Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 1 December 2019

England C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups C‑class High‑importance

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

And Lowland Scots?

Historically the English Kingdom of Northumbria extended as far north as the Firth of Forth. Even in Medieval times the people there still described themselves as 'English in the Kingdom of the Scots'. It's why the Scots today speak English and not Gaelic. These lowlanders were English then, and, arguably, are still ethnically English today. The history is complicated, confusing and seldom-mentioned, but nothing about these English Scots seems to feature in the article even though it is an important bit of the story of Britain. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.246.225 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, sadly this seems to be the accepted delusion of the age. That we trace no ethnolinguistic descent from the Anglo-Saxons and ultimately the Proto-Germanic peoples before them. This is a thing associated with the geographic area now known as England (even though like you mention Northumbria spread into large areas of Scotland), thus it is not our history... apparently.

The Celts are our TRUE history, despite them almost certainly spreading their languages and culture to the British Isles in exactly the same manner Germanic peoples did, and only around 1000 years before, if even. And the ironic thing perhaps is that they spread theirs from Germany too, just the southern part. The most hilarious aspect about this modern disassociation of the inhabitants of Scotland with anything English and Germanic is that the original homeland of the Proto-Celtic peoples is actually geographically further away from us than the original homeland of the Proto-Germanic peoples.

I wonder how embracing we would be of our Gaelic history if we constantly referred to the Gaels by their more authentic contemporary name (or at least meaning of the name), Irish. Or obsessed over the fact that most inhabitants of the British Isles were not actually genetically 'Celtic' either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Mutt a while back where I posed him a question, which he did not answer. His stance was seemingly that the people of Scotland were not English nor Germanic in an ethnic sense because they once spoke other languages before they adopted English. If this was the case, then surely nobody in Scotland was ever an ethnic Gael? Surely we must describe the inhabitants of Scotland as Gaelic-speaking always and never as ethnic Gaels, since clearly they spoke languages before they adopted the Gaelic tongue (whether it was by force or willingly). The inhabitants of Scotland were truly Picts all along! They just spoke the Gaelic tongue! And what were they before Picts? Or even Celts? Or even... Proto-Indo-Europeans? Hmmm. Gets very weird and redundant when you adopt this "ancestry defines our ethnolinguistic grouping" stance. I suppose with the Proto-Indo-Europeans its fair to say most who remained were not descended from the ones before them, since they massacred 90% of the inhabitants, apparently, or replaced them through some other means.

It's a strange disconnect we seem to have with our modern identity. And a strange inability to distinguish between ethnic English and political English. To put it into perspective, the kings of England and much of the elite were politically English after 1066, but to call them ethnically English would be beyond a stretch, at least the earlier ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Strike this thread now, firstly as Misplaced Pages is not a forum for rambling general discussion and secondly for the sustained campaign here, at my talk page and elsewhere, of attribution to me of statements and views that I have never expressed. Fail to do so and I will take this to WP:ANI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"So, e.g., all anglophone people, in the Commonwealth, the wider former British Empire and elsewhere, having adopted English or had it thrust upon them, have become "Germanic peoples" have they? It is the language which is Germanic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)"

What? Are you denying you claimed English people are not West Germanic due to 'non-Germanic' assimilation and absorption? It is an attempt to improve the article by having the English people labelled what they are, West Germanic, something you are obsessively attempting to block and obfuscate through selective reasoning that apparently applies to no other ethnolinguistic group on Earth other than the English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Dutch people, or the Dutch, are a Germanic ethnic group and nation native to the Netherlands. They share a common culture and speak the Dutch language."

Do you care to explain to me then, Mutt, how the Dutch are a Germanic ethnic group and the English are not? Are you of the opinion the Dutch have never absorbed or assimilated non-Germanic peoples into their greater ethnic identity over the centuries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You present a quote, attribute a statement to me which is not in it then ask if I'm going to deny it? ANI it is then. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Remiss of me not to link the ANI, here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As to supposed selective reasoning re descriptions of other peoples, this analagous edit at Scottish people is presumably something you approve of, having effectively repeated it yourself a year later. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with that, if the people of Scotland spoke Celtic languages today. I absolutely agree that the 1% of native Gaelic speakers in Scotland are unequivocally ethnic Gaels/Celts and so forth. I would not classify those people, nor the Gaelic ethnic bloc which existed in Scotland over the past 1500 years or so as anything but Celtic.

It goes into a much wider debate, what is the Scottish ethnic group. Is it Gaels or English? You can't be both, you're one or the other, and AT PRESENT 1% of Scotland is Celtic while 99% of Scotland is Germanic, whether that's through English or Scots doesn't matter a huge deal.

Genetic History of Britain

The Wikipage on the Genetic History of the British Isles is worth reading and linking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

Here's just one sentence from it: "Most of Scotland showed a very similar genetic composition to England".

The genetic history of Britain is extremely mixed, so mixed that it strikes me that all attempts to categorise and distinguish most British people today from one another are doomed to failure - and that arguments on the subject are never likely to reach any meaningful conclusion.

A friend, whose documented ancestry can be traced back generations to one Pennine valley, recently took a DNA test. The epicentre of people with a similar DNA profile however turned out to be in modern Belgium!

How did that happen? Possibly the seldom-mentioned Frisian component of 'Anglo-Saxon' settlement was responsible. But who now can say?

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.15.48 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this but I've read all 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' DNA of the British Isles was originally very similar anyway as they both ultimately descended from the same population blocs a few thousand years ago. That is to say the people of the British Isles, regardless of what languages they spoke, cluster extremely closely with other northwestern Europeans (Dutch, northwest Germans, Norwegians etc.) than they do with any of the other peoples that used to be Celtic in Iberia and other southern regions of Europe.

It's apparently very difficult for researchers to determine whether a person is of 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' descent in the British Isles, and it begs the question was it ever relevant to either groups at any point in human history what your genetic clustering data showed? Or was it perhaps, you know, almost entirely based on language and looking like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like to point out that Hungarians cluster very closely genetically with West Slavs and other surrounding people, they do not cluster genetically closely with Turkic peoples or their fellow Uralic speaking Finns. However nobody would call Hungarians West Slavs, and nobody would group them in an ethnic sense with the Slavic and Germanic peoples neighboring them who they are closest to genetically.

It also creates a minefield with ethnic groups like Germans or Russians, who are very varied genetically by region, is there no German ethnic group? I think most Germans would beg to differ, but I'm not sure. The obsession with genetics in the British Isles in determining ethnic status is bizarre to me, and I can only assume it is down to the fact that the people of the British Isles are so indistinguishable in every other aspect (language, phenotype, general society etc.).

They have regional identities and cultures/traditions, sure, but so does every other large ethnolinguistic group. I honestly have to wonder sometimes why the actual Celts remaining don't take serious issue with English people masquerading as Celts today, is it not ethnolinguistic appropriation? Does it not devalue the term Celtic and put them at even greater risk of true extinction when all it apparently takes to be Celtic is existing in the same region that Celtic peoples once thrived in?

Why would any children of Celts remaining even bother to keep the languages and traditions that the Celts first got their name from alive if it doesn't even have a bearing on your ethnolinguistic classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

...and per the thread above, you can strike this too as WP:NOTFORUM applies equally to this off-topic and obscure pontification that makes no attempt at addressing improvements to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Terming Northern Ireland a nation

Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation" so this edit is not appropriate. What's more it is notably regarded as being part of one nation or part of another by various communities. The previous wording is clear and neutral. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source to justify the claim that "Northern Ireland is not conventionally regarded as a "nation""? The edit you're trying to (re)insert is overturning an edit () that has been in place un-controversially since 29 January 2018. Interestingly enough, you have also made numerous edits of this page (and specifically that section of the page) multiple times since January 2018, so would you also explain why have you taken issue with this particular point now? Alssa1 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Take your pick from the sources included at Northern_Ireland#Descriptions.

As you are fully aware, the issue has previously been raised, in mid-August. I am not au fait with, nor have necessarily read, every word in every article I have ever edited, let alone approved them all. I was made aware of this point when raised by @BeenAroundAWhile:. I am receptive to points of view that haven't previously occurred to me; you should try it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Your tone is becoming quite rude and I would appreciate if you adhere to the principles espoused in WP:Civility. But that is separate from the point at hand so I shall leave it be. You are recommending an edit of long-standing terminology, it is not my responsibility to jump to another WP page, and 'take my pick' of the sources to back up your case for the amendment you want; that's your job. You need to make the case, followed by choosing the reliable sources to back up that case. But remember; what you said originally is that the Northern Ireland is not "conventionally regarded as a nation", a WP page that simply discusses the controversy is not the same as being declaring that 'Northern Ireland is not conventionally considered a nation'. You're confusing Misplaced Pages's position (an impartial position) with your own (which is very partial). Alssa1 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please highlight the uncivil passages. You seem quick to take offence and, I'll note, actively on the lookout elsewhere to needlessly do so on the behalf of others who aren't, (just as a consensus was emerging, from which I subsequently implemented an edit, mutually satisfactory to the parties).

Though none of the sources in the "Description" section at Northern Ireland in any way support the use of the term "nation", I'll highlight the passages and sources which most directly dismiss it as a suitable term:

"D. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books, "...what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? ... 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd" (my empahsis)

"Unlike England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland has no history of being an independent country or of being a nation in its own right."

"The absence of a distinct nation of Northern Ireland, separate within the island of Ireland, is also pointed out as being a problem with using the term"

References

1. ^ D. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books, Next – what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'.
2. A. Aughey; D. Morrow (1996), Northern Ireland Politics, London: Longman {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
3. F. Cochrane (2001), Unionist Politics and the Politics of Unionism Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork: Cork University Press
4. W. V. Shannon (1984), K. M. Cahill (ed.), The American Irish Revival: A Decade of the Recorder, Associated Faculty Press

Please cite your sources that, in contrast, support the notion of Northern Ireland as a nation. There may be some in Ulster nationalist sources but I have my doubts that they'd be regarded as neutral here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

We did this to death years ago and there were solid references to the four nations or four countries of the UK and if anything they are becoming more frequent. The whole discussion was mediated, documented and resolved. Subsequently it was agreed to qualify NI but not remove the idea that it is a country -----Snowded 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can point me towards the discussion in question I'll cheerfully drop the issue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a search of the Talk:Northern Ireland archive . As you can see, it's covered in detail. This debate in Misplaced Pages goes back years, but in recent times, and as a result of the Brexit madness, the terminology issue seems to have come to the fore again. Accordingly, it's perhaps worth revisiting once more. 31.52.161.140 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can see the doing to death bit, not sure about the resolution and I think I'll leave trawling through at this hour. 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, have drawn a blank. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask again please, where is this historical resolution to the issue? I in no way doubt the faith in which it's existence is advanced but simply can not find it and woud like to read it. I'll note that my preferred wording avoids labelling what the entity is, so surely more NPOV. Also, FWIW the contested term is "nation" not "country", which I would regard as being rather different things. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ranged over all four country articles for example on Wales here the final process was mediated by User:Ddstretch who probably still has all the links. To be clear the agreement was on the use of country, one could be pedantic about nation -----Snowded 16:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've only just had glance over that discussion but it appears to be rather a different angle: roughly whether something can be called a country if it is not a nation state? (Depending on the case, clearly it can, I'd say.) A nation is rather a different thing to either of those and the unsatisfactory aspect of nation as a term for NI is not about it not being a nation state. Not sure the earlier discussions have much of a direct bearing here then, I'm afraid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also a key difference between being a nation and being a nation state. -----Snowded 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I obscured it but (one of) my intended point(s). Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the difference between "country" and "nation" is mere pedantry. One of the key factors in previous discussions, I seem to recall, is that UK government sources like this refer explicitly to four "countries". They do not, so far as I'm aware, refer to four "nations" - which is a more politically loaded term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So if "nations" is a bad or at least worse choice, options are "...resulted in all four countries having..." or just "...resulted in all four having...". Per my edit, I'd prefer the latter as no term is used, so no controversy about the term but I'd rather an indication of consensus first. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case I'll remove the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away and only now seen a mention of me in this discussion. Around about 11 or so years ago I proposed, and a lot of community work, was put into compiling a large list of reliable sources for as many terms as we could find which described England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom. The latest version of it I can find is here. It almost entirely settled the repetitive wrangles we have about terminology for a while, until it was removed for reasons I don't clearly understand. I feel it was extremely useful and it should be reinstated in an updated form. At the time, I was away from wikipedia for an extended period of time, so I neither followed any discussion which led to the table's removal, nor was I able to comment on it. I seriously think the reinstatement of an updated table could assist the situation considerably, since it clearly lays before people the problems and variety of reliable sources of terminology and reaches a considered position about it. The issue seems important enough to do this in the article itself rather than in any talk page or otherwise "hidden" from the general reader. I'd like to propose we do this reinstatement.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reinstate it! I don't remember any discussion to remove it -----Snowded 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it indicate a resolution for the specific discussion at hand, i.e. the use of the term "nation" for Northern Ireland?

On a side note, I should flag this apparent attempt to influence the debate, away from scrutiny, on my talk page. I recall that the individual got themself into bother in the past in regard to their views on terminology in relation to these islands/the British Isles. The discussion on my talk page confirms that sanctions were imposed, though the individual was rather unconcvincingly unforthcoming on links to the specifics. I suspect that others involved in this thread can shed more light and have a view on whether further action is required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note, I already explained to Mutt Lunker that I was no longer interested in this article's current discussion & had requested that he not bring me into it 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, you were perfectly interested with your initial approach, this only dropping when I indicated I had your number. You brought yourself into it with your attempt to get me to advance your view from behind the scenes; I'm not going to cover up for suspect tactics. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Since ML has mentioned me & I've given it hours of re-consideration. Indeed it's acceptable to use nation in this article (and Scottish people, Welsh people, Northern Irish people) to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The consideration that: as I'd clocked you, if I say A, you'll suddenly say B? What a transparent and petulant volte-face. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain

Just to note, I mad a change in the lead of this article to reflect the fact that the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the unification of the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland. The previous sentence made it appear as though England became Great Britain, which isn't accurate. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Baseball

That a related hit-a-ball-with-a-stick game named baseball existed in England earlier than the development of the modern game is apparently correct. To claim England as the source of the game, in the very lede, alongside sports where the influence is clearly more fundamental and significant to their current forms, such as cricket, football, rugbys league and union and tennis, is anomalous. One could claim an English origin for American football on a similar basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this at Talk:Origins of baseball? In any case, it doesn't belong here, as User:Human Taxonomist's source, David Block, says that Wales may have been an influence on p.118. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What I am addressing is that its repeated addition to this article is unsuitable, at best, and should be stemmed; the place to note that, particularly to the responsible party, is here. By all means discuss the actual question of its origin at the baseball article but I have no personal interest in that matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• C-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English