Talk:England/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Slight issue here...

What was the reason for this article being semi-protected? Not that I can't edit it (I have been autoconfirmed by now) but what happened?--The Master of Mayhem (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected since February 2008, and according the log it's because of vandalism. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister

The UK PM should not be listed on the infobox, otherwise you may as well add him to all the English regions/settlements. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the UK PM from this infobox & the infoboxes at Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland; on the condition that it's removed from all 4. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The PM has direct control over the government of England, but not of the other areas. And so do government departments. ðarkuncoll 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. England doesn't have a devolved government. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need one. It has the British government. ðarkuncoll 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's England's choice. Anyways, whatever's decided here, should be reflected on the other 3 articles-in-question infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing it from the others, but to remove it from England would give the erroneous impression that England doesn't have a government. Almost all government departments, with the only major exception being Defence, have jurisdiction only in England. The devolved governments take on those roles elsewhere, and indeed, even before devolution, the Scottish Office, etc., did so. ðarkuncoll 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna sit back & see what's decided here. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TharkunColl (which is rare) jurisdiction point is a good one. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TharkunColl too (which is also quite rare, although not as rare as one might suppose). David Cameron is the de facto head of English government. It would be gravely mis-representing the real-life constitutional predicament of England to omit him from the infobox of this article. It is Wikipedia's job to present complex real-life situations, not obfuscate them. Certain disruptive elements consistently try to misrepresent the complexities of the UK constitution, presumably because they lack the intellectual capacity to cope with complex topics. The UK is very far from being "uniform", and Wikipedia should never misrepresent it as being uniform. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TharkunColl and Mais oui! are right - there is no case for removing PM here. The current position in Scotland, Wales and NI is different in each case - this article should not be used to justify the UK PM's inclusion in other articles (which is what GoodDay and others are trying to do). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

