Talk:English people

Note to editors: The page English people was created in English English (en-EN). Please refer to:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling),
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for information on editing.

Non white English

Is it possible to be non-white and English? And if so should the photo reflect this. I mean, there are many mixed race people in England who have English heritage as well. 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexImperium (talk • contribs)

Yes and yes, in my view. The last time the image was revised was 2009, I think, in this edit following this discussion, so it's probably overdue for a refresh. Anyone willing to take it on? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions: Naomi Campbell (2nd photo in article) instead of Harold Godwinson (1 Anglo-Saxon King is enough) and Amir Khan (infobox photo) instead of Beckham (1 footballer is enough). DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

...other suggestions: Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's possible to be non-white and English, perhaps about 8% of the population fall into that category, leaving 92% in the alternative category. I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to include such a person in the photos; positive discrimination, i.e. flat out discrimination, to make a point is not a good idea. Placing someone in a photo collection simply becuase of the colour of their skin is an appalling suggestion. Do we have an adquate representation of the various religious groups in the country, or any other discriminating feature you can think of - I don't think so, and nor should we. If a non-white English person is famous enough to be included at the expense of another then fine (I doubt there are any at the moment), but please don't make selections based on race. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And in the article we have this: "However, these groups are often still considered to be ethnic minorities and research has shown that black and Asian people in the UK are more likely to identify as British rather than with one of the state's four constituent nations, including England.[61]". So perhaps not in an event. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the montage does in fact aim to be a "cross-section" of Englishness aka being representative. I think it's odd that it's 100% white. Not suggesting we should have 8% non-white, but to have no non-white faces is definitely ....strange. I accept what you're saying about religious representation etc but in a photo montage ethnicity is so clearly visible. A good swap would have been Beckham for Ian Wright since the latter is somewht notoriously passionate about "Eng-er-land", but unfortunately I couldn't see any available images. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already a cross section, and it's not strange to have no non-whites, it's just the way it is. If Nelson Mandela was English then maybe he would be there, but I disagree with the sentiment that we should try and be "inclusive". Incidentally, I've never heard of one of the people shown, Damon Albarn, so I suggest he's swapped out with, I don't know, Churchill? The Roman Candle (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's just the way it is" isn't really an explanation. You're saying that a non-white person has to be of the stature of Nelson Mandela to get in? But Daniel Craig, Kate Winslet or Beckham are ok??? Frankly, its a very odd position to take saying those individuals have to stay but eg Naomi Campbell or Mark Ramprakash don't match their stature. I'm not sure why you used the word "inclusive". It sounds that you rather have a pre-disposition to lable this as "political correctness gone mad..." etc. But that misses the point completely. The point of the montage is to give a representation of prominent English people. All white faces doesn't achieve that. Added to that is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the existing choices: I mentioned three of the debateable modern choices (hardly standing on the shoulders of giants) but some of the historical choices are equally questionable: Harold II, King for a year?? (Btw, I don't think whether you have happened not to have heard of one of the people is a valid criterion for swapping him out.) DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DeCausa. The image should be based on representativeness of the article content, rather than the notability of specific individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is political correctness gone mad, but it's definitely political correctness, which I abhor in all its manifestations. However, there does seem to be a prevailing view that we should be more inclusive here, so I can work with that if needed. The question, then, is who to include. I think it needs to be someone who identifies as English (maybe difficult to ascertain) but more to the point has primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname. This would rule out the previous suggestions; Mark Ramprakash, Vanessa-Mae, Chiwetel Ejiofor. I wondered about Lewis Hamilton and Diane Abbott, but the latter is only first generation British. Any other ideas? The Roman Candle (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to take into account the availability of freely usable images. Recognisability to a global readership is also a factor. We should also take into account evidence of clear self-identification as English - for example, if sportspeople have represented England at some event, such as in an England team. Kelly Holmes, for example. I disagree with The Roman Candle's suggestion that anyone defined as English should have "primarily English ancestry and probably therefore an English-sounding surname". As the article says, "Today, some English people ... are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth" - nothing there about surnames. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed completely. There's absolutely no basis for saying that to be "English" the individual has to have English "ancestry" (how many generations?) or an "English-sounding surname" (What is that anyway? Those with Afro-Carribean ancestry will often have "English surnames" because their enslaved ancestor was given their owner's surname.) I agree sportsmen who have played for England most easily tick the self-identification box, which is why I mentioned Mark Ramprakash. Kelly Holmes is a good one, and high profile. So is Lewis Hamilton. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the major definition of "English" people is that they have English ancestry. There is much in the article about this. If that's not the case, then how do you define an English person? It certainly isn't someone who was born here. I suppose it has to relate strongly to English ethnicity. I haven't lloked at the equivalent Welsh and Scottish articles yet - is there any guidance to be had from them? The Roman Candle (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of "Englishness". One is your definition, based on (real or imagined) ethnic purity; most others are more inclusive. The article recognises the diversity of definition, and the image in the infobox should also reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice Kelly Holmes and Lewis Hamilton are already included in the British people article montage. Thinking a bit more about this idea, it could be problematic. It's clearly a mild form of political correctness to incorproate non-white people here, and I can't think of any such person who would identify as English rather than British. There's no intrinsic problem with the current set of images, so I'm coming back to the view that it's best to leave well alone. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As you appear to believe that many members of England national sporting teams should be disqualified on the basis of the colour of their skin, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's not problematic at all, and, quite frankly, your point of view is becoming somewhat disturbing and offensive. To think that anything but an all white photo montage is "political correctness" is an extreme position. Your unsupported personal opinion that these specific individuals don't self-identify as English (or that they have an insufficiently "English ancestry") is irrelevant. It's quite ludicrous to suggest that people such as Mark Ramprakash or Emile Heskey play for English teams but don't self-identify as English. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh here we go. I didn't think it would be long. Please comment on the article and its content, not on the editors. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the opinions you expressed not on you. That's entirely within the proper scope of this Talk page. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hairsplitting. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the 100 Great Black Britons list, another strong contender for inclusion would be Daley Thompson - born in England, competed for England on numerous occasions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Daley Thompson's parents were Nigerian and Scottish, although he was born in England. A better example could surely be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that he competed for England, not Scotland or Nigeria - and that is good evidence of self-identification as English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He's the best suggestion so far. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say he's probably the worst suggestion so far. Neither of his parents were English, and his only claim is to have been born in the country, and you don't even have to be born in England to complete at international level in most sports anyway, so the fact that he competed for England is of no matter. He's not would you would descibe as being ethnically English. If we must indulge in mild politicalt correctness then a better example should be found. The Roman Candle (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

From the lead: Today, some English people have recent forbears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth. Daley Thompson is an excellent illustration of that sentence. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Recent forbears" is stretching it a bit to include parents. Don't get me wrong, if there's someone we can find that could be remotely described as "ethnically English" then go for it, but Daley Thompson just isn't a good example. Personally I don't think there's a need for this at all, but I'll go with the majority - and I'll try and think of a few more examples, preferably ones that don't already feature at British people or elsewhere. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can't they also feature in British people? Otherwise, Margaret Thatcher and George Harrison will have to be deleted here. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No real reason, I just thought it would give a better spread if we found other people not already featured, but if we can't then maybe we have to use one from British people. Just a minor point on Daley Thompson, he could very well consider himself more Scottish than English, so again I would suggest he's not a good choice. The Roman Candle (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If that were true, he would have represented Scotland, not England, at the Commonwealth Games. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, the country someone represents may well have no bearing at all on their ethnicity. With Nigerian and Scottish parents Thompson is not an ideal candidate here. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In defining "English people", self-identification is at least as important as "ethnicity" and genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No English is an ethnicity someone who has either Anglo-Saxon, Jute, Norse, Dane, Viking, Norman, basically Germanic heritage makes someone English, just because someone is born in England it doesn't mean their Ethnically English all of a sudden it takes at least a thousand years to make an ethnicity luckily the people that migrated to England as listed above are all from a common ethnic background anyway so English became an ethnicity as soon as Alfred the Great united the kingdoms together.86.144.115.174 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So the only English people are those from the anglo-saxon kingdoms under the cake burner? Its going to be a very small group --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any further ideas on who could used in the montage? The Roman Candle (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a percentage of the whole population of England, who knows? But it's wrong to suggest that a group of English people is 'very small' in itself. Not to sing and dance about it, but my surname appears on documents during the years immediately following the Norman conquest, and almost uniquely from the exact town where, approaching 1000 years on, I was born. So the name's unlikely per se to be anything but English, and connected with my relations and myself. We aren't a very small group, although we're not a huge one. But it would be unreasonable to not believe we are part of a much larger whole. Twistlethrop (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of DNA in the English population comes from long before any of the historic Germanic invasions. The base of English heritage actually derives from the Neolithic agricultural population that first settled in England following the end of the Ice Age. We don't know much about them aside from what archaeology can tell us about their material culture and settlement patterns. We don't know what their language was like at all, though due to genetic similarities to the Basques, a language related to Basque is a possibility. They were assimilated by smaller, more powerful waves of invaders which managed to spread their languages and cultures on the pre-existent culture while leaving behind only a small genetic imprint. The Beaker people and the Wessex culture were subsequent pre-historic groups that moved in, followed by the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and finally, the Norman French. It's hard to dislodge an established agricultural population, so the best these groups could do was impose their authority, culture, and language on their indigenous population (while slowly becoming more and more like the indigenous population in turn). What we consider to be English today comprises elements from all of these groups - Obviously, we tend to think of the Anglo-Saxons as having the largest cultural contribution, but there are plenty of lingering Norman, Scandinavian, Roman, and Celtic influences left in English culture, and probably elements of those older, prehistoric cultures which we can't easily identify anymore, including the one that left the largest genetic imprint. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Genetic theories have no place in the intro.

I shall remove the lines that are as follows "Historically, the English population are descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Danes, Normans and other groups." as it has little place in the intro, is controversial and racist, and to my knowledge (as evidenced by the gap between the "Normans" and "and other") written by banned member/sockpuppet Yorkshirian who was constantly trying to make articles conform the British nationalistic philosophy of himself and his many alter-egos. There is already a section about genetics and who is to say that the "Danes" and "Normans" and "Brythons" are more important than say the Irish who emigrated here in very great numbers (about 20%-30% of the populace having some recent Irish origins) or the Scots (again of diverse origins including Anglian, Gaelic, Brythonic (including Pictish), Norse and a littany of other immigrant groups such as modern Irish peoples (who likewise have genetic descent from Gaels predominately, the Danes, Normans, Brythons (and modern Welsh), French et cetera. Likewise choose any group such as Germans who are likewise genetically descended from many groups including Saxons, Franks, Swabians, other Germanic peoples, Gauls, other Celts, Raetians, Slavs, Magyars, Huns et cetera. Frankly this section is nonesense and implies that the English are somehow unique compared to other Europeans, or Eurasians or any group in the world, for that matter. It also puts too much emphasis on genetics and thus "racial" origins of culture which aren't accepted by many in the scholarly community. Also the part about them being "genetically" similar while true in some regards to the majority of the genentic types of the various groups listed, is ridiculous as the modern English population are diverse with origins in India, China, Korea, Japan, Iran, Arabia, West Africa, East Africa et cetera, who are evidently not regarded as "genetically" similar by many editors ("genetically similar" is actually a very hard to determine as ALL humans can be claimed to be "genetically similar" depending on what one means by the phrase). It is also unsourced.

I have noticed that this whole page also needs a lot of cleaning up as well. Much of the information here is is unsourced nonsense, the opinions of editors or advertisements for fringe views (the theories of Oppenheimer, of whom an entire section leads up to the conclusions of, are regarded as fringe. Almost no linguistic agrees with his views on language and much of the genetics is controversial in light of new research into the genentic origins of the Basques amongsrt otheres). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---You shall not.Such an edit to a long standing intro is hugely controversial and you must gain consensus, and sources, first. 'Genetically similar' is evidently a true statement. I will expand upon this when I get the timeGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gaius Octavius Princeps. Sorry, but I cannot perceive anything racist in the lines you refer to, and I am assuredly not BNP-inclined. As far as the entry you have a problem with goes, it's accurate as it stands; I expect it to continue to be so until proven otherwise. Naturally, should you have some verifiable sources you should feel free to expand and improve on the section to give readers more accurate information. But to summarily remove a section because you have perceived a flaw amounts to the same thing as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Please do not do it without consensus.

The most significant error I see is that the section reads "... the English population are ...". The verb should be singular to agree with the noun, so I've corrected it.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

i said that swedes are germanic

From the history of the article:

• 20:06, 13 October 2011‎ Wolfnegative (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Swedes are germanic)
• 21:00, 13 October 2011‎ Radiopathy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455425288 by Wolfnegative (talk) Germanic is mentioned later - appropriately - in the paragraph)
• 08:10, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (i said that swedes are germanic)
• 08:14, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455499977 by Ducherboy (talk) See talk page.)
• 08:19, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (the npov issue is resolved)
• 08:20, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455500746 by Ducherboy (talk))
• 08:21, 14 October 2011‎ Ducherboy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455500781 by SudoGhost (talk))
• 08:23, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455500862 by Ducherboy (talk) See the talk page, and use it, instead of hitting undo.)
• 08:24, 14 October 2011‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455501020 by SudoGhost (talk) Scratch that, I'll just wait for SPI.)
• 19:33, 14 October 2011‎ Radiopathy (talk | contribs | block)‎ (63,489 bytes) (Undid revision 455501089 by SudoGhost (talk) the sock is blocked)
• 00:30, 15 October 2011‎ 219.83.100.205 (talk | block)‎ (63,508 bytes) (Undid revision 455579404 by Radiopathy (talk) please , SudoGhost knows what he is doing)

I have blocked the page for three days and I have reverted the page to a version on the 11 just before this revert war started. What should have happened is that Radiopathy the editor who revert the first change should have explained here on the talk page that WP:BRD was in operation and that (s)he had reverted for these reasons. ...

-- PBS (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK now I understand Wolfnegative and Ducherboy are socks of a well known sock master.

The edit by Radiopathy at 19:33, on 14 October 2011‎ is has a misleading lable :"undid revision 455501089 by SudoGhost (talk) the sock is blocked" what it actually was could have been better explained as "revert to the edit of 08:20 on 14 October 2011‎ by SudoGhost". Now that I know that all the edits on one side were by a sock master, and that the last one is a duck for the same person, I will alter the block to prevent IP addresses from editing article for three days. Let me know if there are any further problems and for the record please explain here on the talk page why the edits should be reverted on their lack of merit rather than because of the person who made them. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic" (again)

I reverted this edit - the supposed source does not support the claim and refers only to Anglo-Saxons, not to English people in the modern sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also note that as a rule tertiary sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica should not be used in place of secondary sources. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Two IP editors making similar edits to sock puppets as soon as semi-protection expires? I smell something cheesy. The article has been semi-protected for 3 weeks. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only mentioned it here in case anyone thought my edit summary was over-succinct - WP:AGF 'n' all that... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not so much the source, but that the edit is also removing the word "nation" from the first sentence and refocusing the lead from "nation and ethnic group" to "German ethnic group". "English nation" is easily sourced (as it is in the article) and one has to conclude that removing the word nation is at least as important to Chaosname as inserting "Germanic" into the article.

That said, User:Chaosname is no longer a "block user" but is now a "site banned" user, and so under the banning policy we should revert all edits, good or bad, by Chaosname. To help facilitate the ban I suggest that we do not discuss this edit, or Chaosname's behaviour more than is necessary so as not to encourage this sock master. -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdated UK population

The article currently lists the UK's English population at around 45 million, from a total population of 58 million taken from the CIA World Factbook in 2001. This is MASSIVELY out of date. The "List of countries by population" article uses a much more recent population figure of around 62 million from an office for national statistics report created mid-2010. Is there any reason not to use this newer and more accurate figure in place of the 2001 data? -- AntJ103 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you only have a figure for the UK population as a whole and not for the English population in the UK, what are you going to use? You can't just make an educated guess from the proportions in 2001; you must cite a reliable ref for the current figure. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate definitions of indigenous English and UK citizens to clear confusion.

Much has been made of the question - Can a non-white person be English?

The issue is complicated because there is a difference between an indigenous English person and an a national who has an UK passport.

Would an English person born is Saudi Arabia who had a Saudi passport be described as an Arab?

Would an English person born in Beijing who had a Chinese passport be described as Chinese?

Would an English person born in Tokyo with a Japanese passport be describes as Japanese?

The intuitive answer to these questions is no since they refer to an ethnicity and not the posession of a legal document like a passport.

There is a difference between someone who is born in England who may have a British passport but culturally and ethnically aligned to a different demographic group and someone who is ethnically English.

The complication can be easily resolved by drawing a distinction between indigenous English people who have various European and British Isles descent and those who are citizens.

Before someone hyper-sensitive bleats about racism, no value judgement is being made here just a sensible and intuitive distinction as is used in most of the other world's countries.

Whilst it is difficult to clearly define what indigenous English means, it is not as difficult to define what is definitely not indigenous English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I used the Talk Page rather than making edits to the Mainpage . A Talk Page is exactly that- a page to talk. It wasn't a irrelevant commentary since the issue is whether there should be a separate Indigenous English section. There are myriad pages on Wikipedia already about Indigenous Americans, Indigenous Amezonians Indigenous Australians' etc so would this not be a useful addition to have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask some further questions of 109.144.19.127, but after reconsidering it, I will only ask one. Do you have any reliable sources that I can read which support your idea and define what an "Indigenous English" means? -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate on my earlier point: the concept of "indigenous English people" is absurd. English people - that is, people who self-define as English and/or who live in England - are a mixture of people of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, later European, later Empire- and Commonwealth-originated, etc. etc., background - all overlaid upon the pre-existing (pre-Saxon) "indigenous" population. In Churchill's terminology, the English are a mongrel race. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is surely a massive inconsistency in allowing pages about indigenous Americans or native Americans, (who are also made up of various tribes and ethnic groups) whilst saying that there is no such thing as indigenous English people. In addition there are hundreds of other pages on Wikipedia referring to different indigenous groups across the globe.

Obviously any indigenous group has constituent ethnic groups within it. In England these were Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and later Europeans who were largely from similar ethnic groups (being all European and for the most part North European). The Normans for example are of Viking origin themselves. Over centuries these people formed a collective identity known as the English, pre the waves of subsequent non-European mass immigration post 1945.

If one believes in the existence of indigenous groups in other countries and geographic areas then why not apply a consistent application to the creation of an indigenous English section? The sub-text seems to be that indigenous should only be used in reference to non-European peoples. Why?World of Whisky (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume that WoW is a new user account by the editor who was editing as 109.144.19.127 please correct me if I am wrong. See the Wikipedia polices on no original research and verifiability. If we are to continue this conversation in any meaningful way you need to produce verifiable reliable sources, that defines what "indigenous English" means, only then can we have a useful discussion. You have your own opinions on this subject, but content of Wikipedia articles is based on the content of reliable sources, both for facts and for opinions. Without reliable sources, this conversation is little more than a forum conversation. This page is for development of the article not for discussing the opinions of editors about the subject of the article other than if those opinions are useful for developing the article. If opinions are expressed on this talk page that do not help to develop the content of the article further, they may be removed (see Talk page guidelines). -- PBS (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)