Revision as of 22:07, 28 July 2011 editVolykr yilevas (talk | contribs)46 edits the problem was fixed they are an ethic group who share genetcs← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:55, 13 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:English people/Archive 18) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} | |||
{{WPE|class=C|importance=top}} | |||
{{British English|date=August 2014}} | |||
{{Ethnic groups|class=C|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
{{calm talk}} | |||
{{WikiProject England|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}} | |||
{| class="{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk messagebox" style="background-color: {{{1|Lavender}}}; border: 1px solid {{{2|Thistle}}}" | |||
}} | |||
|- | |||
{{annual readership}} | |||
|'''Note to editors''': The page ] was created in ] (en-EN).<br>Please refer to: | |||
{{section sizes}} | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|], | |||
|- | |||
|] and | |||
|- | |||
|] for information on editing. | |||
|} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 18 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
|archive = Talk:English people/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:English people/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{archives |bot= |
{{archives |auto=short |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90}} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Islam and Judaism under religion category == | |||
It makes it seem as if Islam and Judaism are major religions comparable in size and influence to Christianity among religions that native Englishmen follow, Islam and Judaism are practised by Migrants and their descendants in England, a negligible amount of Ethnic English people follow these religions | |||
== Population == | |||
Why are figures of the English population in places like South Africa listed in the info box as the count up to roughly 2 000 000 people, which is more than places like NZ which are listed--] (]) 10:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:What?--] (]) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Reference for resurgence of English identity == | |||
I'm not convinced that the provided is the best source for a claim about a resurgence in English identity. I replaced it with an academic reference, though it has now been . While I welcome additional references (particularly since one has to have access to the journal in order to read the source I added), I'm not sure that the claims of an SNP politician are the best source for a statement of fact about the rise of English national identity. There are all sorts of reasons why he might have said such a thing, including to promote the idea that the UK should be broken up, and I don't think we can consider him an NPOV source. What would be better would be actual survey data on English identity. ] (]) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening "now". ] (]) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not sure that the age of the reference is a problem, since it is being used in support of a claim about the rise in national identity in the late 1990s. Perhaps that needs to be reworded to "since the late 1990s", though, because I think that's what it intended. ] (]) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Looking for better sources, perhaps is worth using? It notes that "Most of the decline in British identity is taking place in England, where once again less than half of the population now says that 'British' is the best or only way to describe their identity. Fifteen years ago, fully 63% of people living in England went for the British identity options. Today the figure is down to 48%. The proportion who opt more naturally for an English identity is commensurately on the rise". ] (]) 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I think the most recent British Social Attitudes survey is , although it specifically refers only to attitudes in England and Scotland towards devolution and Scottish independence. It says: "Support for the idea of an English Parliament has increased from 17% in 2007 to 29% now. The proportion who think England should continue to be governed by the UK Parliament has now fallen below half (49%) for the first time, and is well down on the 69% who were of that view in 1999." ] (]) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the suggestion - I've made use of that source and some others to expand and hopefully improve this section of the article. ] (]) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I've tweaked it - including the heading, as the opening paragraph of the section questions whether there is a "resurgence". What should we say about the conflicting evidence of the two 2007 surveys - one giving 61% support for an English Parliament, the other one only 17%? ] (]) 14:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::As mentioned in the article, Kumar notes that support varies according to the way the question is framed. Perhaps the 61 per cent poll simply asked whether people wanted a parliament or not, whereas the 17 per cent one presented them with a range of options and most people went from something short of an English parliament? ] (]) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::I've now replaced the source for the Newsnight poll with the original BBC article, and it did simply pose people with a yes/no/undecided choice, whereas I imagine that the BSA question was more nuanced. The BSA question also forms part of a much larger survey, in which people are perhaps more considered in their views than they would be in a poll solely on an English parliament. ] (]) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think the text needs a (non-]) explanation of the range - reading it, the text goes from 16-19%, to 61%, to 17% (rising to 29%), referring to different sources - which is certainly confusing. Should there be a sentence stating simply: "Recent surveys of English identity have given widely varying conclusions" - or similar. The 61% figure stands out as odd. ] (]) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Hopefully makes things a bit clearer. ] (]) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Spot on. :-) ] (]) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
CL you at 21:36 on 8 February 2011, I supplied one at 22:21. I am not sure why you asked for a citation because you could have used the but I assumed that you wanted some other person than Krishan Kumar who is already cited for that information in another section. Yet when you replaced my citation you chose to use yet another citation by KK. It seems to me that it does not hurt the article to have another sources as well as KK making the assertion, which is plain to see from the change of usage of flags by English supporters of English national teams during the 1990s. While I agree with what you have said about statistical data there is no reason why opinion pieces from reliable sources should not be used as well and a as I said in my comment when I re-added it "No need to delete one citation just to replace it with another. Political Scots are probably a good weathervane for English nationalism". | |||
Ghmyrtle you wrote "I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening 'now'." Anything in the last 30 years is recent for a nation that has existed for well over 1,000 years. The change took place in the 1990s but that is still recent, and I do not think it should be changed to since the 1990s. The change started to happen after Maggy's victory in 1979 and the regional polarisation of MPs during the 1980s. The Scots couldn't stand her and that started to open up a divisions that exist to day. | |||
The survey date is probably not the best to tackle this issue, a lot of it concerns specific situations, in the Commonwealth Games England is represented, but in the Olympics it is Britain as the questions during those events and the answer would probably be different. Take the example of Andy Murry in tennis, the talk is always about 75 years since the last British (no talk about the last Scotsman). Of course the London media is very good at claiming English when it an English man or Woman and saying Briton when the person is from the Celtic fringe. | |||
As for support for an English Parliament. The current Westminster parliament is the English parliament, because it has carried through all the privileges and traditions of the English parliament (and not those of the others). The pantomime of ] at the opening of a parliament being one of the more flamboyant ones. -- ] (]) 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I don't know whether the Kumar book attributes a rise in English identity to devolution, so I didn't want to use that as a source. I haven't replaced it with another Kumar article, but with an article from the Economist. I'm somewhat confused by because your new wording suggests that the rise having been caused by devolution is a fact, whereas the material later on makes it clear that not everyone agrees that this is the case. ] (]) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Also, I've checked the footnote you suggested above and it is a reference to a book called ''The Rise of English National Identity'', published by Cambridge University Press in 1997. I can't for the life of me find any record of this book existing. ] (]) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Apologies for my inaccurate edit summary - I hadn't realised PBS had commented here. Anyway, I've reverted his changes - I can't see any way in which they are more encyclopedic, helpful or accurate than Cordless Larry's version earlier, which I support. Statements from 9 years ago are just that - in discussing the current position and recent developments, they are of historic interest only. ] (]) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Ghmyrtle, regarding , I wonder if the phrase "non-English MPs" is potentially confusing. It's not the identity of the MP but the constituency they represent that matters, and an English MP and an MP representing an English-constituency are slightly different things. ] (]) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Agree - done. ] (]) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Another issue is with the sentence "A rise in English self-consciousness has resulted, with increased use of the English flag". What is the article saying this is a result of? The West Lothian question, or the actions of the Campaign for an English Parliament, or something else? A change of wording needs to clear this up. ] (]) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I agree - the sentence cites Kumar, so what he said needs to be identified more clearly. ] (]) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::The problem is that the reference is to the apparently non-existent Kumar book. I presume that it should be to his ''The Making of English National Identity'' (CUP, 2003) but, not having a copy, it's hard to verify exactly what he says. ] (]) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Statements from 9 years ago are relevant for things that append in the 1990s. I wonder how you think that anything that happened 10 years ago is not current on a history that stretches over 1,000 years. Ghmyrtle I was going to revert your revert because I had made some other changes in separated edits to which you had not commented, but I see that CL has already done so. | |||
:::I reverted the start of the section to that which was there yesterday I am more than willing to discuss alternative wording (although devolved powers just the most obvious manifestation of nationalism in the other parts of Great Britain (Ireland is somewhat different) that the English have been reacting to. As I explained in the edit history "some commentators" implies most do not agree yet no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited. | |||
:::As to the link to the footnote I gave it was an assumption of good faith to a footnote on the same issue not because I have checked it recently. However a little browsing and a little create use of search facility for "Jeremy Paxman" and other terms allows the pages in the book to be read, so it was a simple dating mistake. I have now fixed that and reformatted all the other Kumar in-citations. -- ] (]) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::PBS, regarding your point that "no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited", I've taken a look again at the sources and you're correct that they don't really deny that there has been a rising identification with Englishness (though the Condor et al. reference denies that there has been a decline in Britishness in England). What I have more of a problem with, though, is the material introduced in that attributes this to devolution ("spurred by ] in the 1990s of some powers to the ], ]"). This is something that several of the sources dispute. Can I therefore suggest that we go for a first sentence of "The late 1990s saw a resurgence of English national identity". This can be supported by the Kumar book and the Economist article. We then have a sentence about the survey data, and then the third sentence can read "Some commentators have attributed this to the ] in the late 1990s of some powers to the ] and ], although others question whether devolution has in fact led to a rise in English national identity and argue that survey data fails to portray the complex nature of national identities, with many people considering themselves both English ''and'' British". ] (]) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::As I said above I am not wedded to the previous wording but when changing something just added, that one thinks is incorrect, it is better to revert to the original than to put in yet a third set of words. So I did not introduce anything I reverted to the previous wording that I happen to think is better than the current wording. The point is that devolution is a manifestation of rising nationalism in the other parts of the UK and the rising of nationalism in England is a reaction to that. The reassertion of English nationalism is reactive not proactive, and the best indication of the rise in Englishness is the rise in the use of the Cross of Saint George which up until the 1990s had been relegated to use on some Anglican Churches depending on which was their patron saint. Now the Cross of Saint George flies everywhere when an English national team is playing football, a generation ago (1966 world cup) it was the union flag. -- ] (]) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::OK, so what do you think about my suggested wording above? I think we can expand upon the flags point at the same time as clarifying the Kumar claim about this (see below). ] (]) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::That last point should have read "(see above)", obviously. ] (]) 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}}Which sources dispute that rise in English nationalism was a reaction to the rise in nationalism in Scotland and Wales of which devolution is the most concrete example? With an unsophisticated general Google search it is easy to find papers that support that interpretation Here are some political sources that says it was. | |||
Here is a paper taken from a search of ac.uk: Sheila Watson (lecturer in the Department of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester): '''' | |||
{{quote| However, research in the Norfolk Nelson Museum suggests that a debate is taking place at a local level about what it means to be English and museums are one of the public places where symbols of English national identity are being re-examined and re-interpreted. ... Thus English identity rooted in a white past could be seen as being constructed in opposition to ethnic minority identity in a multicultural present. However, this is too simple an interpretation. Within the museum devolution was also cited as a reason for an increased English self awareness along with a grievance that the English are not allowed to take pride in history if it means offending another country (here the French).| pages 144,145 (last and first paragraphs) | |||
}} | |||
The paper makes a number of other points including: | |||
{{quote|This | |||
general conflation of Britain and England which is common everywhere in England is well | |||
documented (for example, Kumar 2003: 234, Colls 2002: 377)|page 141}} | |||
A search on "The English Question" also throws up a lot of papers. gives an overview. As include the "West Lothian Question" perhaps we could tease out the rise of English Nationalism and separate out the constitutional question with a paragraph on "The English Question". | |||
--] (]) 07:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The Condor et al. paper suggests that the rise in English identity at the expense of British identity that was expected as a result of devolution has not materialised. The Kenny et al. paper also dates the rise in identification with Englishness to before devolution. I agree that most commentators put it down to devolution, but that point is that not all do. We need a wording that conveys that. ] (]) 08:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:See also on the trend predating devolution. ] (]) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::The implementation of devolution took place under the last labour government but that was not when the question was first raised at a national level for example the discussions that bought about the West Lothian Question happened back in November 1977. Devolution has been an issue since the 1970s. AFAICT was not until then that that the inhabitants of Great Britain (or at least England) had given any thought to whether there was a distinction worth thinking about for well over a hundred years. Also I think that for many people in England the question of Britishness or Englishness<small>--my on-line spelling checker has "Britishness" but not "Englishness"!--</small>is to a degree irrelevant, as the two are closely linked. For a Scotsman (or woman) to be asked this question has implications of independence. But practically and legally England would be the ] to Britain if ever it were to be a breakup, (inhabitance of countries like France and Germany would not even have to change the common name they use for the UK!) so the distinction is to a large degree academic, which is why most English people have to think about it and probably do not give answer to the question the gravity other members of the union would. -- ] (]) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== English/Welsh == | |||
From the article: "Another complication in defining the English is a common tendency for the words "English" and "British" to be used interchangeably. In his study of English identity, Krishan Kumar describes a common slip of the tongue in which people say "English, I mean British". He notes that this slip is normally made only by the English themselves and by foreigners: "Non-English members of the United Kingdom rarely say 'British' when they mean 'English'"." There is a passage in ]'s memoirs which would, rightly, extend this to cover the South Welsh (talking about the 1950s), also using the terms interchangeably. ] (]) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Just to clarify, you're saying that Kingsley Amis argues that "British" and "English" are often elided in south Wales? That's interesting but I'm not sure whether a memoir is the best source for this, considering that the existing source is a proper academic study. ] (]) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Yes. He of of course was an academic, & did have the advantage of living there for several years. I wonder how big Kumar's sample size was, and so on? In areas like this, one should not rely wholly on individual papers. ] (]) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Sure, but my point is that the Kumar quote is based on academic research (I'm not aware of his methods, so I don't know whether there is a "sample size" to speak of), whereas from what you've said the Amis comments are just a passing reference in a memoir. It would be good to see the source before commenting further, however. ] (]) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm pretty sure that attitudes have changed in Wales ''a lot'' over the last 60 or so years - there is almost certainly a ''much'' higher awareness of Welsh identity now, for a whole range of reasons. (I live in S Wales, by the way.) ] (]) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::In countries such as Germany, the common term for British is English. However in England I would suggest that people frequently say British/Britain when they mean English/England. Such as "Cricket is the summer sport in Britain", this mistake happens because so many English people do not have a clear differentiation in their minds between England and Britain. Something which for generations from the act of Union in 1707 was strongly encouraged by successive British governments of all hews to suppress individual nationalism in the constituent nations. -- ] (]) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I tend to believe that most would identify themselves as English (provided, of course, that they are actually English by ancestry). I identify myself as English, never British, but that may be affected by my expatriate status. ] (]) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::This is discussed at ] - also (to an extent) at ], an article in need of considerable improvement. One relevant point is that many, many people in all parts of the UK have mixtures of English, Welsh, Scottish, etc., etc., ancestry, often within the last couple of generations. Some may identify with one or other nationality, others may feel that "British" approximates to covering all the angles. ] (]) 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Edit request == | |||
{{editsemiprotected|answered=yes}} | |||
The most common genetic fingerprint of British people actualy belongs to the Celtic clan and not Germanic tribes. | |||
Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago. | |||
A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots. | |||
The above sections on English diaspora are obviously talking about the English people, the ethnic group, where as the religion section includes migrants and their religions too | |||
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. | |||
I think it should be clarified ] (]) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do | |||
:How many generations before someone counts as English for you? Ethnicity is not genetic. Everybody in England is a "(Migrant or) their descendant". Not to preclude migrants but there are English people of these religions that have been there for considerable generations. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this has been discussed at length in earlier discussions. ] (]) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:50, 16 April 2011 </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::Wouldn't someone like ] be considered a member of an Ethnic Minority? The ] of Nigeria are an Ethnic group; if I moved to say ]/my descendants lived there for generations, would I/they be considered members of the ]? I know this could end up in a bit of a forum-esque debate, but it's not as clear-cut and reliable sources don't seem to provide a consistent definition. ] (]) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
::from the very article we are supposed to be discussing: | |||
::"The English people are an ethnic group and nation '''native to England''', who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common history and culture.", "The English largely descend from '''two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, ], ], and ] who settled in ] following the withdrawal of the ], and the ] ] who already lived there.''' Collectively known as the ], they founded what was to become the ] by the early 10th century, in response to the invasion and extensive settlement of ] that began in the late 9th century. This was followed by the ]<nowiki/>and limited settlement of ] in England in the later 11th century. '''Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England.'''" | |||
::"] and ] populations have only grown throughout the UK generally, as immigration from the British Empire and the subsequent ] was encouraged due to labour shortages during post World War II rebuilding. However, these groups are often '''still considered to be ethnic minorities''' and research has shown that '''black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England.'''" | |||
::and from the article on ethnicity: "An '''ethnicity''' or '''ethnic group''' is a grouping of ] who ] with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment....Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared ], '''],''' ], '''],''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], or '''].''' Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with many groups having mixed genetic ancestry." | |||
::seems to be that it's pretty clear-cut. regardless of how many times it has been discussed before, this page is about English ethnicity and nationhood, not nationality law and citizenship and residency. and ethnicity is clearly at least partly genetic. English people are people of the ethnicity and nation native to England, as stated by the '''first sentence''' of this very article. In Northern America, no one is native except for "Native Americans" and "Indigenous peoples of Canada", even though white peoples have been present for 500 years. ] (]) 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I used to teach in London, alongside a lady called Mrs Solden. I'd worked with her every day for months before I learned that she was Jewish. The idea that her faith would have made her in some way less English is, frankly, offensive - she was very much a typical English schoolteacher. Before that, while working in Edinburgh, I worked with a chap called Adil, whose family had come to England from Pakistan. He'd grown up in Liverpool. We used to give him stick, not for being Asian, or a muslim, but for being English. I was born and grew up in Scotland, but both of my parents were English. I think of myself as Scottish, and so do the English people I live amongst in York - they give me a bit of stick for it, because I'm the outsider now. Ethnicity and nationality are complicated things, and this article is not exclusively about 'ethnically pure' English people, however that term might be defined on an island that has had a constant stream of immigration and integration of peoples for thousands of years. ]] 08:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Yep. Hmm, is ] not "English", but ] is? How does that work? ] (]) 09:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::It works like the way the very article we are discussing states '''in its first sentence''': "The English people are an ethnic group and nation '''native to England'''". In Northern America, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, etc., white people are never considered native to those countries, even though in some cases white peoples have a presence dating back 500 years. Whether or not Moeen Ali or Boris Johnson are ethnically English, I don't know, because I don't know their ethnic backgrounds; but ethnicity and nationhood exist whether we want them to or not, and this is not the place to discuss why modern migrants should be considered English alongside natives: ]. ] (]) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
::It doesn't matter what your opinion is, nor how much you find the dictionary definition of a word offensive or repugnant. | |||
::A key part of the definition of ethnicity is shared ancestry. It is what it is. ] (]) 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I've just had a look for definitions, including at ], and most seem to stress that it's a perceived or subjective belief in some shared attributes such as ancestry, not an absolute objective sharing of those attributes. Of course, it might be easier for most English people to perceive that they share attributes with a white person who has foreign ancestry than it is for them to do the same with someone of a different skin colour, but it doesn't seem as simple as just genetic ancestry. ] (]) 08:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Surely that is muddying the waters somewhat? ] (]) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::I was just correcting what looked to be a misunderstanding of how ethnicity is defined, Alssa1. I admit I haven't read the whole thread. ] (]) 06:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
== "Englishman" as demonym == | |||
::Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see ]. ] (]) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
I believe "Englishman" should be added as a demonym for England. | |||
==Germanic== | |||
It's my understanding that the demonym in the article, "English", is used only as an uncountable noun, and refers to English people in general, as in, "The English and Their History", and is incorrect as a countable noun: *"''I'm an English''". In the countable sense, I only see "Englishman", as in "''I'm an Englishman in New York''". I searched the archive and found no mention of "Englishman" as a topic of discussion (only used as a demonym), and any reputable dictionary defines "Englishman" as a demonym. I'm often wrong about these ideas on Misplaced Pages, and I don't trust myself to twiddle with templates, so I haven't made the edit myself, but I hope someone either does so, or explains why it shouldn't be on the main page. ] (]) 06:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
As with the ] article saying the germans are a germanic people so does the english people article ,it also gives more clarification and more useful information<font face="Impact">] ]</font> 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:That's true and it's odd that it's not mentioned once. So I've added both Englishman and Englishwoman and referenced them to the Cambridge Dictionary online.] (]) 11:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I've reverted your edit. firstly, it's dsiputed that the "English" are "Germanic" since there is a significant celtic element and also some experts believe that only a Germanic ruling elite came to england and the majority continued to be the pre-existing celts. secondly, the English now include large numbers of people who immigrated in the last century, particularly from the Carribean and the Indian sub-continent. (]) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
::As ] said : Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British Isles<font face="Impact">] ]</font> 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::The introduction needs to give a balanced picture, summarising the further explanation in the main text. The established text does that. ] (]) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
No it doesnt , the truth itself is the most balanced<font face="Impact">] ]</font> 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:It has nothing to do with Sykes' views. Read the article. "Germanic" is just an over-simplification. It is contradicted by the second paragraph of the lead (as well as the rest of the article). Don't edit war. You need consensus to change an article and you don't have it. And by the way, ]. ] (]) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Irish immigration included == | |||
NOTE: Germanlight, who began this thread, has been indef blocked as a disruptive sock. ] (]) 22:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Irish immigration should be included in English ethnogenesis. 10% of Britain has Irish ancestry, a majority of that in England. ] (]) 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Non white English== | |||
:From the Immigration and Assimilation section: {{tq|Due to sustained and sometimes mass emigration of the Irish, current estimates indicate that around 6 million people in the UK have at least one grandparent born in the Republic of Ireland.}} ] (]) 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Indeed. It is not the inclusion that is in contention, it is the undue highlighting in the lead. ] (]) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Given the significant presence, they make up more of the English gene pool than the Normans do ] (]) 08:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Official Language == | |||
Is it possible to be non-white and English? And if so should the photo reflect this. I mean, there are many mixed race people in England who have English heritage as well. 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Yes and yes, in my view. The last time the image was revised was 2009, I think, in following ], so it's probably overdue for a refresh. Anyone willing to take it on? ] (]) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Some suggestions: ] (2nd photo in article) instead of Harold Godwinson (1 Anglo-Saxon King is enough) and ] (infobox photo) instead of Beckham (1 footballer is enough). ] (]) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
::...other suggestions: ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, of course it's possible to be non-white and English, perhaps about 8% of the population fall into that category, leaving 92% in the alternative category. I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to include such a person in the photos; positive discrimination, i.e. flat out discrimination, to make a point is not a good idea. Placing someone in a photo collection simply becuase of the colour of their skin is an appalling suggestion. Do we have an adquate representation of the various religious groups in the country, or any other discriminating feature you can think of - I don't think so, and nor should we. If a non-white English person is famous enough to be included at the expense of another then fine (I doubt there are any at the moment), but please don't make selections based on race. ] (]) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::And in the article we have this: "However, these groups are often still considered to be ethnic minorities and research has shown that black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England.". So perhaps not in an event. ] (]) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Disagree. I think the montage does in fact aim to be a "cross-section" of Englishness aka being representative. I think it's odd that it's 100% white. Not suggesting we should have 8% non-white, but to have no non-white faces is definitely ....strange. I accept what you're saying about religious representation etc but in a photo montage ethnicity is so clearly visible. A good swap would have been Beckham for Ian Wright since the latter is somewht notoriously passionate about "Eng-er-land", but unfortunately I couldn't see any available images. ] (]) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: It's already a cross section, and it's not strange to have no non-whites, it's just the way it is. If Nelson Mandela was English then maybe he would be there, but I disagree with the sentiment that we should try and be "inclusive". Incidentally, I've never heard of one of the people shown, ], so I suggest he's swapped out with, I don't know, Churchill? ] (]) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::"It's just the way it is" isn't really an explanation. You're saying that a non-white person has to be of the stature of Nelson Mandela to get in? But Daniel Craig, Kate Winslet or Beckham are ok??? Frankly, its a very odd position to take saying those individuals have to stay but eg Naomi Campbell or Mark Ramprakash don't match their stature. I'm not sure why you used the word "inclusive". It sounds that you rather have a pre-disposition to lable this as "political correctness gone mad..." etc. But that misses the point completely. The point of the montage is to give a representation of prominent English people. All white faces doesn't achieve that. Added to that is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing choices: I mentioned three of the debateable modern choices (hardly ''standing on the shoulders of giants'') but some of the historical choices are equally questionable: Harold II, King for a year?? (Btw, I don't think whether you have happened not to have heard of one of the people is a valid criterion for swapping him out.) ] (]) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Agree with DeCausa. The image should be based on representativeness of the article content, rather than the notability of specific individuals. ] (]) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: I wouldn't say this is political correctness gone mad, but it's definitely political correctness, which I abhor in all its manifestations. However, there does seem to be a prevailing view that we should be more inclusive here, so I can work with that if needed. The question, then, is who to include. I think it needs to be someone who identifies as English (maybe difficult to ascertain) but more to the point has primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname. This would rule out the previous suggestions; ], ], ]. I wondered about ] and ], but the latter is only first generation British. Any other ideas? ] (]) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::We need to take into account the availability of ]. Recognisability to a global readership is also a factor. We should also take into account evidence of clear self-identification as English - for example, if sportspeople have represented England at some event, such as in an England team. ], for example. I disagree with The Roman Candle's suggestion that anyone defined as English should have "primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname". As the article says, "Today, some English people ... are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth" - nothing there about surnames. ] (]) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Agreed completely. There's absolutely no basis for saying that to be "English" the individual has to have English "ancestry" (how many generations?) or an "English-sounding surname" (What is that anyway? Those with Afro-Carribean ancestry will often have "English surnames" because their enslaved ancestor was given their owner's surname.) I agree sportsmen who have played for England most easily tick the self-identification box, which is why I mentioned ]. Kelly Holmes is a good one, and high profile. So is Lewis Hamilton. ] (]) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: On the contrary, I think the major definition of "English" people is that they have English ancestry. There is much in the article about this. If that's not the case, then how do you define an English person? It certainly isn't someone who was born here. I suppose it has to relate strongly to English ethnicity. I haven't lloked at the equivalent Welsh and Scottish articles yet - is there any guidance to be had from them? ] (]) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::There are multiple definitions of "Englishness". One is your definition, based on (real or imagined) ethnic purity; most others are more inclusive. The article recognises the diversity of definition, and the image in the infobox should also reflect that. ] (]) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::: I notice Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton are already included in the ] article montage. Thinking a bit more about this idea, it could be problematic. It's clearly a mild form of political correctness to incorproate non-white people here, and I can't think of any such person who would identify as English rather than British. There's no intrinsic problem with the current set of images, so I'm coming back to the view that it's best to leave well alone. ] (]) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::As you appear to believe that many members of England national sporting teams should be disqualified on the basis of the colour of their skin, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. ] (]) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::(ec)It's not problematic at all, and, quite frankly, your point of view is becoming somewhat disturbing and offensive. To think that anything but an all white photo montage is "political correctness" is an extreme position. Your unsupported personal opinion that these specific individuals don't self-identify as English (or that they have an insufficiently "English ancestry") is irrelevant. It's quite ludicrous to suggest that people such as ] or ] play for English teams but don't self-identify as English. ] (]) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Oh here we go. I didn't think it would be long. Please comment on the article and its content, not on the editors. ] (]) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I commented on the opinions you expressed not on you. That's entirely within the proper scope of this Talk page. ] (]) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Hairsplitting. ] (]) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Looking at the ] list, another strong contender for inclusion would be ] - born in England, competed for England on numerous occasions. ] (]) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: Daley Thompson's parents were Nigerian and Scottish, although he was born in England. A better example could surely be found. ] (]) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::The point is that he competed for England, not Scotland or Nigeria - and that is good evidence of self-identification as English. ] (]) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Agreed. He's the best suggestion so far. ] (]) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::: I would say he's probably the worst suggestion so far. Neither of his parents were English, and his only claim is to have been born in the country, and you don't even have to be born in England to complete at international level in most sports anyway, so the fact that he competed for England is of no matter. He's not would you would descibe as being ethnically English. If we must indulge in mild politicalt correctness then a better example should be found. ] (]) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::From the lead: ''Today, some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.'' Daley Thompson is an excellent illustration of that sentence. ] (]) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::: "Recent forbears" is stretching it a bit to include parents. Don't get me wrong, if there's someone we can find that could be remotely described as "ethnically English" then go for it, but Daley Thompson just isn't a good example. Personally I don't think there's a need for this at all, but I'll go with the majority - and I'll try and think of a few more examples, preferably ones that don't already feature at ] or elsewhere. ] (]) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Why can't they also feature in ]? Otherwise, ] and ] will have to be deleted here. ] (]) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::: No real reason, I just thought it would give a better spread if we found other people not already featured, but if we can't then maybe we have to use one from British people. Just a minor point on Daley Thompson, he could very well consider himself more Scottish than English, so again I would suggest he's not a good choice. ] (]) 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::If that were true, he would have represented Scotland, not England, at the Commonwealth Games. ] (]) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::: As I noted above, the country someone represents may well have no bearing at all on their ethnicity. With Nigerian and Scottish parents Thompson is not an ideal candidate here. ] (]) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::In defining "English people", self-identification is at least as important as "ethnicity" and genetics. ] (]) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
In this edit {{U|Mr. Information1409}} changed the text to say that English became an ''official'' language alongside French and Latin. The source is dead and archive.org is down so I cannot check the source, but this appears unlikely to me. English was never, to my knowledge, made an official language. Is that what the source says? If not, could we find a source that discusses this and then follow the source? Thanks. ] (]) 19:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
No English is an ethnicity someone who has either Anglo-Saxon, Jute, Norse, Dane, Viking, Norman, basically Germanic heritage makes someone English, just because someone is born in England it doesn't mean their Ethnically English all of a sudden it takes at least a thousand years to make an ethnicity luckily the people that migrated to England as listed above are all from a common ethnic background anyway so English became an ethnicity as soon as Alfred the Great united the kingdoms together.] (]) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
: - "used in official documents" is better than "official language", a rather modern concept. There is also the question of what languages could be used in (legal) courts, which this rather weakly sourced section doesn't get into. ] (]) 03:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:So the only English people are those from the anglo-saxon kingdoms under the cake burner? Its going to be a very small group --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'm confused by , {{u|Mr. Information1409}}. How do you know what the dead source says? Or did you manage to access it? ] (]) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Are there any further ideas on who could used in the montage? ] (]) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: has a useful summary of the major steps in English being adopted in "official" use. Maybe it could support a statement to the effect that English came "increasingly into official use", or even "superseded Anglo-Norman in official use" during the 14th century with 2 or 3 of the major examples. ] (]) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::By the way, the deadlink is a page on https://www.heritage-history.com/ which says "Heritage History was started by a homeschooling family with some experience in computers, and a large home library of classical children's histories." So...not RS, deadlink or no deadlink. ] (]) 11:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:55, 13 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Islam and Judaism under religion category
It makes it seem as if Islam and Judaism are major religions comparable in size and influence to Christianity among religions that native Englishmen follow, Islam and Judaism are practised by Migrants and their descendants in England, a negligible amount of Ethnic English people follow these religions
The above sections on English diaspora are obviously talking about the English people, the ethnic group, where as the religion section includes migrants and their religions too
I think it should be clarified Auspol4 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- How many generations before someone counts as English for you? Ethnicity is not genetic. Everybody in England is a "(Migrant or) their descendant". Not to preclude migrants but there are English people of these religions that have been there for considerable generations. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this has been discussed at length in earlier discussions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't someone like Moeen Ali be considered a member of an Ethnic Minority? The Igbo people of Nigeria are an Ethnic group; if I moved to say Abia State/my descendants lived there for generations, would I/they be considered members of the Igbo people? I know this could end up in a bit of a forum-esque debate, but it's not as clear-cut and reliable sources don't seem to provide a consistent definition. Alssa1 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- from the very article we are supposed to be discussing:
- "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common history and culture.", "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians who settled in Southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, and the partially Romanised Celtic Britons who already lived there. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become the Kingdom of England by the early 10th century, in response to the invasion and extensive settlement of Danes that began in the late 9th century. This was followed by the Norman Conquestand limited settlement of Normans in England in the later 11th century. Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England."
- "Black and Asian populations have only grown throughout the UK generally, as immigration from the British Empire and the subsequent Commonwealth of Nations was encouraged due to labour shortages during post World War II rebuilding. However, these groups are often still considered to be ethnic minorities and research has shown that black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England."
- and from the article on ethnicity: "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment....Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language, dialect, religion, mythology, folklore, ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, or physical appearance. Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with many groups having mixed genetic ancestry."
- seems to be that it's pretty clear-cut. regardless of how many times it has been discussed before, this page is about English ethnicity and nationhood, not nationality law and citizenship and residency. and ethnicity is clearly at least partly genetic. English people are people of the ethnicity and nation native to England, as stated by the first sentence of this very article. In Northern America, no one is native except for "Native Americans" and "Indigenous peoples of Canada", even though white peoples have been present for 500 years. JM2023 (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I used to teach in London, alongside a lady called Mrs Solden. I'd worked with her every day for months before I learned that she was Jewish. The idea that her faith would have made her in some way less English is, frankly, offensive - she was very much a typical English schoolteacher. Before that, while working in Edinburgh, I worked with a chap called Adil, whose family had come to England from Pakistan. He'd grown up in Liverpool. We used to give him stick, not for being Asian, or a muslim, but for being English. I was born and grew up in Scotland, but both of my parents were English. I think of myself as Scottish, and so do the English people I live amongst in York - they give me a bit of stick for it, because I'm the outsider now. Ethnicity and nationality are complicated things, and this article is not exclusively about 'ethnically pure' English people, however that term might be defined on an island that has had a constant stream of immigration and integration of peoples for thousands of years. Girth Summit (blether) 08:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. Hmm, is Moeen Ali not "English", but Boris Johnson is? How does that work? DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It works like the way the very article we are discussing states in its first sentence: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England". In Northern America, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, etc., white people are never considered native to those countries, even though in some cases white peoples have a presence dating back 500 years. Whether or not Moeen Ali or Boris Johnson are ethnically English, I don't know, because I don't know their ethnic backgrounds; but ethnicity and nationhood exist whether we want them to or not, and this is not the place to discuss why modern migrants should be considered English alongside natives: Misplaced Pages is not a forum. JM2023 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what your opinion is, nor how much you find the dictionary definition of a word offensive or repugnant.
- A key part of the definition of ethnicity is shared ancestry. It is what it is. 148.252.128.6 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've just had a look for definitions, including at Ethnicity, and most seem to stress that it's a perceived or subjective belief in some shared attributes such as ancestry, not an absolute objective sharing of those attributes. Of course, it might be easier for most English people to perceive that they share attributes with a white person who has foreign ancestry than it is for them to do the same with someone of a different skin colour, but it doesn't seem as simple as just genetic ancestry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Surely that is muddying the waters somewhat? Alssa1 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was just correcting what looked to be a misunderstanding of how ethnicity is defined, Alssa1. I admit I haven't read the whole thread. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Surely that is muddying the waters somewhat? Alssa1 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've just had a look for definitions, including at Ethnicity, and most seem to stress that it's a perceived or subjective belief in some shared attributes such as ancestry, not an absolute objective sharing of those attributes. Of course, it might be easier for most English people to perceive that they share attributes with a white person who has foreign ancestry than it is for them to do the same with someone of a different skin colour, but it doesn't seem as simple as just genetic ancestry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. Hmm, is Moeen Ali not "English", but Boris Johnson is? How does that work? DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"Englishman" as demonym
I believe "Englishman" should be added as a demonym for England.
It's my understanding that the demonym in the article, "English", is used only as an uncountable noun, and refers to English people in general, as in, "The English and Their History", and is incorrect as a countable noun: *"I'm an English". In the countable sense, I only see "Englishman", as in "I'm an Englishman in New York". I searched the archive and found no mention of "Englishman" as a topic of discussion (only used as a demonym), and any reputable dictionary defines "Englishman" as a demonym. I'm often wrong about these ideas on Misplaced Pages, and I don't trust myself to twiddle with templates, so I haven't made the edit myself, but I hope someone either does so, or explains why it shouldn't be on the main page. Atkinson (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's true and it's odd that it's not mentioned once. So I've added both Englishman and Englishwoman and referenced them to the Cambridge Dictionary online.Bermicourt (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Irish immigration included
Irish immigration should be included in English ethnogenesis. 10% of Britain has Irish ancestry, a majority of that in England. 2603:8000:CF01:6AAD:255A:5E7C:CBA9:478C (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- From the Immigration and Assimilation section:
Due to sustained and sometimes mass emigration of the Irish, current estimates indicate that around 6 million people in the UK have at least one grandparent born in the Republic of Ireland.
DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- Indeed. It is not the inclusion that is in contention, it is the undue highlighting in the lead. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Given the significant presence, they make up more of the English gene pool than the Normans do 2603:8000:CF01:6AAD:5D3B:B816:BC9:4299 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is not the inclusion that is in contention, it is the undue highlighting in the lead. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Official Language
In this edit Mr. Information1409 changed the text to say that English became an official language alongside French and Latin. The source is dead and archive.org is down so I cannot check the source, but this appears unlikely to me. English was never, to my knowledge, made an official language. Is that what the source says? If not, could we find a source that discusses this and then follow the source? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done some - "used in official documents" is better than "official language", a rather modern concept. There is also the question of what languages could be used in (legal) courts, which this rather weakly sourced section doesn't get into. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused by this edit, Mr. Information1409. How do you know what the dead source says? Or did you manage to access it? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- This (pp.72-73) has a useful summary of the major steps in English being adopted in "official" use. Maybe it could support a statement to the effect that English came "increasingly into official use", or even "superseded Anglo-Norman in official use" during the 14th century with 2 or 3 of the major examples. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, the deadlink is a page on https://www.heritage-history.com/ which says "Heritage History was started by a homeschooling family with some experience in computers, and a large home library of classical children's histories." So...not RS, deadlink or no deadlink. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)