Talk:English people

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 Wikipedia. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:50, 10 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 Wikipedia: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)

March 2023

An edit that appears to take issue with the idea that the Anglo Saxons founded England was reverted, restored and reverted again. I had almost reverted the edit earlier, based purely on the initial edsum: Celtic genetics did not become widespread in the English gene pool until the late 9th century during the period of the Danish invasions and the formation of the Kingdom of England. Anglo-Saxon identity was already well established by that point. Debatable as the information there may be, I was also confused as to how we got from the edsum to the edit. Before any more edit warring ensues you might want to explain exactly what you are attempting here, but that and your (also reverted) ideas on language do suggest a certain amount of WP:OR, and indeed WP:SYNTH is going on here. Let's stick to the sources, and indeed, the editor consensus and leave it as it is please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the English Germanic?

I'm not entirely sure, but would the English to be considered a Germanic people, such as the Germans and the Dutch etc. O Lourde (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you're not entirely sure why did you add it to the article? They spoke a "Germanic" language. That's the most we can say. The article explains the rest. DeCausa (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The pre christian religion of the english was very similar to other germanic peoples. the most powerful god in their pantheon was called "Woden" which is obviously related to the Nordic Odin. Not to mention other cultural similarities. This is like asking polish people are slavic..its obvious they are. 40% of the english ancestry is from Germany as well. 96.55.142.25 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism under religion category

It makes it seem as if Islam and Judaism are major religions comparable in size and influence to Christianity among religions that native Englishmen follow, Islam and Judaism are practised by Migrants and their descendants in England, a negligible amount of Ethnic English people follow these religions

The above sections on English diaspora are obviously talking about the English people, the ethnic group, where as the religion section includes migrants and their religions too

I think it should be clarified Auspol4 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

How many generations before someone counts as English for you? Ethnicity is not genetic. Everybody in England is a "(Migrant or) their descendant". Not to preclude migrants but there are English people of these religions that have been there for considerable generations. As I mentioned in my edit summary, this has been discussed at length in earlier discussions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't someone like Moeen Ali be considered a member of an Ethnic Minority? The Igbo people of Nigeria are an Ethnic group; if I moved to say Abia State/my descendants lived there for generations, would I/they be considered members of the Igbo people? I know this could end up in a bit of a forum-esque debate, but it's not as clear-cut and reliable sources don't seem to provide a consistent definition. Alssa1 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

from the very article we are supposed to be discussing:

"The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common history and culture.[9]", "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians who settled in Southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, and the partially Romanised Celtic Britons who already lived there.[11][12][13][14] Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become the Kingdom of England by the early 10th century, in response to the invasion and extensive settlement of Danes that began in the late 9th century.[15][16] This was followed by the Norman Conquestand limited settlement of Normans in England in the later 11th century.[17][18][19][11][20] Some definitions of English people include, while others exclude, people descended from later migration into England.[21]"

"Black and Asian populations have only grown throughout the UK generally, as immigration from the British Empire and the subsequent Commonwealth of Nations was encouraged due to labour shortages during post World War II rebuilding.[87] 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.[88]"

and from the article on ethnicity: "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment....Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language, dialect, religion, mythology, folklore, ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, or physical appearance. Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with many groups having mixed genetic ancestry."

seems to be that it's pretty clear-cut. regardless of how many times it has been discussed before, this page is about English ethnicity and nationhood, not nationality law and citizenship and residency. and ethnicity is clearly at least partly genetic. English people are people of the ethnicity and nation native to England, as stated by the first sentence of this very article. In Northern America, no one is native except for "Native Americans" and "Indigenous peoples of Canada", even though white peoples have been present for 500 years. JM2023 (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I used to teach in London, alongside a lady called Mrs Solden. I'd worked with her every day for months before I learned that she was Jewish. The idea that her faith would have made her in some way less English is, frankly, offensive - she was very much a typical English schoolteacher. Before that, while working in Edinburgh, I worked with a chap called Adil, whose family had come to England from Pakistan. He'd grown up in Liverpool. We used to give him stick, not for being Asian, or a muslim, but for being English. I was born and grew up in Scotland, but both of my parents were English. I think of myself as Scottish, and so do the English people I live amongst in York - they give me a bit of stick for it, because I'm the outsider now. Ethnicity and nationality are complicated things, and this article is not exclusively about 'ethnically pure' English people, however that term might be defined on an island that has had a constant stream of immigration and integration of peoples for thousands of years. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Hmm, is Moeen Ali not "English", but Boris Johnson is? How does that work? DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It works like the way the very article we are discussing states in its first sentence: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England". In Northern America, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, etc., white people are never considered native to those countries, even though in some cases white peoples have a presence dating back 500 years. Whether or not Moeen Ali or Boris Johnson are ethnically English, I don't know, because I don't know their ethnic backgrounds; but ethnicity and nationhood exist whether we want them to or not, and this is not the place to discuss why modern migrants should be considered English alongside natives: Wikipedia is not a forum. JM2023 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, nor how much you find the dictionary definition of a word offensive or repugnant.

A key part of the definition of ethnicity is shared ancestry. It is what it is. 148.252.128.6 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just had a look for definitions, including at Ethnicity, and most seem to stress that it's a perceived or subjective belief in some shared attributes such as ancestry, not an absolute objective sharing of those attributes. Of course, it might be easier for most English people to perceive that they share attributes with a white person who has foreign ancestry than it is for them to do the same with someone of a different skin colour, but it doesn't seem as simple as just genetic ancestry. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely that is muddying the waters somewhat? Alssa1 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just correcting what looked to be a misunderstanding of how ethnicity is defined, Alssa1. I admit I haven't read the whole thread. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Englishman" as demonym

I believe "Englishman" should be added as a demonym for England.

It's my understanding that the demonym in the article, "English", is used only as an uncountable noun, and refers to English people in general, as in, "The English and Their History". In the countable sense, I only see "Englishman", as in "I'm an Englishman in New York". I searched the archive and found no mention of "Englishman" as a topic of discussion (only used as a demonym), and any reputable dictionary defines "Englishman" as a demonym. I'm often wrong about these ideas on Wikipedia, and I don't trust myself to twiddle with templates, so I haven't made the edit myself, but I hope someone either does so, or explains why it shouldn't be on the main page. Atkinson (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)