germanic language. But hold on, so do Irish people, and Welsh people, and Scottish people. Why? Because they learned it. So English people could have learned it as well, especially from a an elite group of invaders that took over lock stock and barrel. It certainly doesn't proove population displacement. Or would you argue that in Ireland the population was completely displaced by English people and this is why they speak English now? languages can be learnt. Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

and our DNA is identical to that of other germanic peoples for no reason at all, is it?

I'd like to see the study that shows this. I have been reading arround this subjects for four or five years and have never come across a study that has given this result. Could you point it out to me? I'd be very interested in reading it because it would contradict all previously published genetic data from the British Isles and would also contradict much of the archaeological evidence as well.Alun 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NEW SUGGESTION!

{{Wobble/sandbox}} Restore the related ethnicities box, with the peoples of Great Britain and Brittany only...

Éponyme 19:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why ONLY these? "Related ethnic groups" is a complex and quite subjective thing, where you can pinder such things as genetics, language, cultureand history. Other British/Brittany people do not speak Germanic as primary tonge but Gaelic/Celtic. The connection is actually via history and genetics. Would you prefer language as primary ethnic connection, then it should be other English-speaking peoples first, including American, Anglo-Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Jamaicans and other Anglo-Caribbean peoples. Then it should come the Frisians and then the rest of Germanic speakers. Would you use a more vague cultural measure, then it should be maybe Western Europeans first, etc.

I'm not clearly decided by any option. --Sugaar 00:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that ethnolinguistic social consructs are hardly accurate for real situations. As an American of British (England and Wales, primarily) descent, I feel a connection to Roman Britain up until the last Stuarts. Arthurian imagery is important to me, as is Saint George. I consider England and Wales to be a Romano-British culture and people, Scandinavian nature of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman monarchs notwithstanding. In fact, England to me evokes the Plantagenets and Wales to me excites the Tudors to illumination.

Successive Germanic Continentalists: from Philip Habsburg of Spain, William of Orange, George of Denmark, George of Hanover, Albert of Saxony to the present Prince Philip are all foreigners in my mind. You fail to recognise the Whiggery of such political statements related to the Germanic category, which was never a factor in Britain until the Reformation. I politely request that you try to understand the aristocratic nature of the Reformation and how especially Protestant monarchs, including their courts and dynastic marriages reflected the policies which have given you this impression. Éponyme 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus to include only insular peoples about six months ago. The list would only have been Irish, Welsh and Scots, but the consensus didn't last very long. The problem isn't so much who goes in but what we call it, related is such a loaded word. Could you please comment on my alternative version on the right? I have tried to reorganise the box so that it better reflects how different people have influenced or themselves been influenced by the English ethnic group. If you have any suggestions for improving it, or even if you don't like it please say. Unless someone gives some sort of comment about it soon I'm going to use it anyway. Alun 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, although there is hardly a difference between the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes. You know, the Royal Website combines the two and rightfully so, since the "Normans" are a Scandinvian dynasty and it would be sort of redundant. The Anglo-Saxons came from Denmark anyways. If you look at the arms of Richard II and Westminster Abbey, they have Anglo-Saxons (golden cross and martlets), Normans (leopards) and Angevins (fleurdelys) represented. Those symbols, to me, are symbolic of the Plantagenet family and England's essential heritage. The Tudor rose to me, is for Wales as represented by the Tudors. I am a Romantic traditionalist--the Plantagenet and Tudor legacy is most important, but then again that is likely because of my Anglo-Welsh heritage. Éponyme 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Areas of agreement

To try and build consensus let's start with the areas we all agree on. This is as I see it, if I misinterpret an editors opinion or position then I appologise, it is not my intention.

English people are most closely related to insular people, with a less close relatedness to certain groups on the continent (Frisians, Danes etc.) and an even more dilute relatedness to other European groups (French-Norman and/or Franks etc). English people are also related to all western European groups, but this is close only in the sense that Europeans are all more closely related to each other than they are to peoples from other continents, for example. I'd put it like this:
Insular (most related first)
- Cornish
- Welsh and Scots (including Ulster Scots)
- Irish, Manx
Continental (in no particular order)
- Bretons
- Danes
- Frisians
- North Germans?

This is just my perception, I am under no illusions that this is a definitive list, I may have left some groups out, and others may dispute the order, or what constitutes a group, I am open to this being refined/changed. Alun 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we include continental people?
- Personally I am not strongly for or against. I have argued that because it is accepted by everyone that insular people are the most closely related people to English people, so their inclusion is a given (see below). Inclusion of continental groups is not so well accepted, some people are strongly in favour, some strongly against. Mostly this appears to be a question of degree of relatedness and opinion. Some argue that only the most closely related should be included, others that the closest continental groups should be included. These arguments are all based on the personal feelings of the individual editors. There are advantages and disadvantages in both sides of the dispute. The best argument as far as I can see is that we need to include how moder English people in the world today identify themselves. Theoretical origins and or linguistic evidence is not sufficient, it is the percieved identity of the nation/ethnic group as it stands today that is important. We can go into details about the various theories of descent/origins etc in the main body of the article, where thay can be properly refined and addressed, with the various POVs given in detail.Alun 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
- While I have argued for the inclusion of only the insular groups, I have felt uncomfortable doing this. I think that verifiability is essential, indeed the policy states this, otherwise wikipedia becomes little more than just a collection of personal opinions, no better than a chatroom or blog. I strongly disagree with the comment made by Sigurd if this section is not re-added Wikipedia would lose another once of integrity, indeed what detracts from the integrity of wikipedia is a lack of proper authority due to a lack of verifiability from reliable sources. So I propose that if we want to include any group in this related ethnic groups section, then we need to find a source that categorically states that this group is ethnically related to the English people. I don't think this is much to ask, it is wikipedia policy, plain and simple. I would point out that if such verifiability can be found then it is against wikipedia rules to remove a properly verified edit. Remember we need a source that is concerned with ethnicity, not one concerned with descent or percieved origin, but one that clearly indicates how English people consider their group relative to other groups. Alun 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun with respect just because people fail to recognise that they are ethnically related to the dutch and frisians does not make it untrue, isn't the whole point of this page to educate? If you are to include an ethnic box, could you at least include in it it 'Germanic and Celtic' elements thereby eliminating all of your confusion around welsh, irish etc. You know that the english are ethnically related to the dutch and frisians, and I can provide eveidence to back this up. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008

Also again I ask, who put you in charge of keeping a public page, that is representative of my history as much as yours?

Thank you, Alex Payne, 16 Walsall

See above for response. Alun 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, although you do seem knowledgeable in some respect, a lot of your statments and views are subjective, and supported with little evidence. I believe that an article, like this one, should be a concensus and represent the majority of peoples view. There will always be conflict, however you seem to represent the minority, but have still taken it upon yourself to assert that your belief is correct and above everyone elses view - eventhough you haven't based your claims with evidence.

Take your statement on Alex's talk page: "I fail to see any connection between English people and Frisian or Dutch people."

Yet, this link is clearly proven in this article: [[25]]

knowledgeable in some respect(sic)

Hmm, damned by faint praise. I don't know if I should consider this a compliment or a personal attack. (this is meant to be humorous). Alun 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

a lot of your statments and views are subjective, and supported with little evidence.

Possibly, we all do it sometimes, but lots doesn't really cut the mustard. Indeed this statement in itself is subjective and a matter of opinion. I think you need to state specifically which statements you are refering to if you want to be credible. Alun 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that an article, like this one,

Now what were you saying about being subjective? Now how subjective is I believe? Hmmm, insults and hypocricy. Alun 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

should be a concensus and represent the majority of peoples view.

Quite, I refer you to the RfC on this page, where there was a clear majority of people that were confused by the related ethnic groups section. Here is what other people said in the RfC:

"Related ethnic groups" is such a horribly vague term that differences of opinion are practically guaranteed.
But if this info box actually has any use at all (which I doubt), then it has to reflect what the people themselves think about their kinship.
This is, I believe, another firm argument in removing the section which is 'related ethnic groups'.
I think if you're going to call something related then you should either cite your sources, or define your criteria for a relationship. Of course you can't really do the latter without violating WP:OR - something
Someone could argue that places like Goole, Crowle or if you want to push it Epworth and the Isle of Axholme do have some relation with the Dutch, but I really doubt local people really think this way anymore

These are all responses from people other than me. There were two responses from people that thought we should keep the box. So it appears to me that in actual fact the consensus was for removal. Irrespective of this, we still need to verify these groups, something that is not as easy as it may appear.

Yet, this link is clearly proven in this article:

What link would that be then? This is about genetics, not ethnicity, and actually shows that English people are mainly descended from the paleolithic population that expanded out of Iberia after the end of the last major glaciation, oddly enough it also shows that this is not true for Dutch and Frisian people, If one takes the Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH-1, which is indicative of western European populations, but not of Dutch or Frisian or any Germanic people) they state:

For example, the part of mainland Britain that has the most Continental input is Central England, but even here the AMH-1 frequency, not below 44% (Southwell), is higher than the 35% observed in the Frisians. These results demonstrate that even with the choice of Frisians as a source for the Anglo-Saxons, there is a clear indication of a continuing indigenous component in the English paternal genetic makeup. We also note that our analysis includes representatives of the Danish Vikings, which were not available in the Weale et al. study. Consideration of Danish Viking input is important because their activities on the British eastern coast are well documented [1]. Our evaluation of the Danish and Anglo-Saxon source populations, however, shows that the contributions of these groups are unlikely to be distinguishable by using the resolution available in our analyses.

So there it is, Y chromosome evidence for mass Anglo-Saxon migration could not distinguish between Anglo-Saxons and the later Danish Viking migration, that is recorded. This paper A Y chromosome census of the British Isles supports the idea that the majority of English people are descended from indigenous Brythonic people, and not Anglo-Saxon or Frisian people. See [26]. Alun 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I thought this article was about the people of English people of England. The religion section does not make sense because it is including none English people like Pakistani/Indian who are Muslim, and Indian Sikhs and Hindus. Related ethnic groups look better than a religion section that includes people other than english.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.149.183 (talk • contribs)

I agree. This article is about the English ethnic group, rather than people who live in England. I'm rather surprised to see those religion figures there. Although they can be clearly referenced to the population of England, they cannot be related to those who identify as English. We hardly even know how many people identify as English, nevermind their religion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people of Pakistani/Indian/West Indian origin that identify as English. There are many people that identify as English that are Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists. The data were presented as proportions, not numbers of people and they can be verified. Why was the previous version any better, it was not based on any measure of ethnicity and religion? If you want to be finickety about it then we might as well remove the whole infobox. None of the figures in the infobax is anything but a guess. I could equally argue that the figures for English people in the USA and Australia are for people of English descent, and not for people that identify as belonging to the English ethnic group and so these figures are wrong. If your argument is that non-white English people cannot be ethnically English then I would suggest you depart forthwith from this page and don't come back, ever. Alun 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Charming. Whilst I completely agree that non-white people can be English, these figures relate specifically to the population of England. They include people (10%) who identify solely as belonging to another ethnic group. If this article is now about the population of England, rather than people of English ancestry or ethnicity, then let's be clear about that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The figures are proportions, not absolute figures, 10% for the entire population of England may identify as belonging to a different ethnic group, how do you know that the proportions for religious belief are different between those that identify as English and those that just live in England? Even the figures given for the population of English people living in the UK are wrong, as they only count white people as English (see the footnote). This even excludes people who are of indigenous English descent, who identify as English but who may also have descent from non white backgrounds, it also excludes people that identify as English that aren't descended from indigenous people, so effectively this measure is not ethnicity but race. The data given for religion are far from perfect, I grant, but are no less biased than any of the other data presented in the infobox, and at least their origin is clear. While it is difficult to determine the extent of English identity within immigrant groups and their descendants, I would guess (from personal experience) that the vast majority of the descendants of immigrants identify as English even if their parents/grandparents do not. I did not wish to cause offence, my comment was only aimed at those people who are conflating race with ethnicity, as you have stated that you don't, it was not directed at you, nonetheless I appologise if it offended you. Alun 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning the statistics used here on religion since they are not really needed. They are only statistics on English people in the UK, and therefore ignoring millions of Englsh people around the globe, so they dont speak for all English people. More importantly, the numbers include many people in the UK who would not identify as being English. Epf 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually no numbers of people are given, so how can they include people who do not identify as English they do not include any people at all. Come on Epf, I thought you were a scientist, even 12 year olds know the difference between absolutes figures and ratios. If you are trying to imply that no English people are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists then that is demonstrably nonsense. The figures given are proportions, if you dispute the ratios given then that's fair enough, the ratios given are based on those derived from the UK census, this is clear in the footnote. As long as it's clear what the figures relate to then I see no real problem, it's not like we're trying to hide their origin. Can you produce any other figures? There may be a higher proportion of Muslim and Hindu English people, as there is probably a significant number of English people outside of the UK that follow these religions, probably in India and Pakistan. The majority of English people are probably non-religious anyway. Maybe the best thing to do would be just to give the major religions practiced by English people leaving any figures out. I must admit I do not like the infobox at all, nearly all of the data there are somewhat suspect. All of the data relating to numbers of English people in various countries around the world are suspicious, mostly they refer to descent and not to ethnicity at all. Even the figures for the UK are rubbish. I think the most reliable figures are for Canada and New Zealand, because at least they refer specificallt to ethnicity in their census forms. Maybe we should rethink all of the data in the box, what do you think? Alun 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, whether or not I am a scientist (Im currently a fourth-year student, doing one of my majors in anthropology) does not necessarily mean I have or have not any more knowledge on a certain subject than someone else (the whole concept of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit right? so just because one has a degree or a certain profession, does not necessarily mean one is "more correct" or knowledgable on certain subjects than others). From what I read previously, there were religious percentages which were based on UK citizens in the UK only (and including those in the UK who aren't English), so how can they speak for all English people (especially outside the UK) ? Also, the numbers from both Canada ("ethnic origin") and New Zealand do refer in part to culture as well as descent. What do you think the main criteria for ethnicity is Alun ? Descent is one of the main pillars in defining ethnicity along with the shared traits generally associated with such. Most of the numbers in the box are referenced so there isnt much you can argue against, except with the numbers of English people in England since its only referring to those who identified as "White British" (with only one choice) under ethnicity in the UK census and this obviously isnt very accurate since it includes many of "white people" (itself an ambiguous term) in the UK who are not English. Anyways, the format for religions now is fine since there arent any specific numbers, ratios, percentages, etc. As for the rest of the data in the infobox, maybe it does need a rethink, but I personally don't have the time right now. Once I'm back at school, I should be on here more. Ciao, Epf 19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous figures for religion were calculated based on people resident in England, far from perfect, whether they reflected similar proportions for English people is unknowable. It was probably an error of judgment on my part to include them. I think removing the figures but keeping the religions is a much better way of doing it. I never asserted you had more or less knowledge of any subject, I merely claimed that a ratio is not the same as an absolute number, so it makes no sense to claim that the ratios represented 10% of people who are not English, they represented proportions of people practicing certain religions in England, they never claimed to speak for all English people, and the footnote made this clear. In answer to your question I think there are many criteria for ethnic identity, one of these is descent, but it is not the only one and you know this very well, descent alone is only relevant to race. Indeed one may be able to show that people from the same ethnic group are generally more closely biologically related to each other than to people from other ethnic groups, but this biological relatedness is not the main criterion for defining an ethnic group, it ia a criterion, It is a consequence of a group of people seeing themselves as distinct from other groups over a period of time. Because individuals see others within their group as like and other groups as different, they are more likely to reproduce within their own group, over time leading to a certain biological homogeneity within the group, so it's an effect and not a cause. Be that as it may, defining oneself as of English descent is not the same as defining oneself as English, for example someone with a single English parent/grandparent/great-grandparent/great-great-grandparent (etc.), who has no concept of English society or culture and who may not even be able to speak the language, is still of English descent and would have the right to claim such on a census form, biology is not ethnicity, and descent does not necessarily imply close relatedness. From one point of view there is no problem with the data in the infobox, they are all verified, from another perspective the data are a heterogeneous mix, all derived using wildly differing sampling techniques, they are not really presenting like with like. I am wondering if one way to tackle this might be to think along the lines of jusst listing the countries with significant populations without actually trying to put a figure on the population, as we have done with religions. It's good to have you back Epf, hope you had a brilliant Summer. Alun 20:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alun and I did have quite a good summer. I'm glad we came to a consensus on religion but theres still a disagreeance on our views towards the importance of descent in ethnicity. The classical (and most commonly accepted) definition of an ethnic group would in fact include descent as one of the main prerequsities in defining an ethnic group. You also seem to misunderstand partially how descent is related to the ethnic identity and distinction. It is hardly seen as a "consequence" of a group seeing themselves distinct from others over time and descent isnt merely attributed to race or inherited biological characteristics since many other socio-cultural traits are associated with kinship and descent. In fact, it is highly debated right now as to the origins of the kinship and descent system and as to how it actually developed in terms of distinguishing ethnic identity. The geographic, biological and familial closeness of a group itself is known to lead to certain socio-cultural traits developing within a group and in turn further distinguishing it from others. I do admit however that many believe it could also be developed vice-versa in the sense that the cultural associations of a group in close geographic proximity in turn lead to common descent. It is difficult to say which is more responsible in the formation of groups, but we can say with the utmost conifdence that in either case, descent is an integral part of ethnic identification. Now, obviously someone with very limited English descent who has no ties to English culture would be quite rare in saying the person is "ethnically English", but you still must realize the importance of descent in ethnicity. I need to stress here that biological traits resultant of common descent are obviously part of ethnic identification, but they are not the only traits resulting from common descent. As I have explained earlier, the closeness and isolation of groups also allows for socio-cultural traits to develop and in turn these can also be passed down (socially "inherited") to varying degrees (i.e. depending ones geo-cultural location) ranging from behavioural/personality, cultural, lingustic, religious, and other familial traits and traditions. Obviously many of socio-cultural traits can also be learned from residing in a society without being of that cultures descent, but some (behavioural) can't or at least aren't leanred in such away that often. Therefore, a person living outside of English society with very little or no identified English descent could hardly be described as part of the English ethnic group, but in turn the same could be said about a person living in England who is of no English descent (and therefore has some degree of ethno-cultural traits not shared with ethnic English people). As for the information in the ethnic group box, I think we should leave the numbers and information as is since as you say they are referenced, albeit from different sampling techniques and sources. We could possibly do the same as we did with religion, but I would personally say to leave it as is right now since it is in line with figures for all the other ethnic group articles. Good to be discussing with you again Alun, but I wont be on here regularly for another two weeks or so. Ciao, Epf 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've been reading recently it seems to me that the importance of descent with regard to ethnic identity is largelly dependent on the group in question. For example in Germany it seems quite important to be able to show some sort of German pedigree to be accepted as German. Some German language dialects are mutually incomprehensibe and could be considered different languages, but because of the percieved ethnic closeness of the speakers they are considered the same language. On the other hand Serbs and Croats are biologically identical and have mutually comprehensble languages, but certainly view each other as different ethnic groups, as far as I can tell on the basis of religion. They deliberately try to exagerate the small differences (probably because they are small) by the use of the Latin alphabet in Croatia and the Cyrillic one in Serbia and by classifying Serbian and Croatian as seperate languages, though untill recently it was considered the same language Serbo-Croat. Sometimes it is not religion or descent but language that is the defining elememt in ethnic identity. I've ordered a couple of books from amazon (handy for me here in Finland to get stuff from amazon.co.uk) Language and Nationalism in Europe and The Origins of the English in the hope that they can provide some citable material, especially with regard to the related ethnic groups section. I'd like to be able to include some groups here and I think any groups that we can provide a citation for should go in. I may be well off the mark here, but it also seems to me that people living in the New World seem to identify descent closely with ethnicity, for example the famous Irish Americans who seem often to be third, fourth or even fifth generation Americans, but still identify strongly as Irish. I don't think this is so strong in Europe, it certainly isn't so strong in the UK where many people probably don't even know where their grandparents parents came from, I think we tend to identify with where we grow up. Whatever the truth I don't think there is an universal formula for ethnic identity, it seems quite nuanced and depends on different components within each group or community. Groups certainly can split away from a parental ethnicity to form a de Novo group, and ethnic groups can merge, up untill the 11th century Danes in the Danelaw certainly weren't considered English, but today I don't think anyone indigenous English person would identify as ethnically Danish (unless of course their descent is much more recent), so the Danes in England have adopted an English identity, as have other groups. Conversely the Danes in the Danelaw must have given up their Danish identity to become English. England's a complicated place, and the UK more so. Irrespective of our different point of view regarding this, I think we can certainly include both perspectives in the article and come to agreement. Alun 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As with regards to the New Zealand census (I just noticed your edit there), that is the opinion of their census bureau to consider ethnicity merely as "cultural affiliation" that allows for only one current possibility (I find this astounding, especially in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country like NZ). This is not only inaccurate, but the question for the 1991 and 2001 censuses were not much different from the 1996 census except that only certain selections were allowed (i.e. in 1991/2001, "New Zealand European" without further specific identifications compared to "other European" with further specifications in 1996) and you could only mark down your ethnicity once in contrast to the 1996 census as well as the ethnic origins and "ancestry" questions regulary used by the Australian, US and Canadian censuses which allow for multiple repsonses (usually 2-4 total). Epf 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. My understanding is that even on the 1991 and 2001 censuses respondents could choose multiple ethnicities, but that in 1996 it was clearer that this was the case. I agree that this is a strange way to collect data, it is preferable to allow people to identify with all of the groups for which they have an affinity. On the other hand we should probably accept the data that the NZ state uses, like we do for other census data from other countries. Alun 05:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tudor

