Misplaced Pages

Talk:English people

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mutt Lunker (talk | contribs) at 11:59, 13 January 2023 (Undid revision 1133301625 by 117.20.113.221 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:59, 13 January 2023 by Mutt Lunker (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1133301625 by 117.20.113.221 (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
WikiProject iconEngland C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis 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:

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.
Section sizes
Section size for English people (31 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 14,118 14,118
English nationality 5,078 7,807
Relationship to Britishness 2,729 2,729
Historical and genetic origins 87 10,793
Replacement of Neolithic farmers by Bell Beaker populations 5,216 5,216
Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans 5,490 5,490
History of English people 128 38,684
Anglo-Saxon settlement 11,001 11,001
Vikings and the Danelaw 2,471 2,471
English unification 1,926 1,926
Norman and Angevin rule 3,025 3,025
United Kingdom 3,091 3,091
Immigration and assimilation 6,018 6,018
Current national and political identity 11,024 11,024
English diaspora 5,592 21,904
United States 6,043 6,043
Canada 1,733 1,733
Australia 3,068 3,068
New Zealand 3,267 3,267
Argentina 1,818 1,818
Chile 383 383
Culture 758 11,768
Religion 5,835 5,835
Language 3,059 3,059
Literature 2,116 2,116
See also 1,297 1,297
Notes 26 26
References 17 2,969
Citations 36 36
Sources 2,916 2,916
External links 341 341
Total 109,707 109,707

Archiving icon
Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Regions With Significant Populations...

There were 459,486 English people living in Scotland (almost 10% of the popultion) at the time of the 2011 census (and likely a far, far larger number than that with full or partial English ancestry depending on how far back you go, but I don't have data on that). Why is this not mentioned in the infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

English_people#English_diaspora Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
And is that the infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not. It does, though, contain the answer to your question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It contains the answer to my question of why the large English population of Scotland isn't in the infobox? I don't think it does contain the answer to that question, does it. Now do you maybe want to stop acting obtuse and directly answer why the large English population of Scotland is not in the infobox.
The English populations in all the other countries listed in the infobox are also mentioned later in the article. So why is the English population in Scotland not included in the infobox when it's clearly a good deal larger than some of the other current infobox entries. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought it reasonable that you would hold attention to the end of the first sentence: "it is not possible to identify their numbers, as British censuses have historically not invited respondents to identify themselves as English". It would just as much be OR to claim all these people, without evidence, as Scots born in England. Perhaps the stat in the adjacent table should go. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Mutt, but I think the IP does raise a possible confusion in the top part of the infobox: "regions with significant populations" which says 37.6 million in England and Wales and does not mention Scotland. This is clearly explained by the source, which is the England and Wales census, but the way it is presented is a touch misleading and I think the whole number is debatable. In that same census one can put identity as British rather than English or Welsh or others, which is presumably why the number is so very much less than the population of England. There are many reasons why people would choose to call themselves British rather than English, but the decision would be personal choice and is not an objective measure with clearly set criteria.
In Scotland we know there is a significant population of English people, but we don't know how big it is. One possibility is to change the top part of the infobox to either just have a UK flag, or else add Scotland's flag. Also I would like to delete the 37.6 million figure.
Northern Ireland is trickier. The proportion of English people living there is probably lower than in Scotland or Wales but not insignificant. Northern Ireland's population, like Wales, is low though so it doesn't make a huge overall change to numbers - adding the flag is also debatable, which is why it may be easier just to have the UK flag.
These infoboxes on all ethnic group pages are always so debatable! Sometimes messing with them leads to edit wars. My feeling is sometimes less is more though.
Does anyone object to the above proposed changes? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that these infoboxes are always contentious. The selection of what to include in sections such as the regions one often seems arbitrary to me, but works better when the article is about an ethnic group within a state, where there's a single set of geographical distribution statistics rather than a mish-mash of different national measures. I don't really know what the best approach is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The sentence "it is not possible to identify their numbers, as British censuses have historically not invited respondents to identify themselves as English" doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited, which is just a list of ethnic group tick boxes from the 2001 Scottish census. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Sirfurboy:, though my point was the general confusion and lack of clarity as to the significance of these figures and the related ones throughout the article, though particularly, since the IP advanced it, that there was not a sound basis for their interpretation (any more than alternate interpretations, such as the number being a monolithic group of Scots who happen to have been born in England).
I'll also note it may have been in better judgement to simply revert this returning block evading sock of User:92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
True. By the way, as an American with British citizenship I always say British, not English. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
What relevance does this have with anything we're talking about? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the heads up about the block evasion. Looking at the sock IPs edits, I do see a very definite similarity to some comments we saw from the IP elsewhere. At this point I feel disinclined to make any changes, although there may be a more general discussion needed regarding what figures we present throughout the article, and why. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
And I thought it would be reasonable that you could distinguish between people from England living in Scotland (which we DO have a solid and reliable figure for) and the far, far larger number of people in Scotland of English descent (which would be more difficult to arrive at a reasonable figure for, as I already clearly stated to you before you responded passiveaggressively by posting your little link).
Clearly I was wrong.
Funnily enough, in the Scottish people article the number of people in England who were born in Scotland IS listed blatantly and clearly in the infobox.
Imagine that. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
"It would just as much be OR to claim all these people, without evidence, as Scots born in England."
Wouldn't it also be OR to claim people who were born in Scotland were 'Scottish', regardless of where they live in the world? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Aaaand of course, we're just going to totally ignore that point aren't we. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Even if there were a service level agreement for response time to good faith editors with pertinent on-topic questions, as a chronic IP-hopping WP:NOTFORUM sock, that should not be your expectation. I occasionally engage in other activities and checking for your latest word has not been a priority since yesterday morning. Knowing that you have been clocked again, you will read what you will into a concise response.
Let me remind you, this is the English people talk page. Did you perhaps mean "Wouldn't it also be OR to claim people who were born in England were 'English', regardless of where they live in the world?", or would that not satisfy your WP:POINT? It is as applicable, likewise to the multitude of "Foo people" articles re "Fooland". You believe that the non-OR position is that to remain Foo-/English, those born in Foo-/England must remain there and that to live elsewhere discounts one? Hm. Or perhaps the focus was intended to be whether all people born in Fooland are Fooish in the first place. Some will be, some won't; if we don't have RSs that discuss it, we don't either.
I addressed the matter you raised regarding the source you used. Extrapolating this to the approval of the use of other sources regarding other matters in other articles is not pertinent. There may be things that are wrong elsewhwere in Misplaced Pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Black and Asian English people

WP:NOTFORUM

English doesn’t just mean traditional white coloniser people. Modern English people and especially moving into the multicultural future can be brown and black too. This article is bigoted and needs a lot of work to fix it 218.215.116.200 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

People cannot even agree on who is English and who isn't, and this is by no means limited to English people but seems to plague every single 'ethnic group' in the world these days. Purityspiralling is a tale as old as time when it comes to ethnic identities that try turn themselves into blood cults or ancestral organizations like this.
Sure, many would say black and brown people in England are English too, possibly even the majority of people in England would firmly agree with this today. However many would also still fiercely object to the idea that anyone not descended from the Anglo-Saxons themselves could be English (even though many of the people fiercely clinging to this idea are not themselves descended from Anglo-Saxons or are partially descended from them at best, and also refusing to take into account that Anglo-Saxons themselves were a in origin a confederation of originally distinct Germanic ethnic groups and then distinct Germanic ethnic groups and absorbed Celtic Britons and Normans and others who came together under a shared English tongue somtime in the early Middle Ages).
Ironically a lot of the people claiming black and brown people can be English will in the same breath have the audacity to claim the English-speaking people of Scotland are 'not English' regardless of whether they consider themselves English or not.
Considering Misplaced Pages's definition of an ethnic group is 'a category of people who identify with each other', basically anyone can be considered an ethnic group these days. Even fans of a particular sports team. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Not even an attempt at addressing the article or citing sources. WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm addressing the person who asked why there's issues with calling black and brown people in England English. The article itself already touches on those reasons, and the divide in opinion within England itself as to whether these people are English or not. That is not exclusive to white people in England, for the record, and many black and brown people reject the notion of ever considering themselves or being considered English as well.
Is it silly. Yes. But as you know yourself, living where you currently do, people get very, very, very silly with this stuff.
It's also not just black and brown people who get the 'you'll never be ' nonsense, but they tend to be disproportionately targeted by it and it often tends to be automatic just due to their outward appearance. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Per threads elsewhwere and the WP:ANI that got your sockmaster indeffed, stop attributing to me views, or locations I have not expressed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Your user page says you are from Scotland. Is that not a location you have expressed? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Evidently, that is the location that I am from. Are you fishing or obtuse? So it's not just other users views you make elementary, baseless assumptions about? I notice you've also assumed my gender (elsewhere). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Then how am I attributing to you locations that you have not expressed, exactly? You have expressed the location which I have attributed to you on your very own user page. You also expressed any views that I have attributed to you as well, but you seemingly like to pretend you haven't. When did I make any assumptions about your gender?
You really are a purveyor of tedium extraordinaire, aren't you. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Engla" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Engla and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Engla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Privybst (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories: