This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeCausa (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 28 July 2011 (→Edits by User:Deano545: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:56, 28 July 2011 by DeCausa (talk | contribs) (→Edits by User:Deano545: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | England C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Ethnic groups C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| 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. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Population
Why are figures of the English population in places like South Africa listed in the info box as the count up to roughly 2 000 000 people, which is more than places like NZ which are listed--Scottykira (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- What?--Kurtle (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Reference for resurgence of English identity
I'm not convinced that the BBC reference provided is the best source for a claim about a resurgence in English identity. I replaced it with an academic reference, though it has now been added again. While I welcome additional references (particularly since one has to have access to the journal in order to read the source I added), I'm not sure that the claims of an SNP politician are the best source for a statement of fact about the rise of English national identity. There are all sorts of reasons why he might have said such a thing, including to promote the idea that the UK should be broken up, and I don't think we can consider him an NPOV source. What would be better would be actual survey data on English identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening "now". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the age of the reference is a problem, since it is being used in support of a claim about the rise in national identity in the late 1990s. Perhaps that needs to be reworded to "since the late 1990s", though, because I think that's what it intended. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking for better sources, perhaps this is worth using? It notes that "Most of the decline in British identity is taking place in England, where once again less than half of the population now says that 'British' is the best or only way to describe their identity. Fifteen years ago, fully 63% of people living in England went for the British identity options. Today the figure is down to 48%. The proportion who opt more naturally for an English identity is commensurately on the rise". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the most recent British Social Attitudes survey is here, although it specifically refers only to attitudes in England and Scotland towards devolution and Scottish independence. It says: "Support for the idea of an English Parliament has increased from 17% in 2007 to 29% now. The proportion who think England should continue to be governed by the UK Parliament has now fallen below half (49%) for the first time, and is well down on the 69% who were of that view in 1999." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion - I've made use of that source and some others to expand and hopefully improve this section of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've tweaked it - including the heading, as the opening paragraph of the section questions whether there is a "resurgence". What should we say about the conflicting evidence of the two 2007 surveys - one giving 61% support for an English Parliament, the other one only 17%? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the article, Kumar notes that support varies according to the way the question is framed. Perhaps the 61 per cent poll simply asked whether people wanted a parliament or not, whereas the 17 per cent one presented them with a range of options and most people went from something short of an English parliament? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've now replaced the source for the Newsnight poll with the original BBC article, and it did simply pose people with a yes/no/undecided choice, whereas I imagine that the BSA question was more nuanced. The BSA question also forms part of a much larger survey, in which people are perhaps more considered in their views than they would be in a poll solely on an English parliament. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the text needs a (non-OR) explanation of the range - reading it, the text goes from 16-19%, to 61%, to 17% (rising to 29%), referring to different sources - which is certainly confusing. Should there be a sentence stating simply: "Recent surveys of English identity have given widely varying conclusions" - or similar. The 61% figure stands out as odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully this edit makes things a bit clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Spot on. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully this edit makes things a bit clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the text needs a (non-OR) explanation of the range - reading it, the text goes from 16-19%, to 61%, to 17% (rising to 29%), referring to different sources - which is certainly confusing. Should there be a sentence stating simply: "Recent surveys of English identity have given widely varying conclusions" - or similar. The 61% figure stands out as odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've now replaced the source for the Newsnight poll with the original BBC article, and it did simply pose people with a yes/no/undecided choice, whereas I imagine that the BSA question was more nuanced. The BSA question also forms part of a much larger survey, in which people are perhaps more considered in their views than they would be in a poll solely on an English parliament. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the article, Kumar notes that support varies according to the way the question is framed. Perhaps the 61 per cent poll simply asked whether people wanted a parliament or not, whereas the 17 per cent one presented them with a range of options and most people went from something short of an English parliament? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the most recent British Social Attitudes survey is here, although it specifically refers only to attitudes in England and Scotland towards devolution and Scottish independence. It says: "Support for the idea of an English Parliament has increased from 17% in 2007 to 29% now. The proportion who think England should continue to be governed by the UK Parliament has now fallen below half (49%) for the first time, and is well down on the 69% who were of that view in 1999." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
CL you asked for a citaion at 21:36 on 8 February 2011, I supplied one at 22:21. I am not sure why you asked for a citation because you could have used the footnote 16 but I assumed that you wanted some other person than Krishan Kumar who is already cited for that information in another section. Yet when you replaced my citation you chose to use yet another citation by KK. It seems to me that it does not hurt the article to have another sources as well as KK making the assertion, which is plain to see from the change of usage of flags by English supporters of English national teams during the 1990s. While I agree with what you have said about statistical data there is no reason why opinion pieces from reliable sources should not be used as well and a as I said in my comment when I re-added it "No need to delete one citation just to replace it with another. Political Scots are probably a good weathervane for English nationalism".
Ghmyrtle you wrote "I agree - and anyway the BBC ref is 9 years old and out of date - it can't be used as a reference for anything happening 'now'." Anything in the last 30 years is recent for a nation that has existed for well over 1,000 years. The change took place in the 1990s but that is still recent, and I do not think it should be changed to since the 1990s. The change started to happen after Maggy's victory in 1979 and the regional polarisation of MPs during the 1980s. The Scots couldn't stand her and that started to open up a divisions that exist to day.
The survey date is probably not the best to tackle this issue, a lot of it concerns specific situations, in the Commonwealth Games England is represented, but in the Olympics it is Britain as the questions during those events and the answer would probably be different. Take the example of Andy Murry in tennis, the talk is always about 75 years since the last British (no talk about the last Scotsman). Of course the London media is very good at claiming English when it an English man or Woman and saying Briton when the person is from the Celtic fringe.
As for support for an English Parliament. The current Westminster parliament is the English parliament, because it has carried through all the privileges and traditions of the English parliament (and not those of the others). The pantomime of Black Rod at the opening of a parliament being one of the more flamboyant ones. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the Kumar book attributes a rise in English identity to devolution, so I didn't want to use that as a source. I haven't replaced it with another Kumar article, but with an article from the Economist. I'm somewhat confused by your recent edit because your new wording suggests that the rise having been caused by devolution is a fact, whereas the material later on makes it clear that not everyone agrees that this is the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I've checked the footnote you suggested above and it is a reference to a book called The Rise of English National Identity, published by Cambridge University Press in 1997. I can't for the life of me find any record of this book existing. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for my inaccurate edit summary - I hadn't realised PBS had commented here. Anyway, I've reverted his changes - I can't see any way in which they are more encyclopedic, helpful or accurate than Cordless Larry's version earlier, which I support. Statements from 9 years ago are just that - in discussing the current position and recent developments, they are of historic interest only. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, regarding this edit, I wonder if the phrase "non-English MPs" is potentially confusing. It's not the identity of the MP but the constituency they represent that matters, and an English MP and an MP representing an English-constituency are slightly different things. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree - done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Another issue is with the sentence "A rise in English self-consciousness has resulted, with increased use of the English flag". What is the article saying this is a result of? The West Lothian question, or the actions of the Campaign for an English Parliament, or something else? A change of wording needs to clear this up. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - the sentence cites Kumar, so what he said needs to be identified more clearly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that the reference is to the apparently non-existent Kumar book. I presume that it should be to his The Making of English National Identity (CUP, 2003) but, not having a copy, it's hard to verify exactly what he says. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Statements from 9 years ago are relevant for things that append in the 1990s. I wonder how you think that anything that happened 10 years ago is not current on a history that stretches over 1,000 years. Ghmyrtle I was going to revert your revert because I had made some other changes in separated edits to which you had not commented, but I see that CL has already done so.
- I reverted the start of the section to that which was there yesterday I am more than willing to discuss alternative wording (although devolved powers just the most obvious manifestation of nationalism in the other parts of Great Britain (Ireland is somewhat different) that the English have been reacting to. As I explained in the edit history "some commentators" implies most do not agree yet no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited.
- As to the link to the footnote I gave it was an assumption of good faith to a footnote on the same issue not because I have checked it recently. However a little browsing turned up this and a little create use of search facility for "Jeremy Paxman" and other terms allows the pages in the book to be read, so it was a simple dating mistake. I have now fixed that and reformatted all the other Kumar in-citations. -- PBS (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- PBS, regarding your point that "no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited", I've taken a look again at the sources and you're correct that they don't really deny that there has been a rising identification with Englishness (though the Condor et al. reference denies that there has been a decline in Britishness in England). What I have more of a problem with, though, is the material introduced in your edit that attributes this to devolution ("spurred by devolution in the 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales"). This is something that several of the sources dispute. Can I therefore suggest that we go for a first sentence of "The late 1990s saw a resurgence of English national identity". This can be supported by the Kumar book and the Economist article. We then have a sentence about the survey data, and then the third sentence can read "Some commentators have attributed this to the devolution in the late 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, although others question whether devolution has in fact led to a rise in English national identity and argue that survey data fails to portray the complex nature of national identities, with many people considering themselves both English and British". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above I am not wedded to the previous wording but when changing something just added, that one thinks is incorrect, it is better to revert to the original than to put in yet a third set of words. So I did not introduce anything I reverted to the previous wording that I happen to think is better than the current wording. The point is that devolution is a manifestation of rising nationalism in the other parts of the UK and the rising of nationalism in England is a reaction to that. The reassertion of English nationalism is reactive not proactive, and the best indication of the rise in Englishness is the rise in the use of the Cross of Saint George which up until the 1990s had been relegated to use on some Anglican Churches depending on which was their patron saint. Now the Cross of Saint George flies everywhere when an English national team is playing football, a generation ago (1966 world cup) it was the union flag. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so what do you think about my suggested wording above? I think we can expand upon the flags point at the same time as clarifying the Kumar claim about this (see below). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That last point should have read "(see above)", obviously. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above I am not wedded to the previous wording but when changing something just added, that one thinks is incorrect, it is better to revert to the original than to put in yet a third set of words. So I did not introduce anything I reverted to the previous wording that I happen to think is better than the current wording. The point is that devolution is a manifestation of rising nationalism in the other parts of the UK and the rising of nationalism in England is a reaction to that. The reassertion of English nationalism is reactive not proactive, and the best indication of the rise in Englishness is the rise in the use of the Cross of Saint George which up until the 1990s had been relegated to use on some Anglican Churches depending on which was their patron saint. Now the Cross of Saint George flies everywhere when an English national team is playing football, a generation ago (1966 world cup) it was the union flag. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- PBS, regarding your point that "no commentators who disagree with the resurgence have been cited", I've taken a look again at the sources and you're correct that they don't really deny that there has been a rising identification with Englishness (though the Condor et al. reference denies that there has been a decline in Britishness in England). What I have more of a problem with, though, is the material introduced in your edit that attributes this to devolution ("spurred by devolution in the 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales"). This is something that several of the sources dispute. Can I therefore suggest that we go for a first sentence of "The late 1990s saw a resurgence of English national identity". This can be supported by the Kumar book and the Economist article. We then have a sentence about the survey data, and then the third sentence can read "Some commentators have attributed this to the devolution in the late 1990s of some powers to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, although others question whether devolution has in fact led to a rise in English national identity and argue that survey data fails to portray the complex nature of national identities, with many people considering themselves both English and British". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As to the link to the footnote I gave it was an assumption of good faith to a footnote on the same issue not because I have checked it recently. However a little browsing turned up this and a little create use of search facility for "Jeremy Paxman" and other terms allows the pages in the book to be read, so it was a simple dating mistake. I have now fixed that and reformatted all the other Kumar in-citations. -- PBS (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Which sources dispute that rise in English nationalism was a reaction to the rise in nationalism in Scotland and Wales of which devolution is the most concrete example? With an unsophisticated general Google search it is easy to find papers that support that interpretation Here are some political sources that says it was.(page 10)
Here is a paper taken from a search of ac.uk: Sheila Watson (lecturer in the Department of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester): ‘England expects’: Nelson as a symbol of local and national identity
However, research in the Norfolk Nelson Museum suggests that a debate is taking place at a local level about what it means to be English and museums are one of the public places where symbols of English national identity are being re-examined and re-interpreted. ... Thus English identity rooted in a white past could be seen as being constructed in opposition to ethnic minority identity in a multicultural present. However, this is too simple an interpretation. Within the museum devolution was also cited as a reason for an increased English self awareness along with a grievance that the English are not allowed to take pride in history if it means offending another country (here the French).
— pages 144,145 (last and first paragraphs)
The paper makes a number of other points including:
This
general conflation of Britain and England which is common everywhere in England is well
documented (for example, Kumar 2003: 234, Colls 2002: 377)
— page 141
A search on "The English Question" also throws up a lot of papers. this one gives an overview. As include the "West Lothian Question" perhaps we could tease out the rise of English Nationalism and separate out the constitutional question with a paragraph on "The English Question".
--PBS (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Condor et al. paper suggests that the rise in English identity at the expense of British identity that was expected as a result of devolution has not materialised. The Kenny et al. paper also dates the rise in identification with Englishness to before devolution. I agree that most commentators put it down to devolution, but that point is that not all do. We need a wording that conveys that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also this on the trend predating devolution. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The implementation of devolution took place under the last labour government but that was not when the question was first raised at a national level for example the discussions that bought about the West Lothian Question happened back in November 1977. Devolution has been an issue since the 1970s. AFAICT was not until then that that the inhabitants of Great Britain (or at least England) had given any thought to whether there was a distinction worth thinking about for well over a hundred years. Also I think that for many people in England the question of Britishness or Englishness--my on-line spelling checker has "Britishness" but not "Englishness"!--is to a degree irrelevant, as the two are closely linked. For a Scotsman (or woman) to be asked this question has implications of independence. But practically and legally England would be the successor state to Britain if ever it were to be a breakup, (inhabitance of countries like France and Germany would not even have to change the common name they use for the UK!) so the distinction is to a large degree academic, which is why most English people have to think about it and probably do not give answer to the question the gravity other members of the union would. -- PBS (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
English/Welsh
From the article: "Another complication in defining the English is a common tendency for the words "English" and "British" to be used interchangeably. In his study of English identity, Krishan Kumar describes a common slip of the tongue in which people say "English, I mean British". He notes that this slip is normally made only by the English themselves and by foreigners: "Non-English members of the United Kingdom rarely say 'British' when they mean 'English'"." There is a passage in Kingsley Amis's memoirs which would, rightly, extend this to cover the South Welsh (talking about the 1950s), also using the terms interchangeably. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, you're saying that Kingsley Amis argues that "British" and "English" are often elided in south Wales? That's interesting but I'm not sure whether a memoir is the best source for this, considering that the existing source is a proper academic study. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. He of of course was an academic, & did have the advantage of living there for several years. I wonder how big Kumar's sample size was, and so on? In areas like this, one should not rely wholly on individual papers. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but my point is that the Kumar quote is based on academic research (I'm not aware of his methods, so I don't know whether there is a "sample size" to speak of), whereas from what you've said the Amis comments are just a passing reference in a memoir. It would be good to see the source before commenting further, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that attitudes have changed in Wales a lot over the last 60 or so years - there is almost certainly a much higher awareness of Welsh identity now, for a whole range of reasons. (I live in S Wales, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- In countries such as Germany, the common term for British is English. However in England I would suggest that people frequently say British/Britain when they mean English/England. Such as "Cricket is the summer sport in Britain", this mistake happens because so many English people do not have a clear differentiation in their minds between England and Britain. Something which for generations from the act of Union in 1707 was strongly encouraged by successive British governments of all hews to suppress individual nationalism in the constituent nations. -- PBS (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. He of of course was an academic, & did have the advantage of living there for several years. I wonder how big Kumar's sample size was, and so on? In areas like this, one should not rely wholly on individual papers. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to believe that most would identify themselves as English (provided, of course, that they are actually English by ancestry). I identify myself as English, never British, but that may be affected by my expatriate status. JH49S (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is discussed at Britishness - also (to an extent) at English national identity, an article in need of considerable improvement. One relevant point is that many, many people in all parts of the UK have mixtures of English, Welsh, Scottish, etc., etc., ancestry, often within the last couple of generations. Some may identify with one or other nationality, others may feel that "British" approximates to covering all the angles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to believe that most would identify themselves as English (provided, of course, that they are actually English by ancestry). I identify myself as English, never British, but that may be affected by my expatriate status. JH49S (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The most common genetic fingerprint of British people actualy belongs to the Celtic clan and not Germanic tribes.
Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago.
A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.38.205 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 April 2011
- Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British Isles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Germanic
As with the German people article saying the germans are a germanic people so does the english people article ,it also gives more clarification and more useful informationGermanlight 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted your edit. firstly, it's dsiputed that the "English" are "Germanic" since there is a significant celtic element and also some experts believe that only a Germanic ruling elite came to england and the majority continued to be the pre-existing celts. secondly, the English now include large numbers of people who immigrated in the last century, particularly from the Carribean and the Indian sub-continent. (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As Ghmyrtle said : Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British IslesGermanlight 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The introduction needs to give a balanced picture, summarising the further explanation in the main text. The established text does that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As Ghmyrtle said : Sykes' theories are already mentioned in the section on English ethnicity. His views are contested - see Genetic history of the British IslesGermanlight 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No it doesnt , the truth itself is the most balancedGermanlight 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with Sykes' views. Read the article. "Germanic" is just an over-simplification. It is contradicted by the second paragraph of the lead (as well as the rest of the article). Don't edit war. You need consensus to change an article and you don't have it. And by the way, Misplaced Pages isn't about the "truth". DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Germanlight, who began this thread, has been indef blocked as a disruptive sock. DeCausa (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Non white English
Is it possible to be non-white and English? And if so should the photo reflect this. I mean, there are many mixed race people in England who have English heritage as well. 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexImperium (talk • contribs)
- Yes and yes, in my view. The last time the image was revised was 2009, I think, in this edit following this discussion, so it's probably overdue for a refresh. Anyone willing to take it on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some suggestions: Naomi Campbell (2nd photo in article) instead of Harold Godwinson (1 Anglo-Saxon King is enough) and Amir Khan (infobox photo) instead of Beckham (1 footballer is enough). DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...other suggestions: Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, of course it's possible to be non-white and English, perhaps about 8% of the population fall into that category, leaving 92% in the alternative category. I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to include such a person in the photos; positive discrimination, i.e. flat out discrimination, to make a point is not a good idea. Placing someone in a photo collection simply becuase of the colour of their skin is an appalling suggestion. Do we have an adquate representation of the various religious groups in the country, or any other discriminating feature you can think of - I don't think so, and nor should we. If a non-white English person is famous enough to be included at the expense of another then fine (I doubt there are any at the moment), but please don't make selections based on race. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- And in the article we have this: "However, these groups are often still considered to be ethnic minorities and research has shown that black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England.". So perhaps not in an event. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. I think the montage does in fact aim to be a "cross-section" of Englishness aka being representative. I think it's odd that it's 100% white. Not suggesting we should have 8% non-white, but to have no non-white faces is definitely ....strange. I accept what you're saying about religious representation etc but in a photo montage ethnicity is so clearly visible. A good swap would have been Beckham for Ian Wright since the latter is somewht notoriously passionate about "Eng-er-land", but unfortunately I couldn't see any available images. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's already a cross section, and it's not strange to have no non-whites, it's just the way it is. If Nelson Mandela was English then maybe he would be there, but I disagree with the sentiment that we should try and be "inclusive". Incidentally, I've never heard of one of the people shown, Damon Albarn, so I suggest he's swapped out with, I don't know, Churchill? The Roman Candle (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- "It's just the way it is" isn't really an explanation. You're saying that a non-white person has to be of the stature of Nelson Mandela to get in? But Daniel Craig, Kate Winslet or Beckham are ok??? Frankly, its a very odd position to take saying those individuals have to stay but eg Naomi Campbell or Mark Ramprakash don't match their stature. I'm not sure why you used the word "inclusive". It sounds that you rather have a pre-disposition to lable this as "political correctness gone mad..." etc. But that misses the point completely. The point of the montage is to give a representation of prominent English people. All white faces doesn't achieve that. Added to that is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing choices: I mentioned three of the debateable modern choices (hardly standing on the shoulders of giants) but some of the historical choices are equally questionable: Harold II, King for a year?? (Btw, I don't think whether you have happened not to have heard of one of the people is a valid criterion for swapping him out.) DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with DeCausa. The image should be based on representativeness of the article content, rather than the notability of specific individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say this is political correctness gone mad, but it's definitely political correctness, which I abhor in all its manifestations. However, there does seem to be a prevailing view that we should be more inclusive here, so I can work with that if needed. The question, then, is who to include. I think it needs to be someone who identifies as English (maybe difficult to ascertain) but more to the point has primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname. This would rule out the previous suggestions; Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I wondered about Lewis Hamilton and Diane Abbott, but the latter is only first generation British. Any other ideas? The Roman Candle (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- We need to take into account the availability of freely usable images. Recognisability to a global readership is also a factor. We should also take into account evidence of clear self-identification as English - for example, if sportspeople have represented England at some event, such as in an England team. Kelly Holmes, for example. I disagree with The Roman Candle's suggestion that anyone defined as English should have "primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname". As the article says, "Today, some English people ... are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth" - nothing there about surnames. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed completely. There's absolutely no basis for saying that to be "English" the individual has to have English "ancestry" (how many generations?) or an "English-sounding surname" (What is that anyway? Those with Afro-Carribean ancestry will often have "English surnames" because their enslaved ancestor was given their owner's surname.) I agree sportsmen who have played for England most easily tick the self-identification box, which is why I mentioned Mark Ramprakash. Kelly Holmes is a good one, and high profile. So is Lewis Hamilton. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think the major definition of "English" people is that they have English ancestry. There is much in the article about this. If that's not the case, then how do you define an English person? It certainly isn't someone who was born here. I suppose it has to relate strongly to English ethnicity. I haven't lloked at the equivalent Welsh and Scottish articles yet - is there any guidance to be had from them? The Roman Candle (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple definitions of "Englishness". One is your definition, based on (real or imagined) ethnic purity; most others are more inclusive. The article recognises the diversity of definition, and the image in the infobox should also reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I notice Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton are already included in the British people article montage. Thinking a bit more about this idea, it could be problematic. It's clearly a mild form of political correctness to incorproate non-white people here, and I can't think of any such person who would identify as English rather than British. There's no intrinsic problem with the current set of images, so I'm coming back to the view that it's best to leave well alone. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- As you appear to believe that many members of England national sporting teams should be disqualified on the basis of the colour of their skin, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)It's not problematic at all, and, quite frankly, your point of view is becoming somewhat disturbing and offensive. To think that anything but an all white photo montage is "political correctness" is an extreme position. Your unsupported personal opinion that these specific individuals don't self-identify as English (or that they have an insufficiently "English ancestry") is irrelevant. It's quite ludicrous to suggest that people such as Mark Ramprakash or Emile Heskey play for English teams but don't self-identify as English. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I notice Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton are already included in the British people article montage. Thinking a bit more about this idea, it could be problematic. It's clearly a mild form of political correctness to incorproate non-white people here, and I can't think of any such person who would identify as English rather than British. There's no intrinsic problem with the current set of images, so I'm coming back to the view that it's best to leave well alone. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple definitions of "Englishness". One is your definition, based on (real or imagined) ethnic purity; most others are more inclusive. The article recognises the diversity of definition, and the image in the infobox should also reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think the major definition of "English" people is that they have English ancestry. There is much in the article about this. If that's not the case, then how do you define an English person? It certainly isn't someone who was born here. I suppose it has to relate strongly to English ethnicity. I haven't lloked at the equivalent Welsh and Scottish articles yet - is there any guidance to be had from them? The Roman Candle (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed completely. There's absolutely no basis for saying that to be "English" the individual has to have English "ancestry" (how many generations?) or an "English-sounding surname" (What is that anyway? Those with Afro-Carribean ancestry will often have "English surnames" because their enslaved ancestor was given their owner's surname.) I agree sportsmen who have played for England most easily tick the self-identification box, which is why I mentioned Mark Ramprakash. Kelly Holmes is a good one, and high profile. So is Lewis Hamilton. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- We need to take into account the availability of freely usable images. Recognisability to a global readership is also a factor. We should also take into account evidence of clear self-identification as English - for example, if sportspeople have represented England at some event, such as in an England team. Kelly Holmes, for example. I disagree with The Roman Candle's suggestion that anyone defined as English should have "primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname". As the article says, "Today, some English people ... are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth" - nothing there about surnames. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say this is political correctness gone mad, but it's definitely political correctness, which I abhor in all its manifestations. However, there does seem to be a prevailing view that we should be more inclusive here, so I can work with that if needed. The question, then, is who to include. I think it needs to be someone who identifies as English (maybe difficult to ascertain) but more to the point has primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname. This would rule out the previous suggestions; Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I wondered about Lewis Hamilton and Diane Abbott, but the latter is only first generation British. Any other ideas? The Roman Candle (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with DeCausa. The image should be based on representativeness of the article content, rather than the notability of specific individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "It's just the way it is" isn't really an explanation. You're saying that a non-white person has to be of the stature of Nelson Mandela to get in? But Daniel Craig, Kate Winslet or Beckham are ok??? Frankly, its a very odd position to take saying those individuals have to stay but eg Naomi Campbell or Mark Ramprakash don't match their stature. I'm not sure why you used the word "inclusive". It sounds that you rather have a pre-disposition to lable this as "political correctness gone mad..." etc. But that misses the point completely. The point of the montage is to give a representation of prominent English people. All white faces doesn't achieve that. Added to that is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing choices: I mentioned three of the debateable modern choices (hardly standing on the shoulders of giants) but some of the historical choices are equally questionable: Harold II, King for a year?? (Btw, I don't think whether you have happened not to have heard of one of the people is a valid criterion for swapping him out.) DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's already a cross section, and it's not strange to have no non-whites, it's just the way it is. If Nelson Mandela was English then maybe he would be there, but I disagree with the sentiment that we should try and be "inclusive". Incidentally, I've never heard of one of the people shown, Damon Albarn, so I suggest he's swapped out with, I don't know, Churchill? The Roman Candle (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. I think the montage does in fact aim to be a "cross-section" of Englishness aka being representative. I think it's odd that it's 100% white. Not suggesting we should have 8% non-white, but to have no non-white faces is definitely ....strange. I accept what you're saying about religious representation etc but in a photo montage ethnicity is so clearly visible. A good swap would have been Beckham for Ian Wright since the latter is somewht notoriously passionate about "Eng-er-land", but unfortunately I couldn't see any available images. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh here we go. I didn't think it would be long. Please comment on the article and its content, not on the editors. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on the opinions you expressed not on you. That's entirely within the proper scope of this Talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hairsplitting. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the 100 Great Black Britons list, another strong contender for inclusion would be Daley Thompson - born in England, competed for England on numerous occasions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Daley Thompson's parents were Nigerian and Scottish, although he was born in England. A better example could surely be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that he competed for England, not Scotland or Nigeria - and that is good evidence of self-identification as English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. He's the best suggestion so far. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would say he's probably the worst suggestion so far. Neither of his parents were English, and his only claim is to have been born in the country, and you don't even have to be born in England to complete at international level in most sports anyway, so the fact that he competed for England is of no matter. He's not would you would descibe as being ethnically English. If we must indulge in mild politicalt correctness then a better example should be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- From the lead: Today, some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth. Daley Thompson is an excellent illustration of that sentence. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Recent forbears" is stretching it a bit to include parents. Don't get me wrong, if there's someone we can find that could be remotely described as "ethnically English" then go for it, but Daley Thompson just isn't a good example. Personally I don't think there's a need for this at all, but I'll go with the majority - and I'll try and think of a few more examples, preferably ones that don't already feature at British people or elsewhere. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why can't they also feature in British people? Otherwise, Margaret Thatcher and George Harrison will have to be deleted here. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- No real reason, I just thought it would give a better spread if we found other people not already featured, but if we can't then maybe we have to use one from British people. Just a minor point on Daley Thompson, he could very well consider himself more Scottish than English, so again I would suggest he's not a good choice. The Roman Candle (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If that were true, he would have represented Scotland, not England, at the Commonwealth Games. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I noted above, the country someone represents may well have no bearing at all on their ethnicity. With Nigerian and Scottish parents Thompson is not an ideal candidate here. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- In defining "English people", self-identification is at least as important as "ethnicity" and genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I noted above, the country someone represents may well have no bearing at all on their ethnicity. With Nigerian and Scottish parents Thompson is not an ideal candidate here. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If that were true, he would have represented Scotland, not England, at the Commonwealth Games. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- No real reason, I just thought it would give a better spread if we found other people not already featured, but if we can't then maybe we have to use one from British people. Just a minor point on Daley Thompson, he could very well consider himself more Scottish than English, so again I would suggest he's not a good choice. The Roman Candle (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why can't they also feature in British people? Otherwise, Margaret Thatcher and George Harrison will have to be deleted here. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Recent forbears" is stretching it a bit to include parents. Don't get me wrong, if there's someone we can find that could be remotely described as "ethnically English" then go for it, but Daley Thompson just isn't a good example. Personally I don't think there's a need for this at all, but I'll go with the majority - and I'll try and think of a few more examples, preferably ones that don't already feature at British people or elsewhere. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- From the lead: Today, some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth. Daley Thompson is an excellent illustration of that sentence. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would say he's probably the worst suggestion so far. Neither of his parents were English, and his only claim is to have been born in the country, and you don't even have to be born in England to complete at international level in most sports anyway, so the fact that he competed for England is of no matter. He's not would you would descibe as being ethnically English. If we must indulge in mild politicalt correctness then a better example should be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. He's the best suggestion so far. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that he competed for England, not Scotland or Nigeria - and that is good evidence of self-identification as English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Daley Thompson's parents were Nigerian and Scottish, although he was born in England. A better example could surely be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the 100 Great Black Britons list, another strong contender for inclusion would be Daley Thompson - born in England, competed for England on numerous occasions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hairsplitting. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No English is an ethnicity someone who has either Anglo-Saxon, Jute, Norse, Dane, Viking, Norman, basically Germanic heritage makes someone English, just because someone is born in England it doesn't mean their Ethnically English all of a sudden it takes at least a thousand years to make an ethnicity luckily the people that migrated to England as listed above are all from a common ethnic background anyway so English became an ethnicity as soon as Alfred the Great united the kingdoms together.86.144.115.174 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- So the only English people are those from the anglo-saxon kingdoms under the cake burner? Its going to be a very small group --Snowded 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are there any further ideas on who could used in the montage? The Roman Candle (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
english are not an ethic group
In England, you've got the Anglo-Saxons, Frisians, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Picts, Irish, Britons, and Romans. How is this much different from France where you had the Gallo-Romans mixed with Franks, Normans, Burgundians, Iberians, Basques? In both cases you have a Celtic-Roman base conquered by Germanic tribes. Wiki claims that English ethnicity exists, yet French doesn't. When did French ethnicity become politically incorrect? Was it during the Revolution, the Empires, or one of the Republics? and if you look at the thread above black or asian people can be a part of the englishmen which means that bantu people from south africa and the chinese, please look for more information in the french people talk page Volykr yilevas (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the misapprehension that a term like "ethnic group" refers solely or primarily to genetic history. It doesn't - according to our article it refers to "a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." This article's lead also says that "some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth." I don't believe that the current wording of the opening sentence is perfect, but I do think it is preferable to your wording (which in any case was ungrammatical). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Edits by User:Deano545
Please discuss here and don't edit war. "Germanic" is over-simplification. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories: