Talk:English people/Suggestion regarding related ethnic groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Suggestion regarding related ethnic groups

I have been thinking about how to resolve the related ethnic groups section in the infobox. I was wondering what people think about something like this:

British Isles

Scottish

Welsh

Irish

Manx

Cornish

Mainland Europe

Bretons

Frisians

Dutch

Danes

French(Franks/Normans)

This is not meant to be a complete list or anything other than a suggestion for a format. It is a starting point for discussion on how to include ethnic groups, and which ones to include. I tend to agree with Enzedbrit that the Teutonic or Germanic component is represented by the inclusion of Frisians, Dutch and Danes, the addition of German people is not necessary and less accurate than those already included, but this is about consensus and I'm prepared to be flexible. Alun 06:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems okay - except, aren't the Cornish English? TharkunColl 11:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems open to debate, Cornish are there because they were there anyway, I didn't add them. Alun 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are a nation who believe themselves to be a nation (which is surely the bottom line when it comes to ethnicity). The English see Cornwall as part of England, as indeed do the overwhelming majority of the Cornish. Those who advocate a separate national identity are an infintesimal minority of the Cornish population. Such movements, equally tiny, exist in other parts of England too. For example, there is something called the Mercia Movement. Do we give their claims any credence? TharkunColl 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no position on this whatsoever. Cornish is only there because it is there in the related ethnic groups already, I did not add it, I only coppied the ethnic groups that were already there over to here. If you want to remove Cornish then you will get no argument from me, likewise if it remains. I did add French as it seems to me that French should be there, I added Franks and Normans in parentheses to illustrate why I think they should be included. Alun 17:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Cornish people article, I am merely pointiong this out, I am ambivalent about this subject. Alun 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The only legitimate claim to the Cornish being a separate ethnic group is the Cornish language. There is a Cornish identity but as already stated there are many pseudo-national identities within England and Britain. I think that the next most visible sign of such a movement in England would be that of Northumbria where many people see themselves as Northumbrians before English and align themselves more to Scotland than the south. Regardless of how we may or may not like it, there has been a successful push by some in Cornwall to give Cornish identity more distinction. If other groups in England or Scotland & Wales too (such as Orkney and Shetland Islanders) are thus successful then those other identities should be given the same standing as Cornish identity.

Wobble, I like the new proposal but if implemented it should naturally be applied to all British ethnic groups. My main concern is that I don't think it's all too necessary and also gives weight to the implication that the English might be just as distinct from the Welsh and Scottish as they are from Bretons, Dutch or Danes, and that isn't true. Enzedbrit 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well let's remove the Cornish then, no no has yet argued in favour of keeping them. I take your point about the English being seen as different from the Welsh/Scots as from Dutch/Danes/Bretons. The only reason for categorising the related groups was because on the Welsh and Irish people pages some people have been putting this sort of classification for related ethnic groups:

Celtic

Scottish

Breton

Cornish

Irish

etc.

Germanic

English.

This is obviously an absurd way to classify ethnicity. Firstly it implies that Celtic and Germanic are some sort of supra ethnic grouping, but they are not, they are linguistic classifications. Secondly it implies that there is some sort of hierarchical classification for ethnicity, like there is in linguistics or biological species, I don't think ethnicity can be classified like this. So I was just thinking of a different way of structuring the groups. If it gives the impression that all the groups are equally distinct then we can drop the main headings of British Isles and Mainland Europe. Maybe we should just list them alphabetically? This is a far more constructive debate than what has preceded by the way, at least we are discussing what to include and what to omit from the article. Alun 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How about listing them in order of similarity to the English? It would be very easy to work up some sort of list as:

British Isles

• (Cornish)
• Welsh
• Scots
• Irish
• Manx

Europe

• Bretons
• Dutch
• Frisians
• Danes
• French

That's about right, isn't it?TharkunColl 08:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, let's see what the consensus is. Alun 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French included as related ?

French people has again been added to the related ethnic groups section. Please do not remove it without an explanation on the talk page. You cannot leave out French people because it might be offensive, since the Norman invasion French culture and language have had a profound effect on English ethnicity and identity, if someone finds it offensive then I would suggest it says more about them than anything else. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about what ethnic groups to include or exclude, please join the discussion so we can get consensus before making unilateral decisions to remove an ethnic group. I see Cornish has been added, but there was a consensus on the talk page to remove it. One of the problems with this article is that the talk page is not being used properly. Talk pages are for discussing what to include and what not to include in the article, instead the talk page seems to be devoted to disagreements over definitions and various theries, while there seems to be a general free for all on the article page. This is what leads these petty edit wars. Alun 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Alun ,as you know I have been very busy with school although it is almost over (only two more exams to go) amongst other matters. Whatever time I do have on here has been mainly focused on a few others which are more important right now. Lol, I only meant that as a joke since my dad's family is English and obviously there is a long period of rivalry between French and English peoples. I do have to say that from what I did read on the talk page, there was no consensus whatsoever on not including Cornish people and I will argue why it deserves to be included at a later time. The Norman invasion of 1066 to me doesntm erit French inclusion, the Normans were in no way representative of either the wider French culture and ethnicity at that time or of it now. Most of the influences they brought into England were in widespread contintenal usage (e.g. feudalism) and the only really French impact they had was on certain parts of the language. In ethnic terms, I think it should be remembered that the Normans were themselves Vikings and Viking descendants who adapted aspects of northern French culture, language and surnames while on their fairly brief continental sojourn in Normandy. Epf 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Normans were Franco-Norsemen in much the same way that in the Danelaw there were Anglo-Danes. Related ethnic groups are not the same as derivative ethnic groups, and the number of Normans introduced into the country is irrlevant, we are not talking about race. It also doesn't matter that they were the descendants of Vikings (and incidentally native Normans as well), as you point out they adapted aspects of northern French culture, language and surnames, but this is at the heart of ethnicity, they adopted a French ethnicity. If you read the Ethnic group article you will note that ethnic groups can be of recent creation, they do not have to be ancient and they do not have to be racial, though there may be a perception of both, the perception may be false. I don't understand what you mean by their fairly brief continental sojourn in Normandy, the Kings of England remained Dukes of Normandy untill 1204 and claimed Normandy untill 1259. The whole English aristocracy was replaced by foreigners who spoke French, and the language of the court of England remained French for several centuries after the conquest. The Norman usurpation had a profound and dramatic effect on England and the English, the whole social structure was changed and England fought numerous wars with the French king because of the association of the English King with Normandy, most notably the Hundred Years' War. The Queen still uses Norman French language when she gives Royal Assent to parliamentary Bills. We have Dukes, Counts, Viscounts and Barons because of the Normans. One only has to look at the list of King's names to see that these changed dramatically after 1066, there are primarily French names after this time, whereas there were Old English names before this time. This is also reflected in names in society at large, John for example is a common name in England, but this is derived from the French Jean, but how many Egberts are there? Likewise numbering of Kings starts affresh after 1066, and no (or very little) Anglo-Saxon history is taught in British schools, we go straight from the Roman Empire to 1066 with no real mention of the intervening time. I would suggest that this is the most important and profound event in English recorded history and culture, the English were suddenly being ruled by a French speaking foreigh nobility, and their whole orientation for the next 400 years or so would be towards France. And of course there is the not insignificant fact that English Kings also held other parts of France many were Counts of Angou for example. Of course there is also the small matter of the Frankish people being ethnically related to the Anglo-Saxons as well. I really think you want to remove the French because you personally don't like them being there rather than for any other reason. I am going to copy this discussion to the English people talk page so it is available to others. Please ad any additional comments there. Alun 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun ,again this is me you are talking to, I know my English medieval history and you do not have to re-iterate it here (trying to spare you some time in future discussions). The Normans adapted aspects of French culture and language but that is not solely ethnicity and the Normans were always considered separate and distinct from the rest of the peoples of France and the French aristocracy (they were vassals to the French crown until the incorporaton of the English monarchy). They retained several aspects of thir Scandinavian roots and incorporated these influences as well to create the Norman language which was fairly distinct from Parisian French then and still today remains to be a different dialect. One of the main factors, and in most cases the most dinstinguishing factorin ethnicity, is descent/common genealogy and this is something the Normans also did not share mostly with the peoples of France as again, they were largely of Viking origins. What I meant by brief continental sojourn is that the Normans had only settled in Normandy (as well as every where else they went) in relatively few numbers and were there for a short period of time before they went on to conquer other lands such as England and Sicily. The Normans themselves only constituted of the upper-most classes wherever they went, and even when they conquered England, the Anglo-Norman form of French was seen as distinct from that spoken by the court of the French monarchs in Paris. I do not deny that they did not have a massive effect on England, but in ethnic/descent terms they did not have a significant impact and in terms of culture, they did not introduce anything into England or English ethnicity/identity which can be considered distinctly French. The only uniquely French influence was on the language but the amount of loanwords and other linguistic influence can be compared to the level of Frankish Germanic influence on the French language. Linguists also often debate that many English words which are often attributed to Norman-French origins, could easily as be attributed to Latin influence from the Church both prior to and after the Norman conquest. In terms of ethnicity/descent, culture and identity, I as well as I have to admit most historians and anthropologists, do not consider the English in any way related to the French people or culture on the same scale as with other groups, and especially when one considers the fact that the Normans themselves assimilated into the cultures wherever they went, including England, where they became (Anglo-Normans). They were long known to be aristocrats and warriors who were always adaptive of the culture of the lands in which they gained/conquered and the "Norman" influences on English culture and identity were not distinctly French in any shape or form. As regards to the Franks, they were somewhat culturally related to the Franks in the sense they were both Germanic but it is believed by most historians that one of the largest reasons for the Anglo-Saxon migration was pressure from the Frankish and other tribes of the Holy Roman Empire moving into their homelands near the Frisian cost and southern Jutland. It is widely agreed that the Anglo-Saxons/Frisians were separate Germanic peoples from those of the rest of Germany (and the Frisians continue to be so to this day). The Franks did have an influence on France in forming its aristocracy and monarchy as well as having an impact on the Gallo-Romance languages there, however, I do not see how this results in the English being significantly related to the French as it isn't really accepted that Frankish tribes took part in the Anglo-Saxon migrations (again largely due to the fact it is believed they were part of its cause in the first place). To end on a different note, I have no problems whatsoever with French and in fact I am insulted by that since many of my friends are French-Canadian, I myself am bilingual and I live in a country where French culture is very important to the national identity. I'm sorry to say I wouldn't expect such a comment like this from you Alun. Cheers, Epf 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should include French for the same reason that we shouldn't include Germans. Whereas the Normans would've been descended from Vikings as the English are from Anglo-Saxons with the rest of their heritage being native to that part of France, it still represents historically a small part of our genetic make-up and the modern French are a collection of tribes from areas far further reaching than Normandy. The immigration to Britain in the centuries since from France surely can't have aligned us too much with that ethnicity. It is a tricky one, as the Norman people today don't identify (at least popularly) as a separate people, but I feel that the link with France and the French remains quite broad. Enzedbrit 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think ther are two problems with Epf's analysis. Firstly his argument seems to be that French people and English people are of differing ethnicities, but that is not the debate, no one is claiming that they are the same ethnic group, so your points are generally redundant, they do not have to be closely related to be related ethnic groups. Secondly he has redefined ethnicity, so that now he is really talking about race: One of the main factors, and in most cases the most dinstinguishing factor in ethnicity, is descent/common genealogy. This is in direct contradiction to the definition in the Ethnic group article, which goes thus:

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). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. (The emphasis is mine).

I think the relevant word here is presumed it does not have to be actual. These other two points from the Ethnic group article are also relevant here:

Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993). On the political front, an ethnic group is distinguished from a nation-state by the former's lack of sovereignty. (again the emphasis is mine).

While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification of Homo sapiens according to chosen genotypic and/or phenotypic traits. (Emphasis is mine yet again).

I am beginning to think that the idea of a related ethnic group is a fallacy, I wonder if ethnic groups can be related. Maybe the best thing to do would be to simply state thet the English ethnic group is related to all European ethnic groups. Alun 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree! This IS a fallacy. I would strongly support the removal of 'related ethnic groups' as a category on ethnic groups. Enzedbrit 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you were to say that the English were related to all other European ethnic groups, you could again in a similar sense say that they are related to all human ethnic groups, which again, they (as any group) are. So, I think you have indeed shown here that "related ethnic groups" is in fact for groups which are significantly related to the group ethnically or culturally, cause otherwise we could simply add every ethnic group in human history under this topic. Also, I have not redefined ethnicity to refer to it as "race" and I'd appreciate if you would stop claiming as such as I nowhere make such claims. All I merely am acknowledging is that ethnic groups are "usually based on a presumed common genealogy/descent" which most of the time is actual and "presumed" does not mean that this is not so. With this pointed out, I only stated before that this common descent and relative endogamy of the population, "which is measurable in terms of characteristic average genetic frequencies" reveals itself in phenotypic/gentoypic traits which differ between some ethnic groups/populations more so than others. I agree that the differences "do not approach the magnitude of racial difference" in the sense they are not as strictly defined or noticeable as that between Caucasians, Asians, Africans, etc. or any other "sub-groupings" of so-called "race". Anyways, I do not mind having French there, but again it needs to be pointed out they are far less related to the English in ethnic terms than the other groups listed there along with them. Have a good one, Epf 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which part of this do you not understand?
  

• historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention
  

• You are redefining it because you are claiming something the deffinition doesn't state. You do not appear to understand the meaning of the word presumed. Presumed does not mean actual and to claim that it does is just ridiculous, I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. You cannot redefine ethnicity just because it does not fit in with your racial ideas.
  
• As for this: is in fact for groups which are significantly related to the group ethnically or culturally. How do you propose to measure significant relatedness? I am under the impression that significant relatedness by your deffinition is just your opinion of which groups are significantly related. By the way I don't really know what you mean by significantly related, it doesn't mean anything unless you can define it and measure it objectively and quantifiably, one would have to disect the differing components of ethnicity and compare them in different ethnic groups. Having done this one might be able to produce some sort of table or chart of the relative relatedness of different ethnicities, then you might be able to define close relatedness in ethnicity as say sharing a certain percentage of similarities. Otherwise all we are talking about is your opinion of what constitute closely related (I assume you mean closely related when you say significantly related) groups to the Engish ethnic group. Unless this has actually been done before and is therefore verifiable, it is too close to original research for my liking, and this is not allowed in wikipedia. We should concentrate on using verifiable sources. I remind you that the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, so unless we can produce reliable sources that list what ethnic groups are related to the English then I think that the list remains unverified and as such subject to removal. Alun 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously by "significantly related", I am speaking in terms of groups which are the most closely related to the English in genetic/ancestral and cultural terms. Also, I do not believe you quite understand the ethnic group definition either. I think you need to realize that nowhere is it implied that presumed genealogy automatically means that it is not or can not be actual, and if you would read the text from which that quote is taken from, you would understand this. In most cases, common descent/kinship is one of the major (if not the most) defining factors of an ethnic group. Again Alun, I need to point out here that I really do not enjoy your consistent and false accusations that I'm trying to redefine ethnicity along so-called "racial" (as in phenotypic traits) lines as I have nowhere attempted to do so. Also, I find it funny that you go on to claim I am defining what is "closely related" along mine or others opinions when in the same token, that is what you are doing by including French or any other group under this topic of related ethnic groups. Where is your sources and verification for this ? Exactly. So please, enough of making me some prime target for your consistent accusations of not following Wikipedia policies just because you have some unresolved (and unknown to me) issues with myself. If you wish to speak of such matters Alun, by all means use my talk page. Finally, you should not rely too much on information from the ethnic group article, including this quote you used in your discourse above: "historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention." This statement may be seen to contradict the definition from the Smith text at the opening of the article which states that ethnicity is usually based on presumed descent/genealogy. You also need to realize that although culture is a main factor in defining ethnicity, the statement you quoted is not saying that ethnicity itself is solely (or mainly) based on cultural practices (in fact, those sources themselves acknowledge the most common distinguishing factor of kinship/descent). As for the statement on "recent" invention, this is highly controversial in anthropology and is heavily supported by those with a strong assimilationist POV or emphasis on structural anthropology such as Claude Lévi-Strauss (again, even he recognizes how kinship/descent is the main defining factor of ethnicity in most cases). Many (if not most) anthropologists debate such claims of "recent" invention based on the fact that so many (and in some cases most defining) aspects of culture date back several centuries. It is quite debated which aspects of culture are of "recent invention" but it is important to take into consideration that many of the more numerous "recent" (according to some academics anyway) cultural developments are intertwined with the rapid technological advancement and industrialization of (especially Western) peoples and nations over such short period of time (within the past 200-300 years). Epf 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As for my opinion on the inclusion of French, I've already in my previous discussions stated why I do no think they should be included on the same level of ancestral and/or cultural affinity as the other groups related to the English.Epf 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• you need to realize that nowhere is it implied that presumed genealogy automatically means that it is not or can not be actual I have not made this claim, and I do not understand why you seem to think I have. I have merely stated that people with the same ethnicity do not have to be of the same race ( which is kinship/descent), conversely people who are of the same race (kinship/descent) can be ethnically different. Alun 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• As for sources, you are quite right, we need to verify all these so called related ethnic groups. that is what you are doing by including French or any other group under this topic of related ethnic groups, I suggested that French be included as a related ethnic group here on the talk page in order to open the subject up to discussion. Now we are trying to get consensus, I rarely make changes to articles unless there is some support on the talk page, as TharkunColl agreed with my suggestion above, and no one disagreed with it, it was included. You came to the discussion later. After this I have started to think more about how to verify these so called related ethnic groups, and have come to the concluson that unless we can get a proper verifyable deffinition (that is a deffinition by an accademic in a textbook or such like) for a related ethnic group then the whole thing seems like a fallacy, so yes I have changed my position. In that sense you seem to have come to the same conclusion as me when you state that is what you are doing by including French or any other group under this topic of related ethnic groups, you are quite right, we are all doing it, including the ethnic groups we think should be included, but we should really be including verified related ethnic groups, if any such thing exists in the literature.Alun 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• "historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention." This statement may be seen to contradict the definition from the Smith text at the opening of the article which states that ethnicity is usually based on presumed descent/genealogy. No they don't contradict each other. One states that ethnicity is based on a presumed descent/genealogy (ie not necessarily an actual one), the other states that the presumption is often wrong because in actuality the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention. These statements support each other in any objective reading.Alun 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, not "necessarily" actual, but in most cases, yes this kinship/descent IS actual. Also, you need to understand that kinship/descent is not the same as the strict bilogical classificatoin of "race" since the genotypic/phenotypic distinction of the major racial groupings has resulted from tens of thousands of years of environmental variation. WHERE and HOW does it state that the presumption of kinship/descent is "wrong" ?? That is your own personal opinion on the matter and the statement nowhere comes across saying "in actuality", the ethnic groups are based on cultural practices. Again, that is your own incorrect interpretation of the statement. Epf 08:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, not "necessarily" actual, but in most cases, yes this kinship/descent IS actual. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter because it is not part of the definition, you cannot claim that because kinship/descent is actual in most cases, then we must change the definition to include 'only groups that have a kinship/descent as being of the same ethnicity, which is what you appear to be doing to me. Alun 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The definition of ethnicity based on its inheritance from descent/kinship is one of the main defining factors in ethnicity. I don't understand what the issue is here. This is not the main determining factor in all lcases, but it is in most. In this sense, it is not something that anyone easily chooses or adopts like nationality or citizenship, but is something you inherit. You have to realize that this is a thorny issue in anthropology with many of the critics of kinship/descent coming from an ignorant assimilationist (and usually far-left wing) viepoint. Epf 19:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• As for the statement on "recent" invention, this is highly controversial in anthropology and is heavily supported by those with a strong assimilationist POV or emphasis on structural anthropology. It doesn't matter as long as it is verified, if you want to add an alternative verified deffinition of ethnicity by someone else on the Ethnic group page then be my guest, but in reality it is a verified source and if you disagree with it then I suggest you take it up on the appropriate talk page.Alun 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained in my previous discourse the debate in anthropology behind the claims that most cultural practices are of "recent" invention.Epf 08:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also refer you to this from the Ethnic group article:

While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification of Homo sapiens according to chosen genotypic and/or phenotypic traits.

Are you gouing to disagree with this as well? Alun 05:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, since most anthropologists would disagree with such a statement, at least partially. Notice how the section of where "ethnicity is rooted.." is NOT sourced ? Also, what do you misunderstand about "ethnicity and race are related concepts" and "traditional origins and backgrounds" ? Epf 08:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The source is there, (Abizadeh 2001). Actually there's a nice quote from the website linked to the source,

Neither ethnicity nor race is genealogically or biologically determined; they are both social constructs. Shared genealogy cannot by itself determine ethnicity or race because one must arbitrarily choose which genealogical line to trace and how far back to locate the first ancestor. Similarly, shared biology must be arbitrarily fixed by picking out which particular traits are the relevant markers of difference. Racial categories are thus produced sociopolitically, via power-relations and social practices that offend human dignity. The transformation of these practices requires a positive anticipatory undertaking, centred on a vision of the oneness of humanity, that addresses the political, economic, and spiritual dynamics of racial production. Alun 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, Alun, this source is not a very reliable anthropological source and clearly has come ideological POV that can not be considered anywhere as credible as any of the other sources on the ethnic group article which are referenced. Secondly, the definition here only goes to point out that "Shared genealogy cannot by itself determine ethnicity or race" and that kinship/descent is as I have already pointed out to you one of the main defining factors in ethnicity. There is also a debate on the nature of kinship/descent in a population with those on on side believing the social constructs (culture, etc.) are created as a result of the shared descent/kinship of different populations while on the other side it is argued that the social constructs created or enhanced the endogamy and distinction of the kinship/descent of the population. No matter where you draw your information from, descent/kinsip is widely agreed as one of the main factors in defining in ethnicity and it is this inheritance which results in varying shared behavioural, cultural, linguistic, religious and phenotypic/traits in the group. With this in mind,I am pointing out to you that in many - if not most - cases, as is mentioned in the article, common descent/kinship is also the basis for ethnic identity of the group. Epf 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am now of the opinion that the related ethnic groups section should be removed untill someone can find a proper reference to such a thing in some literature. Alun 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Alun, you are incorrect here as you again are misinterpreting what you are reading in the ethnic group article. Also, "related ethnic groups" can be validated by various historical, anthropological and genealogical information. Alun, you need to realize that kinship/descent is NOT the same as "race" and that this is the main distinguishing factor for most ethnic groups. Various traits result of this descent including cultural, behavioural, relgious, genotypic/phenotypic, etc. Indeed, there are many cases where people of the same descent may have differing cultural practices, but they also share other ethnic traits based on their common descent/kinship. The classifcation of "race" is not rooted in descent/kinship, but mostly on genotypic/phenotypic characteristics. These "racial" characteristics result from various causes over very long periods of time including environmental variation, absorbtion, inbreeding, outbreeding, etc. of different populations. Common descent/kinship results in certain genotypic/phenotypic traits , but nothing close level of "racial" distinctions which these traits originate from. It really needs to be pointed out here that Alun, you are taking certain pieces of the ethnic group article to suit your own incorrect assumptions on the matter and are leaving out very important points about ethnicity which demonstrate its basis on descent/kinship (familial ties) and/or the varying endogamy of populations.Epf 08:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the above relevant to ethnic groups being related? I repeat untill we find a source that catgorically lists the groups that are ethnically related to the English ethnic group, then all we are doing is including those that we think are ethnically related. The criterion for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability. Unless we can verify from a reliable source those groups, then they will always be subject to removal. 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As for "related ethnic groups", all that is needed is to provide historical and anthropological information on which groups are most closely related to the group in question based on ethnic (culture and descent/kinship) terms. Epf 08:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you need to read the no original research policy. The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, you need to find a source, you cannot engage in original research. Alun 09:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alun, I just pointed out that as long as the information is verified from anthropological and historical sources, then groups which are most closely related should go under the topic of "related ethnic groups". I agree that it needs to be referenced as most topics/ideas in WikipediaEpf 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have a problem with you at all, I just disagree with you and I think you are just plain wrong, I am however assuming good faith on your part. If I have given the impression that I have a something personal against you then it was not my intention and I am sorry for that. Alun 09:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You (User:TharkunColl) have yet to answer my discussion-matter posted here!

Yes, they are very bigoted against Continental influences. I consider myself Anglo-French, because of all our history. Would Canada survive without our common blood-culture and history? Would Canada have even been tried as such a compromise, without that stuff? The opponents refuse to look at the archaeological record and read publications that discuss without prejudice, just how the Franks and French culture largely determined English history--ever since the A-S conquest of Britannia. Even before then, archaeology supports a common material culture straddling the English Channel, between the Britons and Gauls and before history was written. Lord Loxley 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not discuss; you become a battering ram for control of this article. Why do you think it is an aristocratic fantasy that every Briton has French blood today, especially with so many public geneaologies and archaeologies that attest our mutual links across the Channel? Furthermore, why do you have something against aristocrats and feel like you must remove anything that doesn't conform to your POV? You have some self-hate/self-defeatism that you are taking out on others. I am not ashamed of my French heritage. Why the fuck are you trying to erase history? The Bretons and Cornish are irrelevant; Cornish are English and Bretons are no different than Normans or Aquitainians in respect to their English relationship. Why include Bretons, but leave out Normans? You are an eccentric fanatic and I'd wish you would keep your POV bigotry out of the Wikipedia, so neutrality rather than your own private fantasy gets distributed. You are not the sole arbiter of truth. Others on the talk page disagree with you on the French part, but archaeologists' discoveries should mean more than those simple objections. I'm telling you now, You have no idea what it means to be English. You want to erase all Continental relationships England has. Tell me; did the Hanoverians breed into the lower classes or was that our Mediaeval French royalty? Please, don't attack English heritage by denying actual contributions to our identity. 1066 changed England's composition in all aspects; 1707-1714 changed only the government and aristocracy. I have nothing in common with the new order. My objections to your mischaracterisation, are merely self-defencive and based on our millenia-old heritage that you stringently deny as if it were a cancer. You fucking hate me and all I am. I am English; you must be pretending or need some counseling. Get help and leave us the fuck alone. Wikipedia is not for CRACKPOT REVISIONISM. Lord Loxley 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be forgetting the French Huegenots who came to England from all over France and left a genetic legacy i England. They also left some cultural influences too.

Therefore French people should be included in related Ethnic groups. As for Epfs claims that the French are ethnically more different to the english than any of the other groups that is uncited POV tosh.

The people living in celtic parts of England, (South West, Far North, Far West) and along the south coast are genetically very similar to the people of Northern, Western and South western france and much more genetically similar to the french of those areas than the danes, frisians and dutch, While people in East Anglia may be genetically similar to the Dutch, the Danes and the Frisians this is not the case for all the peoples of England.

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

--Globe01 20:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)