Talk:English people/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Genetic research is evolving so fast that new discoveries are tantalizing, in many cases shattering in relation to views held until now. I have noticed that this article misses crucial information that is being published now as a result of the revolution in genetic research, here you have some interesting links:

1. haplogroup R1b

2. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

3. http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

HCC

Linguistically speaking, both Welsh and English are better understood as Creoles - Celtic/Romance and Germanic/Romance respectively. How familiar are you with Welsh, by the way? How come almost all its vocabulary is Latin? TharkunColl 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Historically at some point perhaps they may well have been accurately described as Creoles - although if we were to class all languages that have undergone a great deal of change under the influence of another there would be far fewer 'languages' and far more 'Creoles', but to do so now simply doesn’t make sense. I’m familiar enough with Welsh to scoff at your silly attempts at insinuating some kind of superiority and as for the influence of Latin - as a result of the Roman conquest and rule as you well know. I happily invite you to start up a topic on the Welsh language and English language talk pages regarding their seemingly correct designations as Celtic/Romance and Germanic/Romance Creoles as these places are where you really should be putting forward such opinions. An Siarach

It may be that the native British language (whether it was Celtic or not) was totally replaced by a Latin derived language as in the rest of the Western Empire, and that modern Welsh is a mixture of this, and Irish - the Irish conquered and settled in large areas of western Britain at the same time as the Anglo-Saxons in the east. But my point is simply to refute notions that there is any such thing as a "Celtic" or "Germanic" race, as you suggested earlier. TharkunColl 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You’d be hard pressed to find me saying anywhere that there is a Celtic or a Germanic race as I've said no such thing. There are however Celtic and Germanic races - people with origins in the original Celtic and Germanic groups. As for your theories regarding the possible replacement of the British language ( which was Celtic, I’ve NEVER seen anyone dispute this ) by a Latin language which then formed Welsh in combination with early Gaelic - I’ve never come across anyone putting forward this rather incredible theory. The Gaels settled North West Britain and had some very small, and very short-lived, enclaves in Wales/England. Quite simply the ideas you’ve put forward are quite incredible and totally new to me and I don’t think it would be presumptuous of me to say they would be incredible and new to most people with a knowledge of the relevant periods, peoples and languages. An Siarach

I’m not sure what you mean with ‘’short lived enclaves’’ in England and Wales. They didn’t up and leave, they can’t have. They might have become absorbed or dominated by the Norwegians in Cumbria (a new theory I’ve read recently is that the Angles hardly got a foot into Cumbria at all) but traces of their presence remains, and North Wales has always been a target for Irish migration, starting who knows when. I am sure too that there were Celtic races but that is achronistic (is that the word or the context?) or rather is not the case today. I’m not even sure that ‘race’ is the right word. Tribe, perhaps? The Celtic speaking peoples wouldn’t have seen each other as somehow kin as opposed to Germanic speakers – they were all different tribes. The Brythons of Britain had as much to contend with from the Irish than they did from the Teutons, and both of the latter invaded and settled in Britain driving out the native culture (but hardly the people). If you want to say that the English are a Germanic people and the Welsh and Scottish aren’t, the ONLY basis for this is that they live in a country (which is part of a larger, older country) named for a Germanic tribe whence comes a Germanic language. Culture, blood, identity – it’s all British and wonderfully indigenous Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi An Siarach, can you reconcile these two posts of yours I’ve pointed out before how totally meaningless it is do take Genetics as something far more important than it is and The English are Germanic - their language, origins, race are all Germanic. The English are not racially Germanic (how can you claim this while also saying that Genetics is not important, you are contradicting yourself), they are a mixture of an immigrating Germanic people and indigenous people (it is absurd to talk of Celtic people, there is no evidence that peoples speaking Celtic languages formed any sort of homogeneous cultural or racial group), English culture is also a mixture of indigenous and immigrating people. Most archaeologists see continuity in the archaeological record, and Genetic studies (and it is you who have made the point about race, you cannot have it both ways) confirm that all the peoples of the British Isles have an indigenous genetic component. Invasionist theories are out of date, and probably wrong. To try to claim that the English are exclusively Germanic (and I use the word advisedly as an adjective of German) and somehow racially and culturally distinct from the indigenous population of the rest of Great Britain is to ignore the facts. This is an English people article, these articles are based on Ethnicity. I think that it is totally inappropriate and incorrect to make racial claims. Alun 12:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not contradict myself. I express a personal opinion that genetics is of no great importance and then point out a factor relating to genetics that most would find pertinent with regard to this topic ( but which I happen not to consider of any direct significance). It is not absurd to talk of a Celtic people. The fact that they formed no real unified group ( and it is absolutely absurd to say they did not form a cultural group - this is precisely what they were and even those coming out with the tired old "they never called themselves Celts" tripe accept this as fact - and argue that this is all that they were ). The English are predominately Germanic and hence a Germanic people - influence from Romance or Celtic cultures cannot change this. They are culturally distinct( or at least were until some 50-100 years ago when the last enclaves of Welsh/Irish/Scottish(which is to say Gaelic) culture and language fell to the spread of anglicization/modernizaiton) from the other inhabitants of Great Britain ( and to avoid confusion in this context "English" covers all the English speaking peoples regardless of where they may be ). As for the last bit regarding 'racial claims' well I’ve cleared up your misunderstanding over my use of the word - which is based entirely in the historical context - and I couldn’t give a two figs over race or genetics as they have no direct bearing on ones language and culture - which are the only meaningful markers of ethnicity. An Siarach

The English weren’t culturally distinct 100 years ago or even long before and never have been. My favourite example – as I’m sure you’re all aware! – is my mother’s Northumbria. Their dialect, dress and outlook has always been far more aligned with southern Scotland than southern England. The English west country is highly distinct from the north, the western Midlands are from East Anglia, and so on. Are these all Germanic cultures compared with a Celtic culture into Wales and Scotland? No, they’re not. English speaking people in Britain have been the majority of Scotland and Wales (and Ireland) for centuries. If we are to discuss genetics, the differences between the English, Welsh and Scottish are so minimal when compared with other ethnic groups spread out in large countries that they lose much of their distinctiveness, except of course for a few inbred individuals in pockets of north Wales, Yorkshire and the western Isles. Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are just expressing your opinions as if they were solid facts. In the end it is of little significance. What counts on wikipedia is verifiability and neutrality, this means that you have to accept that other people will have a different POV to you, as long as they can verify it you have no right to exclude it from an article. I do not know what source you are using to claim that the English are predominantly Germanic, can you provide one? Your criteria for making the distinction seem to vary, you refered me to the Germanic people page yesterday, but this just lists people who speak Teutonic languages, it has no relevance to ethnicity. and it is absolutely absurd to say they did not form a cultural group - this is precisely what they were and even those coming out with the tired old "they never called themselves Celts" tripe accept this as fact. I do not accept this as a fact, no one can prove this, this is just a theory, there is no consensus in the archaeological community, and it is just wrong to claim there is. Alun 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, what I am expressing (other than my already admitted and clearly stated POV on genetics) is the orthodox opinion expressed in the very articles dealing with the topics on Wikipedia and in the wider communities dealing with each area respectively. An Siarach

Thank you for admitting that you are expressing orthodox opinion and not fact. Please accept that other opinions exist that are equally valid and have as much right to be expressed here as the outdated. Alun 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's Francis Pryor as a source, to support what I say about other points of view Simon James has cojently argued that the Celts themselves probably never existed as a distinct cultural entity. I take it you will aknowledge this as a reliable source. Alun 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that the problem here lies in mixing different concepts:

1. Language cannot be confused with "race", if we may still use this term.

2. Concepts like Celtic or Germanic are related to languages, which they take as the main reference.

3. Ferdinand de Saussure, the most prominent linguist of the 19th century and father of European Structural Linguistics, already pointed it out in his Cours de Linguistique General.

4. In the 21st century this has already become very clear, in fact we can take four European languages as an example:

French: France and Haiti.

English: Britain and Jamaica.

Spanish: Spain and Guatemala.

Portuguese: Portugal and Angola.

According to the ethnic concept based on language we could consider the Haitians French, Jamaicans English, Guatemalans Spanish and Angolans Portuguese.

That concept is perfectly possible, but linguistic ancestry cannot be confused with genetic ancestry. Obviously, according to genetic acestry those populations would be classified in other groups with peoples that do not speak their languages.

And I do think that genetic research is important, in fact, very important to trace back population movements. Until now no such powerful tool was available, now it is. An it is important because it helps also shape history. For example, it was widly believed that the English were predonminantly Anglo-Saxon not only because of their language, but also because they could trace back their ancestry (genetic ancestry, by the way, which means from father to son all the way down) predominantly to the Anglo-Saxons, and it was also believed that the original inhabitants of the British Isles had been exterminated or almost exterminated. Now all those theories are being proven wrong precisely by genetic research.

Anyway, it is understandable that these new findings will take some time to assimilate, because they are so different to what was thought until now, and they may create a conflict in the feelings of identity of many people. HCC.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.248.169 (talk • contribs)

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. Alun 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the article underplays a little all these new findings. It should be noted that they are based primarily on the Genographic Project by National Geographic. I think that up to now no individual, team or university has come even close to the magnitude of the work that is being done in this project, with the possible exception of Cavalli-Sforza, but I think that the Genographic Project is even larger in scope. HCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.248.169 (talk • contribs)

There ia also a cultural element to ethnicity that needs to be addressed, but much of this discussion seems to be people just expressing opinions with no real debate. I don't understand the claim that English culture is Germanic and somehow different to Welsh and Scottish culture, I also do not see any great similarities between Scottish and Welsh culture, except for those that they also share with the English. I think it would be better to discuss the sources of peoples POVs and try to come to a consensus on how to incorporate all points of view. There is clearly a POV that somehow English people are ethnically Germanic and distinct from the rest of the people of Great Britain, I personally find this difficult to believe. Even if one does subscribe to this POV then one has to accept that British/English people have shared the same Island for over a millenium and a half, and the claim that some sort of ethnic apartheid occured during these centuries doesn't strike me as very believable. Nevertheless I am prepared to accept that this is a valid POV, contingent on properly verified sources. There is also the question of Scots, which is also a Teutonic language, so should we consider the speakers of Scots Germanic as well? If one accepts that the English are the descendants of the indigenous British inhabitants of Great Britain (which they are) and also of some immigrating people (who possibly but not certainly constituted an invading force), that the observed cultural change introduced by the Anglo-Saxons may just have equally been introduced by cultural diffusion over several centuries (and no one disputes that there was some migration, but Danes settled in the Danelaw at the end of the nineth century, and there certainly doesn't seem to have been any great displacement of indigenous people) and that the English language is not necessarily an indication of mass migration or a rapid cultural change, then it is also a reasonable point of view that the indigenous culture changed over time (as it had in previous times). Most archaeologists now point to greater continuity rather than any rapid change. From a linguistic point of view Welsh serves as a good example here, at the start of the 20th century the vast majority of people spoke Welsh as a first language in Wales, indeed immigrating English people who came to work in the heavy industries of South Wales in the nineteenth century had to learn Welsh. By the 1940s Welsh was a minority language. In A History of Wales John Davies argues that the Welsh gave up speaking Welsh voluntarily. He reasons that the internationalist nature of Socialism (strong in Wales) and the progressive nature of Non-conformists led to a consensus that language could be a barrier. He also argues that there is no evidence that coercive measures like the Welsh not had any significant impact. No one is arguing that there was a mass migration in Wales at the beggining of the 20th century, nor is anyone arguing that Welsh people gave up their identity or culture, they just stopped speaking Welsh. Alun 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There were Germanic speakers in England throughout the Roman occupation, often serving in the armed forces. In particular, since the time of Carausius at the latest, large numbers of Saxons were settled along the south and east coasts (see Count of the Saxon Shore). It was in these exact same areas that kingdoms describing themselves as Saxon emerged in the Dark Ages (Wessex, Sussex, Essex, etc.). Carausius himself was a native of the Rhine area and so would have been sympathetic to neighbouring peoples such as the Saxons and Frisians. This, I suggest, is the true origin of the English language in Britain. TharkunColl 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. Is there a supporting source? If there is then it might good to include this information in Anglo-Saxons and Sub-Roman Britain. Unfortunatelly it is not wikipedia policy to include original research, and so edits must be based on published material, so a source for this would be very good to have, it would add nice balance.Alun 10:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Oxford History of England series - Myers, The English Settlements. Also check out the volumes by Salway, Roman Britain (for Carausius) and Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England. Another interesting source is Pryor, Britain AD, who disputes the idea of any sort of Anglo-Saxon invasion at all (even of just a warrior elite). TharkunColl 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I’ve not doubt that there were Germanic speakers during the Roman occupation and it’s good to see some sources for this! Thank you. Surely though they would have been all over the Roman territory of Britain? Enzedbrit 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'm reading Britain BC at the moment and have a copy of Britain AD waiting to be read. I'm keen to include some sources other than genetic ones in the pages, as some of the historians there seem to be suspicious of my edits regarding the genetic research (my degree is in genetics so I have been trying to remedy some of the groser distortions of the findings). There seem to be a lot of historians on these two pages, but few biologists or archaeologists. Genetics and archaeology seem to concur on this, it's the historcal sources (written much later and by undisputably biased people like Bede) that seem to get most of the attention. It might be worth including some of this stuff in Immigration to the United Kingdom as there is a lot of stuff on pre-historical invasions there also. Thanks for the sources. Alun 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1 British pages
2 Related Ethnic Groups
3 Origins of the English and the British.
4 Cornish Language
5 Verifiability
6 Suggestion regarding related ethnic groups
- 6.1 French included as related ?
  - 6.1.1 You (User:TharkunColl) have yet to answer my discussion-matter posted here!
7 National Geographic News.
8 Other related ethnic groups
9 English ethnic group?
10 Germans
11 Fact and reference check
12 Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian origin
13 Germans have had very little influence on the English
14 English character
15 To the loony who keeps vandalising this page
16 Germanism and the Third Reich as something English?
17 User_talk:Stpaul#Personal attacks

British pages

You state that ethnicity is 100% related to appearance. This is utter bollox. Most Maori in New Zealand are fair skinned and resemble Europeans, the same with many Native Americans. Some white people identify as black and vice versa, or Asian, or Indian. Enzedbrit 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no need to be offensive when making a reply. You have posited several straw men. First you deliberately misquoted me by claiming I said: "ethnicity is 100% related to appearance", when what I actually wrote was "appearance is 100% related to ethnicity". Also, the entry was about the ethnic English, not "British pages". Your protest is a straw man, because no one stated that only the English have light skin, as you appear to be claiming. The ethnic English are predominantly descended from Anglo-Saxons and some small mix with Celtic, and Normans etc., but all are light skinned northern European in appearance, not Negro, Asiatic, or other brown Aboriginals etc., so simply stating in the intro that they are 'light skinned northern European', is completely accurate.