England is governed directly by the United Kingdom government, I haven't disputed that fact. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the role of the UK government has been severely misrepresented here. It is not made up of English departments plus defence. There is also Attorney General's Office, Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth, Treasury, Northern Ireland, Office of the Advocate General for Scotland, Scotland, and Wales Office. With most of the other departments only partially devolved. The Prime Minister does not represent England any more than he represents the rest of the UK. England doesn't have a government. It is looked after by the UK government just like the rest of the UK with exception that it doesn't have its own regional version to opt out of parts of the legislation. The way fairly represent the situation in England is simply put 'none' in a devolved assembly section of the infobox. Eckerslike (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no English government. That's why you've got CEP in existance. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The CEP has almost no support - why duplicate what we already have, at twice the cost? The Westminster Parliament has been in existence since the 13th century. To not realise this is to fundamentally misunderstand the UK constitution. The UK is not federal. ðarkuncoll 00:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Even so, according to the sources of Governance of England article, there hasn't been an English government since 1707. GoodDay (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You read the sources, did you? There's only one and it's a dead link. The article, in its primary assertion that England has no government, is simply wrong. ðarkuncoll 13:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blasted, who messed up the source? You're correct it's now a dead-link. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So when you said, "according to the sources of", you weren't being strictly accurate? ðarkuncoll 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A mess up on my part, there was just one source. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Which you couldn't have read, since it's a dead link. And yet you gave the impression that you had. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I did read it months ago & assumed it was still intact. Sorry Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Eckerslike's description of the present constitutional situation is quite accurate. Not only does England not have a government, it doesn't really exist in any constitutional sense, except to mean "that part of the United Kingdom that is not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". Any notion of the UK as a union of four entities of equal status (albeit it of wildly different population sizes) is quite false, and is in my view the product of a kind of misconceived "reverse engineering" or backformation from the concept of, mainly, Scotland (as if to say "if X, Y and Z are the attributes of Scotland, England must be the same"). Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the infobox as it now stands, since it says the PM is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and does not claim that England has its own prime minister. -- Alarics (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's completely untrue, I'm afraid. It's the sort of rubbish that people such as the CEP put out. England has a parliament, and it sits at Westminster as it has done since the 13th century. That it also has MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI doesn't stop it being the body that governs England. ðarkuncoll 13:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think what I wrote above is "the sort of rubbish that people such as the CEP put out", then not only are you being offensively uncivil but you have also completely misunderstood my point, which is wholly opposite to the view of the CEP. It is precisely people like the CEP that I had in mind when I referred to the misconceived idea that the UK consists of four entities of equal status and that "therefore" (in their opinion) England ought to have its own parliament. Of course the parliament at Westminster is the body that governs England, but the point is that England doesn't have a parliament or a government of its own, and in that constitutional sense it does not exist. However, since the infobox doesn't claim that it does have a parliament or government, I don't see what is wrong with the infobox as it is, and I really fail to see what is being argued about in this thread. There seems to be a lot of seriously muddled thinking going on here. -- Alarics (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK Prime Minister belongs at the infobox of the United Kingdom, not here. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that this article is about England, not the United Kingdom & England doesn't have a government of its own. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have 4-3 infavour of deletion. I hope we get more imput then this, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TharkunColl's rationale. The UK PM needs to stay in this infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont see any reason why the Prime Minister cant be in the infobox he is the political leader of the administration that governs England (the fact that he does other stuff is not really relevant to this article). MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the infobox describes him as PM of the UK, not PM of England, so it is quite correct as far as it goes. My quibble with the infobox is a different one: it describes England as a "non-devolved state", but actually England isn't a state. I don't think you can describe as a state any entity that doesn't have a government or parliament of its own. In constitutional terms, England doesn't really exist, as I keep pointing out. (There is a legal jurisdiction called England, but that includes Wales.) -- Alarics (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to that view as well. (the one Alarics puts forwards). The problem with TharkunColl's argument above, which some support, is that he/she talks about "England having a government" as being the key issue - actually, it does not, because England is not a state. It is a historic country and nation. In modern times, it is wholly subsumed within the United Kingdom governmental structure. At the moment, effectively, we should be using some kind of historical country infobox template. Until devolution, I would have said the same of Scotland and Wales but now they actually have their own governments and parliaments, so the wierd-but-true fact is that they are more "states" than England is. So we are using the wrong infobox format here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A historical infobox would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument advanced above is, I'm afraid, based on ignorance. All four countries of the UK have separate forms of administration, the difference in the case of England being that it is carried out by the UK government. I have to say that all this is typical Wiki "fact", based on lack of knowledge. This has always been the case with Ireland and Scotland, and has been the case with Wales since at least the 1960s. Devolution simply transferred powers from the UK government departments responsible for those countries - e.g. the Scottish Office - to the devolved assemblies. Those who argue for a separate parliament, the intelligent ones, at any rate, don't do so on the grounds that England has no parliament - which it patently does - but on the grounds that it contains representatives from outside England who can, nevertheless, vote on English matters. ðarkuncoll 21:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, we may be talking about different things. I was referring to the fact that England is not obviously a state. Clearly it is under governmental control, but there is no government of England as such. Something you seem to agree with, as you argue that England is governed by the UK government. Since England itself has no seperate "English government" and it is not a state, we are actually in agreement and the infobox being used is the wrong one. Clearly England is represented by MPs at Parliament, but they are not MPs representing an English state. The MSPs actually do represent Scotland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you are misinterpreting the facts. The UK government actually governs England - specifically - whereas the government of the other countries is carried out by their devolved administrations. So England does indeed have a government, and not just as part of the UK as a whole. Most departments of the UK government only have jurisdiction in England. That's why, for example, the recent controversy about tuition fees only applied to England. This is the case across the board. You appear to fail to grasp what I'm actually talking about here, and assume I simply mean that England is governed as part of the UK. It isn't. It has it's own administration. ðarkuncoll 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't misinterpret anything and I'm not failing to grasp. What you are talking about is the assumed government of England which derives from the fact that some UK laws and actions now only apply in England. There most assuredly is no "English government" as an entity. If there is, can you point to it? Where is it based? Who is it's leader? To state that England has a government is actually an opinion and possibly even synthesis or OR, as it is an assumption based on the limitations of government departments, limits of regulations, etc, not an entity that clearly exists. To put it at it's simplest, I repeat, England is not a State. There may well be all sorts of regulations governing it, but it does not have a "government". It is governed by a higher realm. Your statement that "it has it's own administration" it just wrong. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by a "higher realm"? I can easily point to the government, it's in Westminster. It's you who are misinterpreting facts, not me. ðarkuncoll 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

James, may we see an example of the infobox you propose? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my mind is something that has a History section and lists of most recent rulers, etc. An example would be the one at the former state of Czechoslovakia. I doubt there is an exact fit out there though, as England still exists as a national entity, albeit one that is not a state and has no government of it's own. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It does have a government of its own. ðarkuncoll 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The GLA perhaps? Ofsted? Marks & Spencer? I'm not sure that constantly repeating the same thing will win the day. Perhaps if you could respond to facts a little, eg, let's start with, where is the Government of England's website? Just as an example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that constantly repeating the same thing will win the day." Let's hope you mean that. And here's the website you requested http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm ðarkuncoll 23:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're operating at this level of discussion there is no point even having you involved in it. DirectGov is a website for the UK government and operates UK-wide information services. Or do you think the DVLA doesn't operate in Scotland for example? Come back when you are willing to engage properly. I certainly won't be wasting my time arguing points like this any more. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't you see that it's you who have so fundamentally failed to comprehend the reality of the situation? ðarkuncoll 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, TharkunColl, Jamesinderbyshire is correct and you are being remarkably obtuse about this. There is no English government AS SUCH. You seem to think the UK government's writ now runs only in England. This is not so. It currently runs throughout the UK for certain purposes which have not been devolved, of which there are rather more than you seem to realise. It also runs everywhere in the UK in the more fundamental sense that devolution could technically be reversed if Westminster ever so decided: as Enoch Powell once observed, power devolved is power retained, because, as you yourself noted earlier, the UK is not a federation. -- Alarics (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said the UK government does not also run the other countries, but it runs England at a far more immediate level. The obtuseness here is coming from people who are only seeing this in black and white - either the UK government runs the whole UK equally, at every level, or it only runs England. In fact, neither is true. ðarkuncoll 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The historical infobox would be tricky. We should delete the UK Prime Minister out of this infobox, as this wouldn't damage things. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If England isn't a state, how come it gets to field a separate team in the Commonwealth Games, and compete against Scotland, Wales, NI, Channel Islands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and all the rest? How come Canada doesn't get to field 10 teams, one for each province, and Australia doesn't get to field 6 teams, one for each state? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an unhelpfully trite comment. Of course England is, by most definitions, a country and a nation. What this discussion is about is whether it is governed as a state - not the same thing at all. England's constitutional arrangements may well be unique, but they are still real. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right. England is both a modern and historic country and nation, but in its modern form, it does not have a distinct government - government is conducted at the UK level, into which England was subsumed. This was also historically the case for Wales and Scotland in different ways, but has changed since devolution and the establishment of the WA and SP. Now England is alone in the UK in not having any of the usual branches of a democratic structure uniquely set up for it as an entity. I suppose the infobox to be fair does make this clear already, describing England as a "non-devolved state within a constitutional monarchy" and Cameron as PM "of the United Kingdom". One problem is that we don't have an article defining what a "non-devolved state within a constitutional monarchy" is - that pipelinks to devolution, possibly incorrectly. The other problem is that we don't properly define what powers at the UK level are confined to England in the article. TharkunColl is correct that a bunch of "UK-level" powers and institutions now effectively only apply to England and this would be worth describing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Of course New South Wales and Ontario are going to find it harder to beat England than Australia or Canada. But at least they'll realise how hard Wales and Jamaica have had to work over the years. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.171.102.54, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} IN HISTORY: it says "In the early 9th century the Mercia was displaced as the foremost kingdom by Wessex." but I want to change it to "In the early 9th century Mercia was displaced as the foremost kingdom by Wessex."

IN GEOGRAPHY: it says "There are many lakes in England but the majority are in the aptly named Lake District; the largest of which is Windermere,". Technically Windermere is a mere, and Bassenthwaite Lake is the largest true lake in Lakeland, and the sentence should end with a full stop not a comma!

IN INFRASTRUCTURE: it says "There are air transport facilities in England connected the public to numerous international locations," but I want to change it to "There are air transport facilities in England connecting the public to numerous international locations,"

Thank you

86.171.102.54 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now made your requested edit to the History section, and have tweaked the sentence in Infrastructure, although I have altered it in a slightly different way to how you proposed, please feel free to comment if you disagree with the new text.

I await the comments of others on your proposed edit to Geography, on which I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to make a decision. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the proposed change re lakes, though the sentence does need changing slightly, which I will do have done. A "mere" is (merely) a type of lake. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted to IP for all those grammatical errors. On the lakes point, most books and sources state that Windermere is the largest natural lake in England (Kielder Water is bigger, but a modern reservoir) - mere has fluctuating meanings over the centuries and in different regions but "lake" is an accepted meaning, although in the North-Western context it is often applied to lakes that are wide and shallow. Nothing wrong with using Windermere in the way it is used in the article currently. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

North-South Divide

Any English person will know what this is. I think it is worth mentioning.

This is a historic indefinible cultural divide between the north and south of England. The boundary of the divide is not precise but goes through the Midlands somewhere, for many at the latitude of Watford Gap in Northamptonshire. The differences between the north and south are multiple. Linguistically there are dialectic differences particularly of vernacular vocabulary, which are not homogenous across either the south or north, but which contain certain characteristics which are ubiquitous across both areas, such as the open vowel sounds of the north and the long vowels of the south. Contrast the word 'Bath' said by a northener and a southerner. Forms of dress such as the flat cap typify the north (in the stereotype). The north is traditionally industrialised and poor, the south commercial and wealthy, although this has changed considerably in recent years. Interestingly the divide roughly equates to the areas settled by two different groups of tribes after the Roman Departure from Britain. The Saxons (and some Jutes) from northern Germany settled the south (in the kingdoms of Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex and Kent), whilst the Angles (from Denmark) settled the north (in Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia). It is likely that cultural features of these two distinct groups are the basis for cultural divisions between northern and southern England today. Whilst the Angles and Saxons are commonly lumped together as Anglo-Saxons, they were not the same people. Another fallacy is that the Angles and Saxons entirely replaced the native Britons in England. This is extremely unlikely and genetic evidence (I forget where I saw it) suggests that the further west and north you go in England the greater the incidence of pre-Anglo-Saxon ancestry, which is most significant in Cornwall, Herefordshire and Cumbria.

Does anyone agree with this idea? It needs some embellishing but there are plenty of resources to draw on out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Ee by gum it's been done! Trust Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a very good article though - feel free to improve it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"The north is traditionally industrialised and poor, the south commercial and wealthy" - I think this is nothing more than a lazy stereotype. There's always been impoverished areas in the south of England, especially in and around London, and areas of many towns in the south east. In addition the south has consistently absorbed higher levels of immigration which is generally associated with poverty in almost all countries in the first few generations. There have always been plenty of wealthy areas & people in the north of England. Take a trip around the smart areas of Newcastle, Durham etc., or wealthy estates in Cumbria, Yorkshire etc. etc. (Perhaps this misconception comes from the fact that privately-educated northerners are often incorrectly attributed to the south due to their well-spoken accents - e.g. Tony Blair, leading to the highly inaccurate misconception that most northerners are working class.....). Brunanburh (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read on