This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Here's where I see the biggest problems.
Rex states above that:
All I know is that the CIA World Factbook figures are based on the 2001 census
and
zzuuzz states:
The CIA factbook, which is a reputable publisher, says of the United Kingdom:
"Ethnic groups: white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
But according to Reference #1 on the article page
The number who described their ethnic group as English in the 2001 UK census has not been published to date.
So where do the CIA get their info on English ethnicity? It can't be from the census data as they claim, as these data have not been published. I think this is enough to discount the CIA data as unreliable. Given that the data regarding English identity from the census are unavailable I think it is reasonable to question this calculation:
58,789,194 * 0.921 * 0.836 = 45265092.65 = 45,265,093
because the source the CIA claim for the 0.836 figure (the 2001 census) has not published this figure. So where exactly does this figure come from? Given that this figure is for the whole UK, then the number of English people in the whole of the United Kingdom (45,265,093) is much smaller (almost 4 million) than the total number of people living in England (49,138,831). Given that there are English people in the UK living outside of England, the figure for English in England will be smaller than the 45,265,093 for the whole UK.
the ONS does not identify any such thing as an English "ethnic group": it identifies people by race and place of birth, so there were 44,679,361 white people resident in England at the 2001 Census
I think this is correct, the fact that the census allowed one to identify as a simple write in (which means that English ethnicity will be underestimated, as many will not bother), and that the data on English self identification have not been published, support Arwel's statement.
zzuuzz states that:
p52 of this reference says that English is an ethnic group in the census
but of course allowing people to identify as English in the census if they can be bothered does not imply that they necessarily recognise it as an ethnic group when compiling their stats (which they don't). The fact that the English question was an optional write in, confirms that it is not a mandated ethnic group.
I can't see how these figures are derived:
They are very different from the sources cited for them
How can one give a number that is different from the source it is cited from?
I also think there should be a differentiation made between English and of English descent. I do not believe that one can claim that a person is ethnically English because they claim English descent. For example Irish people differentiates between Irish people and people of Irish descent. Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The best reference we have to date is this:
zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The 2001 New Zealand census asked: "Which ethnic group do you belong to?", and people could answer with several responses (including New Zealand European). The total who wrote-in 'English' in 2001, whether as their only ethnic group or as one of up to three ethnic groups was 34,074. In 1991, when there was a comparable question, it was 53,325. In 1996 the number was 281,895. The question in that year was broadly similar, but laid out quite differently. It said: "Tick as many circles as you need to show which ethnic group(s) you belong to", and English was one of the European options.
Numbers are from Table 2a of the 2001 Census: Ethnic Groups - reference report. There is more information about ethnicity in the New Zealand census including census forms, and this definition from 2001 [3]:
zzuuzz (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry but for me these people are still people with English ancestry but not actually English people. They should be mentioned in the article but not in the info box. People born in England and living in the US, Australia etc fine but not people who's ancestors sailed on the May Flower! On the Cornish people page we could include the decendents of the Cornish dispora around the world that claim Cornish ancestry as "Cornish people", just look at all these Cornish sites from across the globe: [4], however to do so would be wrong as they are people with Cornish ancestry but not Cornish people. Bretagne 44 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the... um... "Cornish diaspora" has no figures. If you caould find a relaible source, which confirmed your speculation, but so far, no sources have been produced. The only Cornish diaspora I can think of are the people who entered themselves as Cornish in the last census outside of Cornwall. If you find a reliable source with figures, then we can use them. Guesswork is not allowed. Rex( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic group is more to do with culture than nationality or citizenship. Are you saying that once the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, they lost all traces of English culture and became Native Americans? Rex( talk) 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You may want to look at what makes an Albanian (like me) an Albanian. Check Albanians#Ethnic Albanians. Could that apply in our case? Rex( talk) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this statement:
the jury system (used in a few non-anglo-saxon countries in the world) is an English innovation.
And what does non-anglo-saxon country mean? There hasn't been an
anglo-saxon country in existence for nearly a thousand years.
Alun 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
What does this mean?
These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex, forming what would eventually become the modern nation state of England.
I am intrigued by what is considered modern. The annexation of Wales was in 1536-1542, changing the borders of England forever and incorporating a different nation into it's borders. England as a
nation-state ceased to exist at that time, and has never existed since. I would not call that a modern nation-state.
I think this is also wrong These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex.
According to the
Athelstan article, Athelstan was the first
de Facto ruler of England. This was achieved after the
Battle of Brunanburh in 937. Paul Hill in The Age of Athelstan (
ISBN
0752425668) gives the same date, so it would be 10th century.
Alun 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Saint George, famed as a dragon-slayer, is also the patron saint of England. St George may be the patron saint of England, but I don't think he was English (It is said that George was born in a fuller's shop in Epiphania, in Cilicia, to a Christian family during the late 3rd century), and he is also patron saint of Georgia (the Georgian flag also contains the cross of St. George). Should some reference be made to Edward the Confessor, who was English, and Patron Saint of England: After the reign of Henry II Edward was considered the patron saint of England until 1348 when he was replaced in this role by St. George. Alun 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564: [5] [6]
Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [7]
George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.
Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.
Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.
Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.
From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?
Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
REX you really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.
As to the Kilbrandon report or Cornish foreshore case being ridiculous well in comparison to what you write I think I would go for a Royal Commission and case law as being less ridiculous.
There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been).
So you are going to give your POV and then provide no support, i however have provided legal and historical facts that can be verified.
I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - see Constitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one,
Again an unfounded insult which you cannot support in anyway, really very pathetic!
Bretagne 44 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am considering putting an unreferenced tag on this article because, population data aside, nothing here seems to have been properly verified with references. Alun 19:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hardly anything about the Norman (French/Viking) addition to the Celto-Germanic pot. Ksenon 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because User:TharkunColl hates his ancestors; the full extent of our ethnic identity that he himself doubtlessly shares at this point in history--that's if he is truly English and not a Hanoverian imposter. The fringe who claims Hanover to be the original English homeland are living in their Whig fantasies. Lord Loxley 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To avoid a lengthy addition of edits in the language section by users wishing to let us know that the language they speak plus english is being spoken in England I removed the whole list and put commonwealth and non-commonwealth (commonwealth being relevant to England). Ciriii 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The article reads that the ancestors of the English people are basically the Anglo-saxons and the ancient Britons. It points out that the Anglo-saxons came from areas around Germany, Danemark and the Low Countries. Where did the Ancient Britons come from? Is there any evidence as to their origins?
Well, the celts came from mainland europe. But i believe before there arrival there were some other ethnic group already present there. -- Lucius1976 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That is interesting. Does anyone know the contribution in the modern English people that can be traced back to the Celts and to the inhabitants that were there before them? Is there any information about the origins of those people who where there before the Celts? Were the ancient Britons mainly Celts or did they come rather from these peoples who preceded the Celts? I know it's a lot of questions, but I think it is interesting and the article should also go into that if there is information available.
The Belgae, who formed the most powerful tribal groupings in south-east Britain since before Caesar's time, were at least partially Germanic. This may account for the mysterious fact that Germanic speakers existed along the east and south coasts during Roman times, and probably formed the nucleous of what later became known as the Anglo-Saxons. TharkunColl 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Here's where I see the biggest problems.
Rex states above that:
All I know is that the CIA World Factbook figures are based on the 2001 census
and
zzuuzz states:
The CIA factbook, which is a reputable publisher, says of the United Kingdom:
"Ethnic groups: white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
But according to Reference #1 on the article page
The number who described their ethnic group as English in the 2001 UK census has not been published to date.
So where do the CIA get their info on English ethnicity? It can't be from the census data as they claim, as these data have not been published. I think this is enough to discount the CIA data as unreliable. Given that the data regarding English identity from the census are unavailable I think it is reasonable to question this calculation:
58,789,194 * 0.921 * 0.836 = 45265092.65 = 45,265,093
because the source the CIA claim for the 0.836 figure (the 2001 census) has not published this figure. So where exactly does this figure come from? Given that this figure is for the whole UK, then the number of English people in the whole of the United Kingdom (45,265,093) is much smaller (almost 4 million) than the total number of people living in England (49,138,831). Given that there are English people in the UK living outside of England, the figure for English in England will be smaller than the 45,265,093 for the whole UK.
the ONS does not identify any such thing as an English "ethnic group": it identifies people by race and place of birth, so there were 44,679,361 white people resident in England at the 2001 Census
I think this is correct, the fact that the census allowed one to identify as a simple write in (which means that English ethnicity will be underestimated, as many will not bother), and that the data on English self identification have not been published, support Arwel's statement.
zzuuzz states that:
p52 of this reference says that English is an ethnic group in the census
but of course allowing people to identify as English in the census if they can be bothered does not imply that they necessarily recognise it as an ethnic group when compiling their stats (which they don't). The fact that the English question was an optional write in, confirms that it is not a mandated ethnic group.
I can't see how these figures are derived:
They are very different from the sources cited for them
How can one give a number that is different from the source it is cited from?
I also think there should be a differentiation made between English and of English descent. I do not believe that one can claim that a person is ethnically English because they claim English descent. For example Irish people differentiates between Irish people and people of Irish descent. Alun 11:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The best reference we have to date is this:
zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The 2001 New Zealand census asked: "Which ethnic group do you belong to?", and people could answer with several responses (including New Zealand European). The total who wrote-in 'English' in 2001, whether as their only ethnic group or as one of up to three ethnic groups was 34,074. In 1991, when there was a comparable question, it was 53,325. In 1996 the number was 281,895. The question in that year was broadly similar, but laid out quite differently. It said: "Tick as many circles as you need to show which ethnic group(s) you belong to", and English was one of the European options.
Numbers are from Table 2a of the 2001 Census: Ethnic Groups - reference report. There is more information about ethnicity in the New Zealand census including census forms, and this definition from 2001 [3]:
zzuuzz (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry but for me these people are still people with English ancestry but not actually English people. They should be mentioned in the article but not in the info box. People born in England and living in the US, Australia etc fine but not people who's ancestors sailed on the May Flower! On the Cornish people page we could include the decendents of the Cornish dispora around the world that claim Cornish ancestry as "Cornish people", just look at all these Cornish sites from across the globe: [4], however to do so would be wrong as they are people with Cornish ancestry but not Cornish people. Bretagne 44 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the... um... "Cornish diaspora" has no figures. If you caould find a relaible source, which confirmed your speculation, but so far, no sources have been produced. The only Cornish diaspora I can think of are the people who entered themselves as Cornish in the last census outside of Cornwall. If you find a reliable source with figures, then we can use them. Guesswork is not allowed. Rex( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic group is more to do with culture than nationality or citizenship. Are you saying that once the pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower, they lost all traces of English culture and became Native Americans? Rex( talk) 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You may want to look at what makes an Albanian (like me) an Albanian. Check Albanians#Ethnic Albanians. Could that apply in our case? Rex( talk) 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reference for this statement:
the jury system (used in a few non-anglo-saxon countries in the world) is an English innovation.
And what does non-anglo-saxon country mean? There hasn't been an
anglo-saxon country in existence for nearly a thousand years.
Alun 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
What does this mean?
These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex, forming what would eventually become the modern nation state of England.
I am intrigued by what is considered modern. The annexation of Wales was in 1536-1542, changing the borders of England forever and incorporating a different nation into it's borders. England as a
nation-state ceased to exist at that time, and has never existed since. I would not call that a modern nation-state.
I think this is also wrong These were united in the early 9th century under the overlordship of Wessex.
According to the
Athelstan article, Athelstan was the first
de Facto ruler of England. This was achieved after the
Battle of Brunanburh in 937. Paul Hill in The Age of Athelstan (
ISBN
0752425668) gives the same date, so it would be 10th century.
Alun 17:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Saint George, famed as a dragon-slayer, is also the patron saint of England. St George may be the patron saint of England, but I don't think he was English (It is said that George was born in a fuller's shop in Epiphania, in Cilicia, to a Christian family during the late 3rd century), and he is also patron saint of Georgia (the Georgian flag also contains the cross of St. George). Should some reference be made to Edward the Confessor, who was English, and Patron Saint of England: After the reign of Henry II Edward was considered the patron saint of England until 1348 when he was replaced in this role by St. George. Alun 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564: [5] [6]
Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [7]
George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.
Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.
Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.
Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.
From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?
Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
REX you really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.
As to the Kilbrandon report or Cornish foreshore case being ridiculous well in comparison to what you write I think I would go for a Royal Commission and case law as being less ridiculous.
There must have been previous Acts as well, I just can't be bothered to spend weeks in a law library trying to find them (do you know how many Local Government Acts there have been).
So you are going to give your POV and then provide no support, i however have provided legal and historical facts that can be verified.
I think that this fantasy has been promoted enough on Wikipedia - see Constitutional status of Cornwall. Of course, we know what the ultimate goal is, don't we? To make the English Wikipedia like the Cornish one,
Again an unfounded insult which you cannot support in anyway, really very pathetic!
Bretagne 44 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am considering putting an unreferenced tag on this article because, population data aside, nothing here seems to have been properly verified with references. Alun 19:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hardly anything about the Norman (French/Viking) addition to the Celto-Germanic pot. Ksenon 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because User:TharkunColl hates his ancestors; the full extent of our ethnic identity that he himself doubtlessly shares at this point in history--that's if he is truly English and not a Hanoverian imposter. The fringe who claims Hanover to be the original English homeland are living in their Whig fantasies. Lord Loxley 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To avoid a lengthy addition of edits in the language section by users wishing to let us know that the language they speak plus english is being spoken in England I removed the whole list and put commonwealth and non-commonwealth (commonwealth being relevant to England). Ciriii 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The article reads that the ancestors of the English people are basically the Anglo-saxons and the ancient Britons. It points out that the Anglo-saxons came from areas around Germany, Danemark and the Low Countries. Where did the Ancient Britons come from? Is there any evidence as to their origins?
Well, the celts came from mainland europe. But i believe before there arrival there were some other ethnic group already present there. -- Lucius1976 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That is interesting. Does anyone know the contribution in the modern English people that can be traced back to the Celts and to the inhabitants that were there before them? Is there any information about the origins of those people who where there before the Celts? Were the ancient Britons mainly Celts or did they come rather from these peoples who preceded the Celts? I know it's a lot of questions, but I think it is interesting and the article should also go into that if there is information available.
The Belgae, who formed the most powerful tribal groupings in south-east Britain since before Caesar's time, were at least partially Germanic. This may account for the mysterious fact that Germanic speakers existed along the east and south coasts during Roman times, and probably formed the nucleous of what later became known as the Anglo-Saxons. TharkunColl 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)