This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it's highly arguable to say that Jersey is/was English. It only started speaking English in a big way in the last century.-- MacRusgail 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was Norman French spoken in the Channel islands (Jersey and Guernsey) which is a mixture of French and Scandinavian words. English n proud ( talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Lets get real here guy's.any americans whose ancesters have been in our country since the 1860's will have english blood and heritage.Also millions emigrated from england from 1860 to the present day.
I'm Anglo Utahn and to say that Utah is 29% anglo is a joke. In my estimations the Anglo would be at least 40%.include the welsh and the scots ,make that about 70%
Also Alabama In the 2000 census .. English 344,735 ,American 756,375 Florida.in the 2000 census ..English 1,468,576 , American 1,278,586
Georgia : in the 2000 census..English 664,569 ,American 1,102,178 Mississippi: in the 2000 census ..English 173,633 ,American 403,518
These are just examples....-- Anglo6719:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
24 million does seem a bit high. Lots of Americans do tend to get England and Britain mixed up though so maybe that's a partial explanation?-- Aiel 999 ( talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is an issue that will get more confusing over time. Looking back just to your grandparents, you're already dealing with 4 potentially different lines of heritage - make it your great grandparents and it's 8. So many people might have one, two three or more lines being English but that leaves 5, 6, 7 which aren't - which do you choose to list? All of them? The majority one? The most recent one? The one that fits in best with your area? The coolest one? The country you've visited? Male lines only? So what about your kids? 16 lines? Etc, etc.
In a few generations, heritage might well settle down into simply "American"(or indeed one of colours) - maybe with the rise of the EU, European heritage will not be as culturally valuable to claim, it may even be eagerly hidden! A lot of German Americans changed their surnames to Irish sounding ones during the war(s) - which leads to another question where we ponder how many Irish Americans have no Irish blood at all,but are instead German! Essentially, the question will only become more blurred and arguably less important.
Tokind of answer the question, yes I think it's low, most thinking seems to conclude that it's very low, but if someone is more German/Irish/Whatever than English, they'll answer with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(The above statement that in 1980 the Census asked "Great Britain" and not just "English" is inaccurate. In fact, the 1980 Census asked an open question, and separately tabulated the results for English, Scots, and Welsh. Also, the speculation above that half of those reporting "Irish" were actually "Scots-Irish" has no merit. A simple review of immigtation statistics since the 18th Century, with attention paid to how many emigrated from Ulster and the rest of Ireland, shows that most people reporting "Irish" ancestry are not Scots-Irish but just Irish. There is a separate tabulation for those reporting "Scots-Irish" in the Census, and that is where you will find a more or less acurate number for that group. Admittedly, self-reporting in this area can be tricky, and it may be that some people who have Scots-Irish ancestors reported just Irish. But it's also true that some people who reported Scots-Irish may actually have meant that they were of mixed Scots and Irish ancestry, so those two possible areas of false reporting would probably cancel each other out and make the figures for Irish and Scots-Irish fairly accurate. For more information on this subject, see the section on the Irish in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. In that article, it states that in 1790, out of a white population of 3,100,000, persons of Irish birth or ancestry numbered 400,000, and that half of these were from Ulster (i.e Scots-Irish), and half were from the other parts of Ireland. Of course, in the mid-19th Century, people who came to America from Ireland were overwhelmingly Irish Catholics. These statistics, I think, support that Census Bureau figures for the number of Americans with "Irish" and "Scots-Irish" ancestry today.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 ( talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
first comment from Utah - exactly. English heritage is WAY under-reported. You cannot go anywhere in the US without bumping into surnames like Smith, Williams, Johnson, Harrison, the list goes on (and on, and on, and on). Face it, those names are the NORM. The Census Bureau has got to can the "American" "ethnic origin." American is British at least, English more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.130.89 ( talk) 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think, most Americans, are english, irish or scotish descent. Also in Australia or New Zealand or Canada. But, People migration gave it also enough in Europe! By the way, all Germans come from, Celts, Romans or Jews Peoples! I am German, but my Ancestor are, Polish and Jew. I think, all Americans, who were born in America, or there settled, are real Americans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.182.244 ( talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Many Caucasian Americans seem to have some "Anti" Anglo mindset going on. The real number would be much higher and by far higher than the false German American number. Fact of the matter is looking at immigration statistics, its mathmaticaly impossible for German Americans to be that high. Its nothing but pure fetish & fantasy that Americans have with being something "different" a lot of Americans seem to be bored with just being English. Which is quite ridiculous too me. The English have contributed more to the world than any single country in Europe. They invaded 90% of the worlds populations, and are responsible for much of our modern theories & technology. Yet Americans don't feel proud of this grand achievment from such a tiny group of islands? The problem is also that Americans like to claim things they aren't really are or much of. Take Brad Pitt for example, he claims German ancestry, yet his German ancestor was from LONG AGO and most of his ancestors are British. The look of the typical White American is quite British. The Majority of Americans could pass in all England, Scotland, & Ireland. Not even in Minnesota (The land claimed as "viking land") do the whites look Scandinavian, they look as British as any other population in the US. Americans are just obsessed with being "mixed". Not all of the US was a melting pot like New York & Los Angelos was. That means a great portion and the majority of American whites are still quite British.
The other evidence is the surnames. Lots of people like to say "Well, surnames were changed", and i always say ALL OF THEM? whether you want to admit it or not, if the German Americans were that numerous, you better believe atleast a few German surnames would be in the top surname list of the US. Yet they are not, the majority of them are English. I highly doubt every single German family changed their names.
I don't get why Americans are so obsessed with being German in the first place. Don't they know the majority of the Germans who immigrated to the US were not of the "well off desirable" kind. They mostly came from poor off German areas, and many of them WEREN'T even actual ethnic Germans. Many were Jews, and German speaking indivisuals from other countries. Anyway bottom line, the majority of Americans like Australians & Canadians have a strong British input. Most of your so called "Germans" & "Italians" will also have a English, Irish, or Scottish ancestor, and most of the time the amount of ancestors from the British isles will outnumber those from other countries like they do with Brad Pitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:4981:7B86:1B7:7146 ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
THE FACTS: 99% of Americans actors & models under the so called German-American list HAVE British ancestry some of them have all 3 sometimes (English, Scottish, Irish). Most of the German Americans also have colonial British blood. 99% of America's white films stars, entertainers and models look COMPLETELY British descended phenotypically. No difference between English speaking Canadians & Aussies. Infact many of America's actors are British, they come here put on American accents and Americans can't even tell the difference because they are indistinquishable from the Brits. Another fact: Most white Americans who get tested (23andmetest) cluster with the British Isles more than they do any other nation in Europe. Phenotype doesn't lie, and when phenotype isn't enough DNA sure as hell doesn't lie. American whites were and are still majority British isles descent the only time this changes is the melting pot areas of the states that had millions of immigrants ie: New York, California. Most of the rest of the United States have had populations below 5 million for years upon years. They're majority still Brtish.
It is also worthy to note, most Americans have a habit of claiming ethnicities they aren't even much of. Take Brad Pitt for example, claims he has German ancestry...but guess what? the German in his line was from way back when most of the ancestors in his line were British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:95E0:2068:3EFE:D9AD ( talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No this is obviously nonsense and in reality if all those Americans of families who have been settled in America too long to recognise their English roots are included English would be far and away the biggest ethnic group - well ahead of the Germans who generally settled comparitively recently and so still realise their German roots.
You only have to read any American non-fiction book set in the Southern staters or the West (and even taking into account anglicisation of names by some non-English people) the average book will be full of names of English origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_24#List of English Americans. Badagnani 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the list of English presidents add anything of value to this article? Wouldn't perhaps a choice selection of "notable English Americans" be better? Therefore, I propose removing this list.-- Ernstk ( talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Hamilton - was the son of a Scottish Laird! Please remember that Scotland does not equal England. They are not the same. Scotland had fought against England for many centuries to make sure they were not the same! Most of the founding fathers of the US were actualy of Scottish ancestory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 ( talk) 09:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely if you include Alexander Hamilton (as well as other Scots or Welsh) in because you mistake the island of Britain (which Scotland and Wales are also part of) for England (The bottom part of this island) then can you realy claim to know what an English American is if you don't have a basic grasp of the geography of the country of England and who is actualy from it? 09:44 29 December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 ( talk) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How can Anglo-American have a less precise meaning than English American?-- Aiel 999 ( talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, they don't do they?
They might be of English ancestry, but they're not "English". Actual English people probably make up less than half a per cent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE have something other than Americanized patriotic history here? This is the internet after all and these silly little myths don't travel overseas because they're nothing but self serving word of mouth tales serving to massage a national ego!
This claim is beyond laughable though sadly prevelant in the national psyche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
NY isn't named after the city of York, but the Duke of York (later James II) as the reference indicates.-- Cavort ( talk) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we include him in the montage of english american? He is english by all means and he is the president... I see no reason why he should not be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just overinflated bullshit to say that we inherit our culture from English people. While a significant degree of our culture was built upon European cultures in General due to mass immigration, I fail to see anything significant the English have contributed aside from Language, and Americans are now beginning to see how unnecessary even that is. Football and Baseball were created on American soil, by Americans. They can not in any way be credited to any European nation. Regardless of Sport that preceded them. Captain Spleen ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article states that all culture came from the English - what it does say is that a lot of the culture that is American was influenced by England. Just because the comments above come from an Anglophobe doesn't make them accurate. Look at the wikipedia pages ... Football ... came from the sports of Soccer and Rugby, Baseball.... came from the sport of rounders / town ball ...It doesn't make them any less American. Even the ideas of Liberty.... from England (the US had the revolution that England should have had).... afterall, the revolution was about lack of representation in the democratic process in Britain....not wholly new ideas that were American only. The bottom line is the core culture (good and bad) of the US is Anglo - it didn't just spring up when the ancestors of modern americans took the land from the natives. 216.107.194.166 ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggest we delete the reference to the Boy Scouts celebrating St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of the Boy Scouts, but this is unrelated to England. I'll note that St. George is also the patron of Aragon, Catalonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Portugal, Russia and Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.89.149 ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The English were the founders of a considerable number of America's world renowned Universities. Harvard, Yale, Brown, U Penn, Stanford, Dartmouth, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.68.21 ( talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Much of your fiction = Based on British works from Star Wars to Dawn of the Dead. Much of your folklore = British derived. Legal system = British derived, Education system = British derived, Language = British derived, Sports = British derived. Hell even most of your "inventions" were just derivatives of already existing British technology. Like the Computer & Laptop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:95E0:2068:3EFE:D9AD ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with recognising the effect of English and British culture in the US is one that affects all the ex-British colonies, in that the effects are so deep-rooted and profound that most people simply don't notice them - they are a part of everyday life. The differences between the countries are the ones usually mentioned, but one only needs to spend some time in either country - the US or UK - to see how quickly one adjusts and fits-in to the other country's society and lifestyle. Try doing that in France, Germany, or wherever. For a Brit or American visiting countries like Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, the differences between one's own culture and theirs are often quite superficial. Not-so in other parts of the world. One incorrect word or social gaffe in the wrong place and one doesn't know if one has insulted someone, or agreed to marry their daughter/son. An exaggeration of course, but not that much of a one in former times.
If you want to really see the effect of English and British culture then simply compare Canada and the US, with the countries in Central and South America.
The other thing of note is that people who are not from the dominant culture, and have perhaps migrated to the country later in its history, tend to feel left-out and a trifle resentful of not being part of the origins of the country. That is understandable. But massaging and re-writing history to suit them is probably not. The modern countries of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many others too numerous to mention, are the countries they are today - for better or for worse - because of their British heritage. It's fairly obvious really.
Most of the ex-British colonies that received mass immigration from the UK are First World countries. Most other countries' ex-colonies, aren't. That may seem like boasting, but it is nevertheless true, and just because some people dislike this doesn't make it any less true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 ( talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Would Obama be considered an enligsh-american as his mother was mainly of english descent? He is probably extremely famour so maybe he could be in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.2.237 ( talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Why on the Scottish American page does it show their true numbers rather than just those whom self-identify as Scots descent whilst on the English American page it only shows the number of Yanks that actually identify as English descended rather than the full number (est 80 million+). It seems abit unfair to me. English Bobby ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Bill Gates is of "English, German, and Scotch-Irish descent". What makes him "English American"?? Is there any evidence that he self-identifies himself as an "American of English descent"?-- Work permit ( talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lot of change on the English family names section of this article. It appears that there are references to support the majority of the origin statements, but these are repeatably removed and the origin switched to 'Ireland'. Can some concensus be met to decide on an appropriate reference for the origins of these last names & stick with that? The reference provided in the text (and that keeps getting removed) is 100 Most Common U.S. Surnames - is this an appropriate reference, and if not, what can be used.
The constant 'copy / edit' and 'undos' should stop. I've reverted back to what appears to the original whilst concensus is reached.
-- Spikey Wikey ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your argument about the Anglo Saxons (or to name all the tribes involved in the migrations and subsequently responsible for the creation of England, which comes from the name "Anglalond" or land of the Angles.The other tribes were the Jutes, Saxons, some Frisians and Franks) is totally wrong......."Also, the Angles and Saxons brought many German names that evolved into common surnames in England. Are these names really German rather than English?..... No, they are English! As without the Anglo Saxons there would be NO England....it would still be just the Roman province of Britainnia, or whatever the native Britons (the people who would become the Welsh and Scottish/Pictish, who were pushed in the western and northern extremities by the very same Anglo Saxons) chose to call their land post Roman withdrawal. Your argument is pointless as the name England is the time corrupted version of Anglalond. Without them there would be no Engoland at all!-- English n proud ( talk) 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of these "English" surnames have much greater percentages of descendants with German ancestry. Example, the name Miller is a big German name. Smith as well is a corruption of the German surname "Schmidt". Basically my point is that these names are not unique to the British Isles nor to England in particular. --KR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.195.212 ( talk) 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Very comprehensive and interesting except the influence of Norman surnames is mostly purely linguistic as few Normans came to England after the Conquest and those who did were generally the landowners/nobility who to this day make up the majority of the modern British aristocracy. And then there's the side issue that the Normans were largely Viking anyway (Norman's being a corruption of Norsemen of course) who had been in northern France for less than a century when they invaded England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem in defining descent from any nation is that it can be confused over many years. Say an english couple arrived in th US in the 1800's and over the few generations married other english, Then in the 1920's the daughter of the english descendants (who now called herself american) married Mr O' Reilly from Ireland and their children married other Irish. The fact that they had english descent would probably be lost on their descendants unless they looked into it as they would only look back to probably the grandparents. Shouldn't Americans look forward instead of always looking back trying to get ancestry from somewhere else. In my case I was born in England but my parents are Irish but I don't feel the need to wear a shamrock every St Patricks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 ( talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Should there be an inclusion in this article about the World War 2 War Brides? This, and the marraiges between American military personel stationed in the UK from then to present times is a significant contribution to the English American population. Kunchan ( talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed the term Anglo-American redirects here. However in the UK and the rest of the world Anglo American reflects anyone who has recent & dual English and American heritage - and does not reflect Americans with an Anglo Saxon background. In particular it refers to the offspring where two nationalities have come together in the past few generations (Halle Berry is a good example) via a marriage. This can be either an English person marrying into an American family living in the states - or an American marrying into an English family living in the UK and their offspring (ie Winston Churchill). Further generation revert to the nationality of the country where they grew up (ie Churchill's own grandchildren. Hope this makes sense and not sure where it would be covered... Kunchan ( talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular difference in an official sense? Or is being stylised as an English-American as oppose to British-American a matter of personal preference? TomB123 ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please as an English American I find the Term Anglo American offensive. I do not wish to be called Anglo. Nor do I wish to be called Gringo. Stop it. Ulao ( talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I made some large cuts to this section and am tempted to make more. But for now will just post here instead. Maybe I am missing something. Much of this section seems to be making rather grand claims I find extremely hard to believe, and with no references cited at all. I removed this bit, regarding Spanish and Mexicans:
The text just following this I did not remove, but is it really claiming what it seems to be:
The implication here is that the the reason there are Italian Americans is because Mary Tudor and Philip II had dominion over southern Italy in the 16th century, and because an early Virginian family was named Taliaferro? Really? Also, the (run on) sentence starting "Thus, statewide majority ancestries of Americans largely owe their place in America, due to the English component..." is quite confusing. And the whole rest of the paragraph--what is the relevance to English Americans? Am I missing something? Are we really suggesting that Japanese people immigrated to America due to Italian navigators from centuries ago? And on this last part:
There were Indian Reserves long before 1763. The first that comes to mind was one granted to the Yamasee by South Carolina around 1700-1710 or so. Details about how Indiana got its name seem tangential at best. The topic of "Jeffersonian plans for Indian removal" is much more complex than this. I'm skeptical that the 1763 reserve was a model for Jefferson. The term "Wild West" seems odd in this context. And neither Oklahoma nor its Indian Territory existed in Jefferson's day, nor were either the "original" destination of "removal". Early Cherokee removals (or "encouraged migrations" anyway) and reserves were in Arkansas, for example. Anyway, beside the factual errors, I don't understand why any of this needs to be said here. What am I missing? Should it be removed?
Other issues from earlier in this section:
Canada was hardly "founded by elements of the American population". Many people migrated to Canada directly from Britain after the US was established. This sentence suggests that Canadians mainly migrated from the US to Canada.
This suggests that Germans migrated to America because there was a German connected in the British royal family. Perhaps there is some small link there, but there are many other, more important reasons why Germans migrated to America. And many were not from Hanover anyway, but from Rhineland-Palatinate and areas farther inland. The German Palatines, for example, fled to England as refugees of the Thirty Years War, not because the King of England controlled Hanover. Also, I'm not sure what the toponymy examples are supposed to show. And anyway, the section is titled "Early settlement and colonization", so why are we talking about Alberta?
The claim here seems to be that New Sweden was founded because Scottish Covenanters fought with Gustavus. Hard to believe. Also, Nova Scotia was French at first. Was there really a Swedish/Scottish link between New Sweden and Nova Scotia? The log cabin claim is particularly questionable.
So, my main question is: Can we salvage this section at all? Pfly ( talk) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
British English is not a term that is recognised outside the United States. One assumes that when an American English speaker refers to British English he/she is referring to standard English. Standard English is a recognised term that applies to the correct form of the language, as spoken in the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.103.205 ( talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If this truly is a list of Presidents of English descent, why do 80% of the descriptions describe how Scotch-Irish the presidents are? 86.142.60.151 ( talk) 10:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't Cary Grant a really bad example? He differs from all the others given as examples in that he was born in England to English parents and as such was fully English until later in his life when he took US citizenship. This makes him much more than "of English heritage" Sue De Nimes ( talk) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:English Americans.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
English Americans. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
English Americans. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on English Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/2000surnames/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/freqnames2k.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This paragraph reads like personal opinion, not sourced knowledge: "In the succeeding years since the founding of the United States of America, English-Americans have been less likely to proclaim their heritage in the face of the upsurge of cultural and ethnic pride by African Americans, Irish Americans, Scottish Americans, Italian Americans or other ethnic groups. While there may be many reasons for this, after centuries of intermarriage and internal geographic mobility, many are unable to determine a specific English origin. For these reasons, no other part of the pluralist American society is so difficult to describe as a separate entity as the English. English immigrants were and are often seen as an invisible ethnic group, due to the length of time their ancestors may have been in the United States, as the majority of the founding colonists were English people." If this entry is kept on Wikipedia, it needs to meet Wikipedia's standards. Jk180 ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on English Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is filled with misinformation, POV, and ethnic cheerleading. I could write a large essay on the inaccuracies contained here, but for now I'll focus only on the claim in the table which says that Americans of English descent have a "plurality" in New York. I can assure you that whoever wrote this has never set foot in New York.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf
The single largest ancestry in NY is Italian, followed by Irish and then German. English ancestry only has a plurality in Maine, Vermont, and Utah. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that File:Most common ancestry in the United States by county.png along with other maps by User:Mapsandfactsarefun does not have any source listed for the data (the user has not edited on either here or Commons for about two years). Should it be removed unless a source matching the data can be found and cited? Seems to go against the rules about unsourced statements. DemonDays64 ( talk) 20:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
I have again removed this reference, as I believe it is fraudulently cited and this will remain my position unless and until it is confirmed as correct by an editor in good standing. The claimed quote is The fact that half of the American population at the time of the nation’s independence was of English origin and that up to four million English immigrated to the United States after its independence shows that the number of Americans with either full or partial English ancestry to whatever degree is estimated to be around one hundred million people
and it allegedly appears on pages 208-210 (pages conveniently unavailable on Google Books). Why three pages? Why would such a short quote need three pages? It's not the Gettysburg Address, it's fifty-nine words. Although Amazon doesn't allow those pages to be viewed either, a search for certain key words that shows they don't appear on the pages in question (to ensure the search works for those pages, I did a sample search for 'English' which does appear on virtually every page in the book including pages 208-210). 'independence' doesn't appear on pages 208-210, neither does 'million' nor 'hundred' or 'degree'. Searching for any sequence of several words from the claimed quote brings up no results at all. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the claimed quote does not appear in the book, it's a fraudulent reference.
FDW777 (
talk) 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph for the second time as it is completely unsourced:
Throughout American history, English immigrants and their descendants have been prominent in every level of government and in every aspect of American life. Eight out of the first ten American presidents and more than that proportion of the 46 presidents, as well as the majority of sitting congressmen and congresswomen, are descended from English ancestors. The descendants of English expatriates are so numerous and so well integrated in American life that it is impossible to identify all of them. While they are the third-largest ethnic nationality self-reported in the 1990 census, they retain such a pervasive representation at every level of national and state government that, on any list of American senators, Supreme Court judges, governors, or legislators, they would constitute a plurality if not an outright majority. Today, it is estimated that over 80 million Americans are of English ancestry, not including African-Americans who also have some English ancestry.
Every sentence in here needs to be reliably sourced and the text should not be readded without sources. DanCherek ( talk) 07:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering, when exactly did English Americans cease to be a majority in the US, if they ever were? – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
In the 2020 Census it allowed people to specify multiple detailed ancestries at the same time. The way the numbers are presented currently, it looks like there was a jump in English American identification from 24M to 46M. But in actuality in the 2020 Census, 25M reported being English *alone,* with no other ancestry, not a huge jump from the number of English Americans in the last census. The higher 46.6M number is from English being selected in combination with other origins, like German or Irish.
So the way the data is presented now makes it look like there was a big jump when it’s actually because of how they changed the data collection in 2020 to allow people to give more combination and detail. If things were set up the same as in 2010, it looks like the number would be closer to 25M which is a much smaller increase from 24M.
Anybody got a good way to make that clear on the page? Maybe by putting English alone vs in combination with other ancestries? Here’s the source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-dhc-a-white-population.html Anneuaidd ( talk) 08:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed unsourced religions. 149.88.26.144 ( talk) 11:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it's highly arguable to say that Jersey is/was English. It only started speaking English in a big way in the last century.-- MacRusgail 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was Norman French spoken in the Channel islands (Jersey and Guernsey) which is a mixture of French and Scandinavian words. English n proud ( talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Lets get real here guy's.any americans whose ancesters have been in our country since the 1860's will have english blood and heritage.Also millions emigrated from england from 1860 to the present day.
I'm Anglo Utahn and to say that Utah is 29% anglo is a joke. In my estimations the Anglo would be at least 40%.include the welsh and the scots ,make that about 70%
Also Alabama In the 2000 census .. English 344,735 ,American 756,375 Florida.in the 2000 census ..English 1,468,576 , American 1,278,586
Georgia : in the 2000 census..English 664,569 ,American 1,102,178 Mississippi: in the 2000 census ..English 173,633 ,American 403,518
These are just examples....-- Anglo6719:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
24 million does seem a bit high. Lots of Americans do tend to get England and Britain mixed up though so maybe that's a partial explanation?-- Aiel 999 ( talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is an issue that will get more confusing over time. Looking back just to your grandparents, you're already dealing with 4 potentially different lines of heritage - make it your great grandparents and it's 8. So many people might have one, two three or more lines being English but that leaves 5, 6, 7 which aren't - which do you choose to list? All of them? The majority one? The most recent one? The one that fits in best with your area? The coolest one? The country you've visited? Male lines only? So what about your kids? 16 lines? Etc, etc.
In a few generations, heritage might well settle down into simply "American"(or indeed one of colours) - maybe with the rise of the EU, European heritage will not be as culturally valuable to claim, it may even be eagerly hidden! A lot of German Americans changed their surnames to Irish sounding ones during the war(s) - which leads to another question where we ponder how many Irish Americans have no Irish blood at all,but are instead German! Essentially, the question will only become more blurred and arguably less important.
Tokind of answer the question, yes I think it's low, most thinking seems to conclude that it's very low, but if someone is more German/Irish/Whatever than English, they'll answer with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(The above statement that in 1980 the Census asked "Great Britain" and not just "English" is inaccurate. In fact, the 1980 Census asked an open question, and separately tabulated the results for English, Scots, and Welsh. Also, the speculation above that half of those reporting "Irish" were actually "Scots-Irish" has no merit. A simple review of immigtation statistics since the 18th Century, with attention paid to how many emigrated from Ulster and the rest of Ireland, shows that most people reporting "Irish" ancestry are not Scots-Irish but just Irish. There is a separate tabulation for those reporting "Scots-Irish" in the Census, and that is where you will find a more or less acurate number for that group. Admittedly, self-reporting in this area can be tricky, and it may be that some people who have Scots-Irish ancestors reported just Irish. But it's also true that some people who reported Scots-Irish may actually have meant that they were of mixed Scots and Irish ancestry, so those two possible areas of false reporting would probably cancel each other out and make the figures for Irish and Scots-Irish fairly accurate. For more information on this subject, see the section on the Irish in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. In that article, it states that in 1790, out of a white population of 3,100,000, persons of Irish birth or ancestry numbered 400,000, and that half of these were from Ulster (i.e Scots-Irish), and half were from the other parts of Ireland. Of course, in the mid-19th Century, people who came to America from Ireland were overwhelmingly Irish Catholics. These statistics, I think, support that Census Bureau figures for the number of Americans with "Irish" and "Scots-Irish" ancestry today.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 ( talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
first comment from Utah - exactly. English heritage is WAY under-reported. You cannot go anywhere in the US without bumping into surnames like Smith, Williams, Johnson, Harrison, the list goes on (and on, and on, and on). Face it, those names are the NORM. The Census Bureau has got to can the "American" "ethnic origin." American is British at least, English more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.130.89 ( talk) 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I think, most Americans, are english, irish or scotish descent. Also in Australia or New Zealand or Canada. But, People migration gave it also enough in Europe! By the way, all Germans come from, Celts, Romans or Jews Peoples! I am German, but my Ancestor are, Polish and Jew. I think, all Americans, who were born in America, or there settled, are real Americans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.182.244 ( talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Many Caucasian Americans seem to have some "Anti" Anglo mindset going on. The real number would be much higher and by far higher than the false German American number. Fact of the matter is looking at immigration statistics, its mathmaticaly impossible for German Americans to be that high. Its nothing but pure fetish & fantasy that Americans have with being something "different" a lot of Americans seem to be bored with just being English. Which is quite ridiculous too me. The English have contributed more to the world than any single country in Europe. They invaded 90% of the worlds populations, and are responsible for much of our modern theories & technology. Yet Americans don't feel proud of this grand achievment from such a tiny group of islands? The problem is also that Americans like to claim things they aren't really are or much of. Take Brad Pitt for example, he claims German ancestry, yet his German ancestor was from LONG AGO and most of his ancestors are British. The look of the typical White American is quite British. The Majority of Americans could pass in all England, Scotland, & Ireland. Not even in Minnesota (The land claimed as "viking land") do the whites look Scandinavian, they look as British as any other population in the US. Americans are just obsessed with being "mixed". Not all of the US was a melting pot like New York & Los Angelos was. That means a great portion and the majority of American whites are still quite British.
The other evidence is the surnames. Lots of people like to say "Well, surnames were changed", and i always say ALL OF THEM? whether you want to admit it or not, if the German Americans were that numerous, you better believe atleast a few German surnames would be in the top surname list of the US. Yet they are not, the majority of them are English. I highly doubt every single German family changed their names.
I don't get why Americans are so obsessed with being German in the first place. Don't they know the majority of the Germans who immigrated to the US were not of the "well off desirable" kind. They mostly came from poor off German areas, and many of them WEREN'T even actual ethnic Germans. Many were Jews, and German speaking indivisuals from other countries. Anyway bottom line, the majority of Americans like Australians & Canadians have a strong British input. Most of your so called "Germans" & "Italians" will also have a English, Irish, or Scottish ancestor, and most of the time the amount of ancestors from the British isles will outnumber those from other countries like they do with Brad Pitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:4981:7B86:1B7:7146 ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
THE FACTS: 99% of Americans actors & models under the so called German-American list HAVE British ancestry some of them have all 3 sometimes (English, Scottish, Irish). Most of the German Americans also have colonial British blood. 99% of America's white films stars, entertainers and models look COMPLETELY British descended phenotypically. No difference between English speaking Canadians & Aussies. Infact many of America's actors are British, they come here put on American accents and Americans can't even tell the difference because they are indistinquishable from the Brits. Another fact: Most white Americans who get tested (23andmetest) cluster with the British Isles more than they do any other nation in Europe. Phenotype doesn't lie, and when phenotype isn't enough DNA sure as hell doesn't lie. American whites were and are still majority British isles descent the only time this changes is the melting pot areas of the states that had millions of immigrants ie: New York, California. Most of the rest of the United States have had populations below 5 million for years upon years. They're majority still Brtish.
It is also worthy to note, most Americans have a habit of claiming ethnicities they aren't even much of. Take Brad Pitt for example, claims he has German ancestry...but guess what? the German in his line was from way back when most of the ancestors in his line were British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:95E0:2068:3EFE:D9AD ( talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No this is obviously nonsense and in reality if all those Americans of families who have been settled in America too long to recognise their English roots are included English would be far and away the biggest ethnic group - well ahead of the Germans who generally settled comparitively recently and so still realise their German roots.
You only have to read any American non-fiction book set in the Southern staters or the West (and even taking into account anglicisation of names by some non-English people) the average book will be full of names of English origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_24#List of English Americans. Badagnani 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the list of English presidents add anything of value to this article? Wouldn't perhaps a choice selection of "notable English Americans" be better? Therefore, I propose removing this list.-- Ernstk ( talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Hamilton - was the son of a Scottish Laird! Please remember that Scotland does not equal England. They are not the same. Scotland had fought against England for many centuries to make sure they were not the same! Most of the founding fathers of the US were actualy of Scottish ancestory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 ( talk) 09:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely if you include Alexander Hamilton (as well as other Scots or Welsh) in because you mistake the island of Britain (which Scotland and Wales are also part of) for England (The bottom part of this island) then can you realy claim to know what an English American is if you don't have a basic grasp of the geography of the country of England and who is actualy from it? 09:44 29 December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.18.37 ( talk) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How can Anglo-American have a less precise meaning than English American?-- Aiel 999 ( talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, they don't do they?
They might be of English ancestry, but they're not "English". Actual English people probably make up less than half a per cent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE have something other than Americanized patriotic history here? This is the internet after all and these silly little myths don't travel overseas because they're nothing but self serving word of mouth tales serving to massage a national ego!
This claim is beyond laughable though sadly prevelant in the national psyche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 ( talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
NY isn't named after the city of York, but the Duke of York (later James II) as the reference indicates.-- Cavort ( talk) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we include him in the montage of english american? He is english by all means and he is the president... I see no reason why he should not be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just overinflated bullshit to say that we inherit our culture from English people. While a significant degree of our culture was built upon European cultures in General due to mass immigration, I fail to see anything significant the English have contributed aside from Language, and Americans are now beginning to see how unnecessary even that is. Football and Baseball were created on American soil, by Americans. They can not in any way be credited to any European nation. Regardless of Sport that preceded them. Captain Spleen ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article states that all culture came from the English - what it does say is that a lot of the culture that is American was influenced by England. Just because the comments above come from an Anglophobe doesn't make them accurate. Look at the wikipedia pages ... Football ... came from the sports of Soccer and Rugby, Baseball.... came from the sport of rounders / town ball ...It doesn't make them any less American. Even the ideas of Liberty.... from England (the US had the revolution that England should have had).... afterall, the revolution was about lack of representation in the democratic process in Britain....not wholly new ideas that were American only. The bottom line is the core culture (good and bad) of the US is Anglo - it didn't just spring up when the ancestors of modern americans took the land from the natives. 216.107.194.166 ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggest we delete the reference to the Boy Scouts celebrating St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of the Boy Scouts, but this is unrelated to England. I'll note that St. George is also the patron of Aragon, Catalonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Portugal, Russia and Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.89.149 ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The English were the founders of a considerable number of America's world renowned Universities. Harvard, Yale, Brown, U Penn, Stanford, Dartmouth, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.68.21 ( talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Much of your fiction = Based on British works from Star Wars to Dawn of the Dead. Much of your folklore = British derived. Legal system = British derived, Education system = British derived, Language = British derived, Sports = British derived. Hell even most of your "inventions" were just derivatives of already existing British technology. Like the Computer & Laptop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:95E0:2068:3EFE:D9AD ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with recognising the effect of English and British culture in the US is one that affects all the ex-British colonies, in that the effects are so deep-rooted and profound that most people simply don't notice them - they are a part of everyday life. The differences between the countries are the ones usually mentioned, but one only needs to spend some time in either country - the US or UK - to see how quickly one adjusts and fits-in to the other country's society and lifestyle. Try doing that in France, Germany, or wherever. For a Brit or American visiting countries like Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, the differences between one's own culture and theirs are often quite superficial. Not-so in other parts of the world. One incorrect word or social gaffe in the wrong place and one doesn't know if one has insulted someone, or agreed to marry their daughter/son. An exaggeration of course, but not that much of a one in former times.
If you want to really see the effect of English and British culture then simply compare Canada and the US, with the countries in Central and South America.
The other thing of note is that people who are not from the dominant culture, and have perhaps migrated to the country later in its history, tend to feel left-out and a trifle resentful of not being part of the origins of the country. That is understandable. But massaging and re-writing history to suit them is probably not. The modern countries of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many others too numerous to mention, are the countries they are today - for better or for worse - because of their British heritage. It's fairly obvious really.
Most of the ex-British colonies that received mass immigration from the UK are First World countries. Most other countries' ex-colonies, aren't. That may seem like boasting, but it is nevertheless true, and just because some people dislike this doesn't make it any less true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 ( talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Would Obama be considered an enligsh-american as his mother was mainly of english descent? He is probably extremely famour so maybe he could be in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.2.237 ( talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Why on the Scottish American page does it show their true numbers rather than just those whom self-identify as Scots descent whilst on the English American page it only shows the number of Yanks that actually identify as English descended rather than the full number (est 80 million+). It seems abit unfair to me. English Bobby ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Bill Gates is of "English, German, and Scotch-Irish descent". What makes him "English American"?? Is there any evidence that he self-identifies himself as an "American of English descent"?-- Work permit ( talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lot of change on the English family names section of this article. It appears that there are references to support the majority of the origin statements, but these are repeatably removed and the origin switched to 'Ireland'. Can some concensus be met to decide on an appropriate reference for the origins of these last names & stick with that? The reference provided in the text (and that keeps getting removed) is 100 Most Common U.S. Surnames - is this an appropriate reference, and if not, what can be used.
The constant 'copy / edit' and 'undos' should stop. I've reverted back to what appears to the original whilst concensus is reached.
-- Spikey Wikey ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your argument about the Anglo Saxons (or to name all the tribes involved in the migrations and subsequently responsible for the creation of England, which comes from the name "Anglalond" or land of the Angles.The other tribes were the Jutes, Saxons, some Frisians and Franks) is totally wrong......."Also, the Angles and Saxons brought many German names that evolved into common surnames in England. Are these names really German rather than English?..... No, they are English! As without the Anglo Saxons there would be NO England....it would still be just the Roman province of Britainnia, or whatever the native Britons (the people who would become the Welsh and Scottish/Pictish, who were pushed in the western and northern extremities by the very same Anglo Saxons) chose to call their land post Roman withdrawal. Your argument is pointless as the name England is the time corrupted version of Anglalond. Without them there would be no Engoland at all!-- English n proud ( talk) 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of these "English" surnames have much greater percentages of descendants with German ancestry. Example, the name Miller is a big German name. Smith as well is a corruption of the German surname "Schmidt". Basically my point is that these names are not unique to the British Isles nor to England in particular. --KR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.195.212 ( talk) 13:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Very comprehensive and interesting except the influence of Norman surnames is mostly purely linguistic as few Normans came to England after the Conquest and those who did were generally the landowners/nobility who to this day make up the majority of the modern British aristocracy. And then there's the side issue that the Normans were largely Viking anyway (Norman's being a corruption of Norsemen of course) who had been in northern France for less than a century when they invaded England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 ( talk) 22:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem in defining descent from any nation is that it can be confused over many years. Say an english couple arrived in th US in the 1800's and over the few generations married other english, Then in the 1920's the daughter of the english descendants (who now called herself american) married Mr O' Reilly from Ireland and their children married other Irish. The fact that they had english descent would probably be lost on their descendants unless they looked into it as they would only look back to probably the grandparents. Shouldn't Americans look forward instead of always looking back trying to get ancestry from somewhere else. In my case I was born in England but my parents are Irish but I don't feel the need to wear a shamrock every St Patricks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 ( talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Should there be an inclusion in this article about the World War 2 War Brides? This, and the marraiges between American military personel stationed in the UK from then to present times is a significant contribution to the English American population. Kunchan ( talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed the term Anglo-American redirects here. However in the UK and the rest of the world Anglo American reflects anyone who has recent & dual English and American heritage - and does not reflect Americans with an Anglo Saxon background. In particular it refers to the offspring where two nationalities have come together in the past few generations (Halle Berry is a good example) via a marriage. This can be either an English person marrying into an American family living in the states - or an American marrying into an English family living in the UK and their offspring (ie Winston Churchill). Further generation revert to the nationality of the country where they grew up (ie Churchill's own grandchildren. Hope this makes sense and not sure where it would be covered... Kunchan ( talk) 09:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any particular difference in an official sense? Or is being stylised as an English-American as oppose to British-American a matter of personal preference? TomB123 ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please as an English American I find the Term Anglo American offensive. I do not wish to be called Anglo. Nor do I wish to be called Gringo. Stop it. Ulao ( talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I made some large cuts to this section and am tempted to make more. But for now will just post here instead. Maybe I am missing something. Much of this section seems to be making rather grand claims I find extremely hard to believe, and with no references cited at all. I removed this bit, regarding Spanish and Mexicans:
The text just following this I did not remove, but is it really claiming what it seems to be:
The implication here is that the the reason there are Italian Americans is because Mary Tudor and Philip II had dominion over southern Italy in the 16th century, and because an early Virginian family was named Taliaferro? Really? Also, the (run on) sentence starting "Thus, statewide majority ancestries of Americans largely owe their place in America, due to the English component..." is quite confusing. And the whole rest of the paragraph--what is the relevance to English Americans? Am I missing something? Are we really suggesting that Japanese people immigrated to America due to Italian navigators from centuries ago? And on this last part:
There were Indian Reserves long before 1763. The first that comes to mind was one granted to the Yamasee by South Carolina around 1700-1710 or so. Details about how Indiana got its name seem tangential at best. The topic of "Jeffersonian plans for Indian removal" is much more complex than this. I'm skeptical that the 1763 reserve was a model for Jefferson. The term "Wild West" seems odd in this context. And neither Oklahoma nor its Indian Territory existed in Jefferson's day, nor were either the "original" destination of "removal". Early Cherokee removals (or "encouraged migrations" anyway) and reserves were in Arkansas, for example. Anyway, beside the factual errors, I don't understand why any of this needs to be said here. What am I missing? Should it be removed?
Other issues from earlier in this section:
Canada was hardly "founded by elements of the American population". Many people migrated to Canada directly from Britain after the US was established. This sentence suggests that Canadians mainly migrated from the US to Canada.
This suggests that Germans migrated to America because there was a German connected in the British royal family. Perhaps there is some small link there, but there are many other, more important reasons why Germans migrated to America. And many were not from Hanover anyway, but from Rhineland-Palatinate and areas farther inland. The German Palatines, for example, fled to England as refugees of the Thirty Years War, not because the King of England controlled Hanover. Also, I'm not sure what the toponymy examples are supposed to show. And anyway, the section is titled "Early settlement and colonization", so why are we talking about Alberta?
The claim here seems to be that New Sweden was founded because Scottish Covenanters fought with Gustavus. Hard to believe. Also, Nova Scotia was French at first. Was there really a Swedish/Scottish link between New Sweden and Nova Scotia? The log cabin claim is particularly questionable.
So, my main question is: Can we salvage this section at all? Pfly ( talk) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
British English is not a term that is recognised outside the United States. One assumes that when an American English speaker refers to British English he/she is referring to standard English. Standard English is a recognised term that applies to the correct form of the language, as spoken in the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.103.205 ( talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If this truly is a list of Presidents of English descent, why do 80% of the descriptions describe how Scotch-Irish the presidents are? 86.142.60.151 ( talk) 10:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't Cary Grant a really bad example? He differs from all the others given as examples in that he was born in England to English parents and as such was fully English until later in his life when he took US citizenship. This makes him much more than "of English heritage" Sue De Nimes ( talk) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:English Americans.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
English Americans. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
English Americans. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on English Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/2000surnames/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/freqnames2k.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This paragraph reads like personal opinion, not sourced knowledge: "In the succeeding years since the founding of the United States of America, English-Americans have been less likely to proclaim their heritage in the face of the upsurge of cultural and ethnic pride by African Americans, Irish Americans, Scottish Americans, Italian Americans or other ethnic groups. While there may be many reasons for this, after centuries of intermarriage and internal geographic mobility, many are unable to determine a specific English origin. For these reasons, no other part of the pluralist American society is so difficult to describe as a separate entity as the English. English immigrants were and are often seen as an invisible ethnic group, due to the length of time their ancestors may have been in the United States, as the majority of the founding colonists were English people." If this entry is kept on Wikipedia, it needs to meet Wikipedia's standards. Jk180 ( talk) 17:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on English Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is filled with misinformation, POV, and ethnic cheerleading. I could write a large essay on the inaccuracies contained here, but for now I'll focus only on the claim in the table which says that Americans of English descent have a "plurality" in New York. I can assure you that whoever wrote this has never set foot in New York.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf
The single largest ancestry in NY is Italian, followed by Irish and then German. English ancestry only has a plurality in Maine, Vermont, and Utah. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that File:Most common ancestry in the United States by county.png along with other maps by User:Mapsandfactsarefun does not have any source listed for the data (the user has not edited on either here or Commons for about two years). Should it be removed unless a source matching the data can be found and cited? Seems to go against the rules about unsourced statements. DemonDays64 ( talk) 20:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
I have again removed this reference, as I believe it is fraudulently cited and this will remain my position unless and until it is confirmed as correct by an editor in good standing. The claimed quote is The fact that half of the American population at the time of the nation’s independence was of English origin and that up to four million English immigrated to the United States after its independence shows that the number of Americans with either full or partial English ancestry to whatever degree is estimated to be around one hundred million people
and it allegedly appears on pages 208-210 (pages conveniently unavailable on Google Books). Why three pages? Why would such a short quote need three pages? It's not the Gettysburg Address, it's fifty-nine words. Although Amazon doesn't allow those pages to be viewed either, a search for certain key words that shows they don't appear on the pages in question (to ensure the search works for those pages, I did a sample search for 'English' which does appear on virtually every page in the book including pages 208-210). 'independence' doesn't appear on pages 208-210, neither does 'million' nor 'hundred' or 'degree'. Searching for any sequence of several words from the claimed quote brings up no results at all. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the claimed quote does not appear in the book, it's a fraudulent reference.
FDW777 (
talk) 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph for the second time as it is completely unsourced:
Throughout American history, English immigrants and their descendants have been prominent in every level of government and in every aspect of American life. Eight out of the first ten American presidents and more than that proportion of the 46 presidents, as well as the majority of sitting congressmen and congresswomen, are descended from English ancestors. The descendants of English expatriates are so numerous and so well integrated in American life that it is impossible to identify all of them. While they are the third-largest ethnic nationality self-reported in the 1990 census, they retain such a pervasive representation at every level of national and state government that, on any list of American senators, Supreme Court judges, governors, or legislators, they would constitute a plurality if not an outright majority. Today, it is estimated that over 80 million Americans are of English ancestry, not including African-Americans who also have some English ancestry.
Every sentence in here needs to be reliably sourced and the text should not be readded without sources. DanCherek ( talk) 07:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering, when exactly did English Americans cease to be a majority in the US, if they ever were? – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
In the 2020 Census it allowed people to specify multiple detailed ancestries at the same time. The way the numbers are presented currently, it looks like there was a jump in English American identification from 24M to 46M. But in actuality in the 2020 Census, 25M reported being English *alone,* with no other ancestry, not a huge jump from the number of English Americans in the last census. The higher 46.6M number is from English being selected in combination with other origins, like German or Irish.
So the way the data is presented now makes it look like there was a big jump when it’s actually because of how they changed the data collection in 2020 to allow people to give more combination and detail. If things were set up the same as in 2010, it looks like the number would be closer to 25M which is a much smaller increase from 24M.
Anybody got a good way to make that clear on the page? Maybe by putting English alone vs in combination with other ancestries? Here’s the source: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-dhc-a-white-population.html Anneuaidd ( talk) 08:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed unsourced religions. 149.88.26.144 ( talk) 11:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)