I wonder why we have Elizabeth Tudor in the picture. Surely her grandad was Henry Tudor, who was Welsh (descended from Owain Tudur). Tudur was a family name for a Welsh noble family. Shouldn't we have people who are more English, and monarchs aren't really representative of ethnically English people, unless we go to before 1066 (so Alfred the Great might be better?). Why not some contemporary English people? And why not representatives from sports? W. G. Grace or even David Beckham spring to mind. Why Newton and Darwin? Do we need two scientists? I'd go for Darwin, but I'm biased as I'm a biologist. There should probably be a Prime Minister there, even the Milk Snatcher would do, and she's very recognisable. Any takers? Alun 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth's mother was English. Her father's mother was English. She was at best therefore only a quarter Welsh, and probably much less than that. She was born and brought up in England, and identified her own nationality as English - very strongly in fact: "I may have the body of a..." (etc.). She is also a crucial figure in English history, turning it from a bankrupt backwater into a European power. Her reign witnessed a cultural flowering of English literature. In short, she was one of the most important monarchs that England has ever had. TharkunColl 20:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I wouldn't include any monarch, why not stick to English people of renown in their own right. No monarch can be considered representative of English people in general, they are only notable for their birth and not for their achievements. I admit this is my personal bias, I don't like monarchy at all and this page is not about them, it's supposed to be about normal people, the nation. Alun 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth I is definitely one of the most significant Englishwomen in history, and I think it's good to include at least one woman. Her achievements match those of any king: she helped save England from becomming a vassal state by repelling the Spanish Armada and implemented a religious settlement which is the basis for the modern Church of England. She is one of the most significant English people in history. I think her picture should stay--Johnbull 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

She was also a murderous dictator. What she did for the state does not correlate with what she did for the people. Her policy of stealing common land by enclosing it was hardly beneficial to the people, neither were her poor laws (needed largely as a result of her land enclosure). If we want a woman to be represented then it doesn't have to be a despot, though another despot springs to mind, Margaret Thatcher, I may have no time for the woman, but at least she was elected and got to be PM by her own achievements. I really don't think we need to have monarchs portrayed, they are not representative of the English nation. This is about the English people, it is not about monarchs or history. I would suggest William Shakespere, Charles Darwin, Margaret Thatcher and Nasser Hussain, that way we have a broad stretch of history, we include a woman and show the diversity of modern English people, we also have contemporary representation. In addition to these we also include a politician, a scientist, a writer and a sportsperson, and so have a varied representation of disciplines as well. I would be happy to include a footballer instead of a cricketer, and a different scientist, Isambard Kingdom Brunel or Isaac Newton for example. Alun 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if she was as bad as you say, she still deserves to go in, simply because of her fame. Does the box include people for their goodness, or just for their fame and influence? For the same reason the exclusion of Hitler from the German box is disingenuous at best, for he is surely the most famous German who has ever lived (yeah, I know he was born in Austria, blah, blah... actually, to be honest, I haven't even checked, but I'm willing to bet that he's not included in the German photo montage). In fact, though she was certainly responsible for some bad things, Elizabeth was very much a person of her time, and there is no way she can be portrayed in a wholly negative fashion - quite the opposite I think. Your suggestion that people be included only if they have achieved fame though their own efforts and not by a privileged birth does indeed have merit, but unfortunately we'd end up with a very limited selection, because the vast majority of famous people from history have been either aristocrats or those from wealthy backgrounds. Would Darwin have been so influential had he been born to a Yorkshire coal mining family? To single out monarchs as too privileged to count is to draw an arbitrary line. In fact, most monarchs of England have been neither English, nor in any way distinguished, and Elizabeth is one of the few who was both, and being a woman makes her an even better choice. TharkunColl 08:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually my point was more that they are not really representative of the English people. I don't think monarchs should be included because we always have one, their notability is mainly because they are so unrepresentative of the population. This article is not about them, or the aristocracy, it's about the people. The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant, there are many notable English women that could be included, from all sorts of backgrounds. There are a plethora of excellent English female novelists from the 19th century for a start. I do agree women should be represented, on relfection I think there should be two men and two women. Rosalind Franklin springs to mind, but then I've been doing a lot of work on her article so she would. Surely we can come up with better people than monarchs? Is the old class system and biased school history so firmly entrenched that we can can't see these people for what they were? Not representatives of English people, but repressors of English people. Alun 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that this is my opinion, if the general feeling is that the present people are OK, then I'm happy to go with them. I was speculating that we could get better and more representative people there, that's all. Of the current crop, I don't like Elizabeth Tudor, the rest are fine, though I don't see why we have two scientists, maybe we could replace one of the scientists with a more contemporary woman, possibly a sportsperson like Kelly Holmes, she's an Olympic gold medalist and an English person? What do you think? Alun 10:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Troubling

This entire article is troubling. Of the millions of people you designate as "English" in Canada and indeed, around the world, many, if not most, trace their origins to a mix of celtic and anglo/saxon roots. Few would classify themselves as "English" accept as a referent to the language they speak. Most Canadians who would trace their entire ancestral line to the UK would probably find celtic branches and few would find entirely "English" branches as you imply in this article. This article needs to be modified or deleted, because defining "English" as a cultural designation of people outside the UK who trace their ancestral lines back to the UK is not justified. Most of those people are, at the very least, anglosaxoncelts, and they trace their lines back to a mix of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldjenks (talk • contribs)

In fact, most people ticked boxes on the census in their country indicating English ethnic origins or ancestry. The census organisations then reported the fact that these people described their ethnic origins or ancestry as English. We have reported those facts. You can check the references yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In the article only people that have self identified as English are designated as such, ethnicity is about identity, it is not necessarily about descent, nowhere does it claim that all people descended from English people are themselves automatically ethnically English. It is also apparent that a person can identify as English and Welsh and Scots and Irish all at the same time, just because a person identifies as English it does not preclude them from identifying with other ethnic groups, ethnicity is not by necessity exclusive. The article nowhere claims that all people who can show descent from the UK are classified as English, you may want the article to state this because it supports your POV, but you are mistaken. I do not understand what you mean by a mixture of celtic and anglo/saxon roots, Celtic is a linguistic classification, the Anglo-Saxons formed a cohesive ethnic and political group that ceased to exist about a millenium ago when people started to think of themselves as English. Anglo-Saxons would not have included the Danes in England (mainly in the Danelaw), but the English did include these Danes. All indigenous English people and their descendants are also almost certainly descended from the pre-Anglo-Saxon Brythonic inhabitants of Great Britain as well as immigrating Anglo-Saxons, in that sense all of the peoples of Great Britain are descended from the pre-Roman Brythonic speaking populations of Great Britain (depending on how one classifies Pictish). The designation anglosaxoncelts doesn't make sense, what is it supposed to mean? Alun 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a whole lot of books in my home library that state very clearly that the "Celts" are indeed living and well all over the world. The books talk exclulsively about the "celtic" culture as it exists today. My son plays and composes 'celtic' music. You can buy 'celtic' table cloths, art work, etc. all over North America. "Celtic" rock bands are very popular in North America. And yet you say "Celtic iAlun 07:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)s a linguistic classification". I beg to differ, because as an anglosaxoncelt, I only speak English. I'm afraid that English is more the linguistic definition, not "celt", and that is where this whole article is flawed. I am sorry for not signing. I don't know how to do that, but I certainly believe you should go over to google and google up anglosaxoncelt. It's seen increasingly on discussion boards such as BBC, and even more authoritative sources are starting to use it.Ldjenks 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just Googled "anglosaxoncelt" and there were fully four independent pages that mentioned it - all of which, moreover, were people's user names. This is not a term in widespread use, or indeed any sort of use at all. But, having said that, it's not actually a bad term to describe the genetic make-up of the English themselves - if we can allow ourselves to use the word "Celt" in a rather loose and inaccurate sense to refer to Celtic-speakers in general and those descended from them. If so, then "anglosaxoncelts" are precisely what the English are. TharkunColl 07:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A more correct term is Anglo-Celtic, it is in far more widespread usage, though still only minority usage. See Anglo-Celtic.org.uk Alun 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, you will find that a lot of people will disagree with you on this and many other talk pages, mostly people are civil during these discussions, sometimes they are not, but there's a rule Don't bite the newbies, if you feel that you are being bullied then please point out that you are a newbie and that peple should make allowances for that. I hope you stay and make many contributions here. Here on wikipedia discussion boards are not considered reliable sources. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia so we need authoritative sources. We also need to verify our edits and we need to include all points of view, we cannot include original research. Your point of view regarding this anglo-saxon-celt thing can and should be included if you can cite an authoritative source, but be aware that the alternative point of view should also be included in the article, we are not in the buisiness of giving only one point of view or opinion. The idea of the Celts forming a homogeneous culture is a very modern one, your Celtic music and Celtic art would have been incomprehensible to the Brythonic/Goidelic speaking peoples of ancient times. There is Welsh, Scots and Irish folk music, to group these under a Celtic supra-group is somewhat artificial. There is a growing consensus in the archaeological community that the Celts are a relatively modern invention. The term Celt is defined by the OED as:

Applied to the ancient peoples of Western Europe, called by the Greeks κελτοι, and by the Romans Celtæ
A general name applied in modern times to peoples speaking languages akin to those of the ancient Galli, including the Bretons in France, the Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Manx, and Gaelic of the British Isles.

So in the modern world it is a linguistic classification, in the ancient world it was used by Greeks and Romans to refer to people in Europe that they considered as foreign barbarians, there is no evidence that these foreign barbarians had a homogeneous culture. You claim that it is artificial for people from North America to consider themselves English, how more artificial is it for them to construct and identify with a Celtic culture that has never existed. Modern Celtic identity does exist, but it is more like a way for minority European cultures to support each other both politically and culturally, that these Celtic cultures form some sort of homogeneous cultural group is disputed, there is much diversity amongst these groups, though they speak related languages. You seem to be under the impression that somehow ancient people identified is the same as modern people, well ancient people had no concept of what being a Celt was, and certainly wouldn't have identified as such. The idea of Irish and Welsh and Scots people all forming some sort of unified cultural group that is opposed to the English cultural group is just a form of modern nationalism, Scots and Welsh and Irish don't have more in common with each other culturally than they do say with the English. I urge you to read Simon James's excellent Ancient Celts Page where he dispells some of the ideas about a pan-European Celtic group. Alun 05:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote Simon James himself "Nonetheless, this does not mean that the idea of modern Celtic identity is significantly more 'fraudulent' or unreal than any other - such as English, French, German, or indeed 'British' in the modern political sense. The latter is no older than modern 'Celtic' identity; both were creations of the 18th century." Rhion 07:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming modern Celtic identity is fraudelent, but it needs to be addressed it it's correct context, and not in the context of ancient civilisations. We recognise an affinity as much based on our minority status and (rightly or wrongly) percieved injustices to our respective languages and cultures as on anything else. It does confuse the issue when the term Celtic is used in different contexts to mean different things, but it's certainly not race and it's certainly not a homogeneous culture. Welsh culture is very different to Irish and Scottish culture and I do get the impression that sometimes there are attempts to shoehorn everything into a Celtic identity that just doesn't really exist, for the specific purpose of opposing it to English culture for anti-English or nationalistic purposes. Alun 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the article is troubling, and you are pushing an anglophobic POV. You are suggesting that "celts" are a pure breed, and English people are "mongrels" and are not legitimate which is obviously totally flawed. Actually, you are suggesting English people don't even exist. Just to point out though, that is is disputed how many, if any "celts" made in to Britain. Vinneyt6 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as I said under the deletion discussion board, both anglo/saxon and celtic, exist in modern Websters to denote cultural groups. Remember, Websters is used extensively in North America, which likely has millions more descendents from the UK and Ireland than what currently inhabit the UK and Ireland. I am concerned that most of the discussion here is central to Europe.....Hello....the rest of the world is out there too. In any event, as I stated on another board, we decendants of colonists have truly mixed Celtic names like Mac...Mc... with anglo/saxon names are common in our lineage, perhaps not so common in the UK, but very much so elsewhere in the world. We are neither "English people" or pure Celts, but a mixture of what we in North America call anglo/saxon and celt. And yes, anglo/saxon is a commonly used term throughout North America. That's why it's in Websters folks. So, if "English people" is all that is acceptable for the people of the UK, fine, but it's not the best nor only acceptable term for the rest of us in the world, especially we descendants of colonists. And I can't believe the discussion of 'celts' not being a distinct cultural group, which by your own wikipedia definition, includes 'kinship'. Believe me, Celtic kinship is seeing explosive growth in North America. There are Celtic festivals all over the place, and Celtic rock music is popular. Those who try to dismiss 'celts' as a cultural group are expressing views that seem to be politically motivated. Ldjenks 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who try to dismiss 'celts' as a cultural group are expressing views that seem to be politically motivated.

This is possibly the most hypocritical thing I have ever seen posted on a wikipedia talk page, and I've seen a bit. Who has dismissed Celts as a cultural group? In fact Celts are not a cultural group, they are a collection of several cultural groups that have different languages and traditions, that may or may not be ethnically related, some clearly are related, such as the Brettons, Cornish and Welsh, but the link between the Brythonic and Goidelic groups is far less obvious. It is hardly a dismissal to claim that these are cultural identities, culture is the thing that binds members of a group together, it's how we identify like with like, it's about the most important thing any group of people that identify with each other can share in common. Without a common culture a group fails to be anything other than a collection of strangers, with no common identity or framework to bind them. It is your insistence that there is no such thing as an English culture that is both offensive and racist. You seem to be under the delusion that somehow genetics is more important than cultural affiliation.

Celtic rock music?

I've never heared such bollocks, if there is such a thing then it's by people like Gorky's Zygotic Mynci, Gruff Rhys, Catatonia, Tebot Piws, Meic Stevens, who actually are from a celtic country and many of who actually sing in Welsh, a Celtic language, ever heared of them? Alun 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

with anglo/saxon names are common in our lineage

I'd like to know which Anglo-Saxon names are common, most Anglo-Saxon names have not been used for a thousand years, a few have survived, like Edward, Edwin and Alfred, but I haven't seen any Æthelflæds or Wulfstans recently, take a look at some proper Anglo-Saxon names in these articles List of monarchs of Mercia, List of monarchs of Wessex, List of monarchs of Northumbria. Alun 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We are neither "English people" or pure Celts

What the fuck is a pure Celt? This is just racist bollocks. The Iron Age peoples of Europe were descended from a mixture of the paleolithic hunter gatherer peoples that populated Europe after the end of the last major glaciation (about 9000 years ago) and an incomming neolithic population that brought agriculture and came from the Near East. No Europeans are of any pure origin (whatever that's supposed to mean), and a good thing too, the larger and more diverse a gene pool is, the healthier the population is, any geneticist will tell you that inbreeding is a bad thing. So in fact both indigenous Brythonic people and immigrating Anglo-Saxon people are descended from the same two populations, paleolithic and neolithic. Celts and Anglo-Saxons have the same origins. See Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans. Alun 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ld, you obviously don't have even the semblence of a basic knowledge of the subject you are talking about, you seem to be saying that English people shouldn't have a right to assert their existence because a few uninformed and apparently biased Americans don't think they should exist, give it up. Alun 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wobble, clearly I have touched a nerve with you and some others. To clarify, perhaps "English" is not necessarily the best term for people outside of the UK. We have an identity that is different from the people within the UK. Furthermore, I have discovered that many people of Australia are identifying themselves as Anglo-celts, a fact that is noted on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-saxon These terms are not available to tick off on census boxes, but to many people of the former colonies, English is our only option for those of mixed celtic/anglo/saxon backgrounds . We can't tick of only Irish, Scottish Or Welsh, which I believe are options, because we also have ancestral lines in the "England" part of the UK. You should know that in Canada we are given the option of ticking off more than one box on the census form if we want to, so when you see the number of people in the Canadian census who say they are English, many are also ticking off another box such as Irish, Scottish, etc, They are not truly saying they are pure English, but a mix. Therefore, the numbers you are reporting for Canadian "English" people on this "English people" page are somewhat unverified.

In North America, the term to identify us has often been anglo/saxon, (sometimes in a derogatory manner by other cultural groups) and the more deragatory 'wasp'. Just as an aside, in Quebec a new sports team's new logo is 'frogs', once a derogatory term to French Canadians, but now embraced by them. In the same way, people descended from the UK are now embracing the terms anglo/saxon, and celt.

You can't imagine how difficult it is to be unable to accurately tell someone, coining a simple universally accepted phrase, of one's ethnicity. African Americans had a difficult time coming up with an acceptable term. We are in the infancy in North America of creating a term acceptable to those of us who trace our ethnicity entirely to the United Kingdom and Ireland. "Anglo/saxon celt" is growing in popularity in North America to the same extent Anglo-Celt is growing in popularity in Australia. (I am even seeing people in the UK use the term "anglo/saxon celt".) A lot of this ethnic identity crisis is the result of massive immigration in North America of groups who have clear ethnicity as well as the recognition of the politically powerful and united "Acadian" nation in Canada. We know we have ethnicity as well; we are just having trouble coining the correct term. And let's not forget that the DNA research has focused extensively on the research of the 'celt' and 'anglo/saxon' genetic markers. Ldjenks 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You should know that in Canada we are given the option of ticking off more than one box on the census form if we want to, so when you see the number of people in the Canadian census who say they are English, many are also ticking off another box such as Irish, Scottish, etc, They are not truly saying they are pure English, but a mix.

This comment makes no sense at all. I'd like to know eactly where in the English people article it states that people that identify as English in Canada and the USA are considered exclusively English. Indeed the numbers reported are for people claiming English descent, no mention is made that they claim no other descent. I agree with you that descent is not the same as ethnicity, it would be better to be able to produce figures for people that define themselves as ethnically English, but no such figures exist as yet. If you take a look at the footnote for English people in New Zealand you will see that there is a big discrepancy between the numbers for the 1996 census and the 2001 census, this is due to the fact that the 1996 census seems to have measured descent (giving a figure of 281,895), whereas the 2001 census was thought to more accurately measure ethnicity (and gave a figure of 34,074). We have used the lower figure here. If someone in Canada were to tick the English and Welsh boxes on the census, then they would appear in the figures for both Welsh and English people in Canada. You seem to be labouring under several misapprehensions:

Ethnicity is not exclusive, if someone identifies with several ethnic groups, then they can and should be included in all of the groups.
Descent is not ethnicity, I am not ethnically like my paleolithic ancestors, indeed I do not know what language they spoke, nor indeed anything about their culture, but I am still descended from them. One can be descended from an Anglo-Saxon and a Brython and a Danish-Viking and not be ethnically any of these things, nor indeed have any ethnic identity with any of the modern ethnic groups that are derived from these extinct groups. You should understand that Anglo-Saxon and ancient Briton ethnic identities no longer exist, their lifestyles and cultures are not relevant to the modern world, in the modern world the ethnic and national identities are more accurately called Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. These ethnic and national identities have existed for a very long time, they certainly pre-date the genocide inflicted on the New World by European settlers.
If you want to accurately describe your descent (and it is not ethnicity, there is no such thing as Anglo-Saxon/Celt ethnicity), then you should describe yourself as of British and Irish origin. But please be aware that this is geographic origin and biological descent, it is not ethnicity. Most people on the British and Irish Isles would consider you Canadian. If you told them you were descended from British and Irish people, they would still consider you Canadian.Alun 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the DNA research has focused extensively on the research of the 'celt' and 'anglo/saxon' genetic markers.

You clearly have not read the relevant research papers, or if you have you have not understood them. There has been a lot of what I can only describe as shit written about these research papers, mainly by misinformed journalists who have seriously distorted the original conclusions of the research, only the original papers constitute reliable sources. They certainly do not provide any support for the spurious idea that a single ethnic group, the Anglo-Saxon/Celt group has ever existed. These papers do not deal with ethnicity.Alun 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alun, perhaps The Brits see us exclusively as "Canadian". But you are missing a very important point. And now I have to get political, something I did not want to do. In Quebec, the 'English' population has nearly been wiped out. Despite statistics you may read, there are 'hidden' numbers you never hear about. Like the one that reveals that out of a provincial civil service of nearly 55,000,000 people in Quebec, only about 400 are English. Imagine a place where a boy can never dream of becoming a fireman or a cop, and that place is Quebec. Try as hard as you can and you will have a hard time finding an "English" boy who is a fireman or cop. But here is where the problem lies. Because the people who are having the most trouble in Quebec are not immigrants who may identify as "English" because of their language, but the people of anglo/saxon celt descent, who have all those last names that origin in the British Isles and the UK (and for heavens sake, I'm talking about LAST names, not first names). Now this very same problem is spreading in Canada. Google the the Air Canada page and look at all the executives and you will find that there are very new people whose last names are of British Isle and Irish descent and when you find them, they have one foot out the door to retirement. We're in big trouble in Canada, and as a result of never ending bickering in the UK and Ireland, we have been unable to attain the united face we that we all know we urgently need in Canada. And now you, Alun, want to also transfer the political issues of the United Kingdom and Ireland onto Canada yet again. This is not good for Canada's population which is descended from the UK and Ireland that people like you do this to us. I had an excellent conversation with a recent immigrant from England last year. He said that in the UK the people of the various areas of the UK and Ireland don't really mingle with each other and stay within mainly their Irish, Scottish, etc. social boundaries but he noticed that in Canada we all got along well. He further observed that the fact we are getting along in Canada seems to be necessary for our survival because we are losing a lot of ground. Now you come along, refusing to acknowledge that there are any other people from the UK who exist. Well, we do, and millions of us live in North America and still consider the UK and Ireland to be our mother land.; I'm moving there on an ancestral visa this fall with a dependent child, and we are both anglosaxoncelts, or, if you prefer anglo/saxon celts. Sorry if you don't like it, but stop assuming that UK and Irish tensions, which are permeating this discussion, also exist in Canada or the USA. They don't anymore, and we need unity here because we have issues of our own. Please remember Anglo/saxon is a very popular term in North America.

a provincial civil service of nearly 55,000,000 people in Quebec, only about 400 are English.

According to the Wikipedia Canada article the population of Canada is about 32,500,000, I fail to see how Quebec can have a civil service of 55,000,000, this is far greater than the population of Canada.

He said that in the UK the people of the various areas of the UK and Ireland don't really mingle with each other and stay within mainly their Irish, Scottish, etc. social boundaries but he noticed that in Canada we all got along well.

This is not my experience at all. I am from Wales and have lived in Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire (Huddersfield and Hull), I have had Irish, Scots, Pakistani-English and English friends, one of my best friends here in Finland is English, and my best man when I got married was also English (he is also married to a Welsh woman). There has been significant internal migration in the UK over the last three centuries or so.

And now you, Alun, want to also transfer the political issues of the United Kingdom and Ireland onto Canada yet again.

I have made no comments regarding politics in Canada or the British and Irish Isles. I simply told you that I think most British people would consider you Canadian. There are many people in the world who would consider it a privelage to be Canadian, Canada has one of the best standards of living and social welfare systems in the world.

we have been unable to attain the united face we that we all know we urgently need in Canada

Surely you are doing what you accuse me of. You are bickering about Francophone and Anglophone internal divides instead of seeing yourselves as all Canadians. I fail to see why this means that English people do not have a right to have their own page on Wikipedia.

refusing to acknowledge that there are any other people from the UK who exist.

What does this mean? Lots of people from the UK exist besides me, about 60 million I believe. I have never denied their existence.

we are both anglosaxoncelts, or, if you prefer anglo/saxon celts

No such thing exists as anglosaxoncelts, admit it, you just made it up. You may well be of British and Irish ancestry, you can consider yourself Anglo-Celtic, but there is no such thing as anglosaxoncelt. You might as well call yourself jutebrythongoidel (see Jutes, Brython and Goidel) for all the sense it makes.

Imagine a place where a boy can never dream of becoming a fireman or a cop, and that place is Quebec.

Any form of racism or xenophobia is a bad thing, and it is especially bad in a country that is supposed to pride itself on it's human rights. But this is irrelevant to our discussion. Alun 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wobble, just walk away mate. This is comical, but if he vandalises the page then we can fix it. If he tries to write an article on anglosaxoncelticcanadians then he'll need to source it. Won't happen so no worries. Wiki-Ed 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the numbers in Quebec. I meant to say the civil service is 55,000 people. And to you Wiki-Ed, I think your tone is condescending. As an educator, I may have to join the legions of educators who are telling our students that they cannot use wikipedia as a valid reference source. Wikipedia has been in the news lately for this kind of mean spiritedness. It's kind of sad. I'm trying to help find a solution to a growing problem. I see you are also from the UK. I hope you all don't act like spoiled conceited brats when we move there in a couple of weeks. I have seen what the Britts can be like. I have a brilliant son who is moving with me on an ancestral visa and I hope you all can behave better than you are on this page. In any event, wiki-ed, I can send you a file that is circulating Canada, which will likely really shock you, cause you clearly don't know what's happening over here based on your comment to me. Send an email address to lyjinx@hotmail.com and I will send it on. It's a pdf about 900 k.Ldjenks 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What, may I ask, is an "ancestral visa"? You clearly don't like us very much, so why are you moving here? Or do you think it's okay to slag off the population of a country that you're moving to? Not that I care, but just imagine what would happen if it was the other way round! TharkunColl 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing what he means is this - not that I want to associate myself with any of his uh, comments. Bretonbanquet 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One final note on this English people page. You have haphazardly allocated millions of Canadians as being "English people" from Canada. These people sign census boxes denoting more than one ethnic origin on a census box, a fact you stated on the English people page. These people are often not tracing their ancestry to the UK. Many tick of "French" and "English". Others - "Chinese" and "English" and so-on, often to indicate languages spoken. I have a Chinese friend who ticks off "English" and "Chinese" because she is married to a man who immigrated from the UK. She is 100% Chinese from China, but she ticks off the box for political reasons, mainly because the census determines the allocation of funding between English and French in Canada.

Furthermore, TharkunCo11, if you don't know anything about the visa issues of the UK, then I guess you are not nearly as well as informed as you think you are. Many of you people on this forum are shockingly ill-informed. You have virtually NO submissions from academic experts on this or any other issue. In making my submission, I was hoping to get input from such types of people, but I guess that's not forthcoming. Furthermore, topics increasingly are linked to topics inside of wikipedia, with little outside verification. I shall revert to standards such as the Oxford English Dictionary for future reference. Ldjenks 13:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS. I wonder where your academic sources are? Alun 16:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Alun I will consider another name for my webpage in Canada other than anglosaxoncelt. But I never did get any meaningful dialogue from this wikipedia site, other than the one link to anglo-celtic, and those people have no point of contact.

In any event, I am attaching an email that made the news in Canada. I received it from a so-called "English" Quebecor, who distributed it in bulk to the citizens of a bilingual community in Quebec. It is suspected that this email was massively distributed throughout Quebec. I have left it untouched. You can probably get copies of it on the Internet. This should tell you how complicated language AND cultural identity in Canada has become, and how politicized it is. Unfortunately, any statistics you take fromm Census Canada are suspect.

See footnote 4 for explanation of figures for ethnically English people in Canada. We simply report the figures here, if they are suspect that is a matter of opinion and would need to be verified as such for this opinion to be included in the article. This is not a chatroom or helpline. Your comments about Francophone Canadians in Quebec are irrelevant to the article. Alun 07:40, 4 September 2006(UTC)

I've removed the e-mail. My French is not good enough to understand it all, but I'll assume it's politicised junk mail and has no place here. Just because this is a discussion page does not mean it is a soapbox. If it actually adds value to this discussion then it will need to be translated. Wiki-Ed 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

White Dragon Flag of the English

This is complete and utter rubbish. There is No evidence of a White Dragon flag. This has aleady been rubbish on: http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/whitedragon/comments

http://crossofstgeorge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9457&highlight=white+dragon

If they cannot provide the evidence then they are lying.

I've added the following sentence to 'Symbols' on the England page:

"A new or indeed old symbol being resurrected is the 'White Dragon Flag' of the English. This particular flag pays homage to the Anglo-Saxons. It is believed that Anglo-Saxons used the White Dragon Flag in battles against the Celtic Britons - who themselves used the Red Dragon flag(now found in the Welsh flag). Evidence of the White Dragon can be found on the Bayeux Tapestry,in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Prophecies of Merlin, Stentons's Anglo-Saxon Britain and Barlow's The Godwins. This flag pre-dates any other flags and symbols currently used in England."

The evidence is on the discussion page of England.

Perhaps it should be added here? I'm neutral about the flag, but as there is some historical evidence to support the symbol of English/Anglo-Saxon culture, could it be added here? A cut downn version is fine, it probably needs a mention. Note that English-Nationalists are beginning to support this symbol. White43 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences relating to this symbol. White43 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the citation for the page in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon Britain? To be honest, I didn't realise he had written a book under that title. Perhaps you were thinking of Anglo-Saxon England. In any case, unless you can provide a citation I shall delete your additions. TharkunColl 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a Welsh poem or story about the Red Dragon ultimately defeating the White? I'll have a bit of a search for it. Alun 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the story associated with Dinas Emrys, first mentioned in the Historia Britonum. The Historia Britonnum article gives a summary of it. It was later embroidered by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Rhion 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To qoute what I said on Talk:England on this very subject two days ago: The white dragon as a symbol of the English certainly occurs in Welsh folklore - Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc. The question is, is this derived from a symbol actually used by the English themselves? It would be supremely ironic to adopt a symbol invented for the English by the Welsh! As it happens, on some old maps a white dragon is used as a symbol of Mercia, which was obviously the kingdom with which the Welsh had most contact, and they might have mistakenly assumed that it was a symbol used by all the English, and not just the Mercians. Wessex, as has already been noted, used a gold wyvern, which - heraldically speaking - is completely distinct from a white dragon. Those four legged dragons on the tapestry near Harold are interesting, but the question is this - in 1064, Harold was still only earl of Wessex, not king of England. Perhaps it was just his personal banner, or the banner of the Godwin family. Basically, we simply don't know. TharkunColl 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some sources, flags website, info about flag of Wessex and the White Dragon. One person claims that the flag of Wessex in the Golden Wyvern, and that Harold Godwinson fought under it at Stamford Bridge and at Hastings, another person states that the White Dragon is the standard of Wessex and that Alfred, Athelstan and Harold Godwinson all fought under it. It states Moves are now under way to once again raise the White Dragon flag, not as the flag of England, but as the flag of the ethnic-English community within England. I don't know how official the moves are, it can probably be used as a POV source, for example to verify that some people believe this or are trying to introcuce this idea. England, Wessex (White Dragon) claims that the white dragon is that of Wessex and gives this link and there's this as well. Much of this seems to be people trying to sell flags, one of the sites I came across in my search is a BNP site, so I wonder how much of this is just pushing a repugnant nationalism. The Serene Dragon only deals with the Red and White dragons fighting each other in the Welsh story, it states that this is from the Mabinogion story Lludd and Llewelys, which may be where I remember it from. So we have both White Dragon and Golded Wyvern for Wessex. The wikipedia article List of British flags states that the historic flag of the Kingdom of Mercia is A gold saltire on a blue field, which contradicts what TharkunColl says. The rulers of South Wales in antiquity must have had at least as much contact with Wessex as they did with Mercia, it's just across the Severn/Bristol Channel. The truth of this seems to be lost in history. Alun 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was merely adding to 'Symbols' that Dragons were used by Anglo-Saxons. So it could be considered a symbol of England/English. I think it was a little unfair to remove it from England AND English People. I'd had to further objections to it - in fact someone said to stick in a few sentences!! TharkUnColl - Yes, you're right, I meant Anglo-Saxon England!!! White43 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be replying to me, but I did not remove your edits from either of these pages. Alun 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mercians used a white dragon, but the yellow saltire was later attributed to the kingdom (it is actually the banner of St. Alban) - it occurs on the coats of arms of both St. Albans and Tamworth, the capital of Mercia. If we can draw a distinction, the white dragon is more a symbol of pagan Mercia, but it survived into the Christian period as well - and in any case, there is no reason why a kingdom can't have two totally different symbols, look at the English three lions and the cross of St. George. TharkunColl 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So What are we saying here? Include something about the dragons or not? Mercia used a white dragon, Wessex did as well and of course Wessex eventually would dominate all South and West England. Harold used a Dragon at Hastings.... White43 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, incidentally, is a source for the white dragon being a symbol of Mercia, from the Flags of the World website [27]:

"There is a medieval map of the English "heptarchy", a period where there were seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms at war with each other. This map, made I believe in the 12th Century after the heptarchy period is illustrated with banners of the kingdoms. Those shown for Essex, Kent and Sussex appear to be very similar to their "county standards" today, while East Anglia has three crowns on a white background, Mercia appears to have a white dragon of some kind. James Frankcom, 30 July 2001"

We also learn from this, for example, that East Anglia used three crowns, an arrangement identical to the Swedish coat of arms - perhaps not coincidentally, as there are Swedish archaeological remains in East Anglia and its dynasty may have been of Swedish origin!

The point is this - Mercia used both a white dragon and (later) a yellow saltire; Wessex used a gold wyvern but the Godwins, for some reason, appear to have used a white dragon; East Anglia used three crowns; and the other kingdoms used totally different designs. The white dragon is by no means universal, and it may just be a coincidence that Mercia and Wessex used vaguely similar designs. Heraldic beasts such as dragons are very common in European iconography. TharkunColl 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have the greates knowledge of this TharkunColl. I'm happy to go with your explanation. I wonder if we should mention that some people want to introduce a White Dragon flag as a flag for the English people? We can certainly verify this, though it could equally be considered a tiny minority opinion and therefore not worthy of comment. What do you think? It's worth mentioning that Owain Glyndŵr used a Golden Dragon (otherwise identical to the Red Dragon) on a white background.[28] Alun 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If there was a sizeable minority who sought to introduce such a flag then it would be worthy of mention. So far, however, I have yet to see any evidence that this has not been the work of a single individual who happens to run his own website. TharkunColl 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Alun 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could it be worth mentioned that the Anglo-Saxons used a variety of Dragons in their banners? 2 or 4 legged? There seems to be consensus on this. Then it might be worth mentioning that someone has 'invented' a flag? If we consider that Wessex had the Golden Wyvern and that eventually Wessex dominated known England at the time, surely Dragons(Golden or White) play some sort of significance and are a symbol of old England? White43 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercia used a white dragon, Wessex used a gold wyvern. These two creatures are absolutely distinct heraldically. As for a flag of "old England", it is worth pointing out that the name "England" is derived from the Angles - therefore the Saxons (such as those in Wessex) were never English anyway. TharkunColl 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl. That's a very odd thing to say. 'Saxons were never English anyway'? The united Germanic tribes referred to themselves as 'Anglo-Saxons' In fact, was is not Alfred who called himself 'Rex Anglorum vel Saxonum' ? The Anglo-Saxons became the English. Not the Angles alone. If we follow your line of thinking then Perhaps the same logic should be applied to Scotland (Gaels, Vikings, Angles, Britons, Vikings). Or France (Bretons, Alsatians, Gascons, Lombards, Occitanians, Corsicans). Or Spain......... White43 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the OED one of the first uses of Anglo-Saxon was to mean The Saxons of England or English Saxons, here's what it says: English Saxon, Saxon of England: orig. a collective name for the Saxons of Britain as distinct from the ‘Old Saxons’ of the continent. Hence, properly applied to the Saxons (of Wessex, Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, and perhaps Kent), as distinct from the Angles. But though English people are descended from Anglo-Saxons, thet are obviously descended from other groups that would not have been considered 'Anglo-Saxons. Though the words England and English are derived from the word Angle, it is demonstrably true that England and English also refered to Saxons, as the distinction between Angles and Saxons dissapeared as they began to see themselves as a single ethnic/national/political group. How this bears on the White Dragon issue I do not know. Alun 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:The Green Dragon has added this to the Symbols section The Saint George flag replaced the white dragon flag which consisted of a white dragon on a blood red background in the 12th century.^{[citation needed]} The Flag is still in use today by the English[citation needed] and some wish for it to be re-instated as the national flag.^{[citation needed]} I have added requests for citations. Should it just be removed? Alun 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is dubious about this. Where's your evidence? Various incarnations of Dragon flags were used. Bernard Cornwell on his site seems to think it should be a White Dragon on a green background! I do concur with others that this 'White Dragon' flag seems to be an invention by a few people who want to sell it as a 'United' flag of White England.White43 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my edit and I'm not supporting it, which is why I have tagged it ^{[citation needed]}, so I don't need any evidence. If it's wrong or there are no citacions to support it then we should remove it. Alun 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this and have removed it until citations are forthcoming. TharkunColl 12:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to do it. Alun 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

English Democrats Party

Why is there a link to the website of this party? It looks a bit like an endorsement by Wikipedia. Or are they considered uniquely representative of English people? If so, why did they get 0.7% of the vote at the last by-election held in England? 193.39.172.1 07:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the link you are refering to, where is it? If the website is supporting an assertion in the text then it is a citation and needs to be there. What makes you think it is an endorsement? I can't find the link, but if it does appear to be an endorsement then it should be removed or reworded to emphasise that it is just one point of view. There's a link to the Campaign for an English Parliament, for example, but it's just a citation in support of the fact that such a thing exists. There's a big difference between endorsing something and having something on the page for the purposes of verification. If you are going to claim that it looks like an endorsement, then it should be more than just a link that is being used to support an asserion in the article. Can you pont out where in the article it is please? Alun 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"External links" "Can we talk about what it means to be English ?" The English Democrats Party. 193.39.172.1 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it certainly looks like nothing more than a promotion for the party, rather than a serious discussion of English identity. I'll remove it, if anyone has a problem with it they can give reasons why it should be in the English people article here. Good you mentioned it. Alun 09:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

List of English people

A think a List of English people within the 'Contribution to humanity' section adds to the article although there will no doubt be a debate about who to put here and who to leave only in the main list. But please see Wikipedia:Embedded lists. Wikipedia Style is to avoid the use of bulleted lists in an article ( except those in articles which are solely lists). Articles should try to describe their subject using prose and where a list is beneficial , use the Serial Comma method. Lumos3 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we need a list? A list is availabe at List of English people, and as you say it will always be open to debate as to who is most notable. I was a bit confused before as you stated that we shouldn't have a list at all, but just changed the style while keeping the list. I'm happy to include the list within the prose, though I find this more difficult to digest, and tend to skip long lists of people/things as think they tend to just clutter text and make it less ledgible, but this is just personal preference. If you want to revert I will not oppose it. Alun 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

American vs English or British ethnicity

Since when do ethnicities stop forming? When a country such as Belgium or Switzerland, Spain or Russia and Germany is formed of composite former nation-states, do the newfound citizens not produce children that identify ethnically with their new nation? For instance, I am British, French and Irish ancestrally in the USA. I know that paternally, my ancestors came during the reign of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's one king. Then again, there were relatives of the same surname who were there in the old Virginia colony, who fought against their master George III of Hanover's yoke and declared themselves American. These remnants of 1776 still identify ethnically/ancestrally as American, rather than any UK-related fief under the Crown. British, French and Irish Protestants who were there in 1776 identify as American--but the Orange-Nassau/Pennsylvania Dutch and Netherlands/New York Dutch people still proudly claim their Continental roots. I would say that is proof that old roots don't always hold water. I have recently begun to shear off my British cultural allegiance, with an understanding of my own American heritage and am just fine adopting the mantle which better describes me. Although 3rd generation American, I have differences with the modern (Germanophile) UK and disagree with a lot of how it is going. In short, I would NOT want to live there now, in this day and age. If you do not believe me, at least believe the United States Census Bureau. People of the three major racial backgrounds apart from non-French Continental colonials present in 1776, are represented as: "American", "African American", "American Indian" in this map page...Maps of American ancestries I would consider American nation-state status to be more legitimate in the way of providing an ethnicity. Canada and other Commonwealth nations are still tied to the UK and it would be silly to pretend that the English in Canada have no identity, especially when contrasted to the French--even the Scots and Irishmen maintain individualist presences. Éponyme 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you are getting at, but I have been quite amazed that so may North Americans seem to consider themselves ethnically English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish. People in these countries consider Americans and Canadians to be just that, Americans and Canadians. I don't recognise any ethnic similarities between British people and North Americans. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a South African guy who claimed that he was as British as me, I didn't contradict him as I didn't want to cause offence, but it was clearly nonsense, and no British person whould have recognised him as such. There are more differences than similarities between North Americans and British people, and culturally and socially we have very little in common. North Americans seem to be obsessed with descent and seem to believe that their ancestry somehow gives them English/Welsh/Scots ethnicity, even though it is quite obvious that most of them haven't got a bloody clue about British people. Alun 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on. I am fully willing to accept what others will not. I cast the hyphen aside and found roots I hadn't known existed and even if they represented British colonial policy, I recognize the American component and am content to serve one master. Éponyme 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As I think he/she proved by referring to the modern UK as "Germanophile"! I can think of many, many ways to describe the British, but lovers of Germans...? Nah. TharkunColl 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-loathing Germanophiles, indeed. All recent culture in the UK has been mystified by Anglo-Teutonistic vs Celticist nonsense, omitting Roman this and that. I can't take it. It is precisely these intellectual hates that inspire me to say "that's fucking/bloody enough". I would be more ashamed to self-identify according to those hyphens indicating ancestry. It is enough for me to know where my colonial ancestors and recent ancestors were from--all the same place. Since they were all involved in my branch of our family's current nation (as well as other Anglosphere countries CA/AU inc. ministers in India), I just focus on my immediate situation and work my way outwards from there. Éponyme 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I am desparately working on the American people article, to save it from destruction by anti-American sentiment where Americans are not seen as legitimate people. You guys know more than anybody that is not true and that we have a story that is so very ominous when George Washington is talked about. Imagine somebody saying that Mexicans or Brazilians aren't real people, just composites. Everybody is a composite of something else, but we all assume contemporary identities. I am not Anglo-Saxon, any more than the Anglo-Saxons were Ingvaeones. We Americans broke off from you and built our own Continental nation with our own ethnic group based on a mixture of British fiefs and the subjects of those lands (including Huguenots), minus the Dutch and Palatine Germans. Now, we have other ethnic groups coming here and saying they are just as American or even more American than the Founding Fathers like George Washington. What utter ignorant hatred. They don't understand the difference between a colonial populace which creates a political entity and the subsequent immigrants. Consider the French situation in Paris (Paris was once centre of Frankish potency), or the experiences of Brummies (glorious Mercia) and Londoners (where's old Middlesex?) in their own area. We all get the Political Correctness nonsense and young people thinking they can bring White Man's Burden to "ethnics", against the old order. I'm sick of counterculture's intolerance towards democracy and their insistence that a mobbish minority rule must supplant majority rule, catering entirely to their minority freakdom and bringing in wave after wave of ignoramouses to vote and work for them in our countries. Fuck Karl Marx and his utopia of class struggle. I'm going to have a heart attack one of these days! Éponyme 03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news about the Origins of the English and the British.

In addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes into account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Now we have another Oxford study whose reference has been just published two days ago in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought (really, who would have thought that they come from the Spanish!.

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

Professor Sykes 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.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

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.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.

It seems that here we have very interesting new information for the article.

Veritas et Severitas 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Major_new_genetic_study_2006_Oxford. Alun 09:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish mythology has always made it clear that their ancestors came from Spain, yet this was rejected by archaeologists who thought they knew better.

The timeframe is interesting as well, because it coincides with the spread of the megalithic culture, which also, apparently, originated in Iberia. TharkunColl 09:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it coincides with research that has been done before. In fact, most research seems to be pointing in that direction. The most common Haplotype in the British isles, within Haplogroup R1b, is the so-called Modal Atlantic Haplotype. Make a search for it in google. The two areas where it is most common is again Iberia and The British Isles. I think that there is a lot of information right now pointing in one direction, in any case, much more than in other directions. Veritas et Severitas 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I think that this article and others about other British peoples right now are ignoring fundametal findings, which is very poor for Wiki standards and rules. But I am not going to make any changes myself. If anyone wants, they can do it themselves with my support. I personally do not want to engage in exhausting edit conficts. I just prefer to contribute with sources in the discussion page for the moment. Veritas et Severitas 13:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, it really does seem that the population of Western Europe is primarily descended from people isolated on the Iberian peninsula during the last major glaciation. But I don't think that the book published by Sykes has any new research in it. The first link you give is to the paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans, which is actually cited in the Welsh people article. We could cite it here too actually. Alun 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this research is being ignored, it is mentioned in the English people and Welsh people articles. Alun 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. But let just people read it on their own and draw their own conclusions. In any case, do not confuse the links of Western Europe to iberia, with the closer link of the British Isles with Spain. Veritas et Severitas 14:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Veritas et Severitas 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you not agree about? Your comment doesn't make sense unless you say what it is you disagree about, are we supposed to guess? I don't know what the close links to Spain are supposed to be. We don't speak a related language, our religions are different and out cultures are unrelated. Spain did not exist in antiquity, it certainly didn't exist in the paleolithic, Spain is a political entity, a state, Spanish people themselves are comprised of people from many different ethnic groups. Catalan people are not Basque people and neither are they Andalusian people, they all happen to live in a place called Spain, and are part of a Spanish nation, but they speak different languages, and in the case of Basque it is a completelly unrelated language. Alun 09:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a close genetic link that started thousands of years ago. Right now you do a DNA analysis on people from the British Isles and on people in Spain, and the relationship is more than obvious. I am not saying it, I am just a humble messenger, other academics and scientists are saying it. One of the characteristics of the human being is to know, more and more, and especially about their ancestors and origins. Now, in the 21st century, we have the capacity to know things that we did not know before, that is it. In your previous contribution you are lumping together very different concepts like language, culture, nationality and biological ancestry, by the way. Veritas et Severitas 13:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course we are lumping together language, culture, nationality and biological ancestry, but it is clearly incorrect to claim that these are very different concepts, these are the fundamental units by which people judge whether they belong to the same ethnic group or not, how we take the measure of someone we haven't met before, how we tell if someone is like us or not like us. For me to be able to recognise someone from my ethnic group or nation I would expect to be able to converse in the same language as them (without detecting an accent I would consider foreign), I would expect us to have numerous cultural points of understanding. I'm Welsh so it would be taken for granted by me that they knew what an Eisteddfod was, I wouldn't need to have to explain it to them. I'd expect them to know who Barry John and Rhodri Morgan are, or what Pobol Y Cwm is, these are things that bind us as an ethnic group, our common experiences/perceptions of the world arround us. If someone didn't know what I was talking about I would not necessarily consider them to be from the same ethnic group as me. As I say there is an element of race involved, and we should mention the biological origins of ethnic groups in their articles, but to claim that somehow genetics has some sort of supremacy is nonsense (and a dangerous nonsense at that). These findings simply show that there has been a smaller ingression of post paleolithic migrations into the British and Irish Isles than into other areas in the west of Europe, but they similarly show that the predominant source population for the whole of western Europe was that which provided the R1b haplogroup. They don't suddenly prove that British people are ethnically identical to Iberian people, we haven't suddenly become one people, these data show us something about past human migrations and movements, but they change nothing about our identity, Spanish people are no less foreign to us than they were before this information came to light. The genetic data are dealt with on pages relating to English people, Welsh people and Anglo-Saxons, they are not being suppressed or discarded, but neither are they anything more than a vey small part of the story, ethnic groups have much more significance than the merely genetic (and I say this as a geneticist). We share ancestry with all other human populations in the entire world, it just depends how far back one goes. You are conflating ethnicity with race and biological origin, these are not the same thing, language (including accents and dialects), culture, political identity, society are all elements of ethnicity that need to be addressed. Alun 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree basically with most of what you say. So what is the point of this discussion. I just said that there is information available about the genetic, biological, racial or whatever you want to call it, origins of the English and the British, which was not available just a few years ago, and the article does not reflect well those new findings. You do not see it like that, fine. Let just other people look at it and think for themselves. Veritas et Severitas 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, you seem to concentrate on the relationship of Western Europe and Iberia through R1b. But within R1b there are subgroups, and these subgroups put together closer the Britons and the Iberians again.

Then, those first migrations probably started 10.000 years ago, but the time frame also points to more recent migrations, 6000 years ago and even more recently.

Only in the British Isles do we find legends that may be a residue in the colletive memory of these migrations:

Ireland

One legend states that the Irish were descended from Míl Espáine, a king from Spain. The character is almost certainly a mere personification of a supposed migration by a group or groups from Hispania to Ireland, but it is supported by the fact that the Celtiberian language is more closely related to insular Celtic than to any other language.

Scottland

The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes".

Or comments by the Roman Historian Tacitus, dated less than 2000 years ago, describing the Britons in just a few words: “They are like Spaniards”.

Of course, those legends and comments were traditionally disregarded or almost ignored, probably because of the success of the Nordic Myth in Great Britain during the 19th and 20th centuries (still lingering, by the way), but now genetics seems to give new vigour and light to those legends and comments.

Those legends do not occur in other parts of Europe (that I know of), so the connection between the British Isles and Spain seems to be different than to the rest of Europe.

And do not confuse issues: The genetic relationship proven by science is not from samples collected 6000 years ago, it concerns 21st century Spaniards and Britons that are alive and kicking.

And I am not jumping to the conclusion that Britons and Spaniards are one people. That is obviously absurd, so let us be serious. Veritas et Severitas 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, Spain didn't exist 10000, or 6000 years ago. If there had been some folk memory of a relationship it would not have been Spain they were talking about. I do not trust folklore as proper history, if you are trying to claim that the genetic studies show some folklore is true, or vice versa then I find it absurd, you will almost certainly be able to find ancient stories and myths to support any proposition you wished to make. You seem to be forgetting that the Iberian peninsula and Britain were both part of the Roman Empire, so living amongst the Spanish may just be some oblique reference to that. I am certainly not confused about this work, I have never made any reference to these data being from millenia ago, and I have absolutely no idea why you claim that I believe this. You are confusing the issue by claiming I have made comments that I clearly have not. These data need to be interpreted in a correct light, you are just introducing wild theories, and a considerable amount of speculation and original thought. The articles about British people contain plenty of information about genetics. The English people article is partly about the origins of the English, these are considerably more recent than say the origins of the Brythonic peoples of Great Britain, English people began to think of themselves as such just over a millenium or so ago, there was no such thing as an English people as an identifiable ethnic group or nation before this time. British people are not Spanish, and the world haplogrous map that you have provided does not show any particular similarities between Spanish and British people, there is a North African component to the Spanish population that is clearly absent from the British population, the Spanish population has much greater diversity than the British in Y chromosome haplogroup map. The similarities that are most apparent are between Basque and Irish/Welsh people, these are probably due to the effects of the populations being relatively isolated for much of their histories, the populations were probably founded by paleolithic peoples that expanded out of the Iberian peninsula,[29] these people could have migrated to what is now Great Britain over land, Britiain did not exist as an island at that time. When other peoples migrated into Europe, from the Near East during the neolithic expansion, and into the Iberian peninsula later during the Caliphate (Al-Andalus) the Basque country and Great Britain remained relatively islolated, probably because the Basque country is a mountainous area, and because Great Britain and Ireland are Islands. Wales and Ireland have remained more isolated than England and the east of Scotland (lowlands), probably because England is much closer to the European continent, Ireland is itself and island, and Wales and the Scottish highlands are themselves mountainous. The similarity is therefore most likely to be due to genetic isolation of the populations over a considerable period of time than due to any particular close relationship between the peoples. Maybe further work will show greater similarities as you suggest, but there is nothing magic about it. Alun 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Alun, I am not going to repeat things. Just I remind you that this issue is being brought up by English academics, not by me. I think people can read all this stuff and draw their own conclusions.

Just some basic information: The highest concentration of this population group is in Spain, not in England, peaking in the Basque country, although it is also the majority population group in England. This population group is not restricted to the Basque country in Spain. It constitutes the majority population group in all of Spain, from North to South and from East to West. In fact, about 70 percent of the population of Spain, more or less like the population of the British Isles as a whole. Even areas on the Mediterranean, like Catalonia, present percentages of about 75%.

As to the genetic fingerprint of the Britons and the Spaniards, Sykes states that it is almost identical in the population discussed. If you do not agree, send a letter to Brian Sykes, I am just a messenger.

As to the Celtiberian language and Celtic Languages in the British Isles, linguists also agree that they are more closely related than other languages. Again, if you do not agree, tell them, not me.

This is at least disputed. Please realize that little is known on Celtiberian and much less of other Iberian Celtic languages of the Western coasts (some claim that Lusitanian is non-Celtic, but Illyrian or something like that). The same happen with Gaulish languages. So most on that isles-continent linguistic connection is highly speculative. --Sugaar 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the name of Spain, it is quite old indeed. Its origins is attributed to the Phoenicians, who founded Cadiz, the oldest city in Spain, more that 3000 thousand years ago.

Or to the Greeks (Hesperia>Hispania)! --Sugaar 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, as I said, there is plenty of information out there for the readers here. They can do their own homework. I respect your view, but it is not the only one and I insist that the article poorly reflects a lot of important information. Veritas et Severitas 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While this would enter in self-research, I can't but suggest that you take a look at this map and table of R1b sub-haplotypes. While the distribution is complex, it seems to emphasize that several centers helped to shape the pre-Celtic British population: Rhin area, proto-Basque (Pyrenean) area and also Neolithic/Chalcolithic Portugal.

In this research there's no "Atlantic modal haplotype" but 6 R1b sub-haplotypes, that can be linked more intensely to the Franco-Cantabric region (HTs 1,3,5 and 6) and to the Rhin region (2 and 4). The British "cakes" (not homogeneous anyhow) would seem sort of a mix of Portuguese and Belgian ones, so both theories are surely right: Sykes' and the one that claims a continental origin. In fact they are probably complementary, not exclussive. --Sugaar 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish and Muslim English people

I have reverted this edit. I don't think there is any doubt that there are many ethnically English Jewish people, anyone who claims that there aren't clearly knows bugger all about English people and history. I can't imagine anyone claiming that Benjamin Disraeli, Herbert Samuel or Rosalind Franklin are not English, in the case of Franklin how many people actually know she was even Jewish, because up untill recently I didn't. As for English muslims, well there have been quite a few, not least Nasser Hussain and Sajid Mahmood. There's also Monty Panesar, who's not muslim I know, but the same reasoning applies. English ethnicity is not static, as is no other ethnic group, the indigenous English group itself is the product of various different groups merging over the course of several centuries, English people have always had diverse origins and have assimilated various groups over the last millenium or so. People are not excluded due to their religion or skin colour. Excluding these people makes this article look like an advert for the British National Party. Alun 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

There's a problem with the infobox that I don't know how to repair. --Gray Porpoise 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What research team at Oxford?

I have removed this paragraph. It is far too unequivocal. There is no research team at Oxford, this is in reference to a book written by a someone who runs their own company that will genotype your DNA for you. The data included in this book are not produced by a research team at Oxford as far as I can tell. The sources used to back up this information do not constitute reliable sources. I refer you to the section In science, avoid citing the popular press. This information is more than adequately covered in the article as it is. I see no merit in inflating the importance of this, it's in the article already, we don't really need to repeat it ad nauseum. Alun 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, a research team at Oxford University has found that the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 6,000/7,000 years ago, making the journey by boat from an area that is located in present-day Northern Spain. The proportion of this population group is 64 per cent in England, 73 in Scottland and 83 per cent in Wales. - Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in Spain provides a scientific basis for this new theory. Even in England, this population of Iberian origins outnumbers Anglo-Saxons by three to one. This study also identifies other areas of origins for the present English population, like areas in present-day Germany or Scandinavia, with part of the population also having their origins in Ancient Rome, The Middle East and North Africa. 1 2

It is not in the article. It is an update. It is reputable and verifiable. It is an Oxford Team:

See: http://www.bloodoftheisles.net/index.html

Use this website for verifying your edit, it appears to contain proper scientific data. Alun 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable that people erase this type of verifiable information. No one is erasing the next paragraphs, although the study is disputed by geneticists like Oppenheimer. Do not delete again what complies with all Wiki rules. See: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

It is not unacceptable, this information was not verified by reliable sources, if you had read my post above you would not be making this claim. You are using newspaper articles that have absolutely no academic credentials in order to verify this information. Unless you are prepared to:

use the original book Blood of the Isles for verification
academic papers published in peer reviewed journals

then your edit will always remain unverified, please pay attention to what I said earlier In science, avoid citing the popular press. It is you who are in breach of wikipedia policies and guidelines.Alun 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you have another book that speaks of the same subject matter: That the relationships between the British Isles and Spain are multiple. They began with Paleolithic migrations, but there were several waves. It is now believed that Celts also arrived from Spain, much later than the first Paleolithic migrations. See: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.html

relationships between the British Isles and Spain are multiple. They began with Paleolithic, Spain is a modern state that did not exist in the paleolithic, your post makes no sense whatsoever. Alun 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cut and pasted this part:

And what of the Celts we know – the Irish, Scots and Welsh? Scholars have traditionally placed their origins in Iron Age Central Europe, but Oppenheimer’s new data clearly show that the Welsh, Irish and other Atlanticfringe peoples derive from Ice Age refuges in the Basque country and Spain.They came by an Atlantic coastal route many thousands of years ago, though the Celtic languages we know of today were brought in by later migrations, following the same route, during Neolithic times.

If you have reputable and verifiable information that criticizes these books or studies, cite them, but you have no right to erase this information and say that Dr. Brian and his Oxford team are not good enough. I hope that you do not say the same about Oppenheimer. I am sure that people here know him well, but here you have some information, just in case: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/stephen-oppenheimer.html Veritas et Severitas 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to provide verifiable information that criticises these books, but you need to provide reliable sources if you want to include the information. This requires that you either verify your information from the book itself or from published peer reviewed journals, see In science, avoid citing the popular press. Personally I think this information about the Iberian origin of western European peoples is more than amply covered in the article, it's only biology, it's not about ethnicity, we don't speak the same language, have the same religion or have any social or cultural practices in comon with the Spanish. I am sure that there are many eminent people that will criticise this work, and when they do this criticism can be included in the article alongside this information. The problem here is not with the information, but with the fact that it is not properly verified, it is the opinion of some journalists, that probably haven't even read the book, and who have probably misunderstood the science. This is why we don't use the popular press for verifiying scientific data. Again, these data do not provide any material that is not already covered in the article, any additional material sould be included in the appropriate place in the article and should not just be a repetition of informaton already included. Alun 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but do not agree. First you have tried to attack a reputable scientist like Dr. Brian Sykes. Then you mix arguments about language and culture which are not the point here. I do not have to repeat myself. Just add verifiable and reputable comments against those authors and books. I have no problem at all. That is what Wiki is all about in case of controversy. But do not erase key, updated and reputable contributions. I will continue restoring it, of course, not because I am arbitrary, but because it would be highly tendentious trying to hide this information from the article readers. As you will understand this is my last contribution in this discussion page. I think that we have already said it all. Veritas et Severitas 16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

you have tried to attack a reputable scientist like Dr. Brian Sykes- I haven't attacked anyone, please try to remain civil and do not make personal attacks on other editors. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
you mix arguments about language and culture which are not the point here.- They are exactly the point, this is about ethnicity not race, genetics is a tiny and relatively unimportant part of identity, it's percieved descent that is important. This is not an archaeology or history page. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Just add verifiable and reputable comments against those authors and books- But thhe books have not been cited, please cite the books. You cannot cite newspaper articles for science. You are in breach of wikipedia guidelines. I really do not know how I can say this in any other way, you do not appear to own this book, and you have not cited it, so I do not understand how you can claim to know what it says. You are using a newspaper article written by an uninformed journalist to cite a scientific study, this is not a reliable source. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
do not erase key, updated and reputable contributions. -In what way are newspapers reputable when it comes to science? Proper science is published in peer reviewed journals, and not in newspapers. If you want to state that the book is reputable, that's fair enough, but you are not using the book as a source, please explain to me how you kknow that the newspaper article actually correctly reflects what the book says? You are not verifying the research, you are verifying the opinion of a journalist. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I will continue restoring it,- In which case I shall look into getting the page protected, or even a short ban for you, it is not helpful to threated an edit war, especially when you are not providing any proper verifiability for your edit. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
because it would be highly tendentious trying to hide this information- What, you mean the opinions of a few tabloid journalists? If you want to cite the book, go out and read a copy of it and see what it says, this is just the ramblings of a few journalists, how do you know they are accurately presenting the conclusions of the book? Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that we have already said it all.- Wikipedia is collaborative, without proper discussion all we end up with are edit wars, it is not acceptable for one editor to ignore the correct way to form consensus. I think that your sources are suspect,and I have produced the relevant wikiedia guideline to back up my reasoning. In order to be constructive I think you need to go out and find better sources, these would include proper peer reviewed articles, or a citation from the book itself, this would be acceptable because it is written by a recognised expert in the field.Alun 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism: Please assume good faith, I understand your frustration, but all I am asking for is a more reputable source, as it happens I think these data are very interesting and have long known about the Iberian origin of western Europeans, though I think you are over stating it when you claim a particularly Spanish connection to the UK. Data supporting the Iberian origin of western Europeans do actually exist on several of the British pages, and these are supported by reputable sources, not by newspaper sources. It is insulting to call other editors vandals when they have attempted to engage with you regarding this situation. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. No one here is doing that and you well know it, you are resorting to insults, please be aware that personal attacks are considered very poor form on wikipedia. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of Sykes book from amazon and will be interested to read what the book actually says. I have also ordered this book The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. We need to say what the book says, you are not doing that, you keep saying that this research needs to be included, but you are not including the research, you are including newspaper coverage of the fact that the book has been published, these are not the same things at all. Alun 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I do not see such of an interest in you trying to erase other newspaper articles in that very same article. Look well. You have tried to attack Sykes. Read yourself. The point here is the Pre-Anglosaxon section, not other sections related to language and culture. Anyway, let us cool off. I left you a message in your personal page. Veritas et Severitas 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends what one is verifying. Newspapers are not considered reliable for science. For politics, social issues or to verify a POV they may be perfectly acceptable, but not for science. Alun 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Do we really need to list practically every organized religion that exists here ? I find that this along with other elements in this article tend to make the English look like some multi-ethnic, heterogenous population. I am not denying that there are numbers of ethnic English who may be Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, etc., but there numbers are very minimal compared to the majority who are of a Christian denomination (the traditional religion of English culture, particulary protestantism) or who are atheist/agnostic. I mean, you might as well as list aminism, paganism, etc. all here if going by the current list of faiths. I propose changing this section back to including those denominations traditionally associated with the majority of ethnic English people and English culture, not simply the religion of people living in the UK (as is what the current references in the section refer to). Epf 07:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

compared to the majority who are of a Christian denomination

I don't know the figures, but not many English people are proper Christians, they just pay lip service to it. Hardly anyone goes to church or engages in any form of religious observance. Most people probably never even think about religion, it does not exist. In truth the vast majority of the British population are irreligious rather than Christian. Numbers of practicing Anglicans may be about similar to numbers of practicing Muslims about a million people attend Anglican churches every Sunday, with a similar number of people attending Mosques.[30] [31] In fact if there is a majority they are not really Christian but agnostic. The largest religious group would be the Anglican group rather than protestant as you claim, protestantism isn't a proper denomination and there are English Catholics. Indeed in England itself the Anglican Church is still the established Church, and it is only a semi reformed church, with elements of both Protestantism and Catholicism. As for the religions listed, these are probably the top six religions practiced by English people, they represent the main religions practiced in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and so do have some relevance. Personally I would remove the religion section, as with the related ethnic groups section, these sections are generally pointless and usually reflect oppinions rather than anything else. I tend to an inclusionist stance, whereby I tend to think that everything should go in, or nothing should go in. Indeed it's a moot point, English people have been around for about 1000 years (or 1500 depending on how one counts) but the Anglican Church has only been arround for about 500 years. To call Protestantism the traditional religion of the English is to exclude much of the history of the English people, both Paganism and Catholicism have played significant roles in English religious practice at different times. Alun 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that this along with other elements in this article tend to make the English look like some multi-ethnic, heterogenous population.

Well they are. If you don't think they are then you know bugger all about English people. Aren't you yourself both English and multi-Ethnic, you claim to be English and Scotts and to have Italian ancestry as well, sounds like a heterogeneous Englishness in a single person to me? Alun 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to a survey conducted by Prof. Ronald Hutton of Bristol University, and reported in his book Triumph of the Moon (OUP), there are approximately 100,000 Pagans (or Neopagans) in England. Given that there are only a million practicing Christians, that's a pretty substantial figure - especially as the overwhelming majority of these would be ethnic English, unlike, say, at least some of the Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus currently residing in England. TharkunColl 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, let's cite it and put it in. I'm all for including verifiable material. Alun 16:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Syke's book, Blood of the Isles: Published September 2006.

Well, as agreed, I have bought the book and read it. It is certainly myth shattering and in line with the newspaper articles. The maps and the data in the Scotland paper have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.

The book is full of interesting stuff, I will start just posting some revelant issues:

Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

And this is just from the end section of the book, after brief browsing.

As I have been saying much before this book was published, the connections to Iberia are multiple, from the spread of the Paleolithic Populations from Iberia across Western Europe, to more recent migrations to the British Isles. In fact, according to Dr. Sykes, the majority of people in the Isles descend from these later migrants.

By the way, the Author is introduced like this: Bryan Sykes, the world's first genetic archaeologist,...Veritas et Severitas 23:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So here is again the contribution that we are discussing. I will post it first here before I post it again in the body of the article, waiting for comments:

--- In addition, a research team at Oxford University has found that the majority of Britons are descended from Iberian tribes who began arriving about 6,000/7,000 years ago, making the journey by boat from an area that is located in present-day Northern Spain. The proportion of this population group is 64 per cent in England, 73 in Scottland and 83 per cent in Wales. Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in Spain provides a scientific basis for this new theory. Even in England, this population of Iberian origins outnumbers Anglo-Saxons by three to one. This study also identifies other areas of origins for the present English population, like areas in present-day Germany or Scandinavia, with part of the population also having their origins in Ancient Rome, The Middle East and North Africa. 1 2. Other population geneticists use the term "Basque" to refer to the population of Iberian origins. 3

Veritas et Severitas 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be hopelessly confused. Please be aware that the term Celts is loaded with different meanings depending on context. I strongly recomend that you avoid using this word as it is extremely misleading. Celts did not exist 6-7000 years ago and it is erroneous to claim that they did, celts speak indo-european languages, something the Basques and the people that colonised the British Isles at this time probably did not. Indeed it is also rather odd to claim as fact that these people arived by boat from Northern Iberia. How could anyone know this? They may well have come by land, there is no evidence for traveling by boat that I know of, it's merely conjecure. Conjecture should not be portrayed as fact. The the evidence as I understand it implies that Europe was repopulated from an Iberian enclave sometime after the end of the last major glaciation. The people of the Basque Country and the British Isles have remained relatively genetically isolated in the inervening period, unlike those of the rest of western Europe (who are also closely related to these groups). So the similarity is explained by their isolation in the intervening period, rather than anything else. The rest of the Iberian peninsula and Europe have been less isolated genetically, and therefore have a greater heterogeneity to their Y chromosome gene pool. So the entirety of western Europe is descended from the same Iberian population, it's just that in the British Isles and the Basque Country we see less evidence of subsequent settlement and mixing with other people. This is simply due to their respective relative isolation from the European mainland. There's no magic link between the two populations. The other citations are from unreliable newspapers that have no scientific merit whatsoever. Sykes book is OK, but is very light on detail, it gives a minimal of evidence and uses some very strange nomenclature, I am particularly suspicious of the lack of any genetic detail. I do not recognise the nomenclature of the genes he uses, he seems to have invented his own naming system, which serves to confuse the issue. Alun 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am with Alun in that the term Celt is inappropiate because it may be confusing or misleading. After all, if there was a migration from Iberia (more likely Portugal than Spain) in Neolithic/Chalcolithic times, what is very possible but only hypothetical so far, these people were not Celt-speakers they would only adopt Gaelic and Celtic identity later.

Before c. 1300 (Urn Fields culture expansion), any Celts or proto-Celts were only east of the Rhin, north of the Alps and east of the North Sea (basically in the modern German speaking countries, maybe Czech Republic). And they didn't arrive to most of the British islands before c. 300 BCE (La Tène culture). These people have no relation with Iberia (they arrived there too, but that's a separate event) nor are carriers of the Paleolithic or Atlantic haplotype R1b.

So the use of the term Celts is confuse.

Also Alun is right, as far as I understood him, in that the R1b haplotype and (related genetic markers, like greater Rh-) may have arrived in Paleolithic, Epi-Paleolithic, or Neolithic/Chalcolithic times. Maybe in different waves, but that's not clear.

That both Basques and Irish (and related peoples, as Gascons, Welsh, Scots) keep an almost "pure" stock with those markers, means only that they have remained very isolated and even IE migrations (Celts, first of all) had a limited impact genetically.

Finally mixing mythology and genetics is probably too far fetched. This doesn't mean that the Irish myths are wrong, just that they must be taken with a pinch of salt - they are myths after all. Assuming that whole aboriginal population (the Fomorians in the myth, if I'm not mistaken) was totally replaced by newcomers is being naive. --Sugaar 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and Alun about the term Celt. Bryan Sykes explains it. He also explains a lot of other issues. You should read the book. In any case, articles are not supposed to be based on our self-research and conlusions, but on the research and conclusions of authorities in the field. Brian Sykes states many things in the book. It is 306 pages long, where he also deals with the different migration wave theories. In any case I have avoided the term Celt in my contribution now.

I agree with you about Portugal too. In fact, the highest concentration of the Atlantic Modal Haplotype occurs in Portugal. But Sykes mentions Iberia and Spain in his book, not Portugal. Of course Portugal is in Iberia.

In fact, it is not: the highest concentration of the Atlantic modal haplotype, R1b haplogroup, to talk plainly, is in the Basque Country, followed by an array of regions directly related to Basques (Gascony, parts of Northern Spain around Basque Country) and the modern Celtic peoplesof Ireland, Britain and Brittany. Portugal, like Spain has suffered more immigration from either the Mediterranean or continental Europe in late prehistory and history.

Also there's a fashion of talking about "Iberian refuges" of the Paleolithic people. Yet, anyone who knows a bit of European Prehistory, knows that such refuges were actually in Northern Spain and Southern France (the Franco-Cantabrian region, sort of archaic "Greater Basque Country") and that the rest of Iberia was less populated and kept cultural peculiarities of their own. It's only in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages, when Southern Iberia takes an important role but we can assume that some Mediterranean Neolithic input was present then. These Mediterranean haplogroups (E3 and J) are present in the British Islands in small proportions and, excepting Jewish migration, we can think that they are related to the flows of the Megalithic age. But it is a very difficult issue to trace and anyhow is not what Sykes seems to mean.

One important factor in all this is that British female lineages (MtDNA) are closer to those of NW coninental Europe than to Iberian or even Basque ones. I don't have the link to this important study but maybe someone else has. This probably means that the islands were mainly colonized from the Rhin area in the Epi-Paleolithic period, a time when those "Central Europeans" were still very much Basque-like in their male haplotype. --Sugaar 08:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case Wiki rules are very simple:

We are supposed to add material produced by different authorities, if possible informing about different points of view, if that is the case, not delete different points of view of authorities in the field.

But that doesn't mean that some materials of questioned clarity and precission (i.e. Sykes) must have a priviliged status and be mentioned as the only or main truth. --Sugaar 08:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Veritas et Severitas 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

great now you can post this book review in all the other british and irish peoples sections. perhaps you could extract some statistical data and facts from the book to give brian sykes words more weight.

Alun, have you really read the book? Sykes explains why he uses the term Celt. You can call him confused, but not me. I am just trascribing statements:

Page: 287.

Overall, the genetic structure of the Isles is stubbornly Celtic, if by that we mean descent from people who were here before the romans and who spoke a Celtic language.

But obviusly I do not think that I have to transcribe the entire book. I trust that you can read English well. You continue to cling to the idea that most Britons come from the Mesolithic inhabitans of the Island that arrived there 10.000 years ago (that also originated in Iberia). No, there is a more recent connection to Spain (through the Atlantic Chromosome and other markers) which are not in the rest of Europe in the same way, and not only to the Basque country, very strong also to the rest of western Spain and Portugal, were samples have been taken, far away from the Basque country. But as I said, I think that you can read yourself what I have posted above and the entire book.

So, what is your position now, let me see:

1. Articles are not reliable, we must see the book.

2. Now we see the book but it is not reliable either.

What is reliable for you?

By the way, also transcribing from the back cover of the book:

In a unique first, Bryan Sykes is simultaneoulsy publishing the detailed genetic results that led to his conclusions on the internet at www.bloodoftheisles.net

You know what? this is not new information, but Sykes has written extensively about it in a book. No other contribution has provided more proof than this one in this article. Read the book well, Sykes elaborates well on the ocean going theory, not just by a couple of guys, but for centuries. As you said, Wiki is not the world according to you, me or anyone else. I introduce a theory that is already being known by a lot of people and conclusions drawn by authorities in the field, not by me, you or any user here. The fact that you, me or my brother do not agree with these authorities has not much value here. If you know of other authorities that state that Sykes's research and conclusions on this issue are not good, cite them. You should know better how Wiki works.

Your positions are not acceptable. They go against all Wiki principles. I will post my contribution because it has the same right or even more than all the others. I have already provided more than reasonable and reputable evidence. And do not come again with the Sykes-is-no-good thing, etc. No one can take anyone else seriously anymore down that road. None of us can play the role of the Supreme Censors of the Inquisition Tribunal, deleting and thus hiding points of view of authorities in the field. Veritas et Severitas 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case this is my last contribution here and in Wiki. Sorry, but this is not serious enough for me. Goodbye. Veritas et Severitas 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall, the genetic structure of the Isles is stubbornly Celtic, if by that we mean descent from people who were here before the romans and who spoke a Celtic language.

This is the point, Sykes is clearly not confused about what Celtic means. You clearly are. Sykes does not state that the paleolithic inhabitants of Iberia are Celtic. Sykes is saying that the pre-Roman inhabitants of Great Britain were Celtic due to their language (and possibly culture depending on how ones thinks of what Celtic means). This is clearly unlikely to be true for the paleolithic inhabitants of Iberia. Sykes is not claiming that the people that came from Iberia 7000 odd thousand years ago were Celtic, but that their descendants on Great Britain at some subsequent point adopted Celtic languages and customs. This is clear. You have been claiming that the population from Iberia was Celtic, this is a misunderstandig on your part.Alun 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You continue to cling to the idea that most Britons come from the Mesolithic inhabitans of the Island that arrived there 10.000 years ago (that also originated in Iberia).

I don't cling to anything, I am pointing out that this is an alternative explanation that I have encountered previously, and that it also explains the similarity. Both theories explain the connection, but neither is proved. Please do not imply in the article that any theory is fact or is more correct than any other theory, this is misleading and a breach of the neutral point of view policy. Alun 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Articles are not reliable, we must see the book.

No newspaper articles do not represent reliable sources for science, articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals are acceptable.

2. Now we see the book but it is not reliable either.

No one is claiming that the book is unreliable, but you have not cited the book, you have cited the newspaper articles that you originally cited. Find the page in the book and cite this page. Alun 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is reliable for you?

See WP:RS#Physical_sciences,_mathematics_and_medicine for reliable sources for science. Alun 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your positions are not acceptable. They go against all Wiki principles.

My position is not acceptable to who? There are no dictators here. I am supporting Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes reliable sources, it is you who want to use unacceptable sources. I am simply saying, use reliable sources, use Sykes's book, don't use newspaper sources. You keep doing this, you claim to have Sykes's book, so why don't you cite that? I will not accept newspaper sources as reliable for science, this is what the wikipedia guideline says, I am supporing the Wikipedia guideline in this. Alun 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will post my contribution because it has the same right or even more than all the others. I have already provided more than reasonable and reputable evidence.

By all means post your contribution, but use a reliable source, not the Daily Mail or any other newspaper, use Sykes's book itself. You have not provided reasonable verifiability from reliable sources, you only provide newspaper sources, these are unacceptable. I have told you this time and again, why don't you just cite Sykes? It's all I'm asking, but you persist with claiming that these newspaper articles are somehow considered reputable scientific sources, they are not. Alun 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And do not come again with the Sykes-is-no-good thing, etc.

But it is you who are refusing to cite Sykes, you keep citing unreliable journalistic sources. I am beginning to think that Sykes does indeed say something different to these newspapers, because you stubornly refuse to support your edit with any reputable source, instead insisting on using the newspaper articles. Maybe Sykes does indeed say something different, that you don't like, so you cite the newspaper articles instead, because they agree with what you think? I have no problem with Sykes or his work, but you do seem to have a problem with him, it is you who won't cite his book, not me. I'd be very happy indeed if you cited Sykes, instead of newspaper journalists. You should include a page number for citations to books. Alun 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is genetics all there is

Over at Welsh people there's been some dismay expressed on the talk page about the dominance of arguments about what the genetic work actually means. I've been thinking about this a bit and my conclusion is as follows (from talk:Welsh people):

I've been thinking a bit about this. My thoughts are as follows: We could split the article Immigration to the United Kingdom in two, a pre 1066 article called something like Prehisorical migration to Great Britain, and another article Historical migration to Great Britain (the UK part of the title is wrong because the article covers immigration that precedes the formation of the UK anyway). In the Prehistorical migration article we could cover all points of view regarding movements of people, from the mass migratory theories of Gilds/Bede and the Victorians through to modern archaeologists who doubt mass migrations and recent evidence from genetic research. Because this article would be about the movements of people, rather than about ethnic groups or nations we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the endless speculation as to whether biological descent is the main component of ethnic identity. It leaves the people pages free to concentrate of culture, history, society etc, all we need do is include a short section outlining the basic theories regarding biological origin, with a more information redirect to the main article about movements of people. It would also help to shorten and focus the immigration article, which currently has a huge scope and covers things as diverse as Neolithic migrations to modern day immigration law (including discussion of things like illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Of course such a big change would require a consensus from the editors of several pages, but I thought I'd mention it here first as Telsa has queried the necessity for so much attention to this topic on so many pages. This has been extensively debated on Anglo-Saxons, Briton, English people and Irish people as well as here (and probably on other pages as well. I think my solution could rationalise this quite a bit. What's the consensus on this page? Alun 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So far there's been no response from anyone on Welsh people, so I don't know what that's supposed to signify. Alun 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding Related Ethnic Groups

I think this section is impossible to verify to everyones satisfation, so I propose we use an alternative section or sections. I'd suggest we have a section entitled Contributing ethnic groups where we can list the ethnic groups that have contributed to English identity. I think it would be much easier to verify that Anglo-Saxons, Danish-Vikings, Ancient-Britons, Normans etc. all made a contribution to English culture and society, and contributed to the ethnic group we now recognise as English. It could also be argued that more recent groups have also contributed to English identity, for example Pakistani, Indian and West Indian people, but that's another issue.

If we included something like this I think we could also include a section like Derivative ethnic groups, with groups that English people have contributed to, like Australian peple, North American people etc. Just a thought.

Thirdly we could have a set of groups that are associated or similar in some way, call it something like Socially and culturally similar groups, we couls include people like Irish people in this group.

I think that talk of Frisians and Dutch more accurately belong on the Anglo-Saxons page. No one knows the aetiology of the Anglo-Saxons, and any discussion of such belongs on their page, not here. Alun 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So I've had a little think about how to rearange the infobox and have come up with this. I'm open to suggestions as to how it can be modified, and indeed if no one thinks it has any value then please feel free to say so, it's just an attempt to make the information in the infobox easier to verify. For example I think it sould be easy to verify that Anglo-Saxons have made contributions to English identity, just as it should be easy to verify that English people have contributed to Australian identity. I ahve included a similar groups section, I think this should also be easier to verify, for example by explaining that there is a shared language, history or culture. Alun 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's innovative and I rather like it. I still think Frisians (but not Dutch) deserve a special place because their language is the closest to English and vice versa. I mean: that's also a simmilitude, something that only English (and colonial "English" if you wish) and Frisians share. Language is an important part of identity, not all is just genetics.--Sugaar 05:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's why I included a similar groups section, we can include them and say they are similar because their language is close to the English language. It avoids the need to explain relatedness, they are just similar, and no one would deny that the languages are anything but close. Alun 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Language is not everything. You know how many speak English in this world. Are they all Britons, or of Briton background? IMHO, England should be seen more as the northern end of the Roman world and not so much the western end of the Barbarian world. Éponyme 06:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not relevant. Of course language is not everything, but language is part of ethnic identity. We can say that these peoples have some similarity because they speak similar languages. We are not making reference to anything else. As far as I know the idea of a Roman and Barbarian world are totally unconnected with English identity. If you are thinking about late antiquity it is somewhat before the various peoples of south and east Britian started to think of themselves as English, that period is more connected with the Anglo-Saxons and Sub-Roman Britain articles. Most archaeologists do not now split the world into Barbarian and Roman, there was considerable overlap, both culturally and socially. Alun 06:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is indeed relevant. The upper class has a decidedly "Protestantist" culture and the lower classes more or less are tied to the "Romanist" world. That is exactly how the Late Antiquity was and how it was during the Reformation. It indeed, is still the same since the Act of 1701 naturalizing Sophia of Hanover's heirs. I know you are irreligious, but the fact remains is that the whole society is still reliant upon these divisions as ever they had been. Recently, a Catholic cleric of Irish descent in Britain, said that the laws regarding Royal Succession are flat out wrong. That goes to show you the Celtic approach, which does not believe in the Germanic right to dominate absolutely. Éponyme 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep to the point? Neither the reformation nor protestantism are connected to the lingustic similarity between Frisian and English, nor do they have any relevance to late antiquity or concepts of a Roman and Barbarian world. Martin Luther was a whole millenium later. Alun 06:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The classification of English as a Germanic vis a vis Romance language was largely decided on those historic and cultural lines. I hope you recall that the matter of classification engendered controversy, where it was decided that England (unlike Wales, ex-Roman) was Germanic. Éponyme 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

where it was decided that England (unlike Wales, ex-Roman) was Germanic.

What does this mean? This article is about English people, not England. English is a Germanic language. No one knows why English people do not speak a Celtic or Romance language. There are various theories. The idea that hordes of Germanic tribes swept into Great Britain and slaughtered the native Romano-British population is no longer accepted by the majority of academics. Indeed the evidence as it stands seems to indicate that the native Romano-British population simply learned a new language. This language may have been that of Germanic Roman Auxilliary Soldiers, or it may have been that of a German speaking Aristocracy. What does seem to be the case is that the majority of English people are the descendants of people living on Great Britain long before the Romans even set foot there. Alun 07:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What it means, is to try and put the Germanic nature of English people into better context than ethnolinguistic approximations. Ethnolinguistics is sociopolitical, subject to partisanry. Trying to associate English and Frisian people is strange. When thinking of related Germanic peoples to the English, I think of Franks and Scandinavians and not those people of the old Holy Roman Empire or modern Netherlands and Germany. Frisian or Dutch, doesn't make sense except the old and great textile trade between English suppliers and Low Counry manufacturers. London has much more in common with Paris than Amsterdam. Those who fret about "Cornish people" and "Frisian people" are just rabble-rousers, because the majority of people don't think that way. Éponyme 07:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article on the Frisian language, and you will see why people here wish to single the Frisians out in this way. English and Frisian are the only two surviving Ingaevonic languages. Here's a perfectly good English sentence: "Butter, bread and green cheese is good English and good Friese." This means the same, and is pronounced the same, in Frisian (in which, however, it is spelt: Bûter, brea en griene tsiis is guod Ingelsk en guod Frysk.).

You keep talking about Germanic Protestantism, but I must inform you that when the Anglo-Saxons came to England they were Pagans - unlike most of the other Germanic tribes who settled in the Roman Empire, who had already been Christianised. This is presumably one of the main reasons why they did not assimilate to the local Roman culture, unlike in the rest of the former empire. Today, England is one of the most secular societies on earth. The distinction between Protestants and Catholics is meaningless in a country where only about 2 percent of the population are practicing Christians. You keep saying things about England that are simply untrue. Have you ever even been here?

By the way, I think Alun's suggestion for the info boxes is a very good one. TharkunColl 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your invocation of recent social scientific attempts to categorize folks does not account for the significant amount of time that England has had virtually no association with Frisia, whatsoever. This you hold is a revisionist perspective, with undue weight afforded to the "relationship" you purport to exist between the two. Tell me what type of diplomatic recognition Frisia has had with England, at any time in history... Also, tell me where this fundamentalist pagan status England has, is or has been official in any way? It is no longer the 6th century or whatever, when the Heptarchy Anglo-Saxons were pagan. The unification of England was invariably tied to the Christian religion. You are presenting England itself as a Yugoslavia, nevermind the UK as a whole. I see that as dangerous. Please provide proof that England is fundamentally a barbarian, pagan worshipping country. You say the distinction between Protestants and Catholics is meaningless, but the news reports and government statutes do not. Please try to find sources in reality, not a fringe New Age fantasy. Éponyme 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why "diplomatic" relations should be so important, but England and Frisia had long and intimate association during the middle ages as trading partners. As for England being Pagan, at no point have I suggested that it is. The Anglo-Saxons were Pagans when they came here, and developed a distinctive Pagan culture. They were later, however, converted to Catholicism. I shall not provide proof that England is "fundamentally a barbarian, pagan worshipping country" for the simple reason that it isn't. I'm not sure what you mean by "barbarian", but if you mean what the word usually means in modern English then I suggest you look at the figures for gun-related murders in the UK and compare them with those for the USA. If, on the other hand, you mean the Pagan Germanic cultures of the Late Northern Iron Age, then that too is incorrect, because those cultures don't exist any more. And nor is England Pagan - only about 100,000 English people adhere to one or more of the Neopagan religions. England, fundamentally, is secular. A few years ago the Archbishop of Canterbury announced that weekly church attendance figures in the Church of England had dropped below the one million mark. And as for the distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism, the Church of England contains elements of both, and as such is the classic example of a British compromise. You appear to have no idea what England is actually like. I ask again - have you ever been here? TharkunColl 09:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, trading partners through the Low Countries on a whole and originally as part of Burgundy, England's political ally in the war with France. The Church of England is the official Christian organization of England, regardless of your personal interpretation. I assume that blasphemy laws are still on the books? Barbarian as in non-Roman. The main point is that while the Frisians may not have much of any attachment to Ancient Rome, the English do in fact have a whole mythology dedicated as a quasi-creation story or genesis of our past with the Greco-Roman world. That Mediterranean nature of our heritage is attacked and the object of "purification" by Germanicists who rewrote our history to support newer dynasties and stamp out Catholicism, with some people today still quite fundamentalist about it. Quit the personal attacks. This is a scholastic dispute, not a matter of the "in crowd" dictating all terms of who has a say. Elitism is not the hallmark of responsible scholarship. Éponyme 09:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, and nor am I an elitist. During the early middle ages the Frisians covered the whole of what is now the Low Countries - long before the Burgundians ever became involved in the area. At what point did I ever state that the CofE was not the official church in England? That doesn't make it compulsory, or even popular. Blasphemy laws may still be on the books but have not been invoked for decades. If by "barbarian" you mean non-Roman then obviously England is barbarian. By a mythology rooted in the Roman world I assume you are referring to the legends of Geoffrey of Monmouth - these are all derived from Welsh sources, not English. And nor is it true that the Frisians are devoid of a mythology with Greco-Roman roots (see the Oera Linda book for example). By "older dynasties" you are presumably referring to those ultimately descended of the Norman conquerers, who themselves supplanted even older dynasties. TharkunColl 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

When everything is relativised in your statements, you are attempting to disestablish meaningful institutions of the English people. You tell me just how an economic partnership shared between English and Flemings, has anything to do with the Frisians being an important cultural or ethnic relationship to England. Even in William of Orange's time, there was no connection between Frisia and England as there was between Holland as a subdivision of greater Flanders and England. Are the Flemish a "fake people", but the Frisians "real people"? In any case, the "Batavian" component has always been dominant and therefore, most important. I am forced to split hairs because Frisia means diddly squat to England in comparison to Flanders, Normandy, Brittany, Isle of France and Aquitaine. How does Frisia fit on the "English radar" and how has Frisia fit on the English radar, for al the recorded history we are supplied with that tells us otherwise? Revisionism is a problem here. You tell me how unimportant Geoffrey of Monmouth is to the English assortment of epics and I'll just laugh. Monmouth is right up there with Geoffrey Chaucer and the Venerable Bede as to clerical importance in matters befitting England. How you could attempt to divorce certain aspects of historical importance from our present, is beyond me. That's impossibly masochistic, social engineering. The French pride on Gaul imasmuch as the English pride on Britannia. How could you assume otherwise, or try to change it and edit the perception differently and for what purposes?! Éponyme 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned the Flemings. Frisians are known from both archaeology and literary sources to have formed a major component in the Anglo-Saxon settlement of lowland Britain. During the early middle ages the North Sea was known as the Frisian Sea because they controlled trade on both sides of it. At this same period they dwelt all the way from the mouth of the Rhine to southern Jutland - it was only later that their lands were encroached upon by the Franks (ancestors of the Dutch) and others. I never at any point said that Geoffrey of Monmouth is unimportant - all I said was the simple truth, that all his ultimate sources were Welsh, not English. Some of them even still exist (such as Gildas and Nennius). As for your assertion that the "English pride on Britannia" - I'm not really sure what you mean by this. The English tend to have a very ambivalent attitude about taking pride in anything! If you were familiar with the English, you would know this, but you appear to be basing your ideas on political fantasies. TharkunColl 10:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to equate the Frisian relationship with the Fleming one, or at least substitute the peoples and said relationships. England has only ever had a Fleming or Burgundian relationship, based on textile manufactories or political alliance and not ethnolinguistic ties all this "bloody" time from the Dark Ages to the present. There are archaeological sources that expound upon the Franks in Britain, but you probably are biased against them too. The English Enlightenment take was expressing British pride, just as the French Enlightenment expressed Gaulish pride.

That you don't wish to accept this about your own country is very sad, because it was the cultural tie which bound my colonial ancestors with their parent country of ENGLAND. Tradition is not fantasy; historical revisionist interpretations are fantasy. I am firmly within the Anglican Catholic camp; I assume you are a quasi heathen embarrased by his Nazi mysticism connections and trying to say you don't have anything to do with them. Your allegations about me have prompted the call for no personal attacks and now, I deliver a psychological analysis of your motives and contribution to this subject, because your statements are still insulting. Éponyme 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this is relevant to improving the article. Éponyme, you keep making historical and political allusions, but this article is about ethnicity. One of the reasons for replacing the related ethnic groups section was to dispence with idea of relatedness. You have asked that we provide evidence of the relatedness of Frisian culture to that of English culture, but we don't need to because we are no longer claiming a relatednss. Now we claim that there are similarities between English and Frisian peoples because their languages are similar. We can claim linguistic similarities without claiming relatedness for the people. So Frisians can go in, with a footnote simply stating that Frisian is the continental language that is most similar to English, and for this reason Frisians can be considered ethnically similar. Language is a component of ethnicity, all we are claiming is that some component of Frisian ethnicity (language) is similar to some component of English ethnicity, we are not claiming ethnic relatedness. Alun 10:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because people like TharkunColl assign undue weight to the Frisians and attempt to extrapolate more than the actual worth behind such a relationship. I referenced Monmouth because Arthurian mythology and the Romano-British heritage emphasized in the Tudor-Stuart era are the ties that bind throughout the Anglosphere, which is an institution Frisia could not at all be associated with. The Anglosphere holds a common historical and political ethnogenesis as well as language, on par until the independence of each colony from the UK. Frisia has none of that, but TharkunColl was trying to elaborate on some fantasy of circumstances being otherwise. Frisian identity has no substantial value to English identity, compared to the Romanized Celts of Wales and Scandinavian peoples which formed England. Frisia is too specific to matter, whereas Scandinavia in general is more to the point of England. One could not reasonably focus on Frisia to such a priority, with Scandinavia as a whole just hanging on behind. Therefore, it makes sense to de-prioritize the Frisian status, as a component of a larger group of peoples. Éponyme 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not emphasising the Frisians in any way, merely defending them against your dismissal of their relationship to the English. Yes, no one is denying that former British colonies around the world are much closer to the English than the Frisians are. The whole problem boils down to the "related ethnic groups" category. If the Americans, Canadians, Australians can be described as ethnic groups than obviously they should be included. The real question is: are they ethnic groups? TharkunColl 11:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The feel good media of New York City and Los Angeles believe that there is no difference between the Founding Fathers and let's say, "Mexican immigrants" because it is an issue of assimilation right now. The media may be a 4th Estate, but they don't determine rightfully anything about nationality or naturalization. Americans descended from colonists were here in 1776 and the post-Revolution immigrants (including several generations down the line) of whatever race, identify by their country of origin and not as American. In Canada, the usage is the same. I don't know why the media will accept a Mexican or Brazilian ethnicity and not an American or Canadian one, but that's likely some systemic bias right there. We are a creole people and our fundamental culture is that which courted immigration, not defined by immigrants. The immigration protestors today have no clue what Jamestown is, or who that place is named for. They don't know the meaning behind "Virginia", but they claim to be just as or more American than myself. That's insulting and a turn-off to assimilation. I would hope you lot across the pond hold our dignified standards as well. We have to deal with rabble rousers all the time who make insults at the American people and belittle our essential foundations, trying to supplant it with their own images of what they want it to be.

Basically, there is no time assigned by historians when ethnicities stop forming. The French have zillions of microethnicities for villages and regions etc. The Jews consider themselves to be an extant nation, even though Judea is long gone apart from ritual--Israel is an anachronism. Do we follow the French practice, or the Jewish practice? I don't really think the Jewish one fits for America, except the Jewish concept of an Israeli people does make sense. Israelis are an ethnic group, as are Russians, so why not Americans or Canadians? Éponyme 11:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's presumably a question of time. When did English ethnicity begin? That's a question that's just as impossible to answer as the one you're posing. TharkunColl 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I myself think that the coat of arms of Edward the Confessor are symbolic enough to represent the oldest England, but English as an identity has been static ever since the Tudors died out. There is now a British conglomeration. Before Winchester was the capital, what is England was a balkanized patchwork of tribes. In similarity, Offa was leader of the English just how some Merovingian leader of the Franks was leader of more than one tribal group. Remember, American ethnicity formed over time just like the English ethnicity did. That does not cancel them out as merely relative. What about the people themselves and diplomatic recognition by other polities? That would mean the English have been around since "Anglia" has been in Papal records, Americans have been around since at latest the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Éponyme 11:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

English identity has in no way been static since the end of the Tudor period, and is evolving even today. I'm not sure why diplomatic recognition by other polities should have any impact on the formation of an ethnic identity, but if it does, you have to a certain extent answered your own question. The English were recognised as a nation by the papacy in 597, but an English sense of national identity took hundreds of years to form after that - it was probably the common experience of Danish invasions in the 9th century that was the most important catalyst in this long drawn-out process, after which English identity was so strong that it could even absorb those very same Danes. TharkunColl 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. When is an ethnicity established to the point of not evolving? That's what I meant about the static nature of England today, which has not progressed independently of the British nation. I rather think the idea of backpedaling identity to English instead of British is unhelpful, especially when one is happy with the UK conglomeration and its role in their ancestry. Besides, England as a stand-alone nation is not how it's been. Imagine if people referred to Scotland as Britain, instead of England as Britain. Why not be satisfied with the evolution of two states into one, a true melting pot just as the Spaniards mostly have accomplished? How separate are the English and Scottish from eachother, when one or the other is in the other's ex-kingdom? Do Scots stick out like sore thumbs in England and vice versa--are they persona non grata or the gringo/barbarian/goy/stranger? More importantly, do English and Scottish mean all that different to the world at large? Mainly for nostalgic reasons, they are held to be two peoples. After all, it has to be Union of more than one Kingdom. I believe that the process of creating "Middle Shires" was a good idea by the government and helps us (sorry, you and my ancestors) as a people. What would be gained by pretending the intrigues of Elizabethan court should be erased and that her successor's policies to unify the island into one people should mean nothing? As it is essential to my genetic heritage, I am rather fond of the Tudor (England and Wales) and Stuart (England/Wales and Scotland) unions. Those are nostalgic to me, but I'm sure that balkanists think of it from more negative perspectives. I would not like the idea of my family cousins waging wars back and forth with the Scots on the Borders. That would be backwards. There is one British nation, with legitimate subcultures other than Marxist social classes and those revolving around the economy (chavs, neds, goths etc).

Why deconstruct British identity? I don't think it's a sham, but a national manifesto from the Arthurian revival. Of course, you may think that I am seeing it from a face value foreign perspective. Rather, I look at it from the idea of being a Briton and feeling encased in a British nationality. I would think that English, Welsh or Scottish identity to be like wearing our feelings on our sleeves. Why not have that British armour contain it all as one? as that point is made, I believe this article should be much shorter and parts of it included in a new "British people" article. Éponyme 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, our next prime minister will be Scottish, and although he is disliked in many quarters, that has nothing to do with his being a Scotsman. From an English perspective there is often no indended difference between the phrases "I am English" or "I am British" - though that is not always the case. You'll have to ask a Scottish or Welsh person for their opinion though, as I suspect it might be rather different. TharkunColl 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl is quite right, mostly English people see themselves as British, but Welsh and Scottish people draw a big distinction between their British ans Welsh identities. I do it myself, I have no problem with identifying as British, oe with identifying as Welsh, but they are distinct identities for me. I suspect the distinction is much less stark for English people. Alun 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered Welchmen taking English folks to task for the supposition that England is a British nation, as opposed to Cymru. Where are the Bretons in such a debate? I would think that the Irish contribution to Scotland would have legitimacy to differentiation from Britain, as Scotland is named after the indigenous Northern Irish and was a monastic Celtic Christian state. Éponyme 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ALUN'S SUGGESTION

Let's come to some consensus. If English people must stand apart from British people, then I hereby endorse his proposal above. England is usually described of as formed by waves of peoples and being the parent nation of colonial nations or peoples, which is exactly how Alun framed it (pun intended). Personally though, I would tweak the genetic component: (Romano-British only if including Wales--e.g. England and Wales, because Brittany was founded for a reason,) Anglo-Saxons (includes the Danes), Normans (includes Scandinavians in general), Franks (Angevins). Those latter three are on the Royal Website: Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Angevins. Thereafter, it becomes partisan with Lancastrian/Yorkist/Tudor and future dynasties. I really feel that Angevin is an ethnic component, just as Norman is. After all, England was cut off from France when the Angevins changed their association to be a family business (Plantagenets were a combination of all three heritages, in succession just as English people are today). I would say that the time between Offa and John (30 monarchs) was what defined English people genetically (who among us cannot count non-Norman French {Flemish, Breton, Frankish etc.} ancestors from the Mediaeval period, or a Huguenot ancestor from the Enlightenment period?), the time between Henry III and Elizabeth I (17 monarchs) shaped English people sociopolitically (right, left and centre). Just IMHO. Éponyme 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Romano-British refers to the population of what is now England and Wales, so there is no need for further elaboration. The Anglo-Saxons were separate to the Danes and should be identified separately. As for the Angevins, they did not represent any major influx of population - they were simply a dynasty. TharkunColl 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well even without specifying the Angevin dynasty alone, there are more than enough total sources to state that the Frankish tribe provided a genetic base to the present day English population. It's not just a matter of ethnic admixture or ambience, but deliberate integration between the English and French of that time period. Between then and the present, the only signification collaboration of ethnic interplay has been the Huguenots. Anjou is named for a tribe anyways, just like Normandy is. The matter we'd be discussing is the Frankish contribution and not the Gauls, even though they both matter.

Did the Normans or Angevins see the viking component separate from the English populace, or perhaps the more rowdy of the bunch and less seasoned with Continental culture? Éponyme 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think Franks or Normans had a heavy genetic impact in England (and anyhow they are both extinct ethnicities) but French language had. In fact it's the most significant influence in English after its Germanic (Anglo-Frisian) precursor: virtually all Latin-Romance words in English come via French - and they are a lot. --Sugaar 14:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my reasoning. There is much discussion as to the cultural contributions made to the people of the east and south of Great Britain during late antiquity. Many academics now see much continuity from the fourth through to the seventh century, and have questioned the scale of Germanic immigration and influence on society. Indeed there seems to be a consensus that the Anglo-Saxon culture was a hybrid of Romano-British and Germanic. Anglo-Saxon can probably be thought of as a collective term for several culturally and socially related groups that unified over time to form the core of the nation that was to become the English people. It is easier to verify that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons than it is to verify that they are descended from Jutes, Angles and Saxons. The controversy over the origins of the Anglo-Saxons should be covered in the Anglo-Saxons article. So I think the contributions of the Romano-British (or Ancient Britons) and Anglo-Saxons should be very easy to verify. The Danish Vikings are known to have settled under Guthrum the Old, and their contribution to English cultur and language is not disputed by any academic sources and is well documented, everyone agrees that the Danelaw existed, and everyone agrees that it doesn't exist now, so these people became English. Likewise the Norman contribution to English language and culture is indisputable. I know of no source that claims a strong Frankish influence on the English people, if you want to include Franks then I think you will struggle to find a supporting reliable source. Éponyme's comments about Wales are odd, Wales didn't exist at the time we are talking about, and the comments about various royal dynasties are irrelevant, this is about ethnic groups, not about history. There is no evidence as far as I know that the Angevins introduced any specific cultural or social changes on the English people, they were just Plantagenets, simply a royal family, not an ethnic group. So I think these are about right, Anglo-Saxons, Romano-British, Danish-Vikings and Normans. Obviously many other groups have become assimilated into the English ethnic group over the centuries, but I don't think any specific group can be said to have had such a large effect as these four. Alun 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Danes are all that distinct from the Anglo-Saxons, at least historically. The Danes in my eyes, were supplementary Ingvaeones with the Anglo-Saxons. As to the Frankish influence, it has just left quite a bit more impression on the English than Frisian. I am not denying the Frisian component either, but it seems that the Angles lived next to Frisia at one time and whatever commonalities they shared in the Dark Ages Jutland area has certainly not been of paramount national importance for the English as a people and no public policy has ever been made to deal with them. The English state and veritably, the English people have been fused with the French people. Surely, that is more recent than the Frisian example and our memories are more vivid on the matter. Calais was inscribed on Queen Mary's heart, after all. Éponyme 17:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those four groups are definitely the ones that have created the English nation, and are the ones that should go in your newly designed infobox (and no others). This is not to say that no other groups have been assimilated and indeed continue to be, but these other groups have been of an order of magnitude smaller in their contribution. From an at least partially aesthetic consideration, I would suggest writing "Norman-French" rather than just "Norman", since all the others are hyphenated - but also because, for example, the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle consistently described their new overlords after 1066 as both French and Norman - and the Normans, whatever their Danish ancestry, spoke a dialect of French, and were just as much a hybrid race as the English. TharkunColl 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank God for such reason TharkunColl! I agree about the hyphenation! Éponyme 17:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-American

I removed this part; 'However, the United States may actually have the largest number of English people. In the 1980 census, 50.6 million Americans claimed to have English ancestry.' In England Americans calling themselves English would be thought of as a)laughable, b)offensive, or c)displaced Europeans trying to create themselves an ethnicity. Basically, Americans wouldn't be considered English in England, and as this article is about the people in England their views would override American ones. SynthesiseD 11:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that white North Amerians (including Canadians), and indeed Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders would not be considered ethnically English by the inhabitants of England, it has surprised me just how many people from these places really do consider themselves English. I really don't think they would be accepted as English by people from England, but there you go, that seems to be how they see themselves. I should add that even though they describe themselves as ethnically English they have generally shown a shocking lack of knowledge about English ethnic identity. Be that as it may, this article is in fact not about people in England, it's about the English ethnic group, which may well include people born to English parents in other places, like Scotland, Wales, or indeed the USA or Australia. I hasten to add that many of the American-English seem to have a very distand relationship to English culture and society, so I think that the whole idea of being of English ethnicity just because one might have some English ancestry is extremely tenuous. But many people seem to think that they are English because they have some dim and distant ancestor sometime several generations ago who happened to come from England. They often know bugger all about English identity. But then there is much North American systemic bias on wikipedia for the simple reason that there are many nore of them hooked up to the internet. Alun 13:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure that US people consider themselves primarily English. On one side there's all that patriotic mythology of the Independence War (US Revolution), that makes them somewhat anti-English. On the other side, English is just one of the main acnstries of white US citizens, and most are aware of it. Following the Maps of American ancestries article most white Americans consider themselves to have the following ancestries: American, German, English, Irish and Scottish, with important pockets of Italian, French and Norwegian ancestry too. German ancestry is particularly dominant in most of the country, American (arguably British) in the South and English ancestry is only dominant in some parts of New England and Utah. --Sugaar 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to US people per se. Of course the majority North American people do not identify as ethnically English, but from the figures we have from censuses it would appear that something like 34 million people from Canada and the US describe themselves as of English ancestry, it is a moot point as to whether these people consider themselves ethnically English, or just think of themselves as having some English ancestry. I would argue that to be ethnically English one would have to be i) immediately recognised as English by another English person due to similar cultural/behavioural/social convention ii) be oneself well enough aquainted with English cultural/behavioural/social convention that one recognises it in others. That is there is a reciprocity of recognition, we recognise each other as the same because we have the same linguistic/cultural/social perspective and environment. I would argue that just claiming English ancestry is not equivalent to having English ethnicity, and that the figures in the infobox are misleading. The figures for New Zealand are particularly apt, the 1996 census in New Zealand gave a figure of about 287,000 people, while the figure for the 2001 census gave about 34,000. The massive discrepancy in the data indicate a difference in the question that was asked, in 1996 the question was phrased in such a way that people answered according to descent from English ancestors, the 2001 (and indeed 1991) question was phrased in such a way that the answer given more reflected identity, and therefore ethnicity. In the end ethnicity is about the groups we identify with and not about who our ancestors happen to be. Alun 05:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada does indeed have many people (outside Quebec) that consider themselves of English ethnicity (second one reported after "Canadian" - see: List of Canadians by ethnicity). Probably the same happens in other "white" former British colonies (i.e. Australia and New Zealand). It would maybe interesting to create a section on nations that have strong English ancestry and nations whose primary language is English (Caribbean ones also). But overall I think that these nations are more "related ethnic groups" than properly English people, for the reasons you mention. --Sugaar 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those Americans who filled in "English" under ancestry/ethnicity in the 2000 census. (Actually, I filled in a series of several hyphenated terms, but the Census Bureau only tabulates the first word of the answer, so I was counted as "English".) Putting "English" first in the list was at least slightly arbitrary (since my known ancestors seem to have come from all over northern and western Europe), but my father's line is English, as were a significant fraction of my known ancestors, so I did it -- without wishing to make any attempt whatsoever to claim British citizenship, or an intimate knowledge of English culture. AnonMoos 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"American"/"Canadian" are recognised as valid ethnic groups

Either "American"/"Canadian" are recognised as valid ethnic groups of their own and that should be especially true in the "American" case, or we are a case of Yugoslavia. Please, why don't everybody sit down and come to consensus?! Either the creoles who founded America as an ethnic mixture of all the UK nations, including the Dutch (New Amsterdam) and Swedish (New Stockholm) colonial additions is a legitimate "peoplehood", or we just inherit our Balkanised heritages and live polyglot all about the States. I want a resolution, because this unclarified matter makes me steamed. Since when in history did ethnicities stop forming?!

On the one hand, I am "denied" ethnic American status by immigrants who come and say they are exactly (or even more) American compared to my Jamestown and Plymouth ancestors, on the other I am denied being considered British by my closest relatives outside the bounds of my country. On the one hand, I don't give a crap what immigrants have to judge about my Founding Father heritage and on the other, I would not want to be associated with the post-Stuart government and social atmosphere of the United Kingdom. I don't give a crap for reciprocation from hostile forces, whom have no interest in my feelings or security. The Anglosphere alliance we keep is a sham if you treat us like this and immigration needs to stop if Americans are not afforded proper respect in their own country. I myself consider the American government to be the right one to succeed the British failure. That is my honest opinion and I don't care if it "offends" your Uber-Protestant establishment!

The reason why we have so many Italians and Germans, is because of the Jacobite successors in Sardinia, Modena, Bavaria and now Liechtenstein. Americans have an unofficial connection to that line. As far as I am concerned, our experience is as a dynastically splintered country. You who love to pride on British contributions to our monstrous success ought to not talk down to us or face more lively Independence Day celebrations. Yeah, we got our Thomas Paine and most of the remaining Founder influence from the UK. That doesn't mean we salute an illegal succession and the tyranny of landlords, who conspired towards the most cruel ends of the general UK population, that either left or were evicted from their lands to make their way here. Screw your Clearances and theft of private property in the name of your self-righteous political cliques, your Parliamentary standard! Screw your arrogance to still talk down to our liberty!

Éponyme 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to argue against such exorbitant ignorance? TharkunColl 16:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning that American is an ethnic group or nation. What this articlea is about is about English people and the question posed was wether US Americans could be considered as English people, to what I argued that they are more a "related ethnic group" and not properly English (the same that Argentines are not properly Spaniards or Quebecois are not properly French).

What I find ridiculous is the last part of your ranting, Éponyme: it's not only full of mythifications but also of factual inaccuracies. Would you have stopped at your first paragraph, it would have been much more useful for this discussion. --Sugaar 16:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Éponyme, while I must admit that your last two paragraphs make absolutely no sense to me at all, I have no idea what you are talking about, it doesn't seem to have any bearing on national or ethnic identity. But I do agree with your first point. There is absolutely no reason why Canadian and US people should not be considered nations or ethnic groups. There is clearly an independent sense of US identity, the US has numerous and many national and state symbols and society and culture there is very very different to anywhere in Europe, including Great Britain. Most individuals have numerous identities anyway, for example I am Welsh, British and European. The majority of British people have at least two ethnic/national identities and many also identify as European (though most probably do not). Equally a US citizen may feel they have several ethnic identities, a local state identity, a US identity, a North American identity, and even some residual identity from another group, like Italian. But I think it is worth bearing in mind that it is very dubious to claim, as some people do here (though you are not one), that one can transplant English ethnic identity to say Canada intact, just because one's parents might be English. A person's environment is far more than just their immediate family, and one takes their identity from one's community/friends/language/material culture/society etc just as much as one's family. I don't think that nations or ethnic groups exist in stasis, they change and adapt all the time, often they disapear altogether and new ones can demonstrably be shown to develope from contributions by numerous and different groups. The English nation is a case in point, it certainly didn't exist say 1500 years ago, and it is clearly very different in 2006 than it was in 1906. Alun 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Points well taken from each and every one of you, but I digress for the sake of one more argument: Jews and their take on ethnicity. If the Jews can get away with it, why cannot I or you? Their nation refuses to recognise actual borders and all that jazz. They anachronistically adhere to the belief that they are citizens of Judea, even though that state disappeared so long ago. There is also a madman who thinks that the Jutes suffered an ethnic cleansing from the Saxons, while there are equally odd folks who think that Jutes still exist as a viably real group. On the whole, what one is called or how one deems himself can't change who they genetically are.

For myself, the Royal Arms of Canada pretty much sums up my most recent European heritage (the UK arms don't have France). Then again, the American arms evoke an earlier era when the Roman eagle stood for a state that combined lots of peoples I count as ancestral in some distant way or another (why list them all, one by one?). Where does one draw the line? I think that Roman (and the previous Greek) identity is pretty much inclusive ethnically for Whites in general, more representative in a racial sense. Then that means we pretty much all hold to the Greco-Roman experience as a combiner of our heritage and what largely and mostly distinguishes us from other races of the Earth. How would one address their Mediaeval and Classical ancestral heritage, that goes all over the map from dynastic connections? For myself, only the four countries represented in the Canadian arms (England, Scotland, Ireland, France) actually stir up sentiment. The American arms are very broad; Roman eagle (for Whites) and Egyptian pyramid (apparently for the Blacks), making it hard to feel relativistic or regional because of the racial component. Perhaps that is why we made arms, tartans, flags, flowers, etc. for each state.

I consider America to be a splinter country from Britain (and which is why we should associate with Brussells through London), but on a superior level more approximate to European Union status. The 13 original states provided their own quasi-ethnic status. In that case, I would be Virginian. That is how we largely deemed ourselves, before the Civil War and massive immigration to our country. Now, we are no longer "13 ethnicities" (Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, Pennamites, Rhode Islanders etc) but "Americans" as opposed to the various immigrants with their own diverse origins. The Founding Fathers had a "Continental" government, which meant we were trying to universalize our status in much the same way the Roman institution did (and still does with the Papacy). Could it be possible to say that Americans are a new race, with thirteen ethnicities? It's all about social structure.

For the record, I did try to get some folks to understand that there is such a thing as an American people (we are creoles) distinct from newcomers who've come here since Independence and distinct from their ancestors' homeland. Since the driving force against me was largely from immigrant/hyphenated American Wikipedians who entered via Ellis Island as opposed to Jamestown or Plymouth, I was beaten down completely. They wanted to say that the Indians were more American, which is insulting to both parties. Indians have their sovereign tribal nations and I have America with the capital that is Washington, D.C. I compared our situation as Americans vis a vis Britons with the Roman offshoot of Greece, but they had no clue as to the idea of it all. They called the Founding Fathers ignorant and hyphenated Americans, which is what has prompted me to join the discussion above. There needs to be a settlement and recognition here.

Most hatred for American culture, from those citizen or resident here, come from immigrants and their descendents. That means we have an indigenous culture, not related to the Indians either. Why some can't fathom this, I attribute to the sad state of our identity politics to Marxists and their war on our educational system.

Éponyme 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Well I have no time to even enter into this discussion to educate you people on alot of facts you seem to be missing on this issue. I only have time for one entry I wish to state here largely in response to comments made by Alun and others above claiming most in the Uk would not recognize English-Americans, English-Canadians, etc. as ethnic English. Many, if not most people in the UK, including ethnic English (that is indigenous English), indeed WOULD recognize many English-Americans as ethnically English based on quite varying elements of culture and of course their common language and descent. As for a unified American ETHNIC group (i.e. not based simply on place of brith or residence, nationality or having a few aspects of a VERY heterogenous national culture) it is very hard to describe such a thing, but I am not American so I wont divulge much more. In terms of being a Canadian however, I can tell you there is no unified "Canadian ethnic group" and no one here would ever seriously claim such. There are African, Persian, English, Scottish, French, Native/Indigenous (Inuit, Dene, Cree, Ojibwa, Haida, MiqMaq, Metis, etc.), Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, -Canadians, but considering this is the most diverse, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural country on the planet, (all policies which are strongly promoted here by practically everyone) its hard to speak of such. As for the British-Canadians, this country along with Australia and New Zealand has a closer historical (we never "broke away" from the empire) and cultural connection with the UK than does the United States, so you cant treat these cases identically. Basically, the fact that these terms are unheard of outside of this article, let alone Wikipedia just goes to show you how confusing, complex and unheard of they are in these societies, the UK or elsewhere. I have to say I was rather irritated by Alun and the other users comments claiming most people in the UK would not consider ethnic English outside of the UK as ethnically English (largely due to my own native English heritage and I still have close family there). Come on Alun, not only is this untrue, its simply ignorant and I am surprised somethin so foolish was even claimed here. Ciao, Epf 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- Many, if not most people in the UK, including ethnic English (that is indigenous English), indeed WOULD recognize many English-Americans as ethnically English

Ha ha ha ha. Epf shows to devastating effect just how little he understands about English people or English ethnic identity. You claim to be of English ethnic identity, but you know fuck all about it. Your arse is not for talking trough Epf. Alun 07:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well done Alun in writing quite a clean and professional response. How did I show what little I know about English ethnic identity ? If you want to start personal attacks, bring it on, but you should bear in mind Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Don't insult me or my heritage and I guarantee you I know quite a load about it and its part of who I am. I speak English, I live with elements of English culture every day being in an English-derived Anglophone society and commonwealth country, my fathers family maintains many English customs/traditions and they are of (fairly recent) English descent carrying genotypic, phenotypic, and psycho-behavioural traits associated with those of common indigenous English descent. I have close family that still lives in Coventry and York for crying out loud. You don't know me, mate. Epf 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attack you I just stated that you are clearly know nothing about English people, (but then English people reading this would have known that anyway by your previous response, which would appear ludicrous to them), and how they see the rest of the wold, including plastic English like yourself.

I'm sorry for the above remark Epf. It was childish and too personal. I make no excuses, I stepped over the mark into personal abuse. In actual fact I like and respect you. Race and ethnicity are very difficult subjects and can bring out the worst in all of us. Anyway I know you are a big enough person to accept my appologies. Cheers. Alun 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Plastic English" ? You are clearly the one who sounds ridiculous right now. You appear to not have any background in this subject area and you clearly do not understand how most English people feel in the UK. Cearly I DO know a great deal about English people and culture and most English people in the UK would agree with my previous statements. Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

- - you clearly do not understand how most English people feel in the UK.

Obviously a foreigner such as yorself would know far more about it than someone who grew up in Great Britain and who spent five years living in England. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English descent carrying genotypic, phenotypic, and psycho-behavioural traits associated with those of common indigenous English descent.

What genotypic and phenotypic traits do you carry that are English? It is impossible to determine if someone is English either genotypically or phenotypically, this is clearly a load of your racial POV pushing. I know of no reliable sources that claim that ethnicity is either genotypic or phenotypic in character anyway, but it has been established that any genetic differences between English and non-English British people are negligible, showing that we are all genetically British. Ethnicity is about identity, it is a social and cultural concept. You are talking about race. Indeed you have conflated the two in nearly all your wikipedia edits, but you have not bothered to verify your ethnicity is race race POV because there are no reliable sources to support your assertion, it is your personal opinion. As for psycho-behavioural, do you even know what this means? I suspect not. Closest in the OED was psychocultural a., relating to the interaction of the culture in which individuals live and their psychological characteristics But then culture you live in is not an English culture is it?

What genotypic/phnotypic traits do I carry that are English ? Umm, obviously those that are shared with all indigneous ethnic English who trace most of their ancestry to the British Isles. (I will provide more detailed info. on the genetic and phenotypic characterisitics of English if you wish, yet you've read many studies already). This is not a load of "racial POV pushing", this is based on fact and only someone as confused as yourself would deny that there are genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of ethnic English people. "But it has been established that any genetic differences between English and non-English British people are negligible, showing that we are all genetically British"...Have you lost your mind here ? Where does it say anywhere in any of the early population genetic studies that the differences are only "negligible" ? Obviously they are not as great as that between the English and other more distant European groups, but it still does not deny that they exist. Ethnicity IS about identity, but about identity based on certain criteria (i.e. this is the part that is the human construct or evaluation of what the identification is based on), not just identifying with anyone and anything. I live on a certain road in a certain town and identify with others here based on this, does that mean we are an ethnos (that is from Greek, meaning a "people") ? I am not talking about race (the biological classifcation of certain human features), I am talking about such traits and others that are associated with ethnic identification which is based primariliy on common DESCENT. I have not "conflated" the two whatsoever in any of my edits and it is only you who is misunderstanding what ethnic identification is because of your own assimilatoinist and ethnic nihilist "POV pushing". I have nowhere said that "ethnicity is race" , but it is again significantly based on common descent and associated traits (and ethnicity and race are related concepts). This is not my personal opinion, this the view held by most human societities and populations on the planet, let alone the definitions of most academics, which is most evident in the ethnic group article. Have you ever even read any of the anthropological journals or texts by Smith or by any other recognized academic on the subhect ? Do YOU in fact know waht psycho-behavioural" means ? Obviously you don't and these traits are laregely traced to our familial heritage (early childoohd years, see Nature vs. nurture) and descent. In a population which traces a common descent and lives in close proximity for long periods (speaking about centuries and millennia here) of time, patterns develop and reamin amongst the population. As for the nation and culture I live in, it is an English-speaking culture that derives from the British Isles , but in any sense your current national residence or place of birth does NOT necessarily negate your own familial heritage, culture and upbringing. Ethnic identification transcends current nationality or place of birth.

"A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal." - Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if he lives and works in the stable for his whole life he is likely a stablehand, and not a cook. Alun Most certainly not an aristocrat.

those that are shared with all indigneous ethnic English who trace most of their ancestry to the British Isles.

Ah, obfuscation. This is not an answer, it is an evasion. So in fact none at all, because none exist. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a load of "racial POV pushing", this is based on fact and only someone as confused as yourself would deny that there are genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of ethnic English people.

Well if it's not provide evidence that it's not. Every study I have read dissagrees with this assesment. All genetic studies show categorically that genetically (your use of the word genotypic is unusual, I suspect you don't know what it means) English people are indistinguishable from other British people. There is some evidence that a small ingression of peoples from the North Sea area has occured over a very long period of time in the east of England, this has not affected the population very much, though by measuring certain microsatelite DNA it's footprint can be measured. But I stress it's a small and limited settlement, probably no greater than the Irish settlements on the western coast of great Britain. I am astounded that you claim that I am confused on this, given your apparent complete lack of understanding of genetics. You have attempted to use genetics to support your contentions in the past, but they do not. Indeed you argue strongly in favour of these studies when you think they support your racial ideas, but you call the same studies unreliable when they do not support you. Let's say it clearly, NO GENETIC STUDY HAS EVER SHOWN THAT ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE PARTICULARLY DIFFERENT TO OTHER BRITISH PEOPLE. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You personally claim Scottish, English and Italian ancestry, so I find it odd that you also claim that you are genotipically sic and phenotypically English. Surely you must have some Italian and Scottish genes as well? This would make you a genetic hybrid with a concominant affect on your phenotype. This clearly indicates how little you think or understand about biology. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you lost your mind here ? Where does it say anywhere in any of the early population genetic studies that the differences are only "negligible" ?

The studies clearly indicate that only a tiny minority of British people can be clearly shown to have any germanic biology. Where germanic influence can be shown, it occurs in Scotland and England in very small amounts. This map by User:Sugaar based on Capelli et al. says it all, where even the highest representations only occur in tiny parts of England, and only represent about a 50-60% male lineage input. Most of England has a 20-40% germanic representation in men, which is in fact the same as Wales and Scotland, which both mainly have 20-40% germanic representation in men. The other important thing about this map is that it clearly shows that the cline is east-west, there is no evidence of a dramatic difference between Welsh/English or Scottish/English, the cline is gradual. The North Sea (east) coast shares more genes with people that share the North Sea, the Irish Sea/Atlantic coast shares more genes with people that they share a sea with. So basically British people in the west are more like the people they share a sea with (Irish/Breton) because they had more contact with them, people to the east are more like the people they share a sea with (Scandinavian/German), with a cline in between. One should bear in mind that the germanic contribution, even to the east coast is never greater than 50-60% of the male line, and only achieves this in two places. The cause of this may well be the Danelaw. But the real question is not which studies state that the contribution is negligible. What I'd like to know is which studies say that English people are genetically and physically distinct from other British people. This sounds suspiciously like racist nazi bollocks to me. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

your own assimilatoinist and ethnic nihilist "POV pushing".

I try to include verified POVs from reliable sources, and I include the conclusions the sources themselves state. So if I push a POV it is that of a reliable source. I do not include my own value judgements or original thought on article pages. This is something you have done time and again, without contibuting any verifiability at all. Sometimes you make edits that include a value judgement of a source, it is not our position to judge cited sources, especially when their reliability is impeccable. You are in effect including your opinion, which is original thought, you have also made claims for citations that the citation does not make.[32] Often you use sources that I included and caim that they support your point of view, when they often say something quite different to what you claim. I am sorry to break to this to you, but you do not represent a reliable source, you are not an authority this is not the world according to Epf. Indeed from what I have been reading recently (and yes I read around these subjects so that I can determine the academic stance on all of these issues, and so that I can provide verifiable sources) the point of view you have been pushing is nowhere near any conventional academic opinion in this field. You are not an expert whatever you may think. Indeed as far as I can tell you are an undergraduate still at university. Even if you were a world authority on this, you would still need to back up your claims with citations. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As for ethnic nilhlist, this maks little sense, I am arguing that ethnic groups are not biological or racial, not that they don't exist. Indeed different ethnic groups have different primary identities. Some identify primarily with language, others with religion, yet others with percieved descent. In North America it's social and cultural. Alun 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion, this the view held by most human societities and populations on the planet, let alone the definitions of most academics, which is most evident in the ethnic group article.

Actually it is your opinion. Most academics accept that common descent is often more percieved that actual. Indeed it's kind of the point really. It is only you who seems to think that all ethnic groups are somehow genetically distinct and that we all live in some sort of ethnic apartheid. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever even read any of the anthropological journals or texts by Smith or by any other recognized academic on the subhect ?

Well I haven't, but then I am not in fact disputing what they say, I am disputing that what you are stating represents the academic consensus because you have provided no reliable sources to support this claim. If there is information in these journals and texts that supports your point of view, then I strongly urge you to use it to verify your edits. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do YOU in fact know waht psycho-behavioural" means ?

Well I didn't use the term, you did, and judging by this evasion you have used a long word because you thought it sounded cool, but you seem to have no idea what it means, otherwise why answer a question with a question? Your clearly incorrect use of the words genotypic and phenotypic also indicate that you don't know what these technical terms actually mean. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I live with elements of English culture

Many people do, it doesn't make them ethnically English.

No, but this is exatly my point. Ther are elements of culture everywhere, in every society, especially in our modern, globalizing world. So if this is the case where does much of your ethnic identificaton come from ? EXACTLY. Those closesnt in your community and your descent (your heritage). Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Or rather your percieved herritage/descent. You claim to be ethnically English, and even genetically English. But you seem to have excluded your Italian genes. This implies to me that your perception of your descent is different from your actual descent. In fact you are not English by descent, you are a hybrid, presumably with a hybrid psycho-behavioural pattern? Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

maintains many English customs/traditions

Like what? Morris dancing? Just what is an English tradition/custom? Go to the local for a bevvy do you?

Dont be ridiculous. The fact you denigrate English culture in such a manner proves how you really do not speak for the majority of English people in any shape or form. The only reason it is difficult for some people to identify elements of our culture because our culture is the most widespread culture in the world and has affected so much of the worlds people and history. I go to pubs on the weekend, I am a football (soccer) fanatic (AVFC all the way, hell yeah), I also play rugby, I read much English literature (and it is core course material in our schools in every grade here), my fathers family cooks traditonal English cuisine and enjoys music associated/derived from England. Besides such easily identifiable English cultural traits, there is also family traditions, psycho-behavioural and genotypic-phenotypic traits associated with your cultural heritage and descent which last much longer. Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said there was anything wrong with Morris dancing, why do you think I am denigrating it? Nothing above is particularly English. Most music is international, there is no such thing as English cuisine, it's British. Football is not English, it's international and always has been, how can a group claim to have invented kicking a ball? Tell Welsh, Scots, Irish and French that Rugby is English and they'll laugh in your face. English literature is a staple in all places where English is taught and learned. Nothing above is especially English. Te. Why do you think I am denigrating English culture? I was being sarcastic, but it wasn't the culture I was mocking. Morris dancing is one of the few things that come to mind a specifically English, as opposed to British. Indeed what you have defined is a typical British and commonwealth lifestyle. Indeed you don't even play cricket, how un-English is that? Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

in an English-derived Anglophone society and commonwealth country

No you don't, you live in Canada, which is a British derived country. There was no English empire. Scotland and Wales are also Anglophone, does this make them ethnically English?

I do live in Canada, a country with two official languages, English and French (though Scottish Gaelic was proposed to be another one during the early years of Confederation; indigenous languaes are official in certain territories and reservations). To be exact, we are a British derived country, but primarily English since demographically and culturally it is the English culture that has left the largest impact here. Oh, and we remain to be a commonwealth country, and we only gained full independence from Britain in 1931 (along with Austrlia and NZ) after the Statute of Westminster. Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia became independent in 1901. I suspect that like most places culture ans sociey do not remain static. It is absurd to claim that Canadian society and culture is the same as English. Even if we take 1931 as the year of divergence, English society/culture and ethnic identity has changes a great deal, Canada cannot have perfectly mirrored the change. Indeed Canada would have by necessity diverged. Canadians have more in common with people from the USA than with British people, and English people have far more in common with their British compatriots than they do with so called Canadian-English. An English person will generally recognise a Welsh person as a compatriot, he will not recognise a Canadian as such. Alun 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

its part of who I am

I don't deny this, you clearly feel strongly about it. But don't think that English people will accept you as English yourself because they won't. You once told me that ethnicity was not just about how one sees themselves, but how one is percieved by others. Well I'm telling you that English and British people do not reciprocate these feelings. To us Australians, Americans, Canadians et al are not English/British, we do not understand their culture or recognise it. Like it or not, but what is normal for you would more often than not be strange and foreign to an English person. Alun 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm I do know that English people accept me as in part as ethnically English (my mothers side is Italian) based on my own experiences with my 1) close friends who are of English descent and/or from England 2)my own family members in England for crying out loud. The ethnic identification is a combinatoin of both how ones sees himself/herself and how the community sees that person. Not all people have the same viepoint in a society, but most English (including most who've I've grown up with) do recognize some Canadians, Australians, Americans as English, but only those who are English-Canadians, English-Americans, English-Australians (etc.). You are thinking in two dimensional terms here Alun as if ones nationality automatically is connected or negates ones own ETHNIC heritage and identity. You speak as if Canadians, Americans, Australians, etc. are some unified ethnic groups, let alone unified cultural groups when this is clearly not the case as each government of these nations consistently attests to. These are the worlds most heterogenous societies, culturally and ethnically and you cant group peoples ethnic identification based on merely affiliation with a political entity. This whole argument simply does not take place with most other European, Asian, African groups who by no means fail to acknowledge the importance of descent and familial heritage in their ethnic identification. For some reason though, it is particuarly difficult for some users here to understand (i.e. user:Wobble). Ciao, Epf 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, how can one expect family and friends to give an unbiased assessment? They probably refer to you as their Canadian cousin, or nephew when you are not arround. And I guarantee the first thing people think when you open your gob is American accent. It immediately sets you appart, like it or not, but there it is. Alun 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You speak as if Canadians, Americans, Australians, etc. are some unified ethnic groups

I don't speak of them as anything, where did I call them unified ethnic groups? You should note that the new infobox does not refer to these groups as ethnic groups and this was deliberate. What I think is somewhat immaterial, but I think that Americans (and to a lesser extent Canadians) often do identify as Americans or Canadians, and not to some identity for which they have no connection. You may not like or accept that many North America people consider themselves a nation or ethnic group, but they do. You do not have the academic credentials or the intellectual authority to deny what these people are. If these people identify this way, then they do, it is not up to you to decide that certain ethnic groups are set in stone, and are eternal and immutable. I'll leave the last word to an American and a non American who certainly do believe that North Americans form an ethnic group, this is taken form Talk:Scottish people:

Wow, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen expressed here on Wikipedia. How old are you? My family has been in America since the 1600s and fought in every U.S. war since the Revolutionary War. To say "there is no unified American ethnic group" is beyond comprehension to me. We understand that 4 centuries ago, our ancestors came here from Scotland, England, Ireland, France, etc. but we no more consider ourselves to be "ethnically" Scottish or English than Bantu or Chinese. We don't go around sporting kilts, tossing cabers, drinking wiskey, eating haggis or yearning to frollick in the heather by the loch. We eat hot dogs, watch football (that's the NFL, not soccer), play baseball, fly the stars and stripes, spell "labor" without a "u", wear jeans, chew Skoal, listen to Kenny Chesney, Willie Nelson and Bruce Springsteen, drive big (American) cars, shun public transportation, embrace capitalism, defeat communism and socialism, cherish our 2nd ammendment right to bear firearms, raise our children to work hard, celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and Santa Claus, celebrate Easter in church and with the Easter Bunny at home, and watch NASCAR after church on Sundays. We are Americans. You're right, "much of who we are is about where we come from" and I come from Stockton, California, USA; my father came from Stockton, California, USA; my grandfather came from Broken Bow, Oklahoma, USA; my great grandfather came from Cove, Arkansas, USA; my great-great grandfather came from Tupelo, Mississippi, USA. That is who I am. I am an American, ethnically and nationality. I suggest that, before you make comments like that, you grow up a little, turn off your TV and get outside of the insulated big-city and see the "real" America.--User:WilliamThweatt 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Americans have diverse origins like every other people in the world, but modern Americans and Canadians share a de facto ethnicity and cultural identity which every foreigner to that country recognizes. North Americans are far more distinct as an ethnic group than Austrians, who are no more a distinct sub-group of Germans than Bavarians or Saxons. Americans are certainly not English though. Yes, this is not the 19th century. The USA has been an independent state since the 18th century. Ethnicities don't come from the tower of babble, they are produced by political, social and other circumstances over time. And yes I have lived in the USA; I went to college there. User:Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Alun 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

these two jokers are just another example of people who fail to realize the importance of descent. They are both notably of British heritage (ones Scotish I think) and you would be hard to find people from any other ethnic group in the world who would refuse the importance of descent in ethnic identity. Calgacus even admits how important descent is though since it passes down many parts of your ethnicity. Alun, you fool, most of us Americans and probably most Canadians do not see themselves as "ethnic Canadians or Americans" since both have always been multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-racial nations. Read what the Epf cracker is saying, some of the shit he says is deep. The majority of peeps here and in almost every nation in the world recognize family heritage and background as part of who we are, including ethnicity, so go spread your leftist anarchy somewhere else fool.

One more point, the infobox refers to Contributions from and Contributions to. The wording deliberately ommited mention of the term ethnic group. The reason for this is that the Romano-Britons/Ancient Britons are not universally regarded as a single ethnic group. The same applies to Anglo-Saxons. These are often regarded as collective terms refering to several ethnic groups that have some similarities. The same applies to the Contributions to section, some people clearly see Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders etc. as ethnic entities, granted their ethnicity has a cultural and social foundation, but this is not unique or even new. Other people do not recognise these groups as ethnic groups. So it seems reasonable not to refer to them as such. But I do think that it is clear that these entities represent populations that are greater than the sum of their parts, they are not just a group of unrelated ethnic groups that happen to occupy the same geographical area, this is a gross misrepresentation and seems to be Epf's default position. There is an Australian identity and an American identity, and this is clearly not an artificial construct, or at least no more artificial than any other ethnic identity. Alun 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I think it is a strange case. Why should ex-British polities recognise their parent entity, but have no reciprocal affection? As you well know, international policies are aimed at our Anglosphere's survival. I would say that we tend to stand together, regardless of the divisions which have accumulated over time. It is obviously not the same as having Imperial Troops quartered in every outpost, or colonial viceroys born in London. That was the old way. The British don't want to be seen as the figurehead of any colony that refuses to let them have actual power. The British therefore, are bitter at the thought of colonists nuzzling up to them. They feel insulted to have been attacked for constitutional issues of independence, only to have the colonists try and warm back up with the home country.

Epf, you must know that Americans have been sovereign for all intents and purposes. Canada is a "half-ass" version of America. We Americans have held colonies of our own, so it makes no precise sense to say that we are merely English. In fact, the White and Black races each have pre-eminence in America. Our apartheid system was not so much about denying Blacks a place here, but maintaining separate identities within our inclusive nation. There are two parent nations for this country; UK and Liberia (an anachronistic, but well intentioned point). Liberia is an approximation for all the Africans that arrived here in the Triangular Trade. America is an imperial outfit of its own, the original 13 states having held their own colonies west of the Appalachian Mountains but east of the Mississippi River. America's federal government also held imperial jurisdiction over the Philippines (even a Governor-General) and Cuba, whilst we inherit the former countries of Texas and Hawaii. There is nothing comparable in Canada's case, or indeed for any other former UK offspring.

Éponyme 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should ex-British polities recognise their parent entity, but have no reciprocal affection? Affection and ethnicity are two different things. There might be a great deal of affection, but the "child" entities have all grown up and developed their own identity. That doesn't mean people in Britain dislike or cannot relate very strongly to people from the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (etc) (in contrast to, say, nearby neighbours like the French), but there are differences. That said, trying to make such fine distinctions seems to me to be rather pointless. When it gets down to it, "ethnicity" is a pretty meaningless word. Wiki-Ed 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations by Washington and Ottawa

These governments obviously assert that there are ethnicities accompanying their countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadianethnicities2.png

Éponyme 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This web page shows the original seal of the United States, which included symbols for Holland and Germany, in addition to those symbols used presently in Canada's royal arms. Éponyme 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man, but one can be "American" and also something else, you forget that the people in these stats could answer more than once. Most of those who said American or Canadian also said something else. WTF does it matter tho, I mean none of these sources exactly spell out what the heck a "Canadian" or "American" is or if an ethnic group like that even exists. Later, 69.157.105.101 06:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. Éponyme 07:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

English R1b

I've corrected the figure of c.60% for the more accurate of c.70% for R1b haplogroup (Paleolithic substrate). 60% is true only in the more "Nordicied" areas of Eastern England. (Source: [33]). --Sugaar 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Asians in England since the 16 C?!

Please cite that claim! Is it related to the East India Company?

You know, we often focus too much on the Old World people in the Old World and the New World. It would be interesting if somebody included Pocahontas as a New World visitor to the Old World, just for trivia's sake. After all, I don't want to have a blind eye to such things. I don't know what article that would belong to, apart from her and John Rolfe's biographies. Éponyme 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there has been Chinese since before the C16. I think the sentence is referring to people from the Indian sub-continent. it needs to be reworded.Halbared 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What Chinamen are you referring to? Éponyme 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I was mistaken. The first Chinese came way after C16.Halbared 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

According to its own article, the British East India Company was founded on December 31, 1600 - which is, of course, the 16th century (the very last day of it). This company must have employed Indians in some capacity, even at its London HQ. Therefore, there were Asians in England in the 16th century. TharkunColl 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a deduction you make (without any real evidence). In fact it's very possible that the EIC only employed Indians in India and not in London. Those times were very eurocentric and quite racist too. It's also possible that a handful of Indians visited England then but can you document it? --Sugaar 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the fault might be with me. This is actually cited, so it seems odd to request a cite. The article cited is Asian and Black History in Britain 1500-1850, which is a UK government site. The article states There were many Asian and Black people living in Britain throughout the period covered by this exhibition (1500-1850). Looking at the article in a bit mare detail it states It seems that between 1500 and 1850 there were not as many people of Indian as of African descent in Britain. So I'll change it to read There has also been a very small Black presence in England since at least the 16th century and an Indian presence since the mid nineteenth.. Is this better? Alun 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. What about monastic tales of "blue men" being in Ireland? Would they not have made it to England as well? Éponyme 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Cornish ethnicity 2

This might help!

About 34,000 people in Cornwall and 3,500 people in the rest of the UK wrote on their census forms in 2001 that they considered their ethnic group to be Cornish. This represented nearly 7% of the population of Cornwall and is therefore a significant phenomenon.

The source is from Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census Malcolm Brown Cornwall County: [[34]]

Bretagne 44 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What is 7% of Cornwall compared to the UK, or England itself? Éponyme 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The current citation for Cornish people is pathetic, it has no authority whatsoever. This does not constitute a reliable source, it appears to be a blog set up by an annonymous person. Didn't we used to have an interview with a proper historian here somewhere? It's good to finally get a published source for the data regarding Cornish response for the 2001 census. The Office for National Statistics did a pathetic job with regard to ethnicity in the last census. Let's hope they allow a tick box for everyone next time. As for considering one's ethnic group to be Cornish, this does not preculde them from also being English. Ethnic identity, especially in Great Britain is rarely exclusive, many people who think of themselves as ethnically Cornish may also think of themselves as ethnically English. One can have a multiplicity of ethnicities, and we all have many identities that we carry arround with us. I'm Welsh and I'm Brtish and I'm European. I think we need to mention this in the Unifying into a people section, here we can note Cornwall's different status, especially that the Cornish language continued to be used long after political and ethnic unification of the rest of England, and that a growing minority of people in Cornwall primarily identify as Cornish and not English. I think we need to be ballanced, we should make it clear that the vast majority of people in Cornwall see themselves as English. Alun 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Basques and more...

If anybody knows why Claret is also called Bordeaux and is so popular in England, then perhaps we should include Basques (e.g. Piers Gaveston). Basques entered English society at the same historic time as the Irish. I also find it odd that Normans should get monolithic mention, without Brittany. The Duchy of Brittany was a feudal subdomain of English Kings from the Norman Conquest until the 16th Century, in one capacity or another. Aside from that, we all know the British (Welsh) connection that practically makes them who they are by definition. Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has a flag and coat of arms which match English ethnic cousins on the Continent, because virtually all of New France was founded by those "Frenchmen" once under English yoke (north and west coasts of "France"). England's arms supposedly include Aquitaine and Gascony as well as the well-known Normandy, but omit Brittany just as Ireland was ommitted (Wales still is, of course). Shouldn't these ancient seals of the state have more relevance than the new fusion with the Scots, because the Normans succeeded to an Anglo-Saxon (Mercia-Wessex, in Winchester) state after all and that was it?

IMHO:

Normandy has best ethnic transferance with England. Both Scandinavian.
Brittany has best ethnic transferance with Wales. Both Romano-Briton.
Aquitaine and Gascony has best ethnic transferance with Ireland. Celtic/Basque connexions (hmm, Queen Mary's marriage with Spain).

All of these domains were of great post-Conquest importance, with added Scotland under Stuarts. The union of the crowns under James (after the Tudor-Habsburg struggle) marked the divergence of a merely English people and it is from there, that a new British people was formed with participation in the Dutch and German dominions. As far as I know and now think, the new "British people" is mostly a network of upper class/parliamentary aristocrats and their personal heritage.

I am proud to sport a 1/8th Aquitainian (although Huguenot) ancestor (one great grandparent, the other "French" one is Norman and Catholic). I don't know further genealogy to find a recent Parisian (non-London) French (what is called France, but has English character) ancestor. You know what side this ancestor would have fought on if Buckingham's war with France got serious. This opens up a window to the past glories of the Angevin Empire for me because although I sport a Scottish colonial American wife, my own specific heritage does not leave the bounds of the three leopards of the Plantagenet dominions.

What some people should look at, is the French Wars of Religion maps. Huguenots are numerous in Aquitaine/Gascony and Toulouse, both former Angevin areas. One wonders if this Protestantism is an Albigensian Crusade relic, an Arian Visigothic vs Catholic Frankish relic or both combined with a culture of English resistance to the Capetians in the Hundred Years' War.

Also, if mentioning the Danes we shouldn't neglect the Norwegians (Manx people). I think the Royal Website summarizes our English ethnic roots by explaining them dynastically and the personal unions that encouraged a compatible mix of people. That is why I believe the "French people" are reasonably well related; to nitpick or split hairs on it is just ridiculous.

None of this makes any sense you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go read up all the population genetics studies, "The races of Europe" by Carleton Coon, the articles on race and ethnic group, and the history of these fucking places, and maybe you'll learn something for once. You really don't know shit about this issue, so either read that shit or get lost fool.

One wonders if we should not include these people as the related ethnic group called French, or should not include them as part of the constituent English people themselves.

Éponyme 09:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this idiot, this guy doesn't know anything and most of what he typed here is incorrect. I guarantee every user here with half a brain would agree that about 90% of what this guy just said is untrue. Dude, you dont know shit.

stop being so rude please, nobody will take your opinions seriouslt if you abuse users like that.

--Globe01 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups 2

Ok ive noticed someone has added a related ethnic groups page to the english but what is the point in having these related ethnic groups.

The most genetically similar set of peoples to the english are the belgians as it happens, yet they are not mentioned in related ethnic groups.

Cultrally speaking, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Northern Irish could all be considered candidates in terms of cultural similarities to the english.

linguistically, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, People from many of the Carribean Islands all speak very similar to english english as their first language. Dutch is also considered to be very similar to the english language.

As you can see we have a problem.

Ethnicity has many different meanings, involving genetics, culture and self identity and language.

The problem is that some groups of peoples share one type of ethnic link to the english but do not have other type of ethnic links to the english.

Therefore a related ethnic groups sections is pointless

Instead it would be much more appropriate to include:

A related linguistic groups secion

A related cultural groups sections

And if it is really felt essential by others, a related genetic groups section. --Globe01 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==

The Belgians and Dutch are economically similar to the English, but otherwise have few similarities. Éponyme 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No the belgians and the dutch are genetically very similar to the english, I cannot find the url with the evidence now but if i find it at some time i will post it. Dutch is also more similar to english than german and dutch is probably the third most similar language to english so dutch should be included in some kind of related ethnic or linguistic groups section.

--Globe01 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Scottish, Welsh and Irish are genetically closest to the English. This is well known and many genetic studies support it. Generally speaking one can think of the British Isles as a relatively homogeneous genetic group. It is mainly descended from the European paleolithic and shares much with the genetics of the Basque people, who are also thought to be primarily descended from the European paleolithic. Alun 05:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of this, genetics has little meaning regarding ethnicity. Ethnicity is about society and culture and how a human population shares certain cultural/social/linguistic/religious traights. For a population to be an ethnic group it needs to posess certain characterisitcs that define it as a unit, and externally other groups have to recognise it as a single group as well. Obviously for the English ethnic group the primary determining factor is in dispute. Some people here want to equate the English ethnic group with an English race, but there is no evidence that English people share any physical or genetic traights that they do not share with the other groups of the British Isles. Ultimately it is difficult to define English ethnicity because most people in England don't seem to differentiate strongly between English and Brtish ethnic identity. TharkunColl has made this point repeatedly, and I think he has a point, Welsh and Scots people can point to specific social/cultural/linguistic/religious traights that distinguish them from English people, it's much harder to distinguish specifically English ethnic traights, as much that was Engish has become British. It's probably a measure of the success of English culture and society, but there it is. Alun 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please support these assertions with sources. I think I speak for most contributors to this page, when greeting your claims with skepticism. There are two schools on the issue: "accumulative invasion English" and "language group English". It has been consensus on this talk page that the issues of language and ethnic groupings are not identical. Therefore, we have decided to focus on the history of the English people and England, rather than the transferable essence of linguistics. Éponyme 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Alun, genetics does have a great deal to do with ethnic identification in some respects in that again, ethnic identity is significantly based on common descent. Some of these cultural and societal elements of ethnic identication are connected with such descent, some may not be, but it is known that cultural, behavioural and linguistic characeristics originate from certain human populations who also share a common descent and.or geographical proximity. You are continuing to arrogantly and incorrectly automatically attribute ethnic identifcation to natoinality and common descent to "race" or a biological classification. This is simply false. You again claim there is no evidence that the English share traits that they do not share with other groups of the British Isles. This is not in dispute, but they do posess (or do not posess) certain traits on avarage or in much greater occurence than with other groups of the British Isles and the differences between the Irish and the rest of the peoples of the Isles is the greatest between all the groups (as evidence even by the limited information from early studies on Y-chroms.). Alun, many people do differntiate strongly between English and British identity (see English nationalism), but regardless, the other Brtish Isles peoples generally make such a distinction more frequently. Whether or not Tharkuncoll has made his point does not mean that is based on any data or has any truth. In any case, the Welsh and Scots can trace socio-cultural/linguistic/religious, psycho-behavioural and genotypic/phenotypic traits that distinguish them from most English people and these again may or may not be associated with elements of common descent that they do not share with English people. In Scotland, the difference in descent between them and the English is even more noticable due to the centuries long, family-based, clan system. You need to realize the obvious importance of descent in ethnic identification and the fact that descent does not mean "race". You are one of the very few people I have met that for some reason has a problem with this. Epf 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying it, but as far as I can tell no reliable academic sources actually agree with you. Please provide some reliable source that states that genetics is the most important part of ethnic identity. Alun 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

he didnt say just "genetics", he said DESCENT (can you read ?). Where do you think you come from, a fuckin test tube ? Ask anybody, alot of your ethnic or cultural identity is inherited or passed down from you ancestors/family. Actually read what hes saying you dumbass, your personality/behaviour, your genes, you physical appearance and for many people alot of other cultural customs like language you get from your family since they raise you. The common descent of a group of people is where alot of this comes from. Obviously when you live in a a community with others of this heritage, that identity lasts longer. Thats why on average Irish (not Scots-Irish), Italians, Germans, Blacks/Africans, Asian, Native Indians, Spanish/Hispanics keep more of their identity longer here in the USA then other peeps like English and Scottish. You walk in my neighbourhood and say im only an "ethnic American" or somethin stupid like that, you get knocked the fuck out. You people need to wake the fuck up.

Actually he did say genetics

genetics does have a great deal to do with ethnic identification

And I didn't say just genetics

Please provide some reliable source that states that genetics is the most important part of ethnic identity.Alun 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to arrogantly and incorrectly automatically attribute ethnic identifcation to natoinality and common descent to "race" or a biological classification.

I'm arrogant? Because I don't agree with you? This is somewhat hypocrytical I think. I do not attribute ethnic identification (surely some mistake, ethnic identity perhaps?) with nationality. Neither do I attribute common descent with race. Indeed I am saying that ethnicity is more than descent and is more than race. You keep stating that the main component of ethnicity is descent. Well that is just a POV, and it is not one I have come across in any of the things I have been reading. That is what I am saying. For some ethnic groups a percieved common descent is the most important factor, but not for all. This is not my opinion or POV, I don't really hold one, this is what I've read and it seems to be the consensus. I've taken a lot of stress today form an anonymous user who seems to think that it is acceptable to be profoundly insulting about both me, my wife and children, just because I have expressed these points of view, and just because he disagrees with them. I should point out that the anonymous user did appologise and I very much appreciated that, it's not always an easy thing to do. There is no intellectual or intelligent contribution from this user. She is simply abusing someone for expressing a different opinion. There is a similar method here between anonymous and Epf, firstly that their attitude is I know everything and you know nothing and secondly that your opinions are not generally accepted and are not academically sound, this is expanded upon with the attitude that I am some sort of lone maverick that is espousing a personal POV that no one else accepts. I think there are numerous people that have expressed the same position as me on this page, the numbers are at least 50:50. When I do point out that other users actually hold the same position as me they get the same treatment,[35] though it does show that this is a POV held by many people, even the Canadian Government, the largest ethnic group in Canada is, well, Canadian. [36] But descent is important, you are talking of descent in two different ways though. There is for sure the biology and upbringing one's parents give, but it would be incorrect to assume that the way your parents bring you up is the same way that they were bought up. But for sure there is behaviour that is learned from parents (and only a tiny proportion of behaviour in inherited, the vast majority is learned). But Epf has also used descent to mean the common origins of a whole population, these are clearly disstinct deffinitions of descent. English descent is certainly not homogeneous, and there certainly was a time when the English identity was forming from several different groups. This process probably took some time, possibly a couple of centuries. It must be true that the initial group was somewhat artificial in appearence, and there is still evidence today of heterogeneity in English cultural and social practice. It is not a heresy to claim that some US and Canadian people feel North American, and many people that live in North America can certainly claim, as User:WilliamThweatt does that their descent is North American. If you don't like it that's OK, but this must be real, and it must be citable. If you can find evidence that an American ethnic group doesn't exist, then this can be included also. But that's how wikipedia works, and that's how thew neutrality policy works. It doesn't work by someone saying, I know a book that proves you are wrong so go away. It works by both people including both points of view, with both points of view being properly cited. It is for the reader of the article to then make up their own mind. Alun 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find evidence that an American ethnic group doesn't exist, then this can be included also.

-If you can find one that really says a "Canadian" or American" one does exists, I'd give you money guy. I aint sayin they is a group that sees themseveles as this and are of a certain background, but there is no canadian or american group in those words. How can one person consider himself an ethnic "American", but one person who is a native american (example, a Sioux) and has a culture and background they can follow here for many centuries still make the distinction between them and other Americans ? This is my damn point, like its fuckin ignorant for someone to say they are just "American" or "Canadian" and ignoring the hundreds of diffrent backgroudns and cultures of everyone here who can also be canadians and americans. Only New World countries can call themselves to be actual countries of immigrants and our own (dumbass) President just said wes a "nation of immigrants." [37] I am 1/4 Sioux and I fuckin hate how our land became this with native peoples getting the shaft, but what are ya gonna do.

There is for sure the biology and upbringing one's parents give, but it would be incorrect to assume that the way your parents bring you up is the same way that they were bought up

-it would be incorrect to also say that there aint alot of similarities in the way they is brought up and the way your were brought up. Some peeps pass down more of their aspects of their proud culture and ethnicity to the next generation (eg. native Irish, Greeks, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Asians), some less so (eg. people from the UK in North America) but the core things like behaviour and the biological parts remain. Even for whats learned, alot of what we are is from the childhood upbringing (especially very early childhood).

But Epf has also used descent to mean the common origins of a whole population, these are clearly disstinct deffinitions of descent

-maybe, but when Epf, you or anyone is speakin on these common backgrounds, you are speakin of the common descent part of ethnicity and when a people has this, it includes the different types of thigns that come with it (like behavoiur, like physical appearance and like your "blood"/genetics). Most people know its not just about knowing the descent in ethnicity, its also the things that come with it. This is from William Z. Ripley, even thoug hes talkin on race:

"Race, properly speaking, is reponsible only for those peculiarities, mental or bodily, which are transmitted with constancy along the lines of direct physical descent from father to son. Many mental traits, aptitudes, or proclivities, on the other hand, which reappear persistently in successive populations may be derived from an entirely different source. They may have descented collaterally, along the lines of purly mental suggestion by virture of mere social contact with preceding generations."

As for the source from the List of Canadians by ethnicity site, it says "canadian" was only first asked in 2001 and anyways, only 6,748,135 answered "canadian" as a single answer, IF they understood the question right (I still think these people would make other distinctions, especially if they are native). I think Canada has a population of like 32 million, so this means most of them (26 million) would still identify with their ancestry outside of canada. This is the same in my country (only 20 million answered "American" as a single answer out of like 285 million people). Those who are native peoples of the americas, we are the real deal, we are the real "Americans and "Canadians".