Talk:British people

What's the total worldwide population of Britons?

In the infobox there's a mandatory field for the total population of the titular group of people. So, what can we determine as the total population of Britons? I assume (at its minimum) it's the combination of the UK's home grown population (about 60 million) coupled with the 5.6 million identified as living outside the UK? So would c. 65.6 million be OK for everyone as a minimum? Is there any advance on this? Do we want to include a maximum threshold, i.e. including those with "British ancestry"? What does source material say? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless a source can be found that says those with British ancestry are British I don't think it should be included. I came across the same thing at Scottish people which stated there were more Scots living in the US than the population of Scotland. Of course, the source never said that, it gave the figure for Americans with Scottish ancestry, two different things. Jack forbes (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. A valid point. The ancestry bit of the infobox should be for that purpose AFAICT. I'll double check my figures, but it looks like it's going to be around 65 million. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that census figures are available for both Australia and the USA (and are quoted in some of the demographics Wikipedia articles, if that helps. --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Monarcy in Canada

Canada retains Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as the head of the monarchy of Canada. HRH QEII is styled the Queen in Right of Canada, as well as, Ontario and is represented by a Federal Governor General and Provincial Leutenant Governors. Her full royal title is, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (French: Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi). ^ Elizabeth II (11 February 1953), An Act respecting the Royal Style and Titles, 1, Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/fr-rf/titre-eng.cfm#a1, retrieved on 15 May 2009

She is featured on the coinage of Canada, Postage Stamps, Portraits in Public Buildings, she visits Canada and has 7 official residences across the country.

Essentially if its important enough to mention with other countries its important enough to Canada HRH's largest country and second largest by population after the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is it you're suggesting? Is there something that you feel needs changing? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've nailed it. New Zealand got a mention, so so should Canada right? Hopefully I've addressed this now. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Okay, beginning a review. I will copyedit any straighforward fixes; please revert if I inadvertently change meaning. queries to appear below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits or archaically Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, one of the Channel Islands, or of one of the British overseas territories, and their descendants. - I paused here as the Isle of man is a part of the UK, so not sure how best to phrase this. "British Isles" doesn't work either due to Eire. And how about catholic citizens of Northern Ireland? Tricky. Not sure the best approach here.

NB: lead is good otherwise.

Oppenheimer found that "by far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales" - can be rephrased without quotes I think.

I am intrigued by the findings of Stephen Oppenheimer here, are they widely accepted now? I am sking as I am a neophyte in the area, and if there are any rebuttals or alternative POvs which still hold sway they might be worth mentioning.

Despite centuries of military and religious conflict, commercially England, Wales and Scotland had a "long history of interdependence" and had been "drawing increasingly together" - be nice to word this without quotes too.

stimulated an escalation in political hostilities.. - why not "escalated political hostilities"

At this time the complementary notion of British national identity.. - why "complementary"?

British national identity was explored and developed. - sounds a bit like a filler - vague.

attempts to solidify the concepts of Britishness.. - maybe a better verb is "meld" or something like it, i.e. attaching Britishness to 'x'.

would have thought darts rated a mention in sports.

• WRT comprehensiveness, nothing is jumping out at me as a glaring omission. I need to ponder this one.

• The prose is good.

• musing on whether a paragraph on Anti-British sentiment is needed rather than a seealso at the bottom, but the page is rather long as is.

Wow! That was a fast review! Thanks for taking the time out for this interesting article about an incredibly important nation (if nothing else!) in global history. I've made some ammendments as you've suggested (and probably best shown by this diff). I'm under the impression you're going to return back (?), so if you'd like to take a look at the changes and report back that's fine. Going through GAC for feedback, so there's no rush on my part. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have struck the done ones, can you let me know what you think of other ideas/suggestions? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure :). OK, regarding the opening sentence, if we are talking about say Irish nationalist people of Northern Ireland who hold an Irish passport, then they are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and not British. Therefore it is a truism that the "British are citizens of the United Kingdom", because if you have citizenship with the Irish republic, you are Irish. Complex I know. Perhaps this could be explained in a footnote if you think this is a point of concern?

I was reluctant to rephrase Oppenheimer because I was concerned meaning would be lost, and the sentence altered down the line. What would you suggest? I haven't come across another explanation of the genetic history of the British. Research by Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes seem to dovetail nicely with each other.

Re "Despite centuries of military and religious conflict, commercially England, Wales and Scotland had a "long history of interdependence" and had been "drawing increasingly together"," again, it could lose the quotation marks, but I was concerned about future edits altering the meaning, and/or editors/readers not picking up on the claim.

