Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 28 January 2007

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (20 Dec 2004 to 22 Oct 2005)
• Archive 2 (21 Oct 2005 to 10 Nov 2005)
• Archive 3 (12 Nov 2005 to 3 Apr 2006)
• Archive 4 (4 April 2005 to June 2006)
• Archive 5 (1 June 2006 to 27 October 2006)
• Archive: Origins of the English and the British
• Archive: Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian origin
• Archive: British pages
• Archive: Verifiability and Cornish language discussions
• Archive: Related ethnic grous discussion
• Archive: Suggestion regarding related ethnic groups
• Archive:Various discussions about Germans

Note to editors: The page English (people) was created in English English (en-EN).
Please refer to:

• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling),
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling and
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for information on editing.

Definitions of ethnic group, nation, and race

Some definitions:

Definitions of ethnic group

Definitions of nation

Definitions of race

Alun 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• The racial paradigm, which became rooted in physical anthropology at its very beginning, was, for decades, treated as a concept needing no verification. It was only in the mid-20th century that the first attempts were made to question the usefulness of the race concept in describing our species variation. Since then, an ever growing number of anthropologists, particularly in the United States, have rejected the concept (nearly seventy percent in 1999). From "Race"—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings; By Katarzyna A. Kaszycka and Jan Strziko, Institute of Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University, 61-701 Poznań, Poland: American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124 Abstract. Alun 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity. From “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races, By J.P.Jackson Jr, Department of Communication, Campus Box 270, University of Colorado: Journal of the History of Biology, Volume 34, Number 2, 2001, pp. 247-285(39). Abstract. Alun 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The following statement has been refactored per WP:RPA. Please read WP:NPA. SWAdair 10:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But what it doesn't say is whether this majority think that race exists as a biological phenomenon or a cultural/social one. I mean one can believe that race exists, but also understand that it has no biological basis. Maybe there is some bias against Coon, I don't know and care less, this is not the place for a discussion about him. If you want to discuss Coon in detail then I'd be happy to do it on my talk page. I simply make these points:

1. Coon's views do not represent a consensus opinion in the field of Anthropology, therefore it is incorrect to make the claim that his theories are widely accepted or to use them as the basis for a wikipedia article.
2. Coon's academic impartiality has been called into question, this means that he is a less than a reliable source.
3. Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence.
4. Coon was interested in race, this article is about ethnicity, I included definitions of these above so we can see that ethnic identity does indeed include social, cultural, linguistic and religious elements. None of the definitions state that descent is more important than the other elements, and several maintain that descent includes percieved or a subjective view of descent.

None of this is really serving to improve the article. I suggest we stick to proposals regarding the article. Alun 10:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wobble, both race and descent (ancestry, presumed and/or actual common origins) are part of ethnicity. This is shown in some of the examples in the internet links you provided above, but also on the ethnic group and race article. "Race" and "ethnic group" are related concepts that also differ. This article seems to be really confused as to whether it means English people in the ethnic/cultural/racial sense or English in the national/political sense (it currently is both I guess). I'd suggest you split it into two articles, with one as English people (ethnic group) and the other as people of England (nationality) or simply include that part into demographics of England. This article gives the wrong impression in many areas and there appears to be a bias and un-resolved POV issue in many sections. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming that a percieved common ancestry is not a part of ethnicity. What I am saying is the same as you, that it is just a part of it, other users have claimed that we should correlate ethnic identity exclusively with descent, this is why the definitions are there. Alun 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about your suggestion regarding spliting the article into two. It might not be a bad idea. What areas do you think display bias and unresolved POVs? I think you are right, the article doesn't really know what it wants to be. I would like to remove all of the migrationist/genetic material. I think we should have a seperate article specifically dealing with various theories regarding migration to the British and Irish Isles before say 1066. We could then include all material relevant to this. I'm currently reading The Origins of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer and it's very good, it is well written and is impeccably sourced. This is the sort of information that could be used for a good article about who the various populations of the British and Irish Isles are descended from, he also sites many of the original research papers used here. There's also Barry Cunliffe's Britain BC and Britain AD for a more archaeological point of view. We could include all of the various invasionist theories and all of the cultural diffusionist theories, include the various interpretations of the genetic evidence etc. Much of this same information could then be removed from Anglo-Saxons and Welsh people etc. What do you think? Alun 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Coon's methods are mainly considered obsolete, his results certainly do not correlate with genetic evidence."

According to some Wobble, possibly, but then again they've never really been closely analyzed or refuted by anyone with any opposing information or similar work on the subject matter. I can understand why the Anon. would imply that there has been a bias against Coon because there is great divergence across disciplines with regards to race. Social scientists such as those in cultural anthropology, especially in the US, have shown to have a systemic bias on the issue mainly because of socio-political sensitivities or ideological viewpoints on race. Whether or not they match with what has been seen so far from studies in population genetics has also not been documented either, so you can not claim otherwise. From the data I've personally read so far and from what I've read of Coon's works on the internet, there is some striking similarities with studies, especially in his physiologically-based 5-race model (Caucasoid, Negroid, Capoid, Australoid, Mongoloid) since according to Cavalli-Sforza these groups have the greatest genetic differences between each other. I also think you should compare Britain (in the top left corner) in these maps (1939) of Coon's with this one based on Y-chromosome analysis (2003-2004). I find it it really interesting in Coon's analysis of skin pigmentation and racial classification (based on other parts of appearance) follow a similar pattern to the Y-chromosome map. Coon found that Ireland had the greatest amount of Upper Paleolithic stock, especially in the west, which coincides with Y-chromosome analysis confirming the same thing. He also noted that Germanic-dervied (combined Anglo-Saxon/Danish) "Nordic" stock was strongest in England, especially in the east, which is again in line with the Y-chromosome study. Analyze the maps in your own manner (Epf in particular should check it), but the similar patterns are very interesting given Coon made his findings based entirely on skeletal material nearly 70 years ago. Eoganan 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Coons was a racist segregationist, my link shows that he compromised his academic principles to support segregationism. Coons observations regarding the distributions of human phenotypes may have been detailed and may well be similar to genetic analysis that has been done recently. There is one major difference though. That is that coons was a racist and apparently a white supremacist who claimed seperate speciation events from Homo erectus for all so called human races, with a particularly special descent for Europeans (yeah very objective that one) this multi regional hypothesis is rejected by the vast majority of modern scientists, with a tiny minority of vested interests still clinging on to it. Humans have a very recent common African origin, all impartial genetic analysis claims so.

All of these findings, which are in accord with many other studies based on different types of genetic variation assessed in different samples of humans, support an evolutionary scenario in which anatomically modern humans evolved first in Africa, accumilating genetic diversity. A small subset of the African population then left the continent, probably experienced a population bottleneck and founded anatomically modern human populations in the rest of the world. Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin.

This is from Nature Genetics a highly prestigious peer reviewed journal with excellent accademic credentials. Certain editors seem to have a vested interest in distorting the current state of scientific debate by introducing discredited and racialist material that is not accepted by the vast majority of modern scientific opinion. Coons may have well done excellent work at pinpointing the areas of greatest diversity, but he was dead wrong with his conclusions, and his discredited ideas about the different origins of human populations should not be peddled as anything other than contrary to the current scientific consensus. Alun 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever his viewpoints on segregation, his data collected is unrivalled in the world of anthropology and his findings are quite remarkable when compared with the genetic data of today. Many of his conclusions were correct and are supported by many genetic studies, including that done by Cavalli-Sforza. It seems certain editors like yourself in turn have their own vested interest in destroying current scientific fact and corrutping it to support their own ideology of race-denial. Many of his theories have by no means been widely discredited, only by a certain few with political and ideological snesitivities to the subject of race, especially the American Anthropologists Association. That genetic data on the "recent" common ancestor (if you consdier 100,000 - 80,000 years ago recent) does nothing to discredit much of Coons findings. Even if he was wrong about the multi-origin hypothesis (still held by many academics, despite your assertions to the contrary), his findings on the partial origins to archaic human species in modern European and Asian populations is finding increasing genetic evidence to back it up. Coon's own extensive skeletal material showed evidence of similarities between modern European and Asian skulls and those of Neanderthal and Asian Homo Erectus. You are dismissing his finding too rashly, largely because your own opinions are similar to those of many of the cultural anthropologists (especially in the US) who reject Coon's work without question or any analysis of it whatsoever. This is not only ignorant, its unscientific. All facts and amterial should be considered, especially when this anthropolgical evidence coincides with modern genetic studies and in turn can give us greater understanding on the origin of races. No matter how you try to downplay it, Coon's work will always be very influential because nothing even close to its detail has ever been compiled. He never admitted to being a white supremist and never advocated anything of the likes, although is ideas on segregation were maybe a little far-fetched to say the least (although some of it did have some validation in the sense of the preservation of diverse racial features). 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• It seems certain editors like yourself in turn have their own vested interest in destroying current scientific fact and corrutping it to support their own ideology of race-denial.

First, if I wanted to introduce my own political biased POV into wikipedia I would do it anonymously (oh, like you), but I always use my user account, this makes me completely accountable for all of my edits. Anyone can check my edit history at any time, I never edit without logging in. Secondly if I had a vested interest I would have edited the pages concerned, but in fact I have never edited any page to do with human evolution or to do with Coons, anyone can check this if they like. So your accusations are groundless. I am a scientist, I know what the current consensus is in the field of genetics, the out of Africa model is the consensus. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Only someone with absolutely no understanding of correct scientific method could think that such a thing exists. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Many of his theories have by no means been widely discredited,

Ah the old weasel words trick, how many? which ones? care to name them? Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• That genetic data on the "recent" common ancestor (if you consdier 100,000 - 80,000 years ago recent) does nothing to discredit much of Coons findings.

Did anyone say that they did? I just said that it discredits the multi-origin theory, that's all. Don't put words into my mouth. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• multi-origin hypothesis (still held by many academics, despite your assertions to the contrary)

I never asserted the contrary. I said the scientific consensus doesn't support it, even a tiny minority may still be many (after all many is a non-specific quantity that depends on context, sometimes one is many). This is what the another Nature article says: A few researchers still support a version of the 'multiregional' hypothesis.....But most now espouse a version of the 'out of Africa' model. Out of Ethiopia Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• anthropolgical evidence coincides with modern genetic studies and in turn can give us greater understanding on the origin of races.

I never said his work was bad, I just said that his conclusions are wrong. He obviously thought the physical differences between human populations represented bigger differences that they actually do. This may have been an honest mistake, fair enough. Anyone who disputes the out of Africa model is is the minority now, like it or not it is not me who is distorting science here. Even the Carleton S. Coon article states that he special pleaded for white people Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans. He believed "The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size." and "the negro group probably evolved parallel to the white strain" (The Races of Europe, Chapter II). I have never edited this page, but it's clear that he was implying that somehow white people were special and somehow different from other humans. Alun 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the English people article: B-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):

• Broad range of subtopics; some subtopics received slightly scant coverage.
• Some sections have excellent cite/reference, others not so good.
• POV problems; page locked.
• This article could be class=A without a huge amount of additional work.

You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I've downgraded protection to s-protection, so I really hope you guys have calmed down now. Yesterday was your only collective pass and if I see anymore 3RR violations, personal attacks etc., I will start blocking.
If one of you guys has a spare minute, could you please archive this page? I would like it archived so everyone can start with a clean and equal slate and I think getting rid of these rants and personal attacks would be a good start. I'll come back and do it tomorrow if no one wants to do it in the meanwhile. Thanks, --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal

The contributions to and contributions from sections in the infobox were never intended to reflect ethnic groups per se. They were intended to reflect societies/communities that contributed to or had contributions from English people. It was a deliberate tactic to avoid the ethnic tag. Having thought about it a bit, it seems to me that essentially the Contributions to section simply repeats the Regions with significant populations section. So I am revising my position and am now happy to dispense with the Contributions to section. Having said that, I am concerned about the numbers of people given in the Regions with significant populations section of the infobox. These essentially reflect people declaring English ancestry in censuses from the states that are included (rather than English ethnicity). So my compromise would result in the inclusion of the political entities mentioned, but with removal of the numbers stated (as with religions). I think these numbers can be reasonably included in the footnotes, with a statement to the effect that it is just not known whether the people that responded consider themselves ethnically English or whether they consider themselves of some other ethnicity, but that it is assumed that many of these people actually do consider themselves ethnically Engish, which is why they saw fit to include English ancestry in their census returns. Anyone who wants to find out more information need only refer to the footnote anyway. I'd like to get a consensus on this so we can get the page unprotected. It is reasonable that we all make compromises here. None of us is ever 100% correct, and we all have points of view. In the text of an article we can give all points of view, and therefore have a ballanced and neutral article. It is more difficult with an infobox, because information is either included or excluded, we cannot readily apply provisos. So I'd appreciate some cooperation here, especially from Epf and the previous anonymous user, as these people seem to be the ones who most disagree with this section. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

American/Canadian ethnicity

This thorny subject seems to be one which is not relevant to this article. So I suggest we do not attemt to broach it here again. Alun 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cheers ! 69.157.117.116 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comma-splice

This passage is three separate sentences joined together with commas without any subordination; there needs to be some structuring: AnonMoos 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is now thought that the situation was far more complex, some archaeologists also see only limited evidence of immigration in the record, Francis Pryor writes I also can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."

R1b percentages are wrong

it says r1b averages 70% in England, most genetic studies have found it to average 65% in england, brian sykes book blood of the isles used 10,000 people from britain and he claims that england averages 64% r1b, scotland 75% and wales 83%.--Globe01 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Oppenheimer claims R1b is 60-75% in England. It's not uniformly distributed though, so the figure is somewhat missleading. I'm still reading his book The Origins of the British IMHO a far superior book to Sykes's, he has a very comprehensive list of sources and citations. He he says none of the samples taken by Capelli has fewer than 58% Iberian types. Or put another way he claims that there is a 15-42% male intrusion (average 30%) from Northern Europe into England since the last Ice Age (10,000 years ago), this fits with the 70% figure. England is far more heterogeneous in it's genetic composition than Wales and Scotland. Possibly we should reflect this in the article. Or we could also cite Sykes and Oppenheimer and put the 65% and the 70% figures in. Alun 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Alun, in favour of Dr. Sykes I should say that while Oppenheimer worked only on samples obtained by other geneticists, Sykes, apart form using also those samples, used his own samples, in fact more than 10.000 samples collected over a period of several years and thousands of miles all across the British Isles, in the largest sample collection undertaken yet. In any case, although with differences as to the time-frame in which the Iberian influence was largest (both speak of different migration waves from Iberia over thousands of years)both come to the same conclusion: Most English people and most Britons descend from the Iberian Peninsula. Veritas et Severitas 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm, they seem to be stretching these haplotype figures a bit much if thats what they're saying, So what if r1b averages 80% in the British Isles and 89-95%% amongst Basques, this does not mean all 80% of the r1b in The British Isles came from the Basque Country, it could have come from anywhere in Europe, r1b is about 50% in the Netherlands, im sure a good proportion of r1b in England comes from the Netherlands with peoples such as the Belgae tribe or anglo saxons. Of course England has other sources for r1b as r1b is 70% there and it is likely that a percentage of the r1b in England arrived before the neolithc and before the iron age.

I have only read Sykes's book and it was very simplistic and didnt really go into depth enough to support the hypothesis being made. There was no detailed data of haplotype sublineages to give a more accurate story just nicknames for genetic markers such as the oisin clan for genetic marker r1b.

I will have to read Stephen Oppheimers Origins of the British to see if that contains any more useful and conclusional data. No doubt the Basques and people from the British Isles are genetically similar (especially the Welsh and Irish) on the Y-chromosomes at quite a high resolution haplotype map but there is still margin for error unless haplotype maps of higher resolution are created showing yet more sublineages of genetic markers. I suppose its still acceptable to include these geneticists veiws. Im only worried that conclusions made to soon that seem perhaps far fetched that turn out to be wrong could cause people to loose faith in the science of genetics and dismiss it as false in future which would be a shame as its a pretty powerful tool for fighting racism.--Globe01 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You might have a good point, but I suppose we need to include the relevant POVs anyway. No one seems to be saying this is wrong as far as I'm aware. Oppenheimer has very detailed maps for sub-groups of R1b to the extent that he shows where the various colonisations of the British Isles occured and when. I think we need a seperate article for this information, something relating to prehistoric populating of the British and Irish Isles, I'm not sure this genetic info fits well on the ethnic group pages and we could include all of this info on a single page, maybe spit a bit off from the Immigration to the United Kingdom article. It seems to me that prehistoric migrations to the Islands do not conform to modern social or political boundaries, these prehistoric settlers knew nothing of Welsh people, English people or Scottish people. It could be argued thet English people (ethnic identity) originated at the time of the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion or indeed later during the time of Alfred through to Athelstan, when these people actually cane together as a unified group. So there is an argument that the article should reflect this more than anything else. This is not to say that these data should be completelly ignored, but we could refer to the "prehistoric migrations" article and include a short section here from that article. Much of the data are replicated here and at Welsh people. I don't edit the Scottish people article so I don't know about that. Alun 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway heres an interesting diagram data showing the genetic distances of populations within the UK and their distance from Basques, north Germans and Danes on the Y-chromosome.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_udi=B6VRT-48PV5SH-12&_image=fig3&_ba=3&_coverDate=05%2F27%2F2003&_alid=339895807&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6243&_qd=1&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=298af546d052683da43420d605615408

I think this could be suitable for now to go in all the british peoples articles and Irish people. Its up to date and reflects current scientific thinking. I also see nothing wrong in stating that 2 groups are genetically similar at all but to make conclusions that group a is descended from group b etc going purely on genetic similarities is wrong. Other evidence needs to be mentioned to support such hypothesises. --Globe01 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I may agree with you, and believe it or not, I am also quite cautious about these things. But we are supposed to add all points of view of authorities in the field, especially if they are among the latest publications. Our points of view are of course interesting for the discussion page, but our points of view are not valid for the body of the article. We must be careful with this. Self-research is not acceptable in Wiki. By the way, Sykes has the detailed data of his research available in internet. Just look in the book and it refers you to it. Anyway, they are analyzing Rb1 finer and finer now and I guess we are in the process of getting more and more detailed information. There are subgroups called R1b1c6, R1b1c7 etc. Veritas et Severitas 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it seems that we have another author that has now written a book arriving at the same conclusions: Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project, by Spencer Wells

It seems that authors are piling up on the same theory and they all happen to be British or American. Veritas et Severitas 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I have removed this tag which has been in place since the summer. There is no debate going on here over what it means and I suggest its just a hangover from an earlier time. If anyone objects replace it and state your reasons here. Lumos3 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that we now have more authors coming to the same conclusion about the genetics of the British Isles, anyway i am in agreement wiht you now, there is nothing wrong in citing evidence from books written by respected geneticists.--Globe01 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobble's Reverts

About this text:

Nevertheless, a genetic research on European Population Substructure states:

Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group.

English is included in "northern" European population group.

1) He claimed irrelevancy first while relevancy was obvious from this line:

"English is included in "northern" European population group. "

2) Now he's saying "This section is about the origins of the English". The link between origin of people and genetic data should have been quite easy to understand.

3) The text also answers to previous claims about most English are descandents of Iberian People. It's important to note that English today isnt in same population group with modern Iberians. So the text has double relevancy as it answers previous claims in the section. I think all these should have been very easy to understand. Lukas19 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wobble for his reasons and for this additional reason: this text is far too techinical for inclusion here. This would be better placed in an article specifically on European Genetics. So the study concludes "English is in the "norther" European population group...so what? It doesn't tell us anything that isn't already in the article.--WilliamThweatt 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat myself: "The text also answers to previous claims about most English being descandents of Iberian People. It's important to note that English today isnt in same population group with modern Iberians." Lukas19 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All western Europeans are the descendants of people from three Ice Age refuges, with an additional Neolithic component. No genetic study about the origins of the English disputes this. Indeed the R1b haplogroup is the most common all over Northern Europe. European men overwhelmingly have R1b, I or R1a haplotypes, which roughly correspond to the Iberian (more accurately Basque), the Balkan and Ukranian Ice age refuges. There was a Neolithic expansion out of the Near East that is more prominent in the south and the east of Europe. Not only does your paper express no opinion whatsoever as to the origins of the English, the quote you put in the article is also irrelevant. This information tells us nothing about the origins of the English. This information simply tells us that it is possible to draw an arbitrary line through the middle of Europe and show that people to the south of this line are more similar to each other than they are to people to the north of this line, and vice versa. This tells us nothing about the origins of the English. Furthermore due to the clinal nature of human geographical genetic variation it would be just as easy to draw a vertical line through the centre of Europe and show that eastern Europeans are similar to each other and western Europeans likewise. The data that are used in this test are not even English, they are from the UK, and therefore include people from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, all mixed together. This quote

Using a genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we observed population structure in a diverse group of Europeans and European Americans. Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group.

has got nothing to do with origins, where does it mention either English people or their origins? It doesnt even say that southern Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to northern Europeans, though this is one of the inferences one can draw from it. Arbitrarily grouping geographically distributed polymorphisms into artificial "populations" and then using a limited sample of genetic material to show that some groups are more similar to each other than they are to other groups doesn't prove anything about relatedness or origins. When we talk about origins we need to use scientific and genetic data that are specifically about the genetic history of a group of people. At best this is just Thulean/Lucas19's opinion, at worst it is original research. Indeed the only reference I can find to any genetic analysis regarding perhistory and origins in the article is this

It is interesting to speculate how the ability to distinguish northern and southern European populations relates to ancient as well as more modern differences in migration and admixture patterns. Archeological and skeletal evidence as well as studies of mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups have provided evidence of upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, and more recent settlement and migrations as contributing to the origin of current European populations . Phylogenetic analyses of Y haplotypic groups are interpreted to support both separate migrations from the Middle East 4,000 to 7,000 y ago as well as a more recent “Greek” expansion into Italy and the Iberian peninsula occurring closer to 2,500 y ago . The earlier migrations would be consistent with waves spreading agricultural techniques from the Middle East and are supported by some mitochondrial DNA studies . However, there is little consensus concerning the association of any of these migrations with agricultural techniques or trading routes , or for that matter with the spread of Indo-European languages . Some studies of specific mitochondrial and Y haplogroups are consistent with the demic diffusion hypothesis suggested by Cavali-Sforza et al. , and the work of Sokal et al. and others have provided evidence of different patterns of repopulation from glacial refuges or have suggested a later influence from North Africa in both Italy and Spain . As recently discussed by Barbujani and Chikhi, the origin(s) of modern European ancestors remains a controversial issue . Other major population events, including the multiple epidemics during the Middle Ages, may also have resulted in genetic bottlenecks contributing to current differences in European population structure.

But this mainly concerns the more recent population events that are not concerned with England. In conclusion, not only does this article no actually mention England at all, but it has nothing to say about the origins of the English. It is incorrect to imply that what applies to two general and very large pooled samples from large geographical areas of "northern and southern Europe" can equally be applied to more specific regional populations like England and the Basque country. Alun 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun the majority of people in northern europe are not R1b, sweden is 15% r1b, norway 30% r1b and even denmark combined with germany acording to cavilli's data is 40% r1b. The netherlands and belgium are above 50% r1b though. Having said that spain is 69% r1b (southern europe) portugal is of a similar percentage and france is 55% r1b. So it appears that r1b is of a west european distribuition peaking in the basque country of northern spain and southern france (95%) and northwestern ireland (98.5%). England is 70% r1b. The whole Iberian connection is acceptable as long as the emphasis is made on ancient iberians, basques and perhaps an article about there being a slim amount of neolithic input into england? Someone has also vandalized the english people descent section, someone revert the article please.--Globe01 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct R1b is an Atlantic group not a northern one, this was just a mistake, the paper Thulean/Lucas was using was about Northern Europeans and I suppose I was thinking about that. Anyway this article is not about Swedish people, Norwegian people, Danish people, Belgium people or people from the Netherlands. But it's worth looking at this world haplogroups map, R1b is vey dominant, even in Germany, it may not be in a majority, but it's still the single biggest group as far as I can see, and British men are very different to Scandinavians. English people, and British people are descended from paleolithic people from an Ice Age refuge in the Basque country. Are you disputing this? This is what Thulean/Lucas is disputing. His data are not relevant to this article, they make no mention of English people, they refer to Norther European people and Southern European people, they make little reference to origins, and when they do it is primarily to the neolithic. Thulean/Lucas's edit does not belong here. I suspect that he wants to introduce some concept regarding Nordic theory here, as it seems to be one of his favourite articles, and these data could be used to support such a theory. The R1b data clearly show that English people are mainly of Iberian origin, I know of no study that disputes this. There is also some Balkan refuge herritage in England that may be absent in other regions of the British and Irish Isles, according to Stephen Oppenheimer. There is a Neolithic component to the British population that is smaller than it is in mainland Europe, but still exists. The Y chromosome haplogroup maps also clearly show that there are east-west genetic clines in Europe as well as north south clines, andl also show the artificial nature of clustering large geographic areas into "populations", the genes are clinally distributed, not distributed in discrete populations as the paper cited by Thulean/Lukas would have it. Indeed one can take any geographical region (Wales or England or the British and Irish Isles or Northern Europe or Western Europe) and "prove" that the population is genetically "different" to other regions. It is not a matter of dispute that in general people are geneticaly more similar to those in close geographical proximity to them than to those at a distant geographical proximity. What is in dispute is whether these "populations" (or "races" if you will) are real or artificial biological constructs. I think the other point to make is that England itself displays much more genetic heterogeneity than other regions of the British and Irish Isles, possibly due to its greter area, but there are visible genetic clines even in England. It may be somewhat artificial to give only an absolute figure for the R1b haplotype frequency for England as a whole. It might be better to state that it is heterogeneously distributed in England and give the highest and lowest proportions and state the locations where these proportions occur, and then also give an absolute figure as well. Something like this for R1b, Cornwall 80%, York 57%, Norfolk 60% We may need a cite for the whole of England, I think you have been concerned about this figure in the past? They don't give one in the above map. I'll see if Oppenheimer gives a figure. Unfortunately Sykes for some strange reason doesn't use standard terminology in his book. Alun 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my point when I edited the article. To highlight that Iberian connection is ancient. Lukas19 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

English are not a Germanic people

This article is included in the category Germanic peoples although very few English would describe themselves as Germanic. (No source is given for the claim). I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic". That claim is typically associated with neo-nazi groups, and that seems to be the case in England too.Paul111 11:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if the category is for people who speak germanic languages, then I don't see the problem, but we should also include Scottish people, Irish people and Welsh people in that case. I suppose it depends what the category is for, if it's a lingustic category then no problem. If it's an ethnic or racial category then it is a problem, I agree. Alun 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The_English_people_and_language_are_Romance

File:Influencegraph.PNG

The picture should combine Latin and French as Romance languages, just as is done for Germanic languages. It is quite clear that the English language is more influenced by the Greco-Roman Britannia than the Barbarian England. Explain the presence of Greek Ss. George and Andrew in England and Scotland, rather than some other sort of patron. Who can forget the Roman heritage of Ireland's St. Patrick, or Wales's St. David? On the whole, I would say that Anglophonic culture is a more northerly version of the Francophone. That would make us an extension of Mediterranean Europe, just as in the time of King Arthur and Old King Cole. There is nothing comparable in the truly Teutonic countries, where they have a mere culturally imperialistic accumulation of our Classical heritage and not the other way around. The British Isles are more Roman Catholic (and Liturgical, as opposed to Evangelical) in attitude than any truly Germanic nation, including the region of Bavaria or Austria and German speaking Switzerland. Even Mediaeval England (Angleterre) was more Romance than the Holy Roman Empire, which is evidenced in our culture then and now. Even in Offa of Mercia, Alfred the Great or Ethelred the Unready's era, the essence of English culture and ways was decidedly Mediterranean in rejection of the Nordic. England, as in France, was Roman Catholic when Arianism spread like a virus throughout the Germanic world. No Germanic Protestant nation would have founded the United States, a Neoclassical older brother of Napoleonic France--completely rife with Greco-Roman revivals. Does anybody remember the importation of a Germanic Protestant political establishment in the British Isles, from Cranmer and Knox at the expense of native Roman Catholics? America is stereotyped as Protestant and "Nordic", but we are just the opposite. Our country's name (America, Amerigo Vespucci), federal district's name (Columbia, Christopher Columbus), major political parties (Democrat of Greece, Republican of Rome) and government architecture are all Mediterranean. The Federal Government was built on the soil of a Catholic colony (Maryland), although once holding some land of another Anglican colony (Virginia). Even the term "Anglican" is Latin. If we were so Teutonic, our culture would be like Iceland and it is assuredly not. To counter these assertions, you will have to explain the nonexistance of Germanic first names in my family--apart from Norman origins of course. Explain the multitudes of Greek, Romance, Biblical and Celtic names--but lack of others. In World War Two, England had Fascists like Italy or Spain and not National Socialists like Germany or Austria. If we are not Latin, then explain our preference for "Cool Britannia" or "Rule Britannia" instead of some Teutonic equivalent... Rhode Islander 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have a point in what you say. Still, English is a Germanic language:

1. Vocabulary: It is true that more than half of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin, but we have the following situation:

a) Concrete, shorter words and more everyday words tend to be more Germanic:

English: House, man, father, mother. German: Haus, Mann, Vater, Mutter.

Anglo-Saxon was even closer to languages like German in vocabulary and inflexion: German Maedchen. Anglo-Saxon: Maegden. English girl.

b) Abstract nouns are usually of Latin origin: Imagination, limitation, inspection and a long etc. They are written the same in French. In spanish: imaginacion, limitacion, inspeccion. Italian: imaginazione, limitazione, inspezzione. Portuguese: imaginacao, limitacao, inspecao. (well more or less, I do not have all the simbols at hand).

In this respect English is both a Germanic and a Latin language.

But then we have two other important factors: Grammar and Phonology-Phonetics. The English grammar and phonologic-phonetic system is Germanic, not Latin.

In short, English is a Germanic language with a huge Latin influence that does not exist in other Germanic languages in the same degree.

Something different is the concept of race and other cultural influences.

1. In relation to culture, all European nations have been fundamentally influenced by Greece and Rome. Greece and Rome, along Judeo-Christianity are the pillars of European civilization.

2. In relation to race or shared ancestry, the picture is much more complicated, and this aspect certainly does not overlap with linguistic areas Veritas et Severitas 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this calm and well composed response. I understand what you are saying and more or less, I am attempting to describe how there is undue weight given to the Nordic aspect of Anglia. Too often, the Mediterranean majority of the British Isles is overlooked or made to feel ashamed of their Classical heritage. I encounter a LOT of Mediterranean looking women from England, whether in person or in film. My paternal grandmother's mother's family is from the West Country and she looks Spanish, Occitanian or Italian. My mother's paternal and maternal families are from the West Country and they look similar. My dad's maternal uncle looks like Jean-Marie Le Pen. I count the Gallic influence in my heritage to be very high. All Classical Englishmen would. Rhode Islander 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Nordicism has played a major role in many European countries and the United states, yet in terms of lineage and ancestry, as I said, the picture is much more complicated. In fact population genetics is telling a very different story from the one that was assumed. Precisely that aspect is dealt with in recent books like Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes and less specifically Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. You can read all that in the genetic section here and the main article. If you are interested in the subject read the books. Amazingly interesting. Anyway, I would use other examples and not Le Pen. He is considered pretty radical in Europe. Veritas et Severitas 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I once thought I fit into that Nordic world--because I was expected to take part of it. Then, my personal genealogy revealed real glories. I began enjoying wholeheartedly, the Constantinian and Carolingian elements and don't care really all that much for the Aryanistic fantasies. I'd rather visit the reign of Ramses the Great than the Odinic Scandinavia. I don't mind Semitic blood, because it is true way back in time. I certainly don't have blood from India or Pakistan or whathaveyou; not that it could be easily discovered or postulated anyways. I worship Jesus Christ, Son of Mary in Judea. Rhode Islander 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetics: accuracy disputed

The section opens with an assertion about the genetics of "English men" without any source, and continues in that vein. None of the studies which are quoted seem to refer to genetic material of the "English people", but instead to regional, local or national populations. The section contains no reliable source for any genetic information about the "English people", and could be deleted as unverifiable. However a better solution would be to move it to a separate article on the population genetics of Britain (or Britain and Ireland) - not just England, since the migration issues are related. This problem - unsourced claims based on personal interpretations of non-applicable genetic studies - is a problem at several ethnic/national articles.Paul111 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again because I definately see sources.Rex 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• without any source, and continues in that vein. None of the studies which are quoted

Um, so you claim no sources, then say that some studies are quoted. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Alun 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• no reliable source for any genetic material of the "English people", but instead to regional, local or national populations

The studies use English people living in England. How would you define "English people"? Aren't English people a "nation"? I think they are a nation, so using regional populations in England is in fact using English people. I don't really understand what your point is. You seem to be saying that the "English people" are not the "English nation", which is clearly wrong. You also seem to be saying that local populations of people living in England do not represent "English people", which is also clearly wrong. Just how do you define an English person exactly? These studies are peer reviewed, none of the reviewers seem to have had any problem with these assumptions. If you can find academic peer reviewed journals that dispute these findings then they should be included in the article as well as per the neutality policy. As far as I can see tis just seems to be your opinion that these papers do not represent English people and you have provided no verifiable reliable source that disputes these papers. I cannot understand your claim that there are no citations, see my comment above, and that of Rex Germanus. Alun 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From the quoted material, the research was not confined to the "English ethnic group" or the "English nation" or the "English people". If the 'population of England" is the same thing as the "English nation", then genetic studies about one are valid for the other. But that is not the case, and would be inconsistent with the rest of the article, which claims that most of the "English people" live outside England. If a study has specifically concentrated on the "English" then it is a valid source for this article. Local populations certainly do not represent the English as an ethnic group, the majority might be recent immigrants. The onus is on the editor who includes the material to ensure a reliable source. For instance... If an editor is convinced that the English are a lost tribe of Israel (some people are), and then quotes statistics from the Israeli census to show they mainly speak Ivrit, the onus is on the editor to show that the statistics (accurate in themselves) are applicable to the subject of the article.Paul111 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How much immigration to England do you think there has been? Do you think these samples were taken from recent immigrants? Have you proof that these data have been distorted? Do you know of any studies that dispute these findings? Are you disputing the accuracy of this work? Do you think that the population is primarily composed of people who are not English? I really don't understand the source of your scepticism. I don't really understand what you are getting at. I do think that these data should not really be in this article. I think we need an article about the origins of British and Irish people, where we can put all of these genetic studies, they don't really fit here. I think the origins of the English as an ethnic group are quite recent, and lie in the unification of the country in the tenth century. I don't think our identity or ethnicity is defined by the founding paleolithic populations of the British and Irish Isles, though they are clearly the ancestors of modern English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish people, and also of the vast majority of the modern population of the British and Irish Isles. I also dispute how "English" self identified "English people" living in North America really are, when they edit here they often display a very superficial understanding of English culture and society, personally I think many North Americans that identify as English have little or no real concept of English ethnic identity whatsoever, and are merely the descendants of English people, and so assume that they are ethnically English, when in effect their society and culture would be alien to the English ethnic group. The data at the top of the page are extremely unreliable, and mainly refer to English descent rather than to English ethnic identity. I do not like them and do not think they are accurate. I do think your edit was excellent and support it. Alun 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul seems to be interested in genetic studies that take into account people of English and British ancestry living in other areas like the United States. I think he can find this interesting:

Saxons, Vikings, and Celts The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland

By Bryan Sykes Narrated by Dick Hill

Saxons, Vikings, and Celts is the most illuminating book yet to be written about the genetic history of Britain and Ireland. Through a systematic, ten-year DNA survey of more than 10,000 volunteers, Bryan Sykes has traced the true genetic makeup of British Islanders and their descendants. This historical travelogue and genetic tour of the fabled isles, which includes accounts of the Roman invasions and Norman conquests, takes readers from the Pontnewydd cave in North Wales, where a 300,000-year-old tooth was discovered, to the resting place of "The Red Lady" of Paviland, whose anatomically modern body was dyed with ochre by her grieving relatives nearly 29,000 years ago. A perfect work for anyone interested in the genealogy of England, Scotland, or Ireland, Saxons, Vikings, and Celts features a chapter specifically addressing the genetic makeup of those people in the United States who have descended from the British Isles.

I have pasted it from here: http://www.tantor.com/BookDetail.asp?Product=0335_SaxonsCelts

There are plenty of reviews now in the net about the book. 70.156.143.221 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think this is the same as the book Blood of the Isles, possibly it has a different name in the US? It's OK, I'm currently reading it. One of the problems with Sykes's work is that he doesn't use standard genetic nomenclature. It's highly accessible to the layman and is well written, though it's light on content and detailed analysis. A much more detailed and authoritative book is Stephen Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story. There's much more detail and his list of sources is very comprehensive. Oppenheimer also relies on the previously published work of other academics, which means that it is easy to go and find the papers and works he has used in the book. The drawback of Oppenheimer's book is that it is far less accessible, indeed I think on occasion he goes into too much detail, but he does use standard genetic names, and charts numerous founding events for the British Isles from the Basque and Balkan refugia and from the Near Eastern neolithic expansion. Both these books show convincingly that the modern population of the British and Irish Isles are overwhelmingly descended from these original colonisers from the paleolithic and neolithic (mainly from the Basque refuge, this can be shown using bothe Y chromosome data and mtDNA data,) though there is evidence of a smaller founding event in England of people from the Balkan refuge) and that subsequent invasions were small in scale. These subsequent invasions can be traced genetically, but their legacy indicates that the sort of "mass" invasions/migrations and displacements that were considered to have occured in the past never happened. There was no displacement of the entire population of south eastern Great Britain by "Germanic invaders". Indeed there is a growing idea that the south eastern part of Great Britain has had a Germanic language for much longer than was previously thought. Oppenheimer thinks that the peoples living in northern France (north of the Seine) and in southern Britain may have been closely related and have spoken Germanic languages even in Caesar's time. Alun 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Genetics section

I mainly agree with Veritas's edit. There's a problem with Paul's edit in that he claimed Genetic statistics about the population of England do not apply to populations outside England, such as those self-identified as English in the United States census. Well for one thing if the "self-identified American English" are the descendants of English people, then the genetic analysis must apply to them, either via their Y chromosome or their mtDNA. If the genetics do not apply to them, then they cannot be the direct descendants of English people, which beggs the question from what source do they claim English ethnic identity?. I will note that if an English woman marries a non English man, and has a son (English mtDNA, non English Y chromosome), and her son marries a non English woman, then their children will not have Y chromosomes or mtDNA from England, but the "English" connetion is quite dilute by this time anyway, the children could belong to at least three, or even four different ethnic groups, and we cannot assume that they will consider themselves "English". Conversely the US census does not collect data on ethnic identity (as far as I can tell). The data are presented here as data for descent rather than ethnic identity, so actually the data listed as "significant populations" (of ethnically English people) are erroneous, they do not display ethnic English people in living in the USA, but rather people of English descent, we don't know if these people identify as ethnically English. The most telling example is from New Zealand. In the 1996 census in NZ the question asked about descent and we get a very large figure for English descent 281,895 whereas in the 2001 census (and 1991 census) the question was phrased to more accurately reflect self defined ethnicity rather than descent and we get a much smaller figure 34,074. So how the data are collected is very important, and I don't really see how anyone can claim, as Paul seems to be doing, that North Americans that claim descent from English people are more ethnically English than actual people living in England, who are exposed to English society and culture from birth untill death. US society and culture is not English, and I find it difficult to understand how people from North America can claim English ethnicity when they have so little experience of what makes English people English. To claim English descent is a different thing than to claim English ethnicity. The UK Office for National Statistics defines an ethnic group as such

“An ethnic group is a collectivity within a larger population having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared past, and a cultural focus upon one or more symbolic elements which define the group’s identity, such as kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group”.

Now I don't claim to be an expert on American culture, but I can see that Irish ethnicity is alive and well in the USA, and I can see that Jewish and Italian ethnicities are alive and well, we see them portrayed often on the television. But let's face it there was massive immigration from all of these groups relatively recently, within the last 150 years, so they are relative newcommers who have a solid and recent familial link to their countries and cultures of origin. There has been no recent massive immigration to the USA or North America by English people. People from England that settled in the USA did so at a much earlier date, and were often fleeing religious persecution, they were also instrumental in creating the USA and went to war to do this, society and culture in the USA has little or no similarity to that of the UK or England. There is also a great deal of confusion in the USA as to the difference between the UK, Great Britian and England, this is common amongst foreigners generally, but such a lack of knowledge would indicate to me a distinct lack of any real ethnic relatedness. This may be indicated by the fact that many Americans claim English descent (25 million), but a far smaller number claim British descent (1 million). I can't help but feel that many of these people may not actually know the difference between England and Britain. These figures are also very different to how people in England self identify, with English people identifying primarily as British. When forced to choose a British or English identity people in England choose British (48%) over English (38%). When given the choice of British and English 31% choose to identify as equally English and British (this is a relative majority) with 19% more English than British, 13% more British than English, 17% English not British and 10% British not English. Alun 07:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetic statistics apply to the population in question. The self-described 'English" in the USA will have, in most cases, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian and many other ancestors. The population of England has also altered since their ancestors left, which could have been in the 17th century. I reinserted the accuracy tag and again removed the claim about English men, since no source is give. It seems to be from an academic source, so that should be easilt traceable.Paul111 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually genetic statistics apply to the population in question and the ancestors of the population in question. Our genes come from our ancestors. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The population of England has also altered since their ancestors left, which could have been in the 17th century.'

I know of no one who claims this except for you. If you want to make this assertion you need to provide some sort of evidence. There is no evidence of any mass migration into England since then as far as I am aware. There may have been some internal migration, but a great deal of the population structure has remained unchanged. You have not addressed any of the points I have asked of you. Your edit is unsupported. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• The self-described 'English" in the USA will have, in most cases, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian and many other ancestors.

So what exactly is your point? Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• since no source is given

Have you looked at the sources at the end of the paragraph? Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have made major and unsubstantiated changes, and have made some obscure and not very specific comments on the talk page. Please be specific about what you have a problem with. As far as I can see you appear to be stating that the US "English" population is more representative of "English people" than the English population in England. I find this reasoning very odd, especially when you also state that the "English" population in the US is more mixed than the actual English population. Be that as it may, this section is about origins, it is an accepted academic strategy to search for the genetic origins of a group of people by studying their genes, especially the Y chromosome. I see no reason for you to unilaterally not accept this when it is done routinely. The English origins of North Americans are England. The origins of English people are not Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, they are English. If your argument (and I'm really unclear about what you are trying to say) is that the article may only include information that concerns people that have self identified as ethnically English, then the article would contain no information at all. Indeed I would remove the section refering to the significant populations section because these numbers do not refer to self identified ethnicity, but to ancestry. These figures are therefore equally unverified. Alun 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Paul's position is very weird.

1. This is about English people, not about Americans.

2. What do you imply that the majority of people in England descend from the 17th century?

3. Are some "white" Americans going so far as to imply that they are more European than the Europeans or even more English than the English? I would not be surprised.

I will just leave it here for other people to judge, but believe me, your position is among the most weird ones that I have seen up to now in this article and obviously show a complete lack of knowlegde of the latest books published on the subject, Blood of the Isles, by Brian Sykes (In the US Saxons, Vikings and Celts), The Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer and Deep Ancestry, by Spencer Wells. Of course we cannot cut and paste the enitre books here, you have to read them yourselves, but they have been protrayed in the press. See: 12 3 4

Obviously the press always has a special way of presenting information (often in a yellowish way) to draw more attention by the readers, but those articles are very much in line with the books. Some people do not want to leave them as references to the books (probably with reason) but then we have people like you who claim that there are no sources. Veritas et Severitas 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been mass immigration into England since the 17th century. Inferences on ancestry drawn from the current population can not be retroactively applied to the population of England in say, 1700. So even if you could find a village in New England where they had intermarried since migrating from England in 1700, it would still not be comparable to the present population of England.Paul111 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• There has been mass immigration into England since the 17th century.

This is simply untrue. If you are going to make ourageous claims like this I think you really need to provide a source. By your reckoning the population of England would have to have been massively replaced by people from the Basque country within the last 300 years. That is about 85% of the entire modern population of the British Isles would have to be of recent (less than 300 years) Basque descent. So why don't we speak Basque? The other scenario would be that 64% of the population of England is of recent Irish descent, this is again untenable as an arguement, and would still place the modern population of England (that is people that identify as English) as being descended from the western Ice age refuge population. Isn't it odd that there are no historical records for mass migration from Spain to England over the last 300 years. Indeed both Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer claim that the current British population is primarily descended from paleolithic and mesolithic populations that migrated there between about 12,000 and 6,000 years ago. They can proove this by showing that certain differences in the mtDNA and Y chromosome of people from the British Isles only occur in the British Isles, and no where else in the world. Because these differences (mutations) can be dated, we can show when exactly the "ancestral" DNA fragment left it's origin (in this case the Ice age refuge in the Basque country) and settled in the British Isles. This gives a date of ~ 12,000-8,000 years ago for the ancestors of the vast majority of the people living on the British and Irish Isles today. More recently (about 6,500 years ago) there was a significant migration of neolithic peoples into Europe, these also settled in the British Isles and have left their genetic legacy as well. Their genetic markers in the modern population occur at a lower frequency, but it is still significant. So two eminent geneticists (Oppenheimer ans Sykes) have both produced books recently that show clearly that the modern British population (including the English one) is overwhelmingly descended from founding events thousands of years ago.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language....Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

So where is your evidence of "mass migration" to England within the last 300 years? I don't believe it, it would be documented and I see no documentary evidence for either mass migration or population displacement anywhere in England over the last 300 years. Indeed it is becoming increasingly apparent that the "mass migrations" of the past were myths. This modern one of yours is supposed to have happened recently, so where is the evidence? Alun 13:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• So even if you could find a village in New England where they had intermarried since migrating from England in 1700, it would still not be comparable to the present population of England.

Yes it would. Your claims are without foundation. Alun 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources (or none)

The cited website does not include the claim made in the article that 70% of "English men" had a particular genetic marker. It is a genealogy website containing pseudoscientific claims based on a persoanl interpretation of genetic research. It is wholly unrereliable as a population genetics source. The linked haplogroup map does not include a diagram for England or for the 'English people', however defined. As it stands, nothing in the opening paragraph of this section is given a reliable source.Paul111 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isnt about english speaking americans paul, its not about the genetics of americans in a new england village and how they might differ genetically to uk english people, its about people who claim citizenship in england, not people who speak english but live abroad.

Are you denying the iberian link to the british isles paul? are you claiming that there has been a mass migration from the Basque country to england since the 17th century? thats nonsense, there has been small immigation to england ics has NOTHING to do with ethnicity, ethnicity is based purely on percieved ancestry to do with culture, history but it has not affected the genetics of people who see themselves as english, there has only really been migration since the 1950's to england that is on a large scale and thus most people of immigrant acestry are first or second generation in england. And most of these immigrants came from the carribean, west africa, south asia, NOT the basque country so if immigration had changed the genetics of the english since the 17th century you would expect to see west african and south asian dna amongst the english who have no knowledge of foreign ancestors. But there is no such thing, For that to happen there would have had to been an enormous migration of peoples many hundreds of years ago long before the 17th century. Genetic marker r1b is virtually non existent in south asia, and doesnt appear at all in almost all sub-saharan african countries, so no immigratns to england could increase the percentages of r1b unless they were irish, welsh, scottish or Basque. Here is evidence of r1b percentages in england http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm After wales, ireland, scotland, the basque country and northern spain in general, england has the higherst percentages or r1b in the world. The english who invaded america would have also been 70% r1b unless there was not an even distribution of people from certain regions of england as the percentage of r1b varies in england (only 60% in norfolk but 85% in cornwall).

also brian sykes claims that 64% of english are r1b and cavilli that 70% are r1b. read origins of the british by stephen oppenheimer for more evidence.--Globe01 13:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, but your weird position sounds to me like the one that we all know: Greeks are not The Greeks, Romans are not The Romans. Are you going to start it now with the English?Veritas et Severitas 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on the editors who want claims in the article, about the genetic composition of the 'English nation' or the 'English ethnic group', to provide sources. Since there is no scientific definition of these two groups, there is no data on them either. At most there are data on the population of England.Paul111 10:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning applies to the whole article. It especially applies to the section regarding "Significant populations". As far as I can see there is no evidence that 25 000 000 US citicens claim English ethnic identity, merely that 25 000 000 US citizens claim some English descent. Be that as it may, there is no reason to assume that people in England do not identify as ethnically English Can you explain why you think English people are not ethnically English? To extrapolate this point would be to apply it to all ethnic group articles on the whole of wikipedia. There are no data anywhere in the world that are collected about the English ethnic group. Therefore every piece of information in the article remains unverified according to your criteria. Should we AfD the article? Unless you can provide evidence that the English people that participated in the study do not identify as ethnically English then I see no reason not to accept that they do. Ethnically English people live in England, therefore England is the main source for DNA samples when investigating the origins of the English. There is no evidence that the modern population of England is not ethnically English. You have made the claim for massive immigration to England within the last three hundred years. There is no evidence for this claim. I wonder what your motivation is for doubting these data? I can see no reason for you to be making these claims. Indeed you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your argument above is little more than sophistry. Be more specific, provide some evidence for what you claim. Then let's see if we can come to a consensus. I am hoping to start an article about the origins of the population of the British and Irish Isles soon (when I get time), and possibly one about the origins of the European population. The information about the origins of the English can then be removed from here and we can have a coherent article about population origins. I think this is far more satisfactory. Alun 11:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

cavilli's data shows r1b average for england to be 68.8181'%, i worked it out from the percentages given in the data he used and added it to the main article.http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm --Globe01 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for immigration

In 2001, 4.9 million (8.3 per cent) of the total population of the UK were born overseas. This is more than double the 2.1 million (4.2 per cent) in 1951. Source: UK Census 2001, . They are concentrated in England, especially London, see the maps here: 8% non-white in UK For that reason alone, it is accurate to speak of large-scale immigration. Whether you call it "mass" immigration is a question of taste. It is certainly enough to make the population different, in terms of ancestry, from the population in 1700. The immigration is accelerating, but labour migration to England from Ireland, Scotland and Wales was underway by the 18th century.

8% of UK population are non-white , primarily resulting from recent (post-1950) immigration. That alone is enough to make the population ethnically different from the population of the British Isles in 1700 or 1800. Net migration into the UK has risen (over the last 15 years) to around 600 000 annually . This inflow alone is enough to alter the population composition.

The 2011 UK Census may include a question on national identity, which would settle some of the debates around this issue. See the consultation: . It is however curious to deny that millions of immigrants have entered the UK, and concentrated in England, and it is not clear exactly what the political motive is.Paul111 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So what paul111 , None of these immigrants came from the Basque country!!!!! I'll say it again, There has been no large scale migration from northern spain or western france or from the celtic isles !! HENCE the r1b figures would have been lowered if changed at all since the 18th century. Stop ignoring alun's and my own comments about genetic markers, go and learn a bit about genetics and before you just ignore evidence concerning genetic markers please!! Its frustrating, ive said several times now that firstly all english are aware if they have had an immigrant in theri family in the last 2 generations which is when mass migration started and thus would not be included in genetic surveys , see here paul, this bbc article states how only men whos grandfathers could be traced to the local village were chosen for the dna smapling of wales , ireland and basque countryhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm It states the gnetic link between the irish and the welsh and the basques. PLease read some books on genetic studies, they are highly accurate and for obvious reasons make extra care not to choose people who are of recent immigrant ancestry.

Again you claim that the genetics of england has changed dramatically since the 18th century, but genetic studies have shown this not to be so as there is no recent african or asian dna found amongst ethnic english people but mainly genetic markers mainly at 70% which is found at highest frequencies in the west of ireland (985) and the basque regoin of spain and france (95%) as well as markers i1a and i1b (north european) e3b north african berber marker found in all north european countries at low percentages and j2 which is similar and r1a which is a typically norwiegen viking haplotype. Explain this please paul! Obviously you are wrong about your theory of genetic change in the british isles.

PLease do some learning on the field of genetics before you make outlandish claims, it makes you seem suspicious some how, perhaps politically motivated towards something about the english being less english than americans who claim english ancestry.--Globe01 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Paul, we have said it all. Most English people have been in England for thousands of years. The new immigration is a new issue. These new immigrants have not been taken into account and they certainly do not come from The Basque country, Iberia, Northern France or any other place where this population group is large. So, please, be a bit rigorous, just a bit, for God's sake. Veritas et Severitas 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If genetic studies "make extra care not to choose people who are of recent immigrant ancestry" then they are valid for the selected population. Research can exclude recent immigrants. But if it does not, then it does not. That is why genetic statistics for the "population of England" do not equate to statistics for the "English people". If the source relates to specifically selected populationsm, then put that in the article, but it can not be assumed that researchers have gone looking for one. Further discussion of this point seems futile, the best thing to do is simply to stick to Misplaced Pages guidelines about sources, and preferably to original publications in scientific journals.Paul111 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetic data use indigenous populations. If you read the sources then you would know this. Indigenous populations are populations of people who know of no known recent immigration for any ancestors. Furthermore they collect both maternal grandmother information and paternal grandfather information for sourcing the sample, this is to minimise the chance of recent internal migration skewing the data. This is because grandparental place of birth is more likely to be close to the source population of any genetic origin. The populations studied would include some quite exotic Y chromosome and mtDNA signatures if they included recent migrants, indigenous European mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA are quite distinctive, most recent immigration to the UK has been from distant sources and not from Europe. It is also true that these genetic markers can be dated, and have been indigenous to the UK for thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of years. It is somewhat odd to claim that populations that can be dated to thousands of years at a specific location are not representative of the ethnic group of the region. I still don't really understand what your original point was. You claimed massive recent immigration the England, I wonder what you base this assumption on? You have provided no evidence for this assertion. I think we are sticking to wikipeda guidelines, do you have some sort of specific point to make about English people here? The English population defines the English ethnic group, the English population is indigenous from the point of view of being descended from founding events in the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic. There is nothing in this source that does not conform to wikipedia guidelines regarding sources. This is about the origins of the English, all ethnic English people are derived from England, so they must have the same origins as the English population. Your reasoning is not supported by any sources so what evidence do you have to doubt this source? Alun 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the genetic data refer to the indigenous populations, then the editor can put that in the article, and say which indigenous population it is, and add the source in a footnote. That's all.Paul111 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Be more specific. What specific information do you mean?.

2. This is about people in England. They are the English people. If other people want to call themselves English or not it is up to them. But English people live in England. People who live in America are Americans and so forth, not English people. When we mean English people we mean exactly that, because there is no other meaning. People who claim English ancestry etc, that is another matter, but they are certainly not English people.

3. Your comments are not very coherent. I find myself repeating obvious things. Veritas et Severitas 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the English all live in England, then the figure of '85 million English' has got to go. The article is full of this sort of inconsistencies, like many other ethnic group articles. That is why a rigorous attitude to unsourced data is necessary.Paul111 11:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The English do not all live in England, but neither are people who claim English ancestry/descent necessarily part of the English ethnic group. Claiming English ancestry does not automatically make a person ethnically English, isn't this obvious? Ethnicity is social and cultural, it seems absurd to claim that 25 million US citizens are "ethnically English", not just because they have no connection to English society or culture (though this should be enough), but because they have not claimed to be ethnically English on their census forms. There are no data available for how many US citizens are ethnically English, just as there are no data available for Australia etc. Census data are not reliable because they do not represent "ethnicity", but "descent". The UK census does collect ethnic identity data (but not data for descent), but in this case they only collect data for British ethnic identity. I suggest you look at the footnotes, it's clear from these that the data presented are not ethnic data, but data for descent. I have made this more obvious in the infobox. I am strongly in favour of removing this infobox altogether, it has ben nothing but a source of contention since it was included in the article. It seems imposible to include accurately any information there, for the simple reason that no country in the world ever seems to collect information regarding the English as an ethnic group, and so for nearly all sections data are not available. At best all of the figures in this infobox are guesses. Alun 11:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is another point. Then discuss that point. I agree that probably those numbers should only refer to the people in England. But that is a different discussion. Veritas et Severitas 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographic distribution

Some users here insist on calling Americans, Canadians, etc, who have been Americans for generations and who have mixed among other Americans for generations, English people. How long will need the Americans (or others) to be just what they are: Americans. One thousand years?.

Another most worrying attitude is that the history comments, some seem to imply that these Americans, Canadians etc, can me more English than other English people, simply because those English people may not be considered "white". Veritas et Severitas 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? In many cases these American/Canadians/Australians will have responded to a question which asked about their ethnic origin, ethnic group, or ancestry - often questions which are designed to measure self-identity and affiliation. They answered English. This does not preclude other identities. -- zzuuzz 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The weird usage of ethnicity in some countries does not make people either English or anything else. There are English people around the world, but only those who are or were English citizens and were raised in the culture of England and have emigrated and now live in other countries can be considered English people. I may be French or Polish and have some Italian ancestors several generations back, but no one in Europe would say that I am Italian because of that. In the first place because they would be now French or Polish and in the second place because in most cases those people have very varied ancestry. Or do we think that those Americans who call themselves English or whatever and have never been to England and whose ancestors have been in America for generations have only interbred among English people? Even if it was the case, which is obviously not, they would not be English anymore. Again, the weird way of using ethnicity in some countries should not dominate articles that are conceived to be universal, not US-centered or whatever.

I am not going to make changes myself, but this issue should be clarified in the body of the article.Veritas et Severitas 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More genetics

back to the genetics again for abit (sorry i know it can be very dull for some people but factual accuracy is important), in oppenheimers new book 'origins of the british' he mentions that there were migrations from a ukranian and a balkan refuge to england and scotland (aswell as scandinavia and germany), this is currently not mentioned in the article, we need to formulate a way of presenting or citing thie info in the article as it only mentions the iberian refuge to the british isles as a whole. If any users could make the time and take the effort to source out all the data concerning english genetics otherwise this article will be biased or not neutral. --Globe01 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think you have read the book by Oppenheimer well. Please go ahead and do it. Veritas et Severitas 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

British Basque Link Alternative theory

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/abs/5201482a.html

heres is a link from the european journal of genetics basically saying that at least the irish basque link is paleolithic and there may not hasve been re-expansions from the basque country, i have only read the abstract. --Globe01 13:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Muslims

"An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986)". This is the reference definition of ethnicity in Wiki.

"Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry." . More "The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine."

So as you can see jews share a different ancestry than ethnic English. And common ancestry is the most important variable of ethnicity. Besides, jews have cultural traditions that are distinctive though they integrate quite well into the society. Therefore, most jews are not ethnically English and shouldnt be included here. Migrants from Asia are totally not ethnic English. Lukas19 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but this information should (if nobody objects) be worded to reflect just this (using strict terms like ethnic-english, and providing the research context). Undoubtedy if the content is changed to say these people are not English (in the broader, perhaps policital sense), this will fuel controversy, and no doubt be removed. Jhamez84 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of presumed ancestry do you not understand? Do you think that English people actually know who they share an ancestry with? Presumed ancestry is not the same as real ancestry. If you want to use this racial/descent definition then you cannot claim that an English ethnic group exists at all, for the simple reason that English people are a diverse and heterogeneous population, with descent from Angles, Saxons, Brythons, Danes, Normans, etc etc etc. The English ethnic group does not share a common ancestry and is not a homogeneous entity however far back you go. Read the article, there are many and numerous different ethnic groups that have contributed to English identity. If you want to claim that only those with descent from Anglian invaders (English means Anglian) then you can only claim that about 2 million people who identify as English have descent from the Anglian invaders of the 5th century. This is the nub of this "d, escent" nonsense, no one knows who they are descended from, England is a very genetically heterogeneous place, with indigenous people in the east of England being genetically different from people in the west of England, they clearly do not share a common descent, but they clearly have a percieved common descent. England has developed as a socio-cultural entity over time and ther eis no point in time when it will cease to develope and the English ethnic group will become a static entity. Ethnic groups are social and cultural entities, they used to be religious as well, but England is generally secular and so the religious differences mean less. I personally know muslim people of Pakistani descent who identify as English people, and are identified as such by other English and British people. Take it from someone who actually knows something about English society and culture, which you obviously know nothing about. Indeed as a Welsh person I recognise my English muslim friends as far more English than me, and I have English ancestry, but I am not English because I do not share the same cultural and social context. You have also conveniently overlooked the full definition of ethnicity, which has nothing at all to do with race and is only about perceived descent. Please stop introducing your distorted racialist POV in articles you clearly know nothing about. I really am fed up with having to change your biased edits. See the part you didn't quote Ethnic groups are also usually united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community.....Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although some historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993). No one is able to distinguish between a Jewish or Muslim (or indeed anyone from the Indian subcontient) English person and a non-Jewish or non-Muslim English person based on cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic traits. If they claim they can, then they are liars. There is a list of definitions of ethnic group at the beginning of this page, which I placed there so people like you, who think that ethnicity means race, and who are hopelessly confused by the concept of a common culture and society not reflecting racialism, can read and understand. Please don't try to introduce your racialist ideas to articles where they do not belong, and please do not assume that English people agree with your incorrect analysis that Jewish people and Muslim people are not English, and are not recognised as English by others. Definitions of ethnic group

• A group identified on the basis of religion, color or national origin.
• A group set apart from others because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns.
• A group of people who hold in common a set of traditions that distinguish them from others with whom they are in contact. Such traditions typically include a sense of historical continuity, and a common ancestry, place of origin, religious beliefs and practices, and language.

Indeed by your definition the Queen would not count as English and neither would most of the English aristocracy that has descended from William the Bastards hangers on, and not from the mythical "common ancestry" you quote. Indeed here are some English people who do ot count as English by your strange definition:

• Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Prime Minister in 1874
• Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel, Home Secretary 1916
• Rosalind Franklin, Crystalographer, helped discover the structure of DNA
• Gustav Holst, Composer
• Peter Ustinov
• Alan Sugar
• List of British Jewish politicians
• List of British Jewish scientists
• List of British Jewish entertainers, including Sid James, Joan Collins, Leslie Howard (actor), Rachel Weisz
• Leon Brittan, Baron Brittan of Spennithorne
• Nigel Lawson
• Nigella Lawson
• List of English monarchs post 1066.

I suggest you look at this user's talk page User talk:80.195.226.94 regarding Jewishness and POV pushing.

Alun 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Alun raises very valid points and concerns. English is a broad and even ambiguous term, and understood in different ways by different people. A sweeping statement to change the article to only include "ethnic English" could compromise the wider encyclopeadic integrity of the article and the research contained within in. That said, Lukas19 does raise an alternate point of view which, if sources are found, does warrent at least a mention in the article to broaden the remit and understanding contained. The topic is clearly a difficult one to define, thus I think fair representation of views (WP:NPOV) in conjunction with proper sourcing, terms and context would be most beneficial in this instance. Jhamez84 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But I think you misunderstand what I mean by "ethnic English". I tried to be as detailed as I can in my earlier post, but obviously I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. So here goes again. It is totally incorrect to try to imply that English people have any sort of common ancestry or descent. I do not mean this in a bad way. I am of English ancestry, but enough is enough. Engand, as it is today, is culturally and biologically heterogeneous, this is a good thing. English people were always the descendents of Brythons, Saxons, Angles, Danes, Norwegians, Romans, et al. Indeed the case has been made, time and again, that England was created as a political entity before it ever had a cultural/ethnic identity. It's all there in the article, if you actually read it. England was unified under Athelstan, but he unified the celtic kingdom of Cumbria (no coincidence Cumbria is like the Welsh name for Wales Cymru) with the Saxon kingdoms (mostly already unified under Wessex) and the Anglian kingdoms (which had been mostly absorbed by the Danelaw). There are some theories that the eastern (that is Danish) areas of England had always been ore afiliated with the North Sea, rather than the rest of the Island. So there are at least three ethnic identities in England, the western Celtic, the eastern "anglian/scandinavian" and the south-eastern "saxon/Belgae". I take this line: The English have always been an assimilationist entity, and to a large extent I attribute their great success to their assimilationism, to then try to claim some sort of "racial" identity for them is not only an insult to English identity, it's an insult to their achievements, which have included many "English people" from assimilated cultures. The perception of common descent is a strong motivating phenomenon, but no one knows their origin, and perception is different to actual. Look at this bloke and tell me he's not English. Because it's bollocks, this bloke obviously is English. Ethnicity is not about descent, it's about how a person sees themselves, and how others see them. Alun 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One's ethnic identity is independent of one's religion (or descent), although they may be related in in appropriate circumstances. One belongs to a particular ethnic community by choice and being recognized as one by other members of the group. No ethnic group can claim unbroken descent from an ethnic group of the past (be it Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Slavs or American Indians). Jews and Muslims can definitely be ethnically English if they so choose. The way I see it, most Jews in England are ethnically English, but many Muslims are not. The only reason for this is the choice of the communities; many Muslims consider themselves foreigners in a foreign land when in England (especially newly arrived immigrants), however once they've integrated and consider themselves English, they are English.--Rudjek 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% Rudjek.Wiki, wiki, wiki p'wom, p'neeewom. Alun 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with alun, saying jews are not english because of their genes is stupid. How can you tell the difference between an e3b englishman and an e3b jewish man. or and r1b english man or j2 englishman from an r1b jewish man or j2 jewishman. Genet, language and other things.

The english are heterogenous anyway,Genetically the people of southwestern england are closer to the basques of northern spain and southern france than to people from eastern england while people from eastern england are closer to the people of north germany than to the people of south western england.

Many people who identify themselves as ethnically english will have some jewish ancestry as there have been jews living in england since the 14th century. Genetics has no place in defining ethnic groups nor does racial appearance. --Globe01 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not "race" (a Jew is not of a different "race" as any other Englishman, by the way). English, German, French or Spanish people can be of very diverse origins and even ignore it. A Spanish gipsy is as Spanish as any other Spaniard, and often considers himself more Spanish than many Spaniards. An English Jew is as English as any other English person and can consider himself more English than some other English people. Only extreme racialist and blind positions can claim otherwise. Veritas et Severitas 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

About the people who claim that one or more of their ancestors was English

I am confused about the inclusion of the United States, Australia, Canada etc. under "Regions with significant populations" in the infobox of the article. No doubt, many people in those countries have some English ancestry but what does it say about their ethnic identity? Not much. The overwhelming majority of those people are certainly not English anymore. They do not see themselves as such. Are not seen as such by the English who today visit or immigrate to their countries.

Maybe it should be made clear that these countries were colonized by English immigrants (over the course of many centuries), whose descendants later developed their own cultural and/or ethnic identities? -- Mathieugp 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read through the talk page and it's archives. I agree with you completely, but it seems that many North Americans (most of whom seem to have a limited grasp of even the basics of English culture and society) seem to think that having an English ancestor makes them ethnically English. It's got to the point where many people seem to be claiming that a person's ethnicity is dependent on nothing more than a belief that one might have an ancestor from a certain place, and according to these people one's upbringing, societal norms, culture, language, religion, country of origin etc. are all apparently irrelevant. It's nonsense I know, but it keeps being stated here over and over. Alun 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have interjected to the discussions from time to time, perhaps ambiguously, and indeed I added many of the footnotes about these numbers, so will just make it clear that I take a position in the middle of the two extremes. The people in New Zealand clearly claim to belong to the English ethnic group (as opposed to ancestry or origin etc). They belong to the English ethnic group. There is a significant population of English in Spain. The people in the US and Australia have English ethnic origins. In terms of a perceived common ancestry they are worth mentioning in this article as very closely related, if not in fact ethnic English. The number in Canada is of particular interest as a significant number claim English ethnic origins but do not claim Canadian ethnic origins. There are many English people who have settled in these countries in their own lifetime. I do not really think that counting all these people among the English is applicable, but they are worth mentioning and their reported numbers are worth reporting in this article. Equally, there is no basis for reporting the number of English in England. The total number of English (everywhere) cannot be reliably reported either. I am not a fan of this infobox. -- zzuuzz 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to Alun) Right, I noticed it too. That old problem of the ambiguity of words... Maybe we can help to resolve the issue by clarifying that ethnicity is socially transmitted, unlike "race" which has to be passed down biologically. One common, probably the most frequent way a person will come to identify and/or be identified as a member of a given ethnic group is to be brought up as a member of that group. A confusion arise I think because a great deal of people (this would be my case for example) are both member of a given ethnic group and also member of the main community(ies) of biological descent that make up the bulk of the said ethnic population. Do you think that could help? -- Mathieugp 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to zzuuzz) Naturally, the colonization of America and other continents by the Europeans gave birth to new nations that are closely related to the original ones (by language, legal heritage, religious heritage and other). For example, the French and the Quebecers, speaking of their relation, popularly say that they are "cousins" (Nos cousins les Québécois, nos cousins les Français). -- Mathieugp 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can fix the infobox by replacing the figures of people who claim ancestry in the US, Canada etc by the figures of people who are native English speakers born in England in those countries? We would then be counting people who are very likely to be ethnic English. There are for sure stats on this. It just requires a little bit more math. :-) -- Mathieugp 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the infobox for French people has separate cells for "French citizens", "French speakers", "French ancestry claimed". Maybe something along those lines? -- Mathieugp 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think something like that would be an improvement, but with some changes. The most important thing is to distinguish those with English ancestry from those claiming English ethnicity. The citizen column for France is there because of their peculiar Republic philosophy - the English equivalent for England would be resident population, and for the rest of the world it would be emigrants or passport holders (however you can't call all the people in England - even those who were born there - English, and I would be surprised if there were emigrant statistics for those claiming English ethnicity or even previous English residency). The number of English speakers would not be useful for this article. I would prefer to see a solution which meant the footnotes went into a section in the article which could properly present and explain these crude numbers. The main problem we have is that the only statistic we have for people claiming to belong to the English ethnic group is for those in New Zealand. -- zzuuzz 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to distinguish between ancestry and ethnicity, likewise I agree that we should mention people with an English ancestry here, while making it clear that English ancestry is not equivalent to English ethnicity. I removed the numbers for significant population from the infobox for this very reason, but left them in the footnotes section. I do not like this infobox either, I think the problem is that it inherently violates WP:NPOV because only a single POV can be included, but maybe that's just my opinion. I like the "cousins" analogy, it seems more accurate. I am not a big fan of the "related ethnic groups" section in the infobox because it generated such heated debate between "germanists" and "celticists", no one could decide just exactly which groups are really "related", nor indeed could anyone decide just what a "related ethnic group" is, I searched in vain for some sort of definition of this vague concept, and without a proper definition how can we properly decide what constitute "related groups". I personally feel that wikipedia needs some general standards for this sort of thing, that are applicable for all articles related to ethnicity, so that we can all have an agreed upon standard definition of what ethnicity means for Misplaced Pages. With such a standard it should become easier to decide if two populatons form a single ethnic group, or whether they form related ethnic groups, or whether they simply have a common descent with divergent social/cultural norms. I's also like to point out that places like Australia and New Zealand (and to a certain extent British South Africans) are not really equivalent to places like Canada and the United States of America when it comes to sharing social and cultural norms with British ethnic groups. English people (and British people generally) are much closer ethnically to New Zealanders and Australians than they are to North Americans. Many English people will recognise the closeness of the bond with our antipodean brethren, and also recognise that such a bond does not exist, or is much more dilute with any North American groups, though it's probably true that most British people feel closer to Canadians than they do to people from the USA, again it's because Canadian society is so much like our own, even if Canadian culture is more like that of the USA. So I think that it is more reasonable to accept claims of English ethnic identity from places like Australia and New Zealand than from places like the USA, but agan this is just my opinion. Alun 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To the joy of many

I'm fucking off from wikipedia. I'm pissed off with the love of fascism by admins and the hatred of knowledge. This proves that these "admins" are not interested in "neutrality". If you want proof see that User:LSLM (good not racist bloke) has been blocked but Lulean/Thukas (this guy who knows so much about British "Nordic" humour that he doesn't even know what a Spoonerism is, how clueless is that? (apparently cluless is not a personal attack because Thulanlukamy says it's not). What am amazingly clueless ] moron. Oh, is this an attack, I wonder who it's against, maybe it's Bill Parcells, he used to be the Giants head coach you know,,,,,maybe. Nah it can't be against him, he's too inteligent.... I wonder whooooo..... Alun 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)against,,,,,,, Alun 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles