Talk:Jones (surname)

Anthroponymy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

English?

"The Jones surname was first documented in England ..." This seems unlikely given that English surnames usually derive from occupation or placename in the Tutonoic tradition or exceptionally from a Norman root. Welsh surnames derive from the Patronymic tradition so I'd like to see some evidence for the statement. Laetoli (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is right. According to www.jonesgenealogy.com, the first recorded example of the Jones surname occurred in the English county of Huntingdonshire in 1279. According to David Hey's book Family Names and Family History (a great read if you're interested in surnames), patronymics ending in -s were common in areas bordering Wales, so it was those names that became adopted as the standard when the Welsh started using fixed surnames.

But the highest frequencies per capita of Jones, Williams, Thomas etc. in Wales (indeed in the whole world) are in the Welsh speaking areas - Gaerfyrddin, Ceredigion, Caernarfon etc - i.e. the furthest parts of Wales from the English border. Laetoli (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in 1841 at least, there were not much less than twice as many Welsh Joneses as English ones (which doesn't take into account the number of Joneses, like Inigo Jones or the Welsh communities in places like Islington, who might now thought of as English but take their name from a Welsh father):

Surname frequencies in Wales & England (1813-1837): (Surnames)

Jones 13.84% -------Smith 1.37%
Williams 8.91% -----Taylor 0.68%
Davies 7.09% ------Brown 0.57 %
Thomas 5.70% -----Jones 0.43%

Populations in 1841 - Wales 1,045,958 - England 14,868,190 (England & Wales) (Wales)

Approx Number Welsh Joneses in 1841 = 144,760

Appros Number English Joneses in 1841 = 84,748

I'm still looking into modern day figures.Laetoli (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, many English surnames are of patronymic origin, such as Johnson, Richardson, Wilkinson, Rogers, etc.Redstar177 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh use of the surname Jones only dates from after the Norman Conquest, prior to this the Welsh did not use surnames as such. The Normans introduced greater control over the lands and tax collectors and other officials required a surname from the Welsh people it was dealing with, for its records. The name most commonly adopted by the inhabitants for use in these dealings was 'Jones' as that was already a common name in England, and for many that would have been the only surname that they would have heard-of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.194 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing!

What, no TOM Jones ???

Theres a link to Tom Jones (disambiguation) and Thomas Jones in the "See also" section. Seeing as how there are almost 30 people with that name and they already have their own disambiguation page, they're not listed here by occupation. dissolve ^talk 15:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly forget John Paul Jones from the list of famous military Jones's. Must I do everything. I shall return to correct this moral outrage later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.62.198 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Laetoli (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters

Merged two groups of fictional characters and placed them at the bottom of the list Laetoli (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Joneses

I'm in the process of adding more Joneses but this is a very big task which will never be finished - we are too many Laetoli (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't add them all but add representative ones that provide a geographic and historical view on the distribution and evolution of the surname. Just having a longer list doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well just trying to add notable ones.Laetoli (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and is now also commonly found in Wales due to immigration: causality implied?

I'm getting rid of the 'due to immigration' at the end of this sentence in the intro as it implies the causality of large numbers of Welsh people are called Jones due to the immigration of English people with the surname Jones. While there may be some truth to it, it does ignore other factors such as the adoption of (Patronymic) surnames rather than the 'ap/ferch' tradition around the 18th century. Let me know if there are any objections. Rhys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.28 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation or article ?

Isn't this article a bit of both ? Did it start life as a disambiguation ? Machete97 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English or Welsh debate

The issue should not be settled by arbitary name-calling and accusations of vandalism. Adding an 's' to a patronym is typical usage in Welsh surnames - many of which are clearly NOT English e.g. Lloyds, Owens and Hughes. Whilst I accept that the same name may have independently arisen in England, the use of Jones in Wales is so common that any explanation that claims that the Welsh borrowed the name in such a widespread manner is clearly at odds with the observed evidence. This is especially so because there is a commonly understood alternative Welsh explanation, the overwhelming statistical and genetic evidence indicates that most uses of 'Jones' amongst apparently English people derives from a Welsh ancestor and the unlikelihood that the Welsh would adopt a name from the Sais, who, for those who've forgotten their history, were not terribly popular during the centuries that followed Edward I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetoli (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, oh, dear. I find it all too ironic that you rebuke people for "arbitrary name-calling" in your first line and then use the derogatory "Sais" when referring to the English (your use of the word 'apparently' before 'English' was a little out of line too). Do some research and you'll find that many English patronymics were formed using the 's', which is an adaption of the genitive case (William's son, Edward's son, etc). Look at names such as Wilkins, Collins, Reynolds, Simpkins, etc, all English surnames with little or no connection to Wales. So whilst the Welsh probably didn't borrow the names themselves, they did borrow the tradition of using -s to indicate 'son of'.

Incidentally, there are many instances of English surnames absorbing instances of Welsh or Gaelic names. The surname 'Lewis' for instances, was originally a Germanic name from the Latin Ludovicus (same as Louis), but it came to be used to replace Llewellyn in Wales, which is why it is most common there nowadays. Redstar177 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word, Sais, means Saxon. The word, welsh, means foreigner. I leave it to others to decide which is the more derogatory.

"Welsh" in modern usage is definitely not an insult. In my experience the only people who believe it to be an insult are the kind of people who generally spend their time burning down holiday cottages and defacing road signs.--Redstar177 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is inflammatory talk and off-topic. I have things to say about this but I won't say them. Laetoli (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the etymology of the surnames Reynolds, Simpkins et al. However, without supporting evidence, it is unadvisable to link these derivations with that of Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetoli (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned these in order to prove that the English came up with the usage of patronymic 's' first. Coupled with the fact that names like John, William, Edward and Robert were very common early on in England, it follows that a large number of people named Jones, Williams, etc. must be of English extraction.--Redstar177 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this proves anything - that the English came up with it first, that the use of an 's' suffix between Jones and Simpkins are linked nor that the use of Jones in Wales is borrowed from the English. Your argument is inferential and tenuous at that. Evidence is required to show that, not only the 's' suffix in England is English but also that its use in Wales derives from the same English derivation.Laetoli (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpkins is like Jones a patronymic - as Simpkins shares part of its etymology with Jenkins, another well-known Welsh patronymic surname. (the dimutive suffix 'kin' plus 's') Do you see where I'm driving at? Redstar177 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we must consider what most people understand by the 'nationality' of a name. The average person on the street would identify Jones as a Welsh name, irrespective of what he or she thought about the name's etymology. This would be a broadly correct analysis given that most people named Jones patronymically are either Welsh or descended through the male line from a Welshman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetoli (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that prove? The average man on the street would likely identify Smith as an English name, and they'd be right, but that doesn't mean everyone called Smith is of English descent.

I believe there is a lot to be said about common language usage. Botanically, a blackberry is not a berry. This is not what common language says and, when it comes to general understanding, the botanists are wrong.Laetoli (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at specialist websites, such as House of Names or ancestry.com, you'll see Jones described as both Welsh and English.

The synthesis position (that Jones is both English and Welsh) is the postion that I am arguing for. Laetoli (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the position I'm arguing for too. So are we at cross-purposes here? :) Redstar177 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, on the 'history' page you state that you consider the early documentation of the Jones name to be false. Why?--Redstar177 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I subsequently retracted that objection when provided with evidence. Nonetheless, the first validated documentation of the use of a name is unlikely to correspond with its first spoken use and, importantly, does not imply that the etymology of the name comes from the majority population of that area. Who is to say that the first documented Jones in Huntingdon wasn't a Welshman? There is limited documentation of any sort from Wales at the time.Laetoli (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one would say he was not a Welshman. First of all because "he" was a woman, not a man, and secondly because "his" given name was Matilda. This is a germanic name, very unWelsh. Laetoli, you make the synthesis that Jones must be Welsh in origin because it is widespread in Wales but cite no source that makes that conclusion. That amounts to WP:OR - it might be true but is not valid for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You cannot argue both that Jones in Wales must be Welsh in origin and at the same time Jones in England might not be English; that is not logically consistent. Learney and Wilson cite the popularity of Jones in Wales as due to its use (without the patronymic 's') in the Welsh Authorised Version of the Bible. Welsh names were forbidden in ~~the Authorised Version~~ official documents after the Act of Union which strongly points to an English origin of Jones. SpinningSpark 14:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Reaney: "In 1538, all the thirteen men of a jury had names like: John ap Madog ap Gryffyd ap Res junior. There is evidence that a change had begun. Edward ap Richard and Edward ap Robert point to the future preponderance of the Welsh Jones, Williams and Roberts". These are Welsh speakers adopting English language names. Kinda blows apart the argument that User:Laetoli originally put forward.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look across the pond

This article is extremely UK-centric. If you are focusing on origins, that's understandible. But when you start talking about how widespread the name is today, surely the largest English-speaking country in the world ought to be included in the discussion. The name Jones is very common in the United States. In someplaces, it may be a marker for early pockets of Welsh settlement in the eastern U.S. (Though the name is not exclusively Welsh in origin, as noted correctly in the main article.) It's often a common name in population areas that were thought to have been settled by the Scotch-Irish, something that is less easy to explain based on the main article. In the U.S., the commonality of the name has given rise to the expression "keeping up with the Joneses," meaning trying to display as much material wealth as one's neighbors. The name is also very common among African Americans, reflecting a historic tie to Joneses who were slaveowners. Overall, an explanation of how the Joneses became so widespread in the U.S. would appear to by in order. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the commonality of the name has given rise to the expression "keeping up with the Joneses," - LOL - I think you'll find that we had the phrase on this side of the pond at least a century ago. It arose with the then-new middle classes and refers to them competing with each other (e.g., their neighbours) in material possessions which their new-found wealth allowed them to buy, and their unwillingness to be outdone by the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.59.209 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh origin

I have reverted the latest attempt in the article to establish that Jones is Welsh in origin on the grounds of reliability of sources. The Data Wales source does not exactly make the claim of Welsh origins, rather, it states, as previously in the article, that the Welsh use derives from Ieuan. This agrees with Reaney and Wilson which must surely be taken as the more reliable source: it is a published book which meticulously lists its source documents. Data Wales on the other hand appears to be a personal web site (eg "I think it safe to say...") and gives no sources. There is also a matter of logic here; why on earth would the Welsh people take on an anglicized form of surname before they were forced to do so by English invaders? It appears they chose the nearest English equivalent to the Welsh and Reaney and Wilson seem to establish that Jones existed in England before that happened. If there is a case for Welsh origins, it needs better sourcing than offered so far. SpinningSpark 10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "origin" thing is a curse. I think American name books tend to use 'origin' to mean which countries American settlers came from. I think that's really the most important piece of information about a surname to many Americans. Obviously a large, maybe most, Americans with the surname are of Welsh descent, or claim to be. But this article is about the surname in general, not just the American one. The name is an English language name. It is first recorded in England. It was adopted by the Welsh people, who popularly used the Welsh language form of John. Does anyone actually dispute this? I don't think so. IMO the infobox sucks because the vague "origin" parts encourage these kind of fights on Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors think infoboxes are "evil" per se for just this kind of generalisation. SpinningSpark 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]