I'm not sure a paragraph on Anti-British sentiment is going to be inline with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template, and there's little to be extracted from that article anyway right now AFAICT. How does that sit with you? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"OK, regarding the opening sentence, if we are talking about say Irish nationalist people of Northern Ireland who hold an Irish passport, then they are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and not British." No they are (both) as they are still citizens of the United Kingdom, they could not for example be escorted to the border as aliens and could for example be tried as traitors if they did something traitorous against the crown. --PBS (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's probably even more complex than that again; Northern Ireland, under the GFA, permits citizens to be Irish or British nationals, so yes, they couldn't be identified as aliens, but no, they're not British people under British or Irish law. The wording in the article however is still correct: "The British are citizens of the United Kingdom". --Jza84 |  Talk  16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(resurfacing) sorry folks, been a tad incommunicado for a day. Will digest and add tuppence forthwith. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I missed your replies above. All looks good. As it is a lengthy and fairly important subject, I will just ask someone else if I am missing something obvious. Won't be too long. PS: I thought I saw a tag in there somehwere..Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: To sum up, it is a fascinating article and a great read. I have some niggling doubt about the scope - is it somehow too inclusive and has it gone off topic, or are there bits missing? I don't think so I just wanted to double check. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Crack open the bubbly then, it's over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try and keep fine tuning this to make it even better. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

EEC comment is biased

Furthermore, the effect of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community in 1973 "was irrevocably and unilaterally to disrupt a concept of Britishness" that defined itself as distinct from continental Europe.[116] As such, since the 1970s "there has been a sense of crisis about what it has meant to be British",[117]

This seems based on one point of view. I'm not sure that membership of the EEC was "designed" to disrupt. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say it was designed to disrupt, it just (verifiably) happened to disrupt Britishness as un-continental. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also take issue with the comment as it is in the article now, it is clearly an opinion, not a fact as it is currently presented. TastyCakes (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How so? The source is reputable. Have a look through these - another example is "membership of the EU eroded the 'Britishness' of the British" (a more pallettable wording perhaps?). I'm not Anti-EU, but it did change the nature of British national identity, and that is verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see the need for the comment about the EEC either, even if that was what some people thought it really isnt the true reason for the decline in British identity. The European Union has undermined the need for the United Kingdom but it cant be blamed for a decline in "Britishness".

One of the causes is the end of Empire. When you go from having the largest empire in human history to just a dozen tiny islands spread across the globe, pride is obviously going to take a hit. If America lost its place as a super power, i suspect youd see a decline in patriotism there too. Also ofcourse another one is tolerance, we are so damn liberal we now allow separatism and treason, wasnt that long ago people got hanged for that sort of thing. Another big problem is sport, the fact our main national sport is football and we always compete on the world stage as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.. is it any wonder that breeds division rather than unity. (end rant) lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec):A reputable source does not mean that it's giving a fact rather than the author's opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of Brits that consider themselves as distinct from continental Europeans now as they did in 1970. "National identity" is an abstract concept that can't really be measured, or at least has not been measured (by way of a survey or other hard data) in what is presented in this article. Wikipedia articles are not meant to present positions on such undefined, subjective, abstract topics, at least not to present them as fact. TastyCakes (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this similar comment should be used as it is for similar reasons: "the expression and experience of cultural life in Britain has become fragmented and reshaped by the influences of gender, ethnicity, class and region". TastyCakes (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, given the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, we need to keep the points, but rephrase them to something more neutral/inclusive. Repeatedly the ECC/EU simply is given as a reason for a decline in Britishness - that's not my opinion, that's reality, so we need to report on what the published domain is saying. It's just a matter of how we express that here IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not really torn up about it, I'll somehow find a way to struggle on whatever the outcome. I just don't think this is established fact, and I think that although it is verifiable, it is only verifiable as someone's opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, much of what WP is built on is someone's opinion (and it's probably especially true for an article about a nation(ality)), but I know what you're saying. I've toned down the ECC bit and added an extra source. Hopefully that's better. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Political balance/Noel Gallagher

It is absolutely appropriate that we include the pictures Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. I also believe it would be equally as just to include the picture of that of Clement Attlee, who is just as notable in the history of British politics, which would also be more acquainted to the policy of neutrality. Clement Attlee being a fundamental figure of British socialism and the Labour party, and some of the most fundamental foundations, organizations and policy of the United Kingdom overall. The same applying to Thatcher and Churchill in the history of British politics and conservatism.

I also believe we should use the picture of John Lennon rather than Noel Gallagher. Also a fundamental figure in the history of the United Kingdom, and British art and music overall. Lennon was of Welsh and Irish descent, and was voted as the 8th greatest Briton of all time in the BBC poll, topping Horatio Nelson and Oliver Cromwell. Jacob Richardson (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, especially the part about replacing Gallagher. TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009

I agree with removing Gallagher, replacing him with John lennon. On Clement Attlee, i wouldnt oppose him being added, but im not sure which person he could replace and we do have plenty of political figures on there already. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I would have thought James Watt would be a better "engineering figure" to include than Isambard Kingdom Brunel... Although I guess having a picture (not portrait) of Isambard is in his favour and it's more recent. TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On further thought I'm a little torn on the issue. While Watt had a great "breakthrough" as an inventor that turned out greatly influential, Brunel was as much an industrialist as inventor and I suspect was much more famous in his own time. So yes, now I'm not so sure. TastyCakes (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The only ones on there in my opinion who are not worthy enough are Noel and Keira Knightley. Id like to see Lennon over Noel any day of the week, but the trouble with removing Keira is shes the only actor / actress on there, and we probably need one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Please be mindful of the criteria that was used previously. As has been discussed, this image isn't intended to include people's favourites, as well as reflect some regional, chronological and occupational diversity. Editors would have to develop a completely seperate image and publish it at Wikimedia Commons, not overwrite the existing one. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

True. We could possibly add a new row, or even two, altogether. But I absolutely believe that Lennon would be a suitable replacement for Noel. Jacob Richardson (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is good to have some contemporary people shown in the picture IMO. Lennon's advocation and alleged funding for anti-British international terrorist organisations could also make his appearence with the best British people controversial.[1][2] IMO we should widen the scope and include people from British history in general, if you look at the articles on Italian people, German people, Greek people these include peoples from before the technical foundation date of the modern state. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know, but someone once said Paul McCartney would be better - with having watched this page for some time, I'm very conscious of people keep wanting their favourites up there. There are more important issues than the image, surely. Do we have anything about Lennon identifying as British? Do we have a suitable image to use? Another row may be somewhat domineering, and we'd have to find another 6 befitting people too. Anyway, let's see... --Jza84 |  Talk  21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Im happy for the current image to remain, it would take alot of work to alter the balance as Jza suggests. As for the bit about foundation of the modern state, James VI of Scotland would be well deserving in my opinion. He laid the foundation for the state and "Britishness". But anyway the current image is fine, we dont really need to add more rows, we could go on for ever there are so many great people to choose from. I wouldnt oppose one more row if its easy to find people to fit the previous tough criteria, buts its alot of extra work which really isnt needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree he's fundamental to British identity, but I'm not sure it could be argued he held British nationality. He does get significant mention in the prose mind - which is where it counts. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are people like John Dee and the Tudors too (from a Welsh/English perspective)... and also Boudica. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Section about Ireland

I think this section simplifies the issue by putting it down to Orange/Plantation stock = pro-British, native stock = anti-British. Parties like SF would probably like it to be this way, but IMO it doesn't really reflect the truth of history. For instance Thomas Kelly-Kenny a high ranking General, was obviously both British and Irish. So was the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The Ulster Scots information is very important, but information on Jackeens, Castle Catholics, Southern Irish Neo-Unionism (Reform Movement), West Brits, etc needs to be in there too I feel. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Bretons be mentioned?

In some way in the article? They claim to be the descendents of people from Britain (Britons) who fled to what is today Brittany. That is what their national identity is based on. This could obviously be controversial since it could be deemed irridentist and they're located in France politically, but if Bretons are Britons in some sense, surely it deserves a passing mention in the British people article? - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Britons (historical) covers them, a passing mention here of them i wouldnt have a problem with but we dont want to get bogged down here with the historical "Britons". BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

British people in Latin America

I think the numbers of British people in Chile and Argentina are wrong.

You see, in the British chilean article says that there are 700,000 chileans that claim British ancestry. But here says 350,000 - 420,000

The same goes for Argentina. If you check the English argentine, Scottish argentine and Welsh argentine articles you will see that there are 20,000 Argentines that claim Welsh ancestry, 100,000 that claim Scottish ancestry and 300,000 English ancestry. Then, there are 420,000 Argentines with British ancestry, but here says only 100,000.

I think the numbers here should be changed.

Regards Hikusi (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Maria

Added Populations

I have added several more Populations of British people and their descendents around the world and I have corrected and added to several of these. --Billsta1 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

21 Britons pic

Why Noel Gallagher and not John Lennon or Paul McCartney or David Bowie?... Klow (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There was extensive debate about who should and should not be included. Im not a big fan on Noel being on there and there are certainly alternatives, but we have a good image with some great British people. Probably best to keep the current version than to try to just change one image, it just opens the debate up on other people too. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but really the ones I mentioned deserve it much more. I like Oasis but overall it's just nonsense to choose them over the Beatles... Sad Lennon didn't make it after this debate. Klow (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The pic does not show anyone's view of "the most important" British people, just a fairly random cross-section of those who are well-known and - importantly - have good images which are available to use here, free of copyright restrictions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Noel was chosen for his relationship to Britishness via Cool Britannia etc as well as being someone living. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you all like the new ImageMap I have made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good change BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I have restored the original caption though as when printed, converted to PDF, or browsed on wapedia and others, you can't see who the people are. I'd also like to see the alt text restored someway somehow. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it looked nicer without the huge caption, personally. It's easy to navigate to File:21 Britons.png and print that if you want the list of names. Not sure how to do the alt text though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's really neat, thanks a lot. TastyCakes (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

British People's nationality dispute

I don't know whether you may have noticed but some people are reffered as English or Scottish where as others British, its time wikipedia stamped down and categorised all these people to British, its not only annoying but its misleading, what are your thoughts?--Tukogbani (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The random use is rather annoying, you may want to read this Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United_Kingdom which is where it lays out the guidelines for describing peoples nationality from the UK. It says theres no right answer, some can be called just Scottish if they are known as Scottish like Sean connery for example, where as others should be described as British.

Whilst i dont have a huge problem with Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish being listed, ive always thought it should at the very least also say they are British citizens in their info box or somewhere. Ofcourse that page linked is just an essay, its not compulsary to follow and it is certainly not perfect, some would like to see changes to all of this. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's long been my view that English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish even Irish/Cornish should be used in the lead section wherever possible, and in the infobox use British (after the appropriate act of union). For me, it is the only NPOV way around this as it presents both. I have never mustered the strength to propose this formally and don't think there is enough collaborative spirit on this issue to get it codified and agreed upon. I concede that presently there is no policy, no formal style guide and that all biographical articles are inconsistent and are at the mercy of who ever edits it with reference to all the terms regularly editted out with no rationale according to personal ideology. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

lol its one of those areas where the policy is not to have a policy :|, i agree very difficult to get agreement on making any form of change in the current climate. I would be fine with that in the lead sentence (with the exception of Cornish bit), and then citizenship in the infobox always showing British. There doesnt seem to be that many edit wars (not that ive seen) over nationality issues though, it could be far more unstable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BIO seems to insist that a person's "nationality" is mentioned in a lead, but I would prefer it if we substituted "Joe Bloggs is an English fictional character from Footown" with "Joe Bloggs is a fictional character born in Footown, England", that way we're not forcing an ethnic/national label on someone, but rather just presenting the facts as they are.* However, WP:MOS dictates over my opinion..... unfortunately.... in which case I guess we need to use the adjective approach.

WP:MOSFLAG, specifically this bit seems to have appeared without a wide and encompassing debate, but it does sumarize the present situation well I guess, despite its weaknesses in giving guidance on neutrality and consistency (which would avoid disputes).

It still remains one of my wiki-ambitions to propose something along the lines of the above one day and get it passed (I think it would be a massive achievement), but like I say, I'm not confident it would win preference, dispite it being a much clearer, neutral, helpful, collaborative and encyclopedic approach. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC) *Really, by this logic we could say "Winston Churchill is a White/White British/English/Anglo-American/British-American/White English/European politician" and with some degree of truth and accuracy if we persist on using ethnic/sub-state descriptions, albiet I think this would not gain consensus!

I prefer British be used for all those biographies-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First off thankyou for your replies. Another possible solution could be as followed: Steven Gerrard is a BRITISH footballer born in Liverpool, England Andy Murray is a BRITISH tennis player born in Glasgow, Scotland Or maybe this Joe Calzaghe is a former BRITISH WELSH boxer born in London, England --Tukogbani (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over recent text

I've removed the following:

Oppenheimer further postulates that a Germanic language was spoken in the area of what is now England before the coming of the English.

and the reference:

Oppenheimer, S. (2006). The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story: Constable and Robinson, London. ISBN 978-1-84529-158-7. Pages 3, 9, 10-12, 61, 243, 260-263, 267, 305-306, 415 .

I have concerns about this material. Firstly this edit summary is not appropriate in the slightest (a side issue - but worth mentioning). Secondly the reference is not formatted properly (another side issue). Thirdly (and as a disclaimer I only had the opportunity to skim read this book in a Waterstones), I don't remember seeing anything to this effect in the book, which troubles me; It's a pretty radical assertion, and in all my research I've not seen it in any book or article; I believe it is precluded by WP:REDFLAG. Fourthly, it says "the English" - who are the English? Anglo-Saxons? -- because that's not NPOV. I am certain Oppenheimer does not use the English.

I don't have any stake or objections to the text as such, but I would not like this restored without a consensus and putting my concerns to rest, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No JZA, it is worth mentioning because the traditional view of the English language is that it was brought over with the Anglo-Saxons. The English language is, of course, inextricably tied to the English cultural and ethnic identity.

And it seems like you have some form of bias as Oppenheimer clearly postulates that the English language is descended from a group that existed in the area before the coming of the Anglo-Saxon (who are THE English, by the way, as they refered to themselves as such; Englisc) and I gave you the page references (quite a lot of page references!). I apologise if you have no bias, however, you have not read Oppenheimer whereas I have and had actually given page numbers to you. Oppenheimer's theory is, admittedly, nonsense, but it is, afterall, Oppenheimer's theory and should be represented as such. Oppenheimer believes that the ethnic division between the Britonic area of Britain and the Germanic area has been there since the last glacial maximum.

I completely disagree with Oppenheimer's absurd theory but misrepresenting it is against the rules of the site and is, of course, highly unencyclopaedic. The misinterpretation of Oppenheimer's theory has already spread from this site (and an incorrect Prospect magazine title that Oppenheimer himself disagreed with) onto the net and thus it should be quelled. Oppenheimer neither says that the English were Britonic nor Basque-speaking, he merely states that they are descended from Basques, different Basques to the ones that the Welsh trace their descent from.

As for this:

"Oppenheimer further postulates that a Germanic language was spoken in the area of what is now England before the coming of the English"

That was somewhat sloppy writer (although I personally agree with it) and I should have said before the coming of the Anglo-Saxons. It is certainly relevant to the article as stated above.

The Mummy (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You need to assume good faith The Mummy. I'm not very happy with your edit summaries or accusations of bias. It's unfounded, not conductive to communal authorship and is a blockable offense.

I'm actually completely indifferent to the material added, I neither think it's true or untrue or likely or unlikely, but what I am concerned about is that it is quite an obscure and pretty radical assertion to make. Furthermore, as you say yourself, it was a rather "sloppy" additon (first you used blogs - a definate no-no - then a toning down and formatting was required to eliminate unclear statements). It was neither formatted correctly, and it had grave errors in it ("before the coming of the English"). Again in your text above, you say that "the English were ... descended from Basques", but I'm quite sure he talks about the British people with regards to this - can you clarify? All these things don't strike me with confidence that we're representing WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc etc. That's not to say you're here to cause trouble, but I'm just justifying my own actions.

I seem to remember that there are primary Roman sources that document Frisians, Gauls and Belgicans already in "southern England" at the time of their conquest, or something to that effect. That would suggest to me that some form of Germanic language was in England pre Saxondom, so, again, I don't "hate the fact" of the material, but I do have concerns about where this material has come from, what its context is, if it is worth reporting here, if there is mutually supporting material. Going forwards I'd like to get the exact prose from the book for absolute clarity, or else find more supporting evidence. Presently the article doen't contradict anything in the published domain as it's left blank and open, so nothing is being misrepresented. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets too heated - it's already spread over a number of pages - can I suggest that there be a centralised discussion, perhaps at Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles, and, until there is some agreement there on the best way forward, that editors refrain from making edits on the subject which may be contentious. Can I also suggest that all editors remind themselves of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and try to avoid words like "nonsense" and "absurd". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense JZA, but you do seem to have a bias. You keep removing a valid source (with dozens of page references; I need not quote the book and I cannot as I don't own the rubbish but I have read it) rather than just rewording it if you feel that it is sloppy. Oppenheimer does not say that the people of England (pre-Anglo-Saxon) spoke a Basque langauge in England, he says they spoke a Germanic language and were genetically and culturally different to the Welsh. If you have no bias why are you trying to make the text conform to a theory that does not belong to the author? I can not be accused of that because this very is in my mind absurdist and so far from my own theory on this matter. Oppenheimer's theory is ridiculous but it is still his thory and should be respected as such. Claiming that Oppenheimer believes and pushes forward a theory that is not his own is against the rules of wikipedia. The Mummy (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)