Talk:English people

Note to editors: The page English people was created in English English (en-EN). Please refer to:	English Flag
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.

Bryan Sykes research

Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. But Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel.

"Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain, but only a few thousand. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... the majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 20,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA fingerprints have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in his book Blood Of The Isles, published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

But the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celts have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," said Professor Sykes.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain-7182292.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.31.224 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2012

Please draft a proposed change to the article that is not a copyright violation or a close paraphrasing of copyrighted material. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro says the English are Germanic, what about the substantial Roman influence?

The article says that the English are a Germanic people. What about the substantial Roman Latin influence? Did all the Romans die off or flee and that explains why English are only considered Germanic? I mean I find it hard to believe that with the Roman Empire ruling England for many, many years that there would be no Roman Latin influence.--R-41 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for subtantial - i.e. mass - "Roman" (whatever that may mean, let's say latin-speakers from outside Britain) migration. There were undoubtedly small numbers of officials, soldiers, merchants who came to the island, but there is nothing to suggest a major change to the Celtic substrate. "Roman Britain" was primarily about the "Celtic" population becoming Romanized. So by the 5th century, yes "England" was heavily under "Roman Latin influence": many (but by no means all) of the population were living a "Roman" life-style, spoke late Vulgar Latin and were emersed in Roman culture. The withdrawal of the legions/Roman government made relatively little difference to that - it remained primarily a Romanized Celtic population. What did make a change was the Germanic migrations. There's academic argument over whether the incoming Anglo-Saxons pushed out/massacred the Romanized celtic population with the survivors migrating westwards (ending up in Wales, Cumbria etc) or whether they stayed put under Anglo-Saxon rule and gradually adopted (whether through intermarriage or otherwise) the Germanic language and culture of their rulers. (Probably a mixture of both.) Either way, "Romanized British" disappeared in "England" fairly rapidly after the migrations. What can be said largely straightforwardly is that English is essentially a Germanic language, not a Romance language. "Ethnically"? It's anyone's guess. If not "Germanic" then it would more likely be the "Celtic" substrate than "Roman". But then what is "Celtic"? There's an argument that the "Celtic" population had been a neolithic substrate that took on the Celtic culture of an incoming conquering elite. And by the way, what is "Roman"? By the 5th century it was a cosmopolitan designation that had little to do with "Rome", or even "Italy" for that matter. All just goes to show just how silly these simplistic ethnic labels can be. Personally I'd rather see no such description (such as "Germanic") at all because of the over-simplification involved. But I suppose the consistency of "the English" speaking a Germanic language for 1500 years is probably enough to at least make "Germanic" as good as it's going to get on WP given WP editors' traditional attachment to hard-and-fast terminological tags. DeCausa (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The intro certainly does not say that the English are a Germanic people. It says that many English people descend from the Germanic tribes who immigrated after the Romans left, and that the name "English" derives from that time. The article makes clear that the genetic influences of the indigenous British people in the area, and later migrants from elsewhere, are at least as important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. I was just correcting that last bit (having re-checked the article) when the edit conflict beat me to it! DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An English person is any legal citizen of England

Do you agree with this statement? (RexImperium (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

WP:NOTFORUM. Do you intend improving the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No because there is no such thing as "a legal citizen of England". People are citizens of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I mean a legal citizen of England, not a legal citizen of England. (RexImperium (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

If you don't say what changes to the article you are proposing that relate to this discussion then I am deleting it again per WP:NOTFORUM ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is that if anyone resident in England is by definition 'English people' then the montage of English people should actually be representative of the makeup of said definition. As far as I can tell, Black, Asian and Mixed race make up a significant enough percentage of the population to warrant an inclusion. And there are many famous names which could be feasibly justified. (RexImperium (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

This was discussed here a year or so ago. I agree in principle to making the montage more representative - I think the discussion last time got bogged down in discussion of individuals, and no action was taken in the end. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

no objections to an additional line of people being added to help reflect modern England, i think it would be less problematic to just add a 4th row and mix all the images up a bit, rather than get into a debate about removing half a dozen people and replacing them with others. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone living in England is patently not English, just as if I move to Japan I will not become Japanese. Nor if I live there for 50 years. As the first sentence of the article states "The English are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English". Whether those born in England to non indigenous parents are English is certainly capable of debate also. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

>> if I move to Japan I will not become Japanese

Why not though? Is there any definable set of criteria that defines a Japanese person, that you as a resident of Japan would not meet? (RexImperium (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Japanese citizenship would be a good start. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's not go off on a tangent here. Adding an extra row seems like a good proposition. What do others think? (RexImperium (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

It is not a tangent, I am directly refuting the statement with which you began this thread. And no, people should not be added to the infobox out of tokenism or to push a certain POV. The issue which you started off this thread is that English people are people who live in England. No they are absolutely not. If I move to Israel I will not become an ethnic Jew. Nor if I become an Israeli citizen. Nor even if I convert to the Jewish faith. For one cannot join an ethnicity, one is born into it. I similarly cannot ever become black, or Chinese, or Native American or aborigine.

Some here seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of "ethnic group" in British English, and of "native to". Rangoon11 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask from a different angle. Do ethnic minorities who are resident citizens of this country warrant an inclusion into the montage of English people? If a foreigner for instance were to go to a shopping centre in any major English city s/he would almost certainly encounter Black, Asian, Mixed race people etc so therefore the montage is not truly reflective of English people. (109.145.1.253 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Per above, it is questionable how many, if any, of those Black and Asian people are part of the English ethnic group. Secondly, the article is about English people worldwide and throughout history, so even if one were to include all Black and Asian people living in England today as English - which I dispute - they would still be a very small proportion of all English people worldwide alive and dead. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"it is questionable how many, if any, of those Black and Asian people are part of the English ethnic group". So now it is not just where you were born, the accent you have and the culture you live and participate in, but also the colour of your skin. This conversation has strayed into racism and as the title of this section is a nonsense, I suggest that this whole section is deleted or at the very least collapsed. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the topic has been brought up by someone who has directly and explicitly raised the issue of race by seeking to add images of "Blacks and Asians". I was responding to a point and my response is in no way racist it is a statement of fact. You cannot join an ethnic group, you are born into it. And as I stated earlier, if I and my wife moved to Israel, became Israeli citizens, and my children were born in Israel even they would still not be ethnically Jewish. Do you dispute this? Rangoon11 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, although genetic heritage may be one element of "ethnicity" - and some aspects, such as skin colour, may be seen as particularly important by some people - it is not the only, or even most important, aspect of ethnicity. Shared culture and identity are far more important elements. English people include people of a very wide range of genetic and cultural family background, and the image should reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The British people article is already more progressive in this regard. (RexImperium (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

It's a question of being neutral rather than "progressive". There are many definitions of what makes someone "English", and the article, and the image, should reflect those. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about English people alive and dead, living in England and elsewhere. Even if one included all non-whites currently living in England as English then they would still be a very small proportion of the total number of people which this article addresses.

"Native to" at a minimum requires someone to have been born in England or descended from those who were. A substantial proportion of non-whites currently living in England are therefore immediately excluded.

This article is not about "People who live in England", but "English people". The British people article concerns people who are citizens of the United Kingdom, something which is separate from ethnicity. There is no such thing as English citizenship at present.

One can be a Japanese citizen and/or a member of the Japanese ethnic group. The article Japanese people primarily concerns the ethnic group. If a Korean moved to Japan and became a Japanese citizen would they have joined the Japanese ethnic group? Clearly not. Whether their children would be ethnic Japanese is a matter of debate (although most Japanese would be clear that the answer is no). If a Chinese moves to Israel and becomes an Israeli citizen have they now become an ethnic Jew? Clearly not. Would their children be? Again no. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also a large number of whites living in England who were not born in England, including people like Joanna Lumley for example or any number of Australians. Why pick out "non-white". Ethnicity is generally for England, Scotland Wales etc a matter of self identification. We have 'white' south africans playing for the English Rugby team to take of many examples where identity and self-idenitifcation override your somewhat quaint (and worrying) definition. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of non-whites is being discussed because it has been explicitly suggested that images of non-whites should be added to the infobox.

However an Australian or South African who is of English descent is already arguably included in the topic so that is a curious argument.

"Ethnicity is generally for England, Scotland Wales etc a matter of self identification." Why? That's not what the article say. And what is your source for the fact that English people are somehow so different as an ethnic group to Koreans, Chinese, Japanese or Jews? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using one particular, very limited, definition of "English", to mean what you want it to mean. There are many definitions. This article should take a balanced view, taking into account wider definitions, certainly including those who may not have "white" skin. Would you, for instance, consider black Americans not to be American, or white South Africans not to be South African? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am taking the common approach used to identify ethnic groups. I notice that my comments about other ethnic groups are being repeatedly ignored. But I will again extend the courtesy to others repeatedly not extended to my posts by responding to yours fully. American and South African are the same as British in that one can be a citizen of the United States or South Africa without any ethnic, linguistic, cultural or other connection. They are also quite different as, whilst the overwhelming majority of non-whites in England are either first generation immigrants or the children of post-second world war immigrants, there has been a large number of blacks in America for many generations, and whites have been in South Africa since the mid-1600s and established the nation state there. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but I don't see that as being very relevant to improving this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the main subject

There seems to be a clear majority view here that a better balance needs to be achieved in the infobox image. Can we agree to progress on that basis, recognising that the original image creator, User:Jza84, is not currently active? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a vote and there is no consensus above for the addition of POV pushing tokenistic images into this article.

You are seeking to add images for reasons purely of the individuals' race (no doubt the next thing will be a desire to add image of disabled people, or perhaps of homosexuals).

So it is therefore necessary to justify why. This article addresses English people both alive and dead and both living in England and elsewhere. By a generous count all non-whites currently living in England would barely amount to 1% of the total number of people whom the article addresses. And there are all manner of views as to how many of those non-whites currently living in England actually fit within the topic.

The infobox has 21 images, so even one non-white would be undue according to even the most neutral analysis. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, at least we have a common debatable criteria here. The people in the image should be chosen on the basis of proportional and fair representation. Not just on ethnicity but on other aspects too, because I notice a clear bias towards present day celebrities and figures from the recent past. (RexImperium (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

"Fairness" is both wholly subjective and wholly irrelevant. The image in the infobox serves to give some examples of notable subjects of the topic. And the topic is English people alive and dead living both outside as well as inside England. The image has been in place for a number of years and serves the purpose perfectly well (although Michael Palin, Damon Albarn, Sting, Kate Winslet and Daniel Craig are all slightly curious choices and there are in my view too many current images and too many pop culture images; I would prefer some more scientists, and some images of English people who lived outside of England, since that is a major part of the topic and article). Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Less celebrities, more inventors, engineers, scientists etc. (RexImperium (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

It seems that we do have some common ground afterall :) Rangoon11 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about including Jessica Ennis, seen as she is from Sheffield, and a famous and decorated athlete? This avoids any tokenism. (RexImperium (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

No, recentist and trivial. As well as tokenistic in view of your earlier comments. And I thought that you just said ess celebrities, more inventors, engineers and scientists. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How about Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Darwin, Francis Bacon, John Locke, John Maynard Keynes, George Washington, Cary Grant, Tim Berners-Lee, George Orwell, Nelson and the 1st Duke of Wellington? Rangoon11 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not many scientists there though, apart from Darwin, and only one inventor (Tim Berners-Lee). This is the problem with lists like these, they can never be totally satisfactory to everyone, so my idea would be to remove it completely. Not just from this article but all the articles of these types.(RexImperium (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Because if you don't you have to quantify for example why Isaac Newton is more representative of English people than, say Johnny Vegas, or otherwise we just accept the article is illogical. (RexImperium (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Well, I sense that suggestion's likely to be a non-starter. It's obvious nonsense to suggest that an article as a whole is "biased" (or "illogical") simply because you disagree with a selection of representative images. By the way, any changes to the montage here also need to take into account the requirement to use free images, wherever possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

>>Well, I sense that suggestion's likely to be a non-starter.

I realise that, making any large-scale changes to an established article is likely to be met with a lot of opposition, but my point stands. (RexImperium (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Reliable sources can certainly be provided which state that the above names are all amongst the most significant figures in their respective fields, certainly among the English people but also worldwide. I should add that the same can also be said of many of the current individuals in the box, with the exception of some of the recent celebrities and Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. If you want another inventor than I can suggest Frank Whittle; another engineer could be Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and a further scientist Francis Crick. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Those seem like decent choices if everyone is in agreement, but I've qualified the current list in the infobox in light of this discussion. (RexImperium (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Although we all agree that the infobox could be improved, the chances of any agreement coming from this unstructured discussion are, I suggest, zero given the diversity of views expressed on how it should be improved. Frankly, the time and effort in getting agreement to such a minor improvement would be better spent in improving some of the other 4 million or so articles needing care and attention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. Proof that Wikipedia cannot be taken with anything more than a pinch of salt. (109.145.0.96 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Your goal as a good Wikipedian should be to strive for neutrality in everything. (RexImperium (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Indeed - but we have to have priorities, and a great deal of time is wasted here on interminable discussions about not very much. You raised a good point initially about the failure to show those of non-white ethnicity, with which I agreed, but the subsequent discussion has moved a long way from that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to note, with the earlier course of the discussion above, the (perfectly reasonable) suggestion as a candidate of a notable French-educated son of a French immigrant for the photo montage. Does this, though, mean that French becomes English more easily than does Black, Asian or Jewish? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is rather different as it has been proposed that non-whites be added to the infobox purely because they are non-white. Brunel has not been proposed as a tokenistic white (Brunel's mother was also English BTW).

There is no objective answer to the second part of your post, my own view is that yes it is more difficult for non-whites to adopt an English identity because they are more likely to identify with another ethnicity, be it "Black", "Asian", "Pakistani", "Chinese", "Indian", "Japanese" or something else, and their children and their children are too (this is actually borne out by census results). As is stated in the article, most English people are also from genetically similar peoples overwhelmingly western European.

As I noted earlier though the article addresses English people both alive and dead and both living in England and elsewhere. By a generous count all non-whites currently living in England would barely amount to 1% of the total number of people whom the article addresses. The infobox has 21 images, so even one non-white would be undue. This is leaving aside the issue of how many of those non-whites currently living in England actually fit within the topic, which is a controverisal and highly subjective issue. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The proportion of the population of England who were defined as White British in 2001 was about 83%. No doubt the figures have changed, and some of the remainder will be "white" but of other cultural backgrounds. But, it should be clear that the overall proportion of "non-white" is at least 10%. To describe the inclusion of such people as "tokenistic" is offensive. The modern, inclusive, definition of English people should be reflected in the infobox montage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You wish to add people purely on the basis of race and say that I am tokenistic?!

This article is about an ethnic group, not merely about "People who live in England in 2012". Perhaps you should start a new article with that title where you can use your own preferred "modern, inclusive, definition".

And as I have said before, the article concerns English people alive and dead living in England and elsewhere. So yes of that group all of those non-whites living in England as of 2012 would be unlikely to reach 1% of the total, leaving aside the issue of how many of those non-whites living in England as of 2012 fit within the topic of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you described the views of others as "tokenistic", not me. You are clinging to a definition of "English people" which is merely one definition out of many definitions. The article, and the infobox montage, should reflect a wide range of definitions of the term, not your narrow one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So whiteness, genetics and a quota based on the proportion in the populace!? Does the quota system extend to other aspects - gender, disability, hair-colour? Wouldn't want to have an undue number of gingers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is true that once one starts to add tokenistic images based purely on the issue of race - which I strongly oppose, leaving aside the issue which I mention of it being undue on an wholly objective basis - a whole can of worms is opened in terms of all manner of other categorisations. If an infobox image such as is in this article is to serve any real purpose it is simply to give a flavour of the most significant achievements and historical events of the group through some of its most notable figures. It is not supposed to be a cross section of the group according to racial/socio economic/gender/sexuality/hair colour/height/IQ or whatever other characteristics one may wish to highlight.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not supposed to be a cross-section and advocating people solely on the basis that they would better represent a cross-section would be unwarranted. Neither, however, should it exclude examples solely on the basis that they possess a quality that puts them in a grouping that (purportedly) forms less than a twenty-first of the population, as you are advocating: "even one non-white would be undue". You are effectively herein preventing anyone suggesting a non-white person (or homosexual or disabled person), however notable, because you will claim the motivation is tokenistic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the thread, it has been proposed that non-whites should be added purely on tokenistic grounds because non whites are currently not "represented".

Personally if I were to prepare a list of the 100 most notable figures in English history I cannot think of a single non-white who would be there. Nor even in a list of the top 1,000. I'd be very interested to hear some names if you disagree.

And I have nothing at all against the inclusion of homosexuals or disabled people. I have everything against homosexuals or disabled people being included purely to "represent" those groups. That is no less absurd than wanting certain counties represented, or certain heights, or hair colours, or IQ levels, or political opinions, or religions. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think anyone's talking about "quotas", but there is a consensus that these images should be representative of the article topic. The article topic is "English people", and many definitions of that would include all people living in England who define themselves as English - including, for instance, members of England sports teams, leading entertainers, politicians, etc. etc., who have "non-white" genetic backgrounds. Ethnic groups such as English people are primarily defined on the basis of common identity, not genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Representative" is just another way of saying "quota". The meaning is identical in this context.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To reflect the article topic, then all the people in the photos have to be is English, however one defines that. There's no obvious necessity to cover every aspect of what makes up the English as a group. At a glance, I don't see any gay people in those photos either, or disabled people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you move to a Navajo reservation and claim to be Navajo? Would you move to Ireland and claim to be Irish? Ethnicity is based on genetic lineage from common familial ancestry. Black English are of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity for the most part. These discussions are getting stupid. How come only white countries have to include non-indigenous peoples among their own bloodlines? Do white people living in China claim to be Chinese? Do white people in the Phillipines claim to be Fillipino? Do white people who move to North Africa claim to be Berber or Arab? These arguments are not based in fact and nothing more than attempts to placate the sensibilities of minorities and people who sympathize with far-left ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.246.204 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so. "An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other through a common heritage, consisting of a common culture, including a shared language or dialect". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think people here got confused with terms, that’s why the discussion started in the first place. The picture now is great and represents all groups of English ethnicity, the only thing is it would be nice to put more women in it. I was impressed how all regions of England got representatives. We’ve got Geordies, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, literally almost every area.

Nationality=Citizenship and possibly cultural identity.

Ethnicity=Identity based on common heritage, which basically means common history and traditions.

An Indian, Black or Polish person living in the UK can easily identify with being British, but they definitely can’t identify with the heritage of the Anglo-Saxons who evolved in the English ethnicity in the first place, which is the history of the English ethnicity.

The interesting thing is those who started the discussion want to “turn” those minorities into ethnic English in a patronizing way, I’m sure with good intentions, but first of all, against what the term ethnicity means in the first place, and second, against the will of those minorities.

Indians, Poles, etc. in the UK are loyal British citizens, their children speak English as a native language and they even have a modern British culture, but at the end of the day, do they want to be ethnically English? I have to say it’s very much in the spirit of French colonialism – let’s turn everyone into French! 79.99.144.141 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)