Please remember that article is about ethnicity, not nationality or citizenship—ethnicity is your genetic bloodline but nationality/citizenship is your passport. I've yet to see a native American that looks like an English person as you imply, but even if they did it would be totally irrelevant because the English would still be light skinned regardless of who else on the planet also has fair skin. You state: "Some white people identify as black." I really don't see what such comment are going to achieve, some dogs think they are cats or humans, some humans think they are Jesus or Moses, but none of that has anything to do with their factual ethnic inheritance, so why are you muddying the waters with such irrelevant material, maybe you should post your claims under a mental illness article? Where do you think humans get their ethnic features from if they are not inherited from their parents? Of course, our physical appearance is 100% related to our ethnicity, we are only the sum of our parent's genes and their ancestors. I really don't know why you made such a bit fuss about such a small accurate entry, and saw the need post straw men arguments. My post was concise and totally accurate. If you have any valid arguments then make them, but please refrain from vandalising other's posts, especially when you have given no good reason. Would you like it if everyone did that to your posts? Zenjin 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite paranoid. Stating something is utter bollox is not being offensive nor is debating on your talk page vandalising your page. Don't make such accusations. Nor are the English predominately descended from Anglo-Saxons, but rather ancient Britons. Please consult modern findings which support this, not Victorian ideas of racial purity. Ethnicity is not 100% related to appearance. Ones appearance might be an indicator of their ethnicity but not always. Being a member of a certain ethnic group can suppose ones physical appearance but not always. Stating the English are a fair skinned northern European ethnic group is a stereotype and is false. Enzedbrit 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some white people do identify as black. This isn't muddying waters or being irrelevant. You don't understand the complexities of subjective categorisation nor of ethnic identity. If you have a black parent and a white one, and in this instance the white parent has never been in the picture, and you look white, but identify as black, that is everything to do with ethnic heritage. The world is not black and white. By talking about cats thinking they're dogs, you are demonstrating your ignorance with regards to the subject that you're editing, and such fobbing off of the subject to me shows you could be quite racist yourself Enzedbrit 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Calling me ad hominem names like 'paranoid' will not validate your false arguments. 2. Your straw man about my 'personal page' is also incorrect; my vandalising comment was clearly about the article page, not my page. 3. White/light skinned Anglo-Saxons and white/light skinned; Celtic are all white/light skinned, not Negro or brown skinned; again you desperately grasp at straws and fail to comprehend the blindingly obvious. 4. If ethnicity were not related to appearance then why do your comments contract all known scientific evidence? Maybe in your imagination if a light skinned man were raised on rice 'n' peas and jerk chicken he would develop a Negro completion along with an Afro and large lips? You need to lean about genetics my friend, as you are sadly in need of some accurate information on hereditary genes producing our ethnic appearance rather than possibly gangster rap, a fried chicken diet or multi-culti political delusions. 5. You claim the factual reality that English people are white is a "stereotype" is feeble and a non-argument, seeing as we all have eyes, and anyone living in England (you don't) can see the light/fair colour of skin of the natives all around them physically everyday, and see the large differences to African or Asian immigrants. Please note: A suntan is not classed as ethnicity, even in Australia!

6. If someone is mixed race, then they are mixed, not black or white, regardless of what they may affiliate with due to political leanings or ethnic black supremacist views etc., and none of that has anything to do with the physical genetic reality of what they are. If you wish to muddy the waters with your political views, then take that political material and post it under black supremacist or wherever, but please don't bastardise articles based on your own unscientific views, or your racial political identity opinions because you are totally off topic. 7. You post trite third grade quotes like "the world is not black or white", as if that has even remotely anything to do with it! People are black, white/light skinned, and everything in-between, but that does not somehow bastardise light skinned people or demand they are no longer allowed to have their skin tone mentioned, you appear to be promoting a racist anti-English, multicultural political agenda, which is not a NPOV, or factual at all, regardless of it possibly being due to your own highly confused ethnic background/identity and political leanings. PS. Please don't dump your stuff on my page again, if you wish to remove it from here, then post the lot on the Talk section of the ethnic English page because that is the subject. Thank you. Zenjin 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1.Wow, you’re a real hypocrite. You have thrown some pretty nasty comments to me in your retort yet pack a sad about being called paranoid.

2. Removing your comment isn’t vandalising, it’s cleaning up graffiti. What are you on about with straw-man this and that?

3. I repeat - What ARE you ON about????

4. You have said that ethnicity is 100% related to appearance. I have negated that comment. You have said that if you are of a certain ethnicity then you must resemble a colourised view of that ethnicity and this is not true. Your comment about a Negro being raised on peas’n chicken makes no sense and isn’t even slightly related to what I was saying, and it’s also a comparison I find offensive – the fact you thought it necessary to bring in is worrying. You have not the right to tell someone how they should self-identify. That’s not PC or multi-cultural, it’s simple democratic fact. Scientific knowledge is also not related here. This isn’t about genetics or science or anything extra-worldy. This is about someone having the right to define their ethnicity based on what they know of themselves. It is about the right of someone to claim to be a Briton/English/Scottish/Welsh who is black, white, yellow, brown or red because of their heritage. It is racist and cruel to inflict the alternative, and it’s very akin to Hitler. He told millions of people that they weren’t Germans because they didn’t look right, and killed lots of them for it. The English people are predominately descended from the ancient Britons who were the first people to live in Britain and are the predominate ancestors too of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish. Were these people fair skinned? Probably, probably not. I have cousins who are just as pure-blood Britons like myself who have jet black hair, brown eyes and a very definite olive taint to their skin, and some would have us believe that this is the characteristic of the ancient Briton. So are they less British than me because they have a year around tan?

5. Why did you bring in Australia and suntanning? Australia, by the way, where thousands of Aboriginal people are white skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed – are you to tell them they must identify as ‘whites’? I don’t live in England? Congratulations, that means NOW’T mate! To assume an ethnicity based on physical appearance is not a sin – we all do it – but it isn’t solid gold fact. And how do you know that those African or Asian people aren’t half or ¾ British blood but happen to show more of their non-indigenous British ethnic heritage?

6.You’re very brave to want to tell someone that the must classify as mixed race. You are very much off-topic, and totalitarian. You’d do well in Turkmenistan or China – they do what they’re told as well. If someone has a black parent and a white one and has dark skin but identifies with their white side, whatever ethnic group it is, then that is their right. Labelling someone as solely mixed-race is quite out of fashion, and quite racist. Sure, people can identify that they have mixed heritage, but they have every right to identify with whatever aspect of their heritage they wish and IF they so wish to do so.

7.If anything, I am exceedingly pro-English and definitely pro-British. I have spent many moths on here defending English history from those that wish to strip it of any Celtic identity. What I am not going to do is tell someone that they can’t be English because they’re not white, no more than I could tell a Maori that because they are as pale and fair as I that they cannot be Maori. I know first hand how damaging labels can be. I have never felt so in-line with organisations such as the Runnymede Trust before, but you are one heck of a bigot. I am sure that you will find allies against my comments on these pages, yet rather than because they agree with you, it is because they don’t like me and would agree that black was blue if it meant an opposing view to Enzedbrit.

P.S. I shall ‘dump’ my stuff on your talk page if I shall so wish. It is not your possession but part of the Wikipedia forum. Your User Page I shall not touch, but if you are unhappy with public contributions to your talk page, then I suggest you withdraw your username in its entirety. Enzedbrit 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of your reply is not worth responding to due to its extremely low tone and its obsessive straw men that pop up every other sentence making obtuse links where they do not exist. Besides the lies and misquotes you write, your argumentation obviously has a massive ego and a political problem with reality, and you believe using any label is ok if one simply wants to, regardless of the physical reality involved. You are also massively confused between ethnicity (genetics) and nationality (a passport) an example of this absurdity is here: "It is about the right of someone to claim to be a Briton/English/Scottish/Welsh who is black, white, yellow, brown or red because of their heritage." As the saying goes: A cat born in a stable is not a horse, much less a pedigree racehorse. Someone of obvious Negro origin is clearly not ethnically (genetically) English, even if they do have a piece of card and paper called a British passport—that's Nationality to you, not ethnicity! Please learn that ethnicity is not a chosen option, it's a DNA based heritage, and the article is about the ethnic English not some political left-wing tripe about how someone Negro can be deluded into thinking they are white native English just because some minority worshipping, left-wing Anglo-phobic group may want to include them.

You should post your highly inaccurate and subjective opinions on a Marxist political page, not an ethnicity page. Mixed race people can call themselves what the heck they like, but that does not validate it as a genetic reality, and it has zero effect on the colour of the English peoples' skin. Again, for the umpteenth time, the article is about ethnicity, not political delusions of left-wing minority inclusives or minority supremacists. You are deluding you thoughts and political opinions for physical heritage. Why the heck can't you see the blindingly obvious difference? You may live in Australia, but are clearly blind to the fact that the English see their own every day in the millions and they are light skinned, not Negro or brown despite your Marxist political protestations. You also appear to have a problem with Anglo-Saxons with your obsession with "ancient Britons" and the Welsh. Besides the mountain of other off topic ineffectual material you wrote, it is all hopelessly irrelevant, as the ethnic English are quite obviously light skinned, just as are the ethnic Germans, Scandinavian and native Polish. You can wallow in your Anglo-phobic politics all you like deluding yourself that Kunta Kinte's second cousin was Queen Victorians mum, or whatever absurd political machinations and notions you may conjure up, but your denial of physical reality has clearly lost the plot. English people are light skinned/white northern Europeans, not Negro, brown aborigines, ethnic Japanese, or honey coloured Malaysians, no matter what political labels you can manufacturer. Just as a cat born in a stable is not a racehorse, although your politically correct stance seem to be anyone who calls it a 'cat' is a seething closet Nazi. LOL. Zenjin 11:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not genetic, race is genetic. You seem to be hoplessly confused on this Zenjin. I suggest you go to the Ethnic group article and familiarise yourself with the concept. Here's a definition from the page 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) and this 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. Alun 05:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading this interesting debate, and without getting into the subject matter, Zenjin is obviously the kind of racist bigot that should be isolated in Wikipedia. By the way, Zenjin, if you want to know about the genetic make up of the English, here you have an interesting map: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf HCC 72.144.228.81 23:47, 14 April 2006

Ah yes, the abuse starts if anyone dares to contradict the Marxist multicultural propaganda by Enzedbrit who has now chosen to post under a sock puppet IP 72.144.228.81 to hurl his insults. I find it fascinating that ones like him will use communist abuse, threats and censorship tactics showing how desperate he is when someone dares to debate a subject that disagrees with his open multicultural bastardising propaganda, like calling me a "racist bigot", and "should be banned". Maybe your can sent me to the communist Gulag concentration camp, I'm sure a killing a few more that don't agree with you will not make that much difference to the 100 million killed under your communist leaders' political genocide schemes. PS. Just how does calling someone light skinned, 'light skinned' make someone "racist", especially when "race" according to some here is nothing to do with ethnicity anymore! LOL. Zenjin 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think calling people "racist", "Hitler" or "totalitarian" helps the debate about this article at all, it's just personal abuse. I think if the conclusion is that one does not have to be white to be ethnically English then shouldn't this be followed through by adding 'Pakistani', 'Indian' etc. to the 'related ethnic groups' box? Hundreds of thousands migrated from Pakistan and India to this country, it seems inconsistant to add 'Danish' and 'Dutch' but not those as well. Likewise for the 'religion' box.--Johnbull 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's for that very reason that I haven't called the user Hilter and have said that their comments are racist and totalitarian. Personal abuse is you're a poopoo head. What I have said isn't personal abuse. Stating that Indians and Pakistanis should be added if one does not have to be white to be English is answered elsewhere on here by Alun and I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Most English people will have white skin, but if you are born to mixed parentage, you shouldn't be obliged to not identify with one part of it because you are the wrong colour. Enzedbrit 05:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not very good at telling the truth are you? Enzedbrit just said: "It's for that very reason that I haven't called the user Hilter [sic] and have said that their comments are racist. . ." Humm.. Lets look at another post by the same user: "It is racist and cruel to inflict the alternative, and it's very akin to Hitler. Enzedbrit 11:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)", and under your sockpuppet: "Zenjin is obviously the kind of racist bigot that should be isolated in Wikipedia 72.144.228.81 23:47, 14 April 2006" What would that make you then? A communist genocidal maniac? So according to you, me calling a white person, "white", makes me like "Hitler"? LOL, I've heard it all now! You commies take the biscuit with your mind-bending propaganda bullshit. I bet you are so proud of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot eh? Poor old Hitler being misused every two minutes as an insult to anyone who does not bow to bastardising multicultural radical Marxism, so sad. I can hear the Red Army coming now to get me at your orders. You can call me all the names you want, under a plethora of fake IPs and sock puppets, it just shows your lack of rational debate and your destructive political agenda, not to mention your lack of morals, but that's another area altogether. I'm saving that sick subject for another day and page. By the way, I challenge you to take a mongrel half-cross dog to Crufts and see if you can blag your way past the judges saying it's a "pedigree pure-breed English Border Collie". I'm sure when the go to throw you out of the building (after hysterically laughing in your face), you can hurl your "Nazi racist" abuse comments at them, but I doubt they will reclassify a half breed as a pure breed pedigree no matter how much you claim it's just a "Nazi fascist label". LOL. Maybe you can open a school and teach Sausage dogs and King Charles spaniels to be working sheep dogs? I mean you are assured success aren't you? There is not such thing as breed or genetics involved, so how can you possibly fail? LOL. Zenjin 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Great point, but the fact that some people are both ethnically English and ethnically Indian doesn't necessarily mean that the two ethnic groups are related, IMHO, it just means that some people identify with more than one culture.Alun 10:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we must be respectful. But just read some comments above. I think they are not acceptable. On the other hand, let's go back to the main issue and have a look at the map, because I think that if people here think that genetic lineage is most important in ethnicity then the article does not reflect very well the real lineage of the English. You cannot have it both ways. HCC.

Ethnicity is not based on genetics, anyone who claims that it is is mistaken, they are thinking of race, which is a different thing. Alun 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Alun above. Most of the debate on this page is mistakenly around ancestry which is only incidental to ethnicity. "Englishness" derives from many diverse sources and influences. Lumos3 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is different from race, therefore a person who is black but who has been born in England and in her culture can be considered English as well. By the way, the number of people who are born into English culture and are coloured is significant. So, we have to be consistent, either we base the article on a cultural aspect or we base it on a genetic aspect. What is not acceptable is to base it on a cultural aspect when it suits some people and on a genetic aspect when it does not. HCC.

These articles are based on ethnicity, not race. Anyone who claims that non-white English people should not be considered ethnically English is wrong and probably shouldn't be here. I will consider any racist edits to the article as vandalism and report them to an administrator. Alun 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

There is a column on the article titled 'related ethnic groups', which I find to be quite useless as it is so highly controversial and there are so many ways of viewing an ethnic group and defining how they are related, but it's there none the less. The inclusion of Germans as a related ethnic group to the English is not valid as if it is then most of Europe's ethnic groups should also be included. English people have some influence from the Teuton tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. These people came from the north west of the continent. They spoke a language which is a forerunner to both modern English and German. They were Germanic tribes, but not German. The inclusion of related ethnic groups as Danes, Frisians and Dutch covers the lands whence these people came and also represents the migratory patterns of people between these areas over the centuries. Including Germans implies that the German people whose extent reaches far from Britain and who are a blend of peoples that never came close to Britain would mean that the English and Germans are as related as the English are to the Italians or Spanish, both of which are groups that also shared ancestors with the English (and rest of the British). If it is indeed true, as some scholars have suggested, that areas whence the Angles and Saxons came were completely depopulated as those people moved to Britain, then there is no continuation to link the English with Germans. So include Germans as related people, but also include the French (Normans), Italians (Romans), Icelanders and Swedes (Vikings) and all those groups represented in Britain throughout the centuries: Jews, Russians, Spanish, etc. Enzedbrit 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok it makes sense to me to say that if the Danes, Frisians and Dutch are included, then these peoples represent the Teutonic contribution to English people. Thanks for your explanation. Alun 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Alun, I'm quite pleased actually with my argument there Enzedbrit 11:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Italians obviously have no link with the English and the Germans are much more related to the English than Italians are. Enzedbrit, you are forgetting that the Angles and Saxons came from areas which remain part of Germany, although it is thought that they would be more related to modern Frisians than to modern people from Schleswig-Holstein. In a cultural and linguistic sense, the English are Germanic and in this sense are more related to Germans and other Germanic peoples more than any other groups. If you are speaking in terms of ancestry and genetics, then the English would obviously also be related to the Celtic peoples of Britain, but would still also remain related to the Germanic peoples, including modern Germans. The Germans of northern Germany share genetic and ancestral ties to the Anglo-Saxons just as the English, Frisians and Danes do. The Romans do not represent modern Italian people and were an agglomeration of different peopels from all over the empire. The Normans were mainly Scandinavians who had assimilated much Gallo/Latin (French) culture and in no way represent modern French. In either case, both groups settled in Britain with very few numbers and did not leave a lasting demographic impact. The French, Italians, Spaniards,etc. obviously have very little or no cultural or ancestral relation to the English and clearly nothing that can be compared to what the English share with the Germans. Epf 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the idea that the English are "culturally" Germanic. What characteristics do the modern English share with the Germans that they do not also share with the French, for example? As far as "culture" is concerned, the English have far more in common with their insular neighbours the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. TharkunColl 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How are the English Germanic in a cultural sense, I do not understand this assertion, the Welsh, Scots, nad Irish have a far closer cultural affinity to the English than the Germans do. Can you enlighten me as to the nature of the cultural ties between the German people and English people? Given that English, Welsh and Scots people have shared the same Island for a millenium and a half, and have been part of the same state (the UK) for several centuries (nearly 500 years in the case of the Welsh and English), this seems like a spurious proposition. As for language, Francis Pryor states All I will note is that language is not necessarily a defining attribute of a particular ethnic group, and that the words and grammar of what was to become the English language were not solely derived from Germanic sources. Alun 17:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As you know Alun, English language is a Germanic language and is based on the old English language of the Anglo-Saxons. Obviously there is much Norman French influence in modern English language but the language retains its original Anglo-Saxon base and further strong Germanic influences from Vikings, speakers of Old Norse. Yes the Scots and Welsh have a cultural affinity with the English but the cultural relation they have is much more from centuries of English cultural dominance and influence in the region. I should mention here that in "Germanic", I dont mean ethnic Germans, but the culture of all Germanic groups (Dutch, Frisians, Scandinavians, etc.). My discourse above was only there to show that the English obviously share more in common culturally with Germans than with other European groups of Southern Europe. English culture IS largely Germanic and its origins are from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. The French-speaking Normans (descendants of Vikings themselves) brought continental influences (mainly on language) and advances (feudalism, castles, accounting offices, etc.), but the culture of England remained to be predominantly Germanic. As well as its Germanic language (which even today shares more in common with other Germanic languages than any others), the culture of England, although it obviously is different from other Germanic peoples (say just as Danes are different from Dutch), it still remains to be classified as Germanic. I could spend all day listing the majority aspects of English culture and national identity which traces its roots to the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, from farming, measurements and work ethic to written documentation (e.g. of history), ruling classes, government systems (e.g. shires) and even naval traditions. The Welsh on the other hand have retained many strong aspects of their Celtic culture, not just language, that simply is not found with English culture. Even in Scotland where English influence has massively eroded away the original Gaelic culture and language (once widespread across the whole nation), the Gaelic elements remain that again is not found in English culture. I will end this discourse simply with this: identify to me the small parts of English culture and even national identity which are not Germanic (i.e. can not be traced to the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings) ? Epf 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Gaelic about all of Scotland? Tartan? Northumbria has a tartan. Gaelic influence? Cumbria was settled by Gaels, as was north Wales and parts of north west England. Original Gaelic culture? The Gaels arrived only two centuries before the Teutons and when they did arrive they supplanted the Brythonic culture. What links all of Scotland together as a culture that is distinct from England other than a Scottish national identity? Nothing. How do Scottish people live daily differently to the rest of the British? They don't. But all the British eat, work, live in houses and drink their tea exceedingly different to how the Germans, French, Spanish or Italians live. How is English culture more largely Germanic than Scotland or Wales? Aside from the fact that you'll hear Welsh in most parts of Wales and Gaelic in the Hebrides and other isolated places, not much. Bagpipes are no more alien to London than they are to Edinburgh, hedgerows and afternoon tea doesn't end at Carlisle and they eat Welsh rarebit in Sussex I can assure you. Enzedbrit 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are tartans for groups, places, regions and all sorts of things all over the world but the tartan along with the clan system still has its origins with Gaels and Gaelic culture. Cumbria was only very lightly settled by Gaels, as was the few areas of Wales and south-west England. They did not arrive in signficant enough numbers there to obviously leave an imprint anywhere near on the scale that they did in Scotland. The Gaels are largely responsible for the creation of Scottish identity and culture and their impact is still felt all over Scotland in varying degrees. Indeed the Gaelic culture did supplant the native Byrthonic and Pictish cultures, but this just goes to show how much of an impact the culture of the Gaels had there. Bagpipes in London still doesnt exclude the fact that they are from Scottish culture just as a Chinese restaurant in London doesnt exclude the fact that cuisine is from Chinese culture. It is a very ignorant and offensive statement to Scottish people around the world to say there is nothing that links the culture of Scotland that makes it distinct from England. Not that it matters though since its largely false. English culture is obviously more Germanic than that of Wales, since Welsh culture wouldnt be "Welsh" without its strong Brythonic Celtic elements that are not seen with English culture. Just because you can find cultural elements of a group around the world because of globalization doesnt take away the distinctive origin of such cultural elements to certain groups and peoples. Scotland overall is a thorny issue as it has alot of Germanic influence from both the English and the Norse, but its original Gaelic elements remain in varying degrees across the whole country and obviously the culture overall is still distinguished from that of England with anything from music, festivals and food to family traditions, languages, sports and politics/government systems. Although obviously also very much related, the distinctions between Welsh and especially Irish culture with English is even more pronounced than is the case with Scotland (English was only spoke by a minority of people in "Catholic" Ireland until the 18th century). Epf 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay mate, fess up. WHAT about Wales is Brythonic that England doesn't have? What about England is Germanic that Wales/Scotland doesn't have? C'mon! I can think of the Eisteddford... and that's it. You really don't like the idea of England not being Germanic don't you. You say you're English - may I ask you: are you offended by the linking of England's indigenous heritage to its modern existence? It's not just me noting your obsession with making England out to be this amazing Germanic entity. When did you get this into your head and do you think you will ever change it? Enzedbrit 07:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, your comment here makes no sense whatsoever and I've already argued before about how there are differences in culture between English, Scots and Welsh, even if in your arrogant viewpoint they are not seen as "significant". Wales obviously retains much more Brythonic elements than England (with the possible exception of a few parts of Cornwall) and England indeed is more Germanic culturally than Wales or Scotland in the sense that it does not share the same Brythonic and Gaelic cultural elements. Your accusations towards me here are pointless and have nothing to do with our debate, but being of English heritage on my father's side, I have no qualms about English having a significant ancient British ancestral component and I have never argued against such. I am only discussing the obvious and widely accepted fact that they are largely Germanic in both culture and language, more so than the other peoples of the isles and that they are also descended from Germanic peoples as well as ancient Britons. There is no obsession here and this word may be more synonymous with your own unaccepted views towards ethnicity in Britain. Epf 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to cite references to prove the links of 'all' of these ethnic groups to the English? Is there really any doubt about the other British peoples for example? Enzedbrit 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in order to address the obvious angst of some and prevent the vandalism by those who keep changing the page without consensus, whilst acknowledging that minor useful edits or sensible ones are okay, I think that we should acknowledge the Teuton tribes as they remain on the Scottish people page and replace the Danes and Frisians to represent the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. I am unsure about the Dutch as this still covers a wide area most of which would've been unrelated to the origins of the Anglo-Saxons. Germans must still be definately left out as that is too broad, in mine and others opinions, and as the Normans are commonly held to be Vikings, and didn't come over in large numbers, should be represented well by the Danes. Enzedbrit 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to including the Danes and Frisians, though I don't think the Dutch should be included, and nor the Germans. TharkunColl 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I see there's been a lot of heated debate since I was last here. Was there a consensus to only count peoples from the British Isles as ethnically related? Can't see a problem with it myself. Had a request to join the debate, but thought you two seemed to have most of it covered. This talk page needs archiving, but I don't want to archive any ongoing debates, so I might try to archive a few of the older discussions by subject rather than by date finished. Alun 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the English and the British.

1. haplogroup R1b

2. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

3. http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

HCC

I see that the problem here lies in mixing different concepts:

1. Language cannot be confused with "race", if we may still use this term.

2. Concepts like Celtic or Germanic are related to languages, which they take as the main reference.

3. Ferdinand de Saussure, the most prominent linguist of the 19th century and father of European Structural Linguistics, already pointed it out in his Cours de Linguistique General.

4. In the 21st century this has already become very clear, in fact we can take four European languages as an example:

French: France and Haiti.

English: Britain and Jamaica.

Spanish: Spain and Guatemala.

Portuguese: Portugal and Angola.

According to the ethnic concept based on language we could consider the Haitians French, Jamaicans English, Guatemalans Spanish and Angolans Portuguese.

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. Alun 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Language

The Cornish language has been revived. It never 'died out', there were always people that spoke it - whether fluently or not I don't know - from the end of the 18th century when it is said to have died. There are thousands of speakers of Cornish, in Britain and abroad. Cornish is a living language. It is also a language of England. Cornish was spoken by people natively outside of Cornwall in diminishing areas until the 16th century (restricted basically to Devon). Most speakers of the Cornish language reside in England. Cornish people whether they like it or not are by location English and the Cornish language is spoken natively inside England. Should Geordie be termed a language such as Scots rather than dialect then Geordie too should be listed as a language of England, the same with a revived Cumbric if it can be proven that 50 people speak a revived form of the language. Cornish and English are the two native and spoken languages of England Enzedbrit 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the language was officially deemed exitinct for most of the 18th to early 20th century with supposedly the last monoglot speaker being Chesten Merchant in 1676. Even if the language continued through this time, it is known that it was only by a handful of speakers, only six were found in 1875. Cornish is a language that is indigenous to the present territory of England, but has never been a widely spoken language of English people. Even today, there are no more than 400 fluent speakers of the language, most of which are still in Cornwall. Many if not all of these people also identify themselves distinctly as Cornish more so than English. Just because 50 or so people speak Cumbric does not mean that it deserves inclusion as a language of English people or ethnicity. I guarantee more English people can speak French, Spanish or German fluently as a second language than either Cumbric or Cornish. Shouldnt they be mentioned under spoken languages too then ? Cornish and Cumbric are not the native languages of the English people and obviously never have been considered so. English and its dialects is the sole native language of the English people and always has been. Epf 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you must remove the Cornish language from the Cornish ethnic group page and replace it with English. If these languages are spoken by the ethnic group to which they belong then why should they not be included? Would you remove a native American language because it only has 100 people whereas the majority of that ethnic group spoke another language? Should it be relevant if it's not a first language (yet) of anyone or is only spoken by a few thousand or few hundred fluently as you say? Does this mean that Cornish isn't a real language? Cumbric was spoken by people who were English until the 11th century and beyond from Yorkshire to the north and west, Danish/Norwegian by people in Yorkshire itself, Welsh by people in Cheshire, Shropshire and Hereford, people who are likely to have no more nor less (likely very less) Anglo-Saxon blood now than they've always had - did they only become English when they started speaking English or when their dialect became intelligible to Estuary English? My maternal grandfather and his siblings were/are English and their first language is Welsh. I think you've been quite brash then to say that English is the be-all and end-all language of England and the English Enzedbrit 11:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to roll with this one but I'm not happy about it. I don't believe that the number of speakers, it being a first language or its restriction inside a country/ethnic area should matter if it is still a language of that people and this sullies the whole categorisation of languages in the section, and for these reasons too it should rightly jeopardise the inclusion of Cornish on the Cornish people page because the factors of its extent remain the same Enzedbrit 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. The very few people who speak Cornish as a native language more often than none take pride in their distinct Celtic Cornish culture and identity. The fact remains here that the modern ethnic group of English people has never spoken Cornish or Cumbric as a native language and those languages have never been considered synonymous with English identity. You cant compare 11th century Cumbria to the present day, and those Cumbric speakers people back likely didnt consider themselves English, especially if they were culturally Celtic or didnt have any English ancestry. The demographics within English regions have obviously changed throughout the centuries since then, especially with the growth of urban centres and internal migrations. Overall in England, indigenous non-English languages do not exist with people who would at the same time still consider themselves to be ethnically/culturally English. I'd also like to say I find it your grandfather's case very interesting since he was English and somehow learnt Welsh before English as this is very rare in general in Wales today (especially so with someone who is of non-Welsh descent), and would be even rarer in his time when the language was in even lesser use than it is now. Not that this has to do with anything, just thought I'd mention it. Epf 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I will say here that it's not as straight forward as you're making it out to be but with time people will re-evaluate this subject I'm sure; it's still quite a new concept, that of language identity, and very few people especially in Britain seem to care. My grandfather was born in Co. Durham and only learnt English at school as Welsh was spoken in his home and his grandparents were monolingual. His wife, my nana, was the Northumbrian blood of my family and her mother's first husband was also a Welsh speaker - her older sister told me lovely tales a few years ago about how she grew up in streets in Co. Durham where only Welsh was spoken. She also told me tales that few there seem to know today, besides the Welsh language history of the region, of the Germans bombing the pits, the retarded woman waving at the luftwaffe while her mother scalded her from the bedroom window and the three old men whose heads were blown off as they were sitting on a park bench when a bomb went off near by.

You should never be too complacent too on English being the only language of the English. As Scots is recognised as a separate language, there is a very dedicated community in Northumbria who would have Geordie/Northumbrian recognised as a language too, and there are websites to this effect. There is also a distinct cultural and some would say psuedo national Northumbrian feeling, included among it returning the Lindisfarne Gospels to the north east, greater autonomy for Northumbrians from London and a proliferation of regional symbols/identity such as the Northumbrian tartan, bagpipes, music, mythology and, naturally, the language. Enzedbrit 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

There are precious few sources used for verifiability in this article. I have marked a few ^{[citation needed]} in the History section (and not all at that). Given that the thre core principle policies on wikipedia are verifiability, neutrality and no original research this is really quite pathetic. If you make an edit you need to verify it from a reliable source. If you do not do this then it can be removed at any time. Editors are responsible fro verifying their own edits. If you do not have a source for your edit then you should find one, you might find that you are actually wrong. If you want to generate a good article, then you need to do this for credibility. Currently the only properly verified sections are the info box and the section on Y chromosome analysis (that I did). See also Citing Sources and Wikiproject fact and reference check.Alun 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, indeed alot of referencing is needed here, but do you not agree that alot of information can be considered "common knowledge" or agreed upon by users editing the article ? This seems to be how most articles are created on Wikipedia and most contain large amounts of non-sourced information. Epf 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the policies Epf. I do not write them, but they exist for a reason, these are policies and not guidelines remember. As I say, what you think is common knowledge may be wrong. Wikipedia is full of people making occasional entries and including what they think are facts, often they are wrong. I have done it myself, gone to get a reference for a fact I know only to find my memory faulty. I have also seen so many incorrect facts included in wikipedia over the last few months (for example, that the Hyksos perpetuated Akenaton's religion, but the Hyksos had been expelled from Egypt 200 years before Akenaton came to the throne, so this was impossible, it was in Monotheism) I don't see the point of editing wikipedia if one is not going to check their assertions. The discussion above is a good case in point, no one is prepared to supply verifiable sources to back up their argument, and An Siarach left the discussion PDQ when I asked what sources he was using. There is also the problem with edit wars, there seems to be an increasingly militant air about editors regarding their opinions, which has led to edit wars, these are futile in my opinion and are a waste of time and energy, it's a bit pathetic IMHO to just keep reverting someone else's edit. There is never any point in blind contradiction as has accured on so many talk pages. Get sources before making edits, reference them while making the edit and include all points of view for balance. This is a good philosophy and it's a shame that most people just seem to want to propagate a single point of view to the exclusion of all others, and don't even bother to reference their edits. The talk page exists to make queries, suggestions and for debate as to how to include the various POVs, it's not there to claim one POV is better than another, and anyway this claim is in breach of the neutral point of view policy. Alun 06:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Alun, all information on here should be cited with references of some sort, but with most articles in Wikipedia, large portions (in many cases the entirety of it) are not, which is partially why Wikipedia pretty much has no credibility in academic circles anywhere. Sources take alot of time to gather though which most normal people don't have, especially if those sources are not available online. Most people on the discussion boards dont source their claims, including even yourself in the same discussion you quote your having with An Siarach above. The fact is that much of the debates are on topics that are subjective and have little or no official source or references to draw upon. The same sources by some users are even taken from different angles to support opposing POV's, no matter which one is factual or not. For now though, I really think you should take alot of the ^{[citation needed]} icons off because over half the articles on Wikipedia can be labelled with those throughout the whole of each article which just goes to show how much POV, whether right or wrong, is found in this free "encyclopedia" if it can even be called that. Epf 06:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't always cite sources on talk pages, but I do always cite sources when I make edits, and I do provide sources when I am asked to do so on talk pages, this is something I haven't always done, but I hope I have developed this habit as an editor. If I try to find a source for a talk page and find I am wrong I always admit my mistake and appologise, I see no merit in fighting to the bitter end for something I am wrong about. We are all wrong sometimes and there is no shame in it, which is why I have made the point about militancy. If a single source gives two points of view, or can be interpreted in two ways this is a good thing and doesn't preclude this from being included in the article. There are lots of pages which don't cite any sources at all, and these should be labelled with the same template as here, the unreferenced template at the start of the reference section. I am only concerned with a few pages on wikipedia, and it is those pages which I am currently trying to get fully referenced. I will point out to you this statement that is included on the verifiability, neutrality and no original research policy pages: The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. The Seax article is one I have done some work on, it is only a stub, but I have worked hard to try and include as much information as I can find and know about, I have also redirected about four other pages to it, like Scramaseax. It may only be a stub, but it is fully referenced (all my work) and I keep an eye on it to see if any erroneous information creeps in. You will see that I have tagged the last addition as it is not referenced. I will remove it in a week or so if no reference is forthcoming. Alun 10:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true Alun, I agree with that you are saying. Its just that so many articles don't have referencing or only have little referencing and most of the information in each is based on agreeance between users from common or un-sourced knowledge. Obviously it would be ideal for every article to be completely referenced, but I think the WIkipedia community knows that this simply is not the case with so many articles currently. As long as the information entered into articles is agreed upon from a neutral perspective of various users, that is what is most important, especially when not all information can be specifically sourced/referenced (even in recognized encyclopedias like Britannica). Epf 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Which part of The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus do you not understand? Your statement is in direct contradiction to the core philosophies of wikipedia. There is much information that is included that is not agreed upon, you yourself have engaged in pointless edit wars (and so by definition these edits were not agreed upon) most discussion simply involves contradiction rather than constructive debate about how to include all POVs. I do not think the argument that other articles are crap, so it's OK for ours to be as well is really an acceptable position to take. I take pride in the work I do for wikipedia, and want people who use it as a reference to be sure that they are getting good information, this is only possible when everything is properly referenced. It is pointless arguing with me over this, this is a policy, I have not made the policy, I am merely drawing attention to it and pointing out that nearly everytning on this page could be removed perfectly fairly as unreferenced edits can be removed at any time. If you take issue with the policy then I suggest you take it up at talk verifiability. Alun 05:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Mainland Europe

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)

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:

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)

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)

National Geographic News.

New perspective on the history of the British Isles: Genetic and archaeological research points to a minor influence of Anglo-Saxons and other invaders in the English and British Genetic pool: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.186.189 (talk • contribs)

I read your link here, its found in other articles and also almost a year old. It doesn't present anything new that hasnt been already seen with earlier studies and it even says at the end that alot more testing needs to be done before origins of the English, Welsh, etc. peoples is actually known. Pointless link. Epf 08:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be offensive when you post on the talk page. Please read the assume good faith guideline. It is not constructive and doesn't help to achieve consensu to take such a patronising attitude. It is not apointless link, any published source can be used to verify a POV, please observe that the basis for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability. Please also sign your posts. Alun 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the link is interesting, in fact, very interesting. In any case, it is up to the readers here to decide. For me, research that is just months old is quite new. In any case, I think that adding reputable sources about a topic is always welcome in wikipedia.

Onother interesting link is this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/prehistory/peoples_01.shtml HCC

Other related ethnic groups

What about New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, and Americans? Or don't they count as ethnic groups? TharkunColl 10:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think they do (yet). Anyway, these are people descended from Britons and if people in these countries wish to identify as American, Canadian, etc., then they are breaking that link with Europe and Great Britain. People in these countries who are of British heritage usually identify with that heritage. Enzedbrit 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

English ethnic group?

I am not English myself, however I do know bits and peices about England's history and I must ask do the English as we know have enough common features to warrant them being called an ethnic group?

It depends on how you approach the term Ethnic Group. As there is an English identity and a realisation that one is English and that is associated with England which is a political/national entity, then yes, there is justification for an English ethnic group the same as there is for most ethnic groups. English can also be linked with other British isles peoples for a blood-based ethnic group, or broken up into other ethnic groups based on distinct cultural, linguistic and historical commonalities. Enzedbrit 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Germans

This may have been addressed before, but heh, tis a free country. The German people represent, not only the Genesis of the English, but also the closest (more or less) living relatives, even linguistically speaking. The Saxons are from Germany and still live there; the English language is as closely related to LoW German as to Frisian and Dutch (which are forms of Low German-Franconian). In any case, Enzedbrit has questioned what I know... is it necessary to print qualifications? If so, let me know. Otherwise, let me say that I'm someone who wants Dreaden and Coventry NOT to get in the wat of a reasonable response...

The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from north western Europe, covering the lands that is now north west Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Germany is a large country that encompasses many former tribal areas that have had nothing to do with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Some sources even say that the lands whence the Anglo-Saxons came were completely depopulated as the villagers moved to Britain, thus the link to modern Germany would have been lost. The percentage of Anglo-Saxon DNA in the modern day English people has been shown to be significant but not too large and in most parts of England (and naturally Britain) overshadowed by the much larger indigenous component and others such as Norwegian. The Germans have developed as a people and have migrated around their own country due to influences mostly from mainland Europe and not from its north west. To link the Germans with the English is to imply that people were moving from Germany to England and this is just not true. I repeat my statement made to my edits: this has nothing to do with the war. If you feel that it has, then this is an issue you should address yourself with others of a similar ilk. You are confusing the fact that the Angles and Saxons were Germanic with being 'German'. This would appear a very simple mistake but it does not cement an ethnic link. English and British culture is vastly different from German culture and culture is a major defining point of ethnicity as well. I fail to see a link that should exist between the two and I cannot see any justification for the omission of Germans being 'prejudice' although if one were trying to prove an anti-German element in these pages then this will feed that need to see oppression at whatever cost.

The English language is Germanic, but it is spoken natively in all British countries and is as much a defining point of being English as it can be for being Scottish or Welsh. The article though is not about the language but the people. The English people are a British people and the link to the other British nations is the only clearly defined ethnic link; all links elsewhere are left to debate and speculation. A link between modern English and modern Germans will exist but to include Germans means that one has just as much of a mandate to also include French, Italians, Spanish and others, all of whom have provided migrants to Britain in ancient times and influenced its culture. Enzedbrit 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously a point there. Linguistically both peoples are related since they both speak Germanic languages, the main difference being in the fact that English was much latinized mainly by the French Normans (More that fifty per cent of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin, while the other half of the vocabulary, its grammar and phonetics are Germanic). The problem arises if we want to consider genetic links between the two peoples. If it is accepted that the majority of the English descend from the Native inhabitans of the Isles, then they have less in common than their languages may imply. On the other hand, if we analyze the paternal and maternal lineages of the English and the Germans, they are not very different, but the same could be said in relation to other Europeans. HCC.

The German people may have moved around, but this is equally true of virtually all other European peoples. So the arguement is basically invalid that the Germans are in some way "more" mixed, evolved than other Germanic peoples. If one includes the Frisians and the Dutch and Danes then one has to absolutely include Low Germans.

Then include the Low Germans as an ethnic group, or first rather discuss it on here, but do not add all Germans Enzedbrit 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from this there is the question of relationship to other peoples on the Isles. It is true that there is a closer genetic relatioship to the Celtic peoples; why not eliminate all the other non-insular peoples from the equation altogether? (Stpaul 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

There are no Celtic peoples but I know what you are trying to say and I agree with this argument and would be happy to see the whole 'related ethnic groups' section eliminated. Enzedbrit 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we must include it at all, I would tend to favour eliminating from the list all peoples not from the British Isles. It is obvious from anyone who is acquainted with those peoples that the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are much closer to each other than they are to any Continental Europeans, and have been freely mingling and inter-marrying for countless centuries or millennia. I would also suggest a similar removal from the equivalent lists for those ethnicities as well. TharkunColl 08:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems questionable either way: Continental people provided much of England's culture and language; Insular people share much of the genetic materials. I agree with Enzedbrit and Tharkun that this section is divisive and a touch ridiculous. However, as it's there, one has to include (Low Germans). For evidence, see The Isles, by Norman Davies, who shows the genetic and cultural ties to Lower Saxony. (Stpaul 08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Rather than link the Low Germans to the German People page, would it not make more sense to just link it to a section on Lower Saxony or to the dialect of that area? Other peoples are listed as 'related ethnic groups' whose pages are given as nations, languages or regions. Enzedbrit 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are Low Germans an ethnic group? Or is it just a language classification? If they are not an ethnic group, then they have no place in a list of "related ethnic groups". It's true that much of English culture was seeded from Continental sources, and it is equally true that exactly the same applies to the non-English inhabitants of the British Isles. At one time what eventually became the British Isles was joined to Europe, so all of its indigenous population and culture is ultimately derived from European models. The point is this - whatever invaders the British population has absorbed, a distinctively insular culture has always developed. TharkunColl 10:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornish ethnicity is based on the fact that there is a distinct Cornish language and enough people to say that they identify with a Cornish 'identity'. In this respect, I think that there is every justification for Low Germans to be classified as an ethnicity, so maybe they are? Enzedbrit 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By what you're are suggesting, that there is a distinctive insular culture that should not be related to the continental cultures, you suggest that the peoples of Britain are closely related to the detriment of continental relations. This is plainly false, as there are many cultural phenomenon shared by Scotland with ireland, say, and not with England, just as Morris Dancing has its origins in Germanic Europe and finds no equivalent elsewhere in Britain. But, you're right, there is no Low German ethnic group, but there is German one, a large proportion of whom speak Low German and are related, culturally and genetically to the English. Certainly, in Bremen or Schleswig the language spoken resemples English as much as Swabian or Swiss German. As I say, having the related groups is not a good idea, but if they must be there then the Germans must be there. The reason I believe that they're not is pure prejudice against Germans. 150 years ago there would be no arguement; all English people would have been happyto have been seen as related to the Germans.

Have changed the link BTW Enzedbrit. Hope it's ok. Now, about the French:-) (Stpaul 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I think it's best to include the Low German language and if you're comfortable with it too then that's even better. It's shows that 'difference'. What though about Scotland is shared with Ireland and not England? Remember, England has tartan as well, and Morris Dancing is found in Wales. I think though that when you look at continental Europe you can see how the British isles are this other cultural band, differing in everything from what they have and when they have their breakfast, to the fingers we use for our wedding rings. Erm, let's not talk about the French! Enzedbrit 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The peoples of the British Isles are far more similar to each other - culturaly, genetically, and linguistically (since virtualy all of them speak English) - than they are to Continental Europeans. This is not to say that they don't also share some traits with Europeans, and I never suggested that they don't. Clearly, the peoples of the British Isles and Europe together share more traits with each other than they do with Asians, for example. It's just a question of degree. What do we mean by "related"? Close relatives or more distant ones? What is the use of such a list anyway? If the list has any purpose at all, it is to show which peoples share significant and numerous traits with the English. Only the peoples of the British Isles fall into this category - through many hundreds (or thousands) of years of close proximity and intermingling (also, obviously, so do the peoples of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA, etc. - but they have already been excluded on the grounds that they don't count as ethnic groups in their own right). As for people in England 150 years ago being happy to count the Germans as related, even if true (and you have provided no evidence), I strongly suspect that they would still have regarded the Scots, Irish, and Welsh as much closer still. The fad for all things German - and it was never more than a fad - came about because a German dynasty, the Hanoverians, occupied the British throne. It did not exist in the Middle Ages for example, when the fad was for all things French (for very similar reasons). And in any case, linguistically English was originally a branch of North Sea Germanic (as was Frisian). German is not all that closely related. TharkunColl 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting passage in John Davies A history of Wales p. 66 ... the traditional belief that the Saxons killed or swept away the entire population of the territories overrun by them is wholly mistaken. In their desire to stress the essential Teutonism of the English nation, nineteenth-century historians such as Freeman and Green gave wide currency to that belief ... Thus there could be no blood connection between the English and the Celts. Indeed there were some English scholars who were reluctant to accept that the Irish and the Welsh were even Celts, for if they were they would be members, as were the Teutons, of the Indo-European family. Rhion 11:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

St Paul, I see where you're coming from but I agree with EPF. The Low Germans aren't identified as a distinct ethnic group although they definately will have a unique culture. Germans are far too broad and misleading to be linked to the English. I think that there should be no reference to German people in the related ethnic groups to the English because the Teutonic invasion really is covered sufficiently by the Frisians, Dutch and Danes and contrary to long-standing beliefs, the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain really didn't have as large of an impact on the people as once thought and although introduced the basis for modern English, Welsh and Scottish culture, those cultures were far altered far more by successive cultural periods. Again, I put forward my support to have this category removed completely due to the very nature of it and its ambiguity. Enzedbrit 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Enzedbrit's idea to remove the related category altogether. Indeed, this should be done for all "people" articles. (Stpaul 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree, unless we can find some verifiability for including it, like a book that gives a list of related ethnic groups, then it will only ever be a question of opinion. What exactly does related mean in this context?. Alun 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it should be removed, I think it merely needs to be defined what "related ethnic groups" entitles. Also, I feel its imperative to point out that the Anglo-Saxon invasions were the basis for English culture, but not Welsh and Scottish cultures. The Low Germans do have a unique regional identity just as other areas of Germany do, but they are still ethnic Germans. I understand why you would want to include "Low Germans" if they are genetically related to the English more than other Germans, but there hasn't been any studies confirming that they are related in the same extent as the Frisans or Danes. The sample from North Germany was taken from an area of Schleswig-Holstein that had both Frisian and Danish settlement (in fact it was originally part of Denmark). In a cultural and linguistic sense, it could be argued that the English are related to all Germans, not just Northern Germans. Epf 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the related peoples section as it is currently rendered looks okay. Just re-add Germans as the Angles and Saxons did make some valuable contributions and until there is much wider genetic testing, the results aren't 100%. After that it'll be just fine as it is. Just make sure people don't start editing the page by adding other peoples. Tombseye 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, the inclusion of Germans implies a relation between modern Germans and English that is stronger than what it should be. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes did contribute a lot to British history and culture and they are represented by the people of those modern lands: Netherlands, including a separate listing for Frisians, and Denmark. There was the talk of having an inclusion for Low Germans but as they don't see themselves as a separate ethnic group - to the best of our knowledge they don't - then this has been dropped. To include all Germans implies a bond which is much weakened through the separate histories of Britain and Germany and would welcome the inclusion of many other peoples. The line must be drawn. The English are most closely related to the other peoples of the British isles and when we start including the continent we find a weaker bond or one that is more concentrated to English people of certain geographic regions. If this section is to remain, then it must have a sense of credibility, and adding Germans does nothing for that credibility. Enzedbrit 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact and reference check

Check it out, why do we need proper citations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Alun 12:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian origin

People here continue to use 19th century terminology, while they ignore 21st century genetic anthropology. Do they really ignore all this information here! Most Britons and Western Europeans are not of "Indoeuropean" or "Celtic" origin, they are of Iberian origin. I could really flood this place but here you have just a few samples:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

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

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)

Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

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

HCC

umm, none of this information concludes that British peoples are of Iberian origin, lol. Also, "genetic anthropology" is in its infancy really and it is by no means completely reliable. Also, 20th cent. information was based on phenotypic traits almost completely and is still somewhat useful since it is information from a different perspective (in fact correlations between physical anthro. and pop. genetics are quite numerous). Epf 06:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with EPF. Enzedbrit 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I respect all opinions, but you know how this goes, you must support your opinions with reliable and verifiable sources, otherwise, opinions are just that, opinions, and they do not have the same value as sources. In fact, one of the problems of Wiki is that a lot of people just express opinions. If someone thinks that all that information and much more that I could provide if you need more, is not conclusive or relevant, then you should provide verifiable and reputable sources that say so. Or you think that you can dismiss scores of studies, all of them pointing in the same direction, with your opinions? About EPF comment "none of this information concludes that British peoples are of Iberian origin, lol". From what I can see, you can write, so I guess you can read as well. Take your time if you need, lol. And if you still do not understand well, here you have more reading practice.

http://www.roperld.com/YBiallelicHaplogroups.htm

http://www.kerchner.com/haplogroups-ydna.htm

http://www.clanlindsay.com/genetic_haplogroups.htm

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass4.asp

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gkbopp/DNA/CommonHaplotypes.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15162323

In fact, the link of the British Isles to Iberia is double: Through the R1b Haplogroup and through the the Western Atlantic Modal Haplotype, which is the most common Y-DNA signature of Europe's most common Haplogroup, R1b.

I hope that you can see as well how things are done: presenting evidence. Or otherwise someone could also say that the earth is flat: that is also an opinion. HCC.

How are these haplotypes specifically originated in or confinded to Iberia ? These are by no means "Iberian" markers or indicate that British are of "Iberian origins", unless you incorrectly interpret the data, which seems to be the case here. Epf 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since your reading skills do not look very good, I will try to be graphic with you:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/R1B_MIGRATION.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/MIGRATE.JPG

http://www.dnaheritage.com/images/masterclass/europe_haplogroups_2.jpg

HCC

Again, how do these show that the y-chrom. group is confined or originally from Iberia ? This haplogroup is found among all Europeans and in no way are the Britons of Iberian origins in the sense that they are related any more to modern Iberians than to other European groups. Epf 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Epf, if you want to be taken seriously, stop saying that things are like this or are not like that just because you say so. HCC.

I think that EPF is expressing, although not too well, what a lot of people would feel in this situation, and that is that the findings you are putting forward, even though they might be based on research the findings for which you have provided links, are extremely radical and offer a point of view that is markedly different to what we have been lead to believe. I think this warrants a lot more discussion. Similarly on these pages other topics have sprung up with new information, one of those of interest to me being the Cornish language and its relevance to England as a language of England. HCC, we would need to find more consensus and discuss this more among the dedicated users on this page before we accept that the British and Irish peoples are direct descendents of Iberians. Enzedbrit 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your point. I know that all this information opens new perspectives. I just introduce it because I do not understand that all these new findings are being ignored in all these people's pages. Bear in mind that they are not based on just a few amateurs. They are based on projects like the Hapmap, National Geographic, etc. and serious and reputable ancestry companies, and most prestigious geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza (who has been doing thi research work for 50 years before jumping to conclusions). These new findings are so important or even more than the discovery of the Indoeuropean languages in the 19th century. That is why I do not understand that some people who are speaking about the origins of peoples do not know about all this. HCC.

There is another fact that Epf pointed out that was not mentioned above. . Even if originally Britains came from Iberia, its doubtful at this point that they have any more relation to Iberians than they do to say, Germans or Danes. English people don't come from Iberia, they are a mix of various ethnic groups ancient ethnic groups.(ex:Angles, Jutes) Falphin 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss the main point, Falphin. The link to Iberia is an ancient link, much older than the Angles and Jutes, but Angles and Jutes came from Western Europe and most of the people in that area also have an ancient link to Iberia, since the genetic marker R1b is prevalent in that area too. As I said, not only most Britons, but most Western Europeans are of Iberian origins, as long as the theory is right that the R1b genetic marker comes from Iberia. I admit that it could be wrong that it actually originated in Iberia, but all theories that I have checked right now point to Iberia. Besides, the highest concentration of this marker in now in Iberia and the British Isles, but it is also very common all across Western Europe. In any case, if you have sources that indicate that this marker originated not in Iberia but elsewhere, I am the first one interested in knowing them. Let me know, please. But bear in mind that this ancient link to Iberia is not in the time frame of historic peoples like Angles, Jutes, Romans, etc. but rather in the same time frame as, let us say, the Indoeuropeans, when it was believed that most Europeans came from that people. So when I say that most Western Europeans are of Iberian origins, it is the same as when people said that most Europeans where of Indoeuropean origins. I hope that you can place this fact in context now. HCC.

Then I'm confused as to what the point of this is. If all Western Europeans come from Iberia then there is nothing unique. My point in mentioning the Angles and Jutes is that there origins are as much of a part of the english people. The one question I have thought is whether or not your theory is the most widely held. For example some have suggested that the British are of Phoenecian orgins, but unless things of changed thats not a mainstream idea and therefore doesn't deserve equal mention, no matter what one might think of those arguements. Falphin 22:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Falphin, if you have a theory, use verifiable and reputable sources, and put it forward, please.

As to my previous comments we have different situations here:

1. Now it is believed that most Britons descend from the ancient inhabitants of the British Isles. These peoples have a direct ancient link to Iberia.

descended in varying degreees from ancient Britons who may or may not have "origins" in Iberia since the R1b group was spread across the western fringes.Epf 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Many other Britons may descend from later invaders, like Romans but especially, Angles, Saxons or Jutes, and later French Normans. Taking into account the places of origins of these peoples, most of them probably had the R1b genetic marker, so they were also of ancient Iberian origins.

Indeed, largely in England and Scotland, people also descend from these peoples in varying degrees (except the Romans and Normans who did not leave a lasting demographic impact). Having the marker again does not mean descended from "ancient Iberians" and there are varying proportions of this Y-chrom./MtDNA markers in each group along with markers from other Y chrom./MtDNA groups.Epf 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3. There were also people coming from Norway and Danemark (Vikings). Though only about a 25% of Norwegians carry the R1b marker, some of the present day Britons with this marker may descend from them, being also thus of ancient Iberian Origins. In the case of Danes, about 50% of present-day danes have the R1b marker.

Again, as is shown in the links above, not characteristic of solely Iberia in Upper Paelotlithic times.Epf 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like to be precise, so pay attention to what I say: I use the word "most" never "all" and I use the word "ancient" never "recent".

Why most, because as you can see many do not have the Rb1 genetic marker.

Why ancient, because it is a fact that these data come from 21st century Europeans, but there is no historical record that accounts for these population movements. That is why the theory speaks of these population movements taking place about 10.000 years ago.

Still, do not confuse theories with facts. Now, in 2006, most Britons and most Iberians belong to the R1b male genetic marker and to the H female genetic marker. In the rest of Western Europe these markers are also prevalent, but not as common.

And do not confuse "facts" with ones interpretation of these "facts" and the most common regions with R1b is indeed the Basque Country, Ireland and certain parts of Wales. It is more common in these areas than in England and other parts of Iberia and there are obviously both Y-chrom. and MtDNA markers that the populations do not share in common (haplogroup G common in Spain and Portugal, but not in the British Isles). Also, the sampled localities are not specified in many cases in the data provided.Epf 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

HCC.

Which of your soruces above shows what the percentage of current populations in the British Isles and Iberia have this Y- chrom. markers ? What I think you need to realize most when interpreting this data is that this marker is very ancient, in the sense that it may even pre-date the last Ice Age. This same Y Chrom. marker is found in other studies on the populations of the British Isles and is what was deemed the "ancient British" element. Either way, the areas where this marker was most common was in western Ireland and in the Basque country. Overall, I just think you make these studies come across as misleading by saying the R1b marker is specifically of "Iberian origin", when its more characterisitc of the Western fringes of Europe as a whole. Epf 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Epf, read well the sources and the maps. I am not going to comment on the obvious. Besides, I have already said that if you have other theories about the origins of R1b, please let me know, I really want to find them, because I have been trying and all I have found was evidence and theories pointing to Iberia. By the way, I am starting to doubt if you know where Iberia is. I think you cannot locate it in a map, because if you know where Iberia is, your comments sound surrealistic.

Here you have more proof of the Iberian origins for R1b. I am trying as hard as I can to find an alternative theory, but I always come across the same. In this case, National Geographic:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Click on genetic markers, then activate Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b.

I am still waiting for someone here to provide similar proof that it is not Iberian.

And here you have more proof.

http://homepage.mac.com/csbrown/Home/GenographicProject.htm

From this link I have copied and pasted this part:

When the ice retreated genetically homogenous groups recolonized the north, where they are still found in high frequencies. Some 70 percent of men in southern England are R1b. In parts of Spain and Ireland that number exceeds 90 percent.

Today, for example, the marker's frequency remains very high in northern France and the British Isles-where it was carried by M173 descendents who had weathered the Ice Age in Spain.

And the heading of this one is the following: High resolution mtDNA evidence for the late-glacial resettlement of Europe from an Iberian refugium. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/1/19

So, I think I have presented more than enough evidence. Something else is that some people are not ready to recognize that most Britons in 2006 are R1b, like Most Iberians in 2006 (those are the only two areas in Europe, along with France, where R1b clearly occurs in the majority of the population, though the percentage is not as high in France), and there must me an explanation for that.

Right now all the evidence and theories point to the fact that it was the Iberians who migrated North and not the Britons south. They spent in small numbers so many thousands of years in their Iberian refugium that they picked up the mutations in their DNA that is known as R1b and continues to be R1b to this day.

So, I cannot understand that some people here say that this is just my PVO in spite of all the evidence flying in their faces.

I hope that the response will not be again: No, No, because I say so!

Still I do not want to make any changes to the article myself. You have the evidence there. I think I have done my job here. If you honestly think it is good enough do it yourselves.

HCC

All I can say again is that your data does not provide information on where the studies were conducted in each country (i.e. which specific localities). This Y-chrom. haplogroup has already been documented in other studies on the British and other Northwest European populations and indeeed is specifically highest in western Ireland and in the Basque country in Spain. Even from your own evidence above, it is shown that the R1b haplogroup came to Iberia first before moving on to other parts of the western European fringes, but it isnt itself characteristic of solely Iberia. It is rather most characteristic of the western European fringes, including western Norway, Ireland, parts of Wales and the Basque country where it reaches its highest frequency. Also the data from above, including the western european populations, tends to use one or two sampled areas from a few localities to represent the entire population of a region. If you wish to see a more detailed and specific Y-chrom. analysis (in terms of localities) of the British populations, I suggest you refer to this study: "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" (pdf) It should also be noted that many of these studies, including the one listed here, stress how they are not fully conclusive on the genetic make-up of such populations and therefore would never claim something such as "Britons are of Iberian origin", especially if it means "Iberian" in a modern context (even from the data of the y.chrom. analysis you provided, there is a signficant difference between Iberians and Britons). As well as this, the other (currently unable to carry out) lineages of our genetics may or may not point out to the same similarities between regions as is shown with these samples of Y-chrom. and MtDNA analysis. Epf 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No one denies other important influences in the British Isles. That is not in contradiction with the fact that most Britons, including the English, are R1b.

You have your personal opinion, but I have demonstrated (at least I have provided evidence and sources)that mainstream opinion is that these R1b populations came from Iberia (sorry I think you now admit it). If you want to give it another name, go ahead. People use the term Iberia to refer to that location and Iberian to refer to that genetic marker.

Even though your own evidence clearly demonstrates that R1b spread over most of the western European fringes, including Iberia, but not conifined to it. Epf 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See also this interesteing Wiki article: Hispania . See prehistory.

Anyway, Epf, sorry if I was sometimes too tough on you. You have your opinion and I respect it. Now I just want to leave this here for people to think for themselves. They can do their own research if they are interested, typing in any search engine (Google is good) things like: Haplogroup R1b. Haplogroups. Atlantic modal haplotype. Iberian refugium, etc.

HCC.

Well, thanks for saying so since I didn't doubt your sources, just diagreed with your own personal interpretations and (incorrect) declarations from such. As I stated above, I also just made clear that I personally found some inconsistencies and ambiguity in the data/results shown from some of these sources (and yes I did manage to finally find some time to read through all of them thoroughly, even the ones I had previously read). Anyways, still some interesting stuff presented, cheers. Epf 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Germans have had very little influence on the English

The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were North Sea Germanic speakers, and their only close linguistic relatives on the Continent are the Frisians. These groups are descended from the Ingaevones, whereas the modern Germans are descended from different branches of West Germanic entirely. Do not be confused that there are places called Saxony in Germany - it is just the name that has survived. The Danes and French, who each colonised parts of England during the Middle Ages, have had a much greater impact on English culture than the Germans. TharkunColl 12:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the French never colonized parts of England during the middle ages, the Normans did and they were a mix of Norse and French culture, while being almost entirely of Scandinavian descent. You do make a good point about the Germans though since modern Germans, both North and South have some different origins than the modern Frisians or Anglo-Saxon groups of the 4th - 6th centuries. Epf 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This grouping in of all Germans to associate them with the English is fradulent. People are again bringing in the idea of the cultural ties. I'm very sorry but I see very little similarities between any aspect of British culture and German culture, which is continental and quite distinct. Enzedbrit 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladies & Gentlemen, I think that this has been drawn out quite long enough. We really should come to some agreement. Afterall, I am presuming that we're all British!!! We should act as such. As the links to peoples outside of the British isles are questionable at best, the language of England is spoken natively in all of Great Britain and all British people wake up to live their life in a common cultural way, how about we do for the English people page what has been done for the Welsh people page and restrict related ethnic groups to just the British peoples? These are the only non-questionable and obviously related peoples anyway. Enzedbrit 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would seriously agree with this. In terms of similarity, only the insular peoples come close. Everything else is other. TharkunColl 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alun, StPaul and EPF, what are your views on this? Enzedbrit 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to be the most practical solution: in terms of genetics it is probably unaguable, for the moment, that the insular peoples had closer relations to each other than to other European peoples. The question is, should other factors of relationship be included? the trouble is drawing the line, so it still seems the most practical solution. perhaps a footnote could explain that this means genetic relationships or some such? (Stpaul 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm not so sure about a footnote. The distinguishing feature in English ethnicity from Scottish or Welsh is a sense of identity and to a lesser extent cultural uniqueness and far less genetics as there isn't one. But drawing that line is indeed going to be the biggest problem. I think that we should be tough, or else one could list dozens and dozens of peoples. Enzedbrit 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I mean its obvious that the ethnic grops of the British Isles are more closely related to each other than to any continental groups (unless you include Bretons), but I think its also undeniable the link that the English and Scots have to the Frisians in terms of descent, culture and obviously language. The Germanic elements in the isles are more pronounced in England and Scotland than anywhere else which is why I dont think the groups listed (except whoever includes ethnic Germans) should not be removed. I don't see any problems with the way it currently is. I am not going to be on Wiki much over the next while though since I'm taking a break for the World Cup and its also summer here. Cheers, Epf 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out, in case people are liable to forget it, that the English language is spoken by all the nations of the British Isles. How this came about is not the point. The people of the British Isles have a shared genetic background, a shared history, a shared language, and a shared set of cultural traits. TharkunColl 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but so then do the Canadians, Jamaicans, Australians, etc. It's also worth pointing out that a large part of the cultural differences (real and imagined) that Highland-Scots, Welsh and Irish feel is down to an inherent linguistic in the recent past, a difference that still exists in north Wales and Western Ireland. The examples are part of modern culture, even if very often English people and others would prefer not to see them.

Further, if one goes down this road of language change, if the Normans hadn't invaded then we (or at laest the English) would be speaking a language virtually indistinguishable from Low German.

Unfortunatly, I can't help but feel that there is a certain amount of prejudice against the Germans; we can see the same phenomenon with the Poles and Czechs vis-a-vis the Russians on their respective cultural pages, as they too deny relationship. (Stpaul 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, I did point out some time ago that Australians, Canadians, Americans etc are indeed very close ethnically to the British, but they weren't included in the related ethnic groups section because they don't actually count as ethnic groups in their own right - i.e. they are, in effect, too close to us to be included! I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the Normans, because the fact is that they did invade, and the language did change. History is not made up of "what ifs". Similarly, if the Normans hadn't later gone on to conquer Ireland, then the modern Irish may not have been overwhelmingly English-speakers - again, this is irrelevant because history didn't work out like that. Ethnic identity is, among other things, a product of shared history. I am not, in any sense at all, claiming that the Welsh, Scots, and Irish are the same as the English - hell no! But all four of these peoples are far, far closer to each other collectively than they are to any other ethnic group. Whether or not there is a prejudice against the Germans is a moot point - if the English felt any kinship with them then they wouldn't feel so prejudiced in the first place! TharkunColl 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're just talking about feelings, then ask most Scots, Welsh or Irish how close they feel to the English, and you'll find that they don not feel close, indeed there is as much antipathy to England as English antipathy to Germany. Just look at the World Cup and who the other British will be supporting (clue: not England). (Stpaul 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

If you had actually read what I had written, you would know that I was not "just talking about feelings". It was a very minor point at the end of a lengthy paragraph concerning history, linguistics, and geography. But in any case, I disagree with your assessment (for what it's worth). The city where I live has a very large Irish community, and in all my dealings with them I have never once encountered any anti-English sentiment, nor visa versa. Usually quite the reverse in fact. As for the non-English nations of the British Isles not supporting England in the World Cup, who cares? Not all of us base our ethnic sensibilities around something as mind-numbing as football, you know. But just to refute your suggestion, I once saw a documentary about a gang of Scottish football hooligans who regularly travelled abroard supporting England, because Scotland hardly ever got anywhere. TharkunColl 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thaekun, YOU don't seem to listen, or indeed know what you are talking about sometimes. The point was that Norman-French transformed the language into what it is today; why not include the French as a related ethnic group (French being the majority language of the French).

as to the Irish community disliking the English, or the English disliking the Germans, that's exactly the problem with this particular section of the page, on every ethnic group page. The Finns refusr to be identified with the Swedes, the Czechs with the Russians, the Greeks with the Turks, the Swiss with the French, etc., etc., and you refusr to let the English be identified with the Germans because "if the English felt any kinship with them then they wouldn't feel so prejudiced in the first place". You are pandering to these prejudices. YOu refuse to allow the German relationship on the page because you are a little Englander who hates the continent and can only remember the war when dealing with Germany. (Stpaul 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

And once again you have completely failed to grasp the point here, and have resorted to ad hominem attacks. The English have little or nothing in common with the Germans that they don't also share with any Europeans. English traditions of common law, democracy, freedom of speech, tolerance, personal liberty, etc. etc. are notoriously absent from German history, which in every single area has taken a totally different attitude. You mention the French - yes, they are just as much like the English as the Germans. But they are much more like each other as Continentals. You accuse me of prejudice - perhaps the true prejudice is on your part, and your insistence that the English are like the Germans is actually a manifestation of your own anti-English sentiments. TharkunColl 07:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're showing ignorance: Where is this fabled English Democracy in history? England was not democratic until the 20th century. Common Law existed in Germany until the Napoleonic invasions. How can you criticise German tolerance, as it is the country of the origin of Consociationalism, as opposed to England where difference was detested. Once again, you display a prejudice based on Germany's poor 20th century and an willful gullibility concerning England's historical character as a country. If you want to go down that road, consider that if England ha been so democratic, tolerant, etc., why did they go and colonise half the world?

If you're still reading this though, good luck in the football!(Stpaul 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

"Consociationalism is a form of government involving group representation by elites". Thank you for that little gem, I've learnt a new word today. Don't fancy living in such a state much though, though you're welcome to if you wish. As for England's own history, as I've already told you it was the Normans who have been guilty of most of the excesses, not the English. It is England that has given the world such ideas as freedom of speech, individual rights, etc. And I've already told you twice that I can't stand football so you can shove that where the sun don't shine. It is you who are prejudiced and biased, not me. Stop vandalising this article simply because you don't like the English. TharkunColl 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I happened to notice in today's Independent, in an article on Germany by Simon Calder (English), the comment that Germany is "...the nation to which we are culturally closest". Rhion 12:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He is simply wrong. There's nothing more that needs to be said. TharkunColl 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, simply wrong? Fine arguement. Was it the Normans who invaded India/Scotland/South Africa/New Zealand etc? England gave the world individual rights, etc... where's the evidence. Seems to me that you just can't stand Germans and disagree with Simon Calder, Rhion and others because of prejudice, little else. Oh, and the article is not vandalised just because I don't share your xenophobic POV. (Stpaul 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

There you go, accusing me of xenophobia again. The truth is that your own prejudices are becoming embarrassingly clear. TharkunColl 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

St Paul, there is a point here. Why would anyone say that the English are most closely related to the Germans in terms of culture? Did this chap mean England or the United Kingdom when he said we were most closely related to Germans? If he meant England, then he is classing Scotland and Wales are other nations and in which case he's wrong as England is indistinguishable from Scotland and Wales except now in increasing forms of local government and in the case of Scotland, Scottish bank notes. Had he meant the United Kingdom, then Ireland is the country to which we are most similar. Looking at the way of life in the continent, I would say that the Dutch are closer to Britain culturally than the Germans. Enzedbrit 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey NZ. Tharkuncoll's arguements with me seem to have slipped onto the main pages. He has said that the only reason he won't have the Germans on the page is that he doesn't feel andything for them and he considers them all to be fascists. This is exactly the problem with Wikipedia; emotion and POV dressed up as fact. I ask you for your suppirt in bringing the debate back to a civilised tune, and to just ignore the Tharkun who is plainly a xenophobe and a nationalist.

The suggestion re keeping just insular groups seems the most logical, as I've stated, in terms of blood. In truth, for cultural questions, the continent cannot be ignored, neither Holland (which I agree is closest) Germany, the Frisians (closest linguistically) or the Danes. We need to make a decision based on sound editing, not the fact that some of us are uncomfortable with being close to Germany.

As to Wales and Scotland being indistinguishable from England;-) Doubt that'd be a popular suggestion elsewhere, but then, if you really believe that, why have them as a separate ethnic group at all. (Stpaul 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Well StPaul regardless of what a few brainless nationalists in Scotland or Wales might think, they are indistinguishable from England aside from what I've mentioned. I see the North East as closer to Scotland by geography and local character than I do the rest of England anyway. How can all England be different from Scotland or Wales. Have you been around the country? You know it's true ... As for them being a separate ethnic group, I am not favourable to this position as it makes us separate peoples as Germans are from French or Italians from Spaniards, when in reality we are separate 'artifically' through borders drawn by our Norman masters 1,000 years ago. Yet, I have lost the argument there and am making do with it: the separate ethnic group listings remain.

For Germany, my argument will thus always be that there are historical links but they are so weak compared to the other continental groups that we list. The differences between the British and the Germans might have widened the gap, but that gap was already there. We have confused Germany with Germanic for too long. Most of what is now Germany has nothing to do with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who travelled to Britain the same as most of France has nothing to do with the Normans that came 600 years later. What the English are are a British people very little changed from the genetic make-up of thousands of years ago. Again, this is old ground.

I love the Germans. I work with them at my university every day and have just finished top of my first trimester German course. I cannot think of a German I've met who was rude or impolite (can't say the same for the French but do know a few nice ones). I am glad though that the emphasis of English ethnicity, culture and identity is not across any sea, but lies in Britain and is unbreakably connected to the other British peoples. I wish that I could say something to counter what you don't like in the guise of the anti-German sentiment you have had posted to you which is uncalled for as it distorts truth and real history as we both agree, but that is someone's personal opinion. The best we can do is be vigilant and counter it with reason, which even though might be our own POV, we can get across kinder and more civilly. More British :) Enzedbrit 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One more this, I didm't mean this modern Swiss-Dutch-Austrian consociationalism, but the older version proposed by Johannes Althusius. Seems like Germany is the originator of live-and-let-live after all, eh Tharkun (Stpaul 07:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

"Tharkuncoll's arguements with me seem to have slipped onto the main pages. He has said that the only reason he won't have the Germans on the page is that he doesn't feel andything for them and he considers them all to be fascists." How dare you charactise my arguments as such! I have stated numerous times that there are many reasons why the Germans should not be included, and the question of "feelings" was just a minor, throwaway point. In order to build your case against me you are resorting to lies and propaganda. I don't give two hoots about conationalsocialism, it is just another tedious variation on corporatist statism which the Germans have been very good at over the centuries (and the French, for that matter). Well leave them to it! They have the right to run their countries however they like, as long as they don't interfere with us. They can experiment with ten million shades of autocracy and elitism as much as the want. These sorts of activities are wholly and utterly alien to the English mentality. TharkunColl 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Germans have been removed from the related peoples page along with other groups. I am glad of this! Very glad. I hope that people allow it to remain this way but I will now go and align it with the other British peoples. I don't see though that Channel Islanders should be listed. I had no idea that CIs saw themselves as a separate people. Enzedbrit 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

English character

Should something be added about the English character? I know it's hard to generalise, but there are certainly a few truisms that could be mentioned. Also, some quotes could be includes. "An Englishman's home is his castle", "Hanging on in quiet desparation is the English way" etc.

Or should that be in tne English Culture article? Mojo-chan 10:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To the loony who keeps vandalising this page

Please go and join the Sealed Knot if you want to play at being part of the aristocracy. Wikipedia is a serious information resource and your alterations to the article are Wikipedia:Vandalism. TharkunColl 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are an ethnocentric POV warrior yourself, advancing all that twisted National-Socialist tripe about leaders and followers, haves and have-nots--claiming that the Greeks, Romans and French somehow polluted the English bloodlines and corrupted England. Shove it up your arse. I'm proud of descent from all the monarchs who had children, from the Heptarchy days down to the Tudor-Stuart era. I don't feel ashamed of accepting peasants and royalty into my family, because they make up who I am. You must really struggle to look at yourself every day. Get a life and come back to planet Earth.

You are stuck on an England that has not remained static. People and countries change; accept it. The Anglo-Saxon kings of Mercia and Wessex, or the Danish kings made the body of our society; when Winchester was the capital. The Normans, Angevins, Tudors and Stuarts are our soul. What the future German princes did as a result of Parliament serving its own aristocratic end in battles for Constitutional powers; it has nothing to do with the common English (including Welsh and Cornish), Scottish, Irish and especially the French (including Bretons). That was due to the conniving bastards who degraded our Sovereignty by "clipping" France off the Royal Arms, rewriting history to incite more hatemongering revisionist fanatics like you, committing human rights violations in regards to religion (depopulating the UK's native Britons and Irish to send in prison ships across the world while importing servant labour from the Indian Subcontinent, so each aristocrat would have their own palatial residence and industrial corporation), enslaving our Celtic neighbours by acts of Parliament and causing the American Revolution. Why the hell do you think Americans left the British Isles in the first place? None of this happened under the Plantagenets (Henry II and Henry V), whom made England the grandest country it has ever been in history.

You should review Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (that the English have been disfigured by the Normans), Wikipedia:Citing sources (support your beliefs--if it is a significant belief shared by others and written about to some degree that it is notable; even your perchance associate interest in National-Socialist revivalist groups and their perception of the Norman Conquest), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (taking sides and refusing to consider an inclusive perspective; after all, who invaded and subjugated the Britons, but the Anglo-Saxons themselves? Who wants to be embarrassed like you, with self-imposed hypocrisy flooding every heated attack you make?), Wikipedia:No original research (your fantasies and desires of how England is supposed to be, rather than what England is--matter of factly; don't be shy in stating that people feel the way you do, but it is a feeling), Wikipedia:Verifiability (it doesn't reflect reality since 1066), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground). You must get a grip. Lord Loxley 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mate, you need to get a grip. You are totally off-topic and clearly don't understand the reason for the section that you consistently change. You need to chill out, go away, and not come back Enzedbrit 04:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"You are an ethnocentric POV warrior yourself, advancing all that twisted National-Socialist tripe about leaders and followers, haves and have-nots--claiming that the Greeks, Romans and French somehow polluted the English bloodlines and corrupted England. Shove it up your arse."

If you had read my posts in this debate before you waded in, you would have discovered that I detest National Socialism and elitism of every kind. Furthermore, I never said anything about bloodlines or the pollution thereof, nor about any alleged corruption of England. You have accused me of racism, and used insulting language, and are therefore in violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.

"I'm proud of descent from all the monarchs who had children, from the Heptarchy days down to the Tudor-Stuart era. I don't feel ashamed of accepting peasants and royalty into my family, because they make up who I am."

Please feel free to be proud of whatever you like. As I said before, if you want to play at aristocracy, there are many societies around that pander to such fantasies. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them.

"You must really struggle to look at yourself every day. Get a life and come back to planet Earth."

Why bother arguing with you?

"You are stuck on an England that has not remained static. People and countries change; accept it. The Anglo-Saxon kings of Mercia and Wessex, or the Danish kings made the body of our society; when Winchester was the capital. The Normans, Angevins, Tudors and Stuarts are our soul."

How can an army of occupation be a nation's soul? No, don't answer that - I'm not in the slightest bit interested in hearing any more of your warped rantings.

"What the future German princes did as a result of Parliament serving its own aristocratic end in battles for Constitutional powers; it has nothing to do with the common English (including Welsh and Cornish), Scottish, Irish and especially the French (including Bretons). That was due to the conniving bastards who degraded our Sovereignty by "clipping" France off the Royal Arms, rewriting history to incite more hatemongering revisionist fanatics like you, committing human rights violations in regards to religion (depopulating the UK's native Britons and Irish to send in prison ships across the world while importing servant labour from the Indian Subcontinent, so each aristocrat would have their own palatial residence and industrial corporation), enslaving our Celtic neighbours by acts of Parliament and causing the American Revolution."

Yeah, yeah, yawn.

"Why the hell do you think Americans left the British Isles in the first place? None of this happened under the Plantagenets (Henry II and Henry V), whom made England the grandest country it has ever been in history."

I always thought it was British people who left the British Isles in order to colonise the New World and make better, more prosperous lives for themselves. But yes, I heartily agree that no Americans left the British Isles during the reigns of Henry II or Henry V - whose reigns, incidentally, were separated by nearly 300 years. Under the absentee monarch Henry II England was an exploited province of a French-speaking European empire - hardly the "grandest country it has ever been in history". And Henry V's wars in France bankrupted the country and ultimately ended in ignominious failure.

"You should review Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (that the English have been disfigured by the Normans), Wikipedia:Citing sources (support your beliefs--if it is a significant belief shared by others and written about to some degree that it is notable; even your perchance associate interest in National-Socialist revivalist groups and their perception of the Norman Conquest), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (taking sides and refusing to consider an inclusive perspective; after all, who invaded and subjugated the Britons, but the Anglo-Saxons themselves? Who wants to be embarrassed like you, with self-imposed hypocrisy flooding every heated attack you make?), Wikipedia:No original research (your fantasies and desires of how England is supposed to be, rather than what England is--matter of factly; don't be shy in stating that people feel the way you do, but it is a feeling), Wikipedia:Verifiability (it doesn't reflect reality since 1066), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground). You must get a grip. Lord Loxley 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"

Are you so wrapped up in your own little fantasy world that you cannot see that it is you who have violated every single one of these Wikipedia policies? TharkunColl 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop inserting Marxism into everything the Wikipedia has to offer that revolves around the British Isles. I'm really tired of revisionists like you. Your perceptions are indeed National Socialist to the core. You propound the same ideology (minus Jews, the British form anyways) as Hitlerites who continue to see ethnic history in tunnel vision, where only certain parts of it are acceptable. You must hate your (our) ancestors. I know that if you are English, you are part Norman--so don't attack me for accepting our heritage while you hate yourself! It is apparent that because you believe yourself to be Liberal and Hitler not, that you can get away with David Irving nonsense all the time. Nazism is from Protestantism, Liberalism and you are a Nazi all but in name. This matter is more an issue for TharkunColl, who always manages to offend some other Wikipedian with revisionist tripe, but Enzedbrit may be new at it. I've seen that Alun/Wobble doesn't agree with you, while you have a history of revisionism here that goes back a long time TC. Please, don't use Wikipedia to make English history your pet project in the same vein as David Irving. Lord Loxley 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Make your mind up - either I'm a Marxist or a Nazi! Either way, you are in breach of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule. Your persistent and blatant POV insertions into the articles English people and Kingdom of England have been duly noted, and your first official warning has been issued. If you persist, you will be banned. TharkunColl 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are one to talk, hypocrite. My intervention was solely due to noticing your Ethnocentric Marxism, AKA National Socialism. You want to defame all Englishmen who have been alive since the reign of Henry I of England, the first Norman king to show an interest in his subjects--not as an occupying force but as a leader. You want to remake history, but you can't turn back time. Brittany is not part of the British Isles. Take geography and sociology class, dunce! You think that calling you a Nazi Dunce is a personal attack? You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar, motherfucker. Face up and admit your guilt. The more you try to project it onto me, the more asinine you look. You alone are at fault for perpetuating this problem. Grow up. Lord Loxley 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Normans have long since come and gone, it is you who are living in the past. Interesting that you should call me a motherfucker - that's not really a word used in England very much. Are you American by any chance? That would certainly explain a lot. And in another place you called yourself a Breton, is that not so? Why don't you make up your mind? I have no idea, and don't give a shit, about your own ethnic insecurities - Wikipedia is not the place to display them. TharkunColl 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So the Channel Islanders are come and gone, you backwards looking kook? I said I'm Canadian, who has traced his paternal line of descent from Brittany in the Norman Conquest. You are the one trying to ethnocentrically purge the British Isles-related articles of our legitimate heritage, which is far less simple and Celtocentric than you put our related ethnic groups. Lord Loxley 00:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put them there - that was the consensus. You have no idea whatsoever of modern ethnic affiliation in the UK, and are basing your views on a medieval aristocratic fantasy. You are simply wrong - there really is no other way of putting it. The English are not French, nor visa versa. TharkunColl 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say the English and French were the same, but neither are the Scottish and Irish the same. They are just two sides of the same coin, if you will--rivals who have more in common than they don't. London and Paris are the core of Western Europe in the present day, whose Entente have made an enormous impression upon the modern world. This is based on a rich tradition, originally in prehistoric/neolithic material Channel culture and surviving through all the changes in time--augmented by the Gallic Empire, Volkerwanderung (in which the Teutonic English and French had more in common with eachother than Celtic Welsh and Bretons--who had their own transchannel culture), 1066's Conquest and the 100 Years' War. I have no aristocratic fantasy; that is for the Whigs and their foreign collaborators who took the power away from an organic kingdom (where monarch and subject had a symbiosis) for their own benefit. You think that the idea of Brittany being part of the British Isles is modern? What is wrong with your mind? Lord Loxley 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Germanism and the Third Reich as something English?

The English people are most connected as a historically singular entity, with those nations in pre-Jacobean personal union with England itself. This means; France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (the South or 'Geatland', as I remember my study of Canute and Beowulf). There are the Manx, but they were a subsidiary of Norway anyways for most of their pre-English time. Also, the general connection between England and other nations is summarily described by the Plantagenet web of power most often described as the Angevin Empire. That includes the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Castile-Leon/Spain through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster or Philip II of Spain, the Holy Roman Empire via Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall or Sicily via Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster. I don't feel so tied to the modern United Kingdom so much as the Old England. All of us have English Plantagenet blood, most of us Tudor and the Jacobean era shrinks our royal connections with distant lands. I much prefer the Kingdom of England over the British Empire. This is coming from a Canadian-American, who nevertheless enjoys the Coat of arms of Canada for his immediate heritage and the Great Seal of the United States for his Roman/European heritage. One might say that I accept the Stuart confederacy in British history, but feel entirely alienated by the totalitarian machinations of the Hanoverians and other Germanists. England is defined as Angle-Land and not Saxland. The Angles were from Denmark, not Germany. So what if West Saxon kings followed Offa of Mercia? It was just a local shift of power and not of identity, the Saxons clearly a ruling minority amongst the clearly Scandinavian AKA Norman tribes of England. Tell a Whiggist and they'll scream their bloody heads off with political correctness about Saxon superiority and disdain for the French style of a Frankish France copied as an Anglish England. The Saxons may hate Charlemagne (Bloody Verdict of Verden), but every single one of them is his offspring today and even during the 1649/1689/1701/1707 co-opt of our identity to serve fat cat aristocrats and foreign princes. I don't care, even though my father's mom's maiden name is South Saxon. The Danevirke existed for a reason--to protect the Anglian tribe from Saxon incursions, but the Kings of Kent and Mercia loved the Franks. (Too bad so sad, Prussia and Austria--your fanatical hate of Denmark means nothing to precedent and truth!) Let's please avoid provincialist fratricides, or a cultural dependence on the Heptarchy and subkings like the Welsh Princes and Irish Kings or Scottish Clans. We are above this, if looking to the French model. It took oppressive social engineering to enact the present federation of 1707. Don't believe me? Just ask the Scottish and Irish! I'm not a goddamned Nazi! If England had its own way, we would have sided with Mussolini and not Hitler or Stalin. I am proud of my Greek roots with Brutus of Troy and Latin roots in the Romano-British, unlike the Germans. That being said, we are definitely our own people. It is sad that Denmark and England have Saxon monarchs, not Danish or Anglian ones. Long live the Capetian fascism and a French France! Out of all my ancestry, none am I more proud of than the Plantagenets! What have other dynasties done for us English, despite their Frankish blood?! Huh?! What's the difference between Anglians/English and Frisians/French, or Yngvi and Freyr? Lord Loxley 04:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We all know how plainly different the masses of English are, from the Germans. We are more proud of our Graeco-Roman (inc. Carolingian) and Celtic heritage than they, of which origins they have little. We are justly the heirs of the Norsemen, which Germans only pretend at in their jealousy. We have fought two world wars against the Germans, even forcing the alien Royals to change their surname and marital alliances. England has not been ruled by natives since the Jacobites were destroyed, since the Stuarts were a Scottish clan from Strathclyde (once part of Northumbria) and had Breton (British, you say?) roots. Every single Englishman has at least one Stewart or Fitzalan ancestor from before the Jacobean Union and a lot of Scottish or Breton commoner blood, but how many German ancestors do we have between the Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Norman invasions and the present? We have Holy Roman Emperors and some Italian nobility because of the Crusades. Hell, I'm intrigued on the fact that I have Armenian (Byzantine) blood from the Crusaders--but those proportions are just as low as the German ancestry. Just because we may have this descent, doesn't mean that there is any closer relationship with the Germans compared to the Armenians. We do indeed have an extremely lot of French blood, from all over France. My mother's family is from the Bristol Channel/Severn Valley, but each great grandmother on my maternal side is from Normandy. Now, I take that as being completely natural. What sort of common history does England and Germany, vs England and France have? Who cares what the Teutonic racists have to say about Catholics and Mediterranean people? We have King Arthur and they don't. We have King Canute the Great and they don't. We have the Lancastrian King Hal V--who conquered France for God and Saint George--with Bordeaux wine, from our Royal Dukes of Aquitaine. What do Germans have that is just like us? Our closest German relatives aren't really Teutonic, but French--the Burgundians. I object to the Whig history which tries to eradicate/minimise our actual history, in favour of inventing a culture for us based upon joining the Prussians and Hanseatic League. Bluff King Hal VIII despised Luther, as do I. Dieu et mon droit! Honi soit qui mal y pense! Lord Loxley 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Loxley, I'm very confused by what you are trying to do with the English People page. You are foregoing the months of serious and detailed debate that has been had on the discussion page and are simply now posting your own view on the related people section. St Paul, EPF, Alun and myself among others have all had serious conversations based in fact. As it stands now the related groups will not suit everyone but to limit it to the other British peoples is the most obvious and solid linkage that we can find. Your efforts are not appreciated and what you are doing is vandalising this page. You can contribute and you can discuss it on the talk page but you must find some consensus before you completely reorganise the talk page. It seems that your argument is based on folklore more than fact. Enzedbrit 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No; you are an Anglo-Celtic ethnocentric mystic (eg, Nazi and I know Godwin's Law doesn't apply here) and think that Bretons are allowed but Normans not. How fallacious, that you lot deny non-Celtic relations of the English. We have too much history to prove otherwise; the legislation against Celtic languages by English politics should confirm the most basic prejudice by the English against their subject entities. I say this without remorse as an Englishman, but it is more factual than a hypothetical "Merrie England" based upon Anglo-Celtic mythology. Ireland has something to do with the English people because of the Normans like Strongbow and Henry II, not the West Saxons like Alfred the Great. If you cannot see what is plainly world history, then you are deluded beyond repair! You are also ripping out your own heart by denying half of who you are; insulting the rest of us Englishmen who pride on our total roots and not some contrived and nonsensical "what-ifs" about history. Our history and relationships have been convoluted, but don't skew the facts to represent such a limited falsehood as it has been presented by you so far. Brittany hasn't been part of England since the Breton War of Succession during the Hundred Years' War, yet you still act as if there is an artificial division in political boundaries (but disallowing other peoples whose transnational culture applies to the English Realm). The Bretons chose France, not England. The Irish chose independence, but the British settlers said "no". You act as if your perceptions are the "end all, be all" sort of thing. They are held by a minority of those xeno/Europhobic arses who can't get laid. I'm proud of all that expansiveness England has historically had to offer (pre-1707), but you slice and dice who we are and misrepresent millions upon millions of Englishmen! How dare you force your narrow-mindedness upon the rest of us, who aren't bigoted like you?! Lord Loxley 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of what you're saying other than that you have a fascination with things 'Celtic' and how much you hate it. You completely misunderstand what 'Celtic' is and what the relationship is between the English and the related ethnic groups on the page. Things 'Celtic' have nothing to do with it. Celtic refers to a cultural period that flourished in Britain before the Romans and has endured with the Brythonic and Gaelic languages and incorrectly to refer to the culture of the non-English parts of Britain. The related peoples are there because of a genetic basis, a shared contemporary culture, language and identity and other groups have been omitted or better yet sacrificed, such as Dutch, Germans, French, to keep it simple and obvious. I'm sorry but I really do think that you are some sort of retard. Enzedbrit 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You think it's alright to keep Bretons, but not Normans. I think that qualifies you for a lunatic asylum, at least in respect to the English identity. Lord Loxley 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason why I have discussed the negative side of the Saxons, is that the present revisionist form of mind only looks back to the Battle of Hastings and not how the Saxons themselves had done exactly what the Normans did after them. They were both fascist regimes which did not take kindly to other polities exerting undue influence on their social and cultural control, but I love them both for making me the man I am today. We all know that the English Heartland is the Midlands and it is because of Offa being our first official king of the English, but those who look at it from an aristocratic perspective tend to focus on the successive West Saxon kings and their culture--along with the suppression of the Viking contributions as they were a prelude to the Normans. The difference between England's Saxons and Germany's Saxons is that the former were allies and partners of Carolingian France--the latter a completely estranged relationship. What the 1701 Act of Settlement Revisionists did, was erase the saintly memory of Edward the Confessor and replace it with Widukind's rather foreign social identity. This replaced England's traditional locus and filled the nonexistent void with a complete take-over of society. Our Saxons left the south of Jutland before the Dannevirke was built, which meant they were not yet German or part of the Holy Roman Empire and had actually been still Scandinavian (e.g. Danes and Normans). You want to attack somebody for taking England away from you? Hit the jugular in Hanover, not Rouen. Do you have familial relations with the Lombard Welfs (which English can claim this?), or are you a descendent of William the Bastard (which English cannot claim this?)? Please, choose the majoritarian side of things when discussing generalities such as culture and inheritance--to avoid upsetting those with rich customs and traditions based upon the totality of their forefathers. I'm very offended by the things you lot have been saying, but it's not new and so the suprise isn't so shocking. I'm composed. Lord Loxley 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Stpaul#Personal attacks

I find it absolutely hypocritical that you percieve the French contribution to England as one of oppression and nothing else, whilst including the Irish whom would object to England in respect to the same percieved issue. You have insulted the Irish by not affording them the same position you afford yourself as regards the French. You wholly capitalise on your own fantasies and call anybody else's neutrality to be POV-pushing. You do not believe in seeing that others have equality with your standing, but sure get upset when it is not percieved to have been given you by others. Oh how democratic and enlightened such attitudes are. You'd make a "fine" diplomat! Governmental practices of power delegation vs restriction means nothing in respect to ethnic relations; they exist irrelevantly. Therefore, your arguments are jingoistic and POV supremacism. Lord Loxley 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am simply supporting the consensus, which is to only include nations of the British Isles. As a matter of fact, I think the Germans are a lot closer to us than the French, but someone else has been trying to argue the opposite and at the same time push all sorts of medievalist, aristocratic fantasies. TharkunColl 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, User:Stpaul - since this was a reply I gave to you on your own talk page (and not User:Lord Loxley), and since you have now re-inserted it yourself, I'm happy to leave it in. However, I think any reasonable person would be very hard pressed to find any "inate bias against France, Germany" on my part in it, as you so gratuitously characterised it in your edit review. To state the obvious fact that the Germans and French are more different to the English than the other peoples of the British Isles is not to criticise either the Germans or the French - it merely states the truth. TharkunColl 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[The paragraph copied here by the above user was a reply I made to somebody else entirely, on a totally different page, and was not a response to the above. I have therefore deleted it. TharkunColl 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]

(TharkunColl's vandalism reverted by myself, for he wishes to cover his incriminating tracks.)

No. I removed that paragraph because it was never part of this conversation. You copied it from a reply I made to someone else on a different page. That's why I deleted it, and have done so again. TharkunColl 07:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)'

The French Normans invaded Ireland as they did Britain. As the Normans ceased to be a recognisable French presense, the British naturally inherited Ireland. Enzedbrit 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Normans still speak a Romance language in the Channel Islands. Lord Loxley 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

- Brittany is not a nation of the British Isles and hasn't been. You are a Teutonicist who revels in the Hanoverian "Age of Aristocracy" (ref. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0669397180/103-8410117-2081445?v=glance&n=283155). England's identity began with tribes from southern Scandinavia, not Northwestern Germany AKA Hanover/Brunswick-Luneburg/Westphalia! You rewrite history to serve your Whig history-revisionist political schemes! I have no aristocratic fantasies, unlike yourself! You want the "Celtic nations" to assimilate into the English spectrum and co-opt their identity, the way the French co-opt Roman Gaul as an identity. Oh, the hypocrisy continues! You hate the Mediaeval example, but are ardent defender of the New World Order in saying one thing and doing another! You rewrite history to commit hypocrisy; condemning the actions of one party towards your percieved polity and then adopting such policies towards other ethnic peoples. Mediaeval my arse; you are guilty of those accusations you level towards the French! You have no right to talk! All of these contrivances only serve me satisfaction with the French legacy, because you have rediscovered the wheel and thought it magnificent! Vive la France et d'Angleterre! Goddamn Allemagne et faux "Royaume de Hanovre"! Consensus, my arse! Your barbarian heroes had consent of the common Irish people?! Propaganda at its finest! Lord Loxley 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Celtic nations" are thus because they possess a Celtic language. There is no other qualified definition. Brittany is connected to England because of the Celtic cultural identity and the fact that the Bretons accept that many of their ancestors moved to Brittany from the land that is now England. People in England accept that some of their ancestors came from the continent. I agree that the linkage of England and Brittany isn't as strong as Brittany to France for example, but it is undeniable, and Brittany is an identifiable region. The lands whence the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came are not identifiable regions but are now part of large nation states, and what is also undeniable are the origins of these people, the numbers and their influence on modern English and British culture. Enzedbrit 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Manx are identified as a separate ethnic group, then why aren't the Channel Islanders? You want so much to believe that the Normans aren't related to the English that you omit them from the related groups section, but keep the Bretons who aren't even part of the British Isles. In fact; archaeology confirms that the Bretons left Britain as Salian Franks were among the Nordic invaders when Rome fell. TharkunColl says that the Normans aren't related, but you say that the Channel Islanders do not constitute a separate ethnic group. Where is the consistency of logic in those assumptions, which defies consensus outside of your joint control of this article? Things are much different in the wide world of academia and scholasticism. Well, Channel Islanders speak a language closer to English than any Celtic tongue. Why is that a bad thing; why does negative POV have to be accepted? Now, who is fantasising about the Dark Ages again? Why would the Normans of the Channel be excluded, when they are HM the Queen's loyal subjects? Remember what they endured for us during WWII, which the Celtic nations did not have so bad... When has Brittany declared their loyalty these past 500 years?

I don't identify Manx as a separate ethnic group but by all accounts they do and that would be bolstered by the fact that the Manx have a strong Manx identity. I would classify the Channel Islanders as Britons as I do the English, Welsh and Scots, and again by all accounts, the Channel Islanders do not identify themselves as a separate ethnic identity. Were they do to do, then they would naturally be linked to English people. I don't believe that all the Bretons are descended from Britons as I would find it highly unlikely that such a large region could be depopulated in the face of any barbarian tribe only to be repeopled by the British. The Normans of today: do they regard themselves as a separate ethnic group? If they do, then there is scope too for them to be included as a related people, although this would fall into the same argument as other groups which could be included by have been omitted and might be included again (Frisians, Danes). The Channel Islanders I can assure you don't see themselves as Normans and if they do, that number is not large. During WWII, the Channel Islanders were by and large evacuted to the mainland. Proportionally, more mainlanders were killed in the war on the mainland than Channel Islanders in the islands, although suffering occupation is something I must imagine to be horrific. Yet, they are part of the United Kingdom, and I regard the occupation of the Channel Islands as an occupation of my country. I don't know? When has Brittany declared its loyalty? What do you mean? Loyalty to whom? You what now? Enzedbrit 02:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At least insular Normandy is still with us and this is a fact that TharkunColl especially hates beyond all doubt, since it means that England still has a major toehold of continual ethnic relations with France (while Hanover has come and gone). He is upset because he views the French relationship to be unfair to England, but has no qualms about that in relation to English "oppressive influence" on Celtic speakers with special help by German princes. The same POV TharkunColl uses to exclude the French is that which the Irish use to exclude the English. The question is, why would you do something to others if you do not want it done to yourself? (TharkunColl claims that he is not bound by the Golden Rule, since he is not Christian) The solution is for English and Irish nationalists to not act this way at the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for these types of POV; these Balkanist notions. When discussing ethnic relatives, the Channel Islanders are a mutual bridge between the English and French. This is confirmed by all academics and scholars; that you two fringe-theorists disagree is of no consequence to the world at large. On this page, there are several objections to your dual consensus, but TharkunColl calls them fantasy. Why don't we all gang up on you Francophobes together?

You keep the French out because of this Hanoverian fringe who says the English are Germans. He supports the errant belief that Hanover is where the English come from as opposed to where Denmark's old sphere of influence was and before the Holy Roman Empire and/or Kingdom of Germany existed. German princes have no roots in England at all--they have only been recent and foreign: Habsburg, Orange-Nassau, Oldenburg (now Mountbatten), Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (now Windsor). When George changed to Windsor, it did not conceal the true nature of the monarchy--neither did the Bombing of Dresden in Saxony have that effect of integrating these Germans. The more they try so hard to be accepted, the further our people have rejected their status as our Sovereigns. There have never been so culturally and socially unpopular royalty in the history of the British Isles, yet for some political reasons...others feel it is necessary to make a stalemate by using a straw man fallacy against the Anglo-French fusion which has been witnessed in posterity; by noting that the Germans are an unpopular choice for inclusion--all the while saying that Hanover is where the English people are from.

Please, let historical precedent decide who is a part of the English people vs who is only in governmental or political relation/alliance as a result of religious divisions and Parliamentary dictation of Royal affairs ever since the time of colonialism and especially 1603. Henry VIII of England neither liked Martin Luther and his Prussian/Hanseatic culture, nor was Anne of Cleves going to provide an heir--by choice of a King desparate for heirs. That was the sentiment of the people, whom if Protestant had some Calvinist/French (Huguenot, Puritan) leanings to the exclusion of others. Wesley's Hanoverian entrance to our religious climate had as much "imported spirituality", from the Moravians obviously not being part of English disposition--even if Wyclif and Jan Hus seemed to get along for the sole purpose of dissent, they were false friends and allied by circumstance of a mutual "enemy". That purported enemy was Rome, the "Whore of Babylon" in some claims. Our cultural traditions tend to be fiercely proud of the Greeks, Romans and Franks--it is encapsuled in the machinery of our English language. I don't give a shit what the German language is composed of--Germany is not the essence of England. England has always maintained its independence, up until the time Parliament signed away our future to the Germans. Besides, any cultural relationship that England had with Germany was no more or less significant than any other European nation tied to the Holy Roman Empire.

Lord Loxley 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've got work to do. I think it's great that you write so much but it's really incoherent, and I make no apologies when I say that I really couldn't give a toss about the French, no matter how closely related they are to the British or not. Enzedbrit 02:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lord Loxley why are you always accusing me of being a Hanoverian? I find the Hanoverian dynasty and their Whig supporters to be quite repugnant, in fact, and am much more sympathetic to the Stuarts. I can only assume that my being a Hanoverian fits into your personal little fantasy world in some way. In any case, you gave yourself away a few paragraphs back when you mentioned the New World Order. Only paranoid conspiracy theorists believe in that I'm afraid. TharkunColl 07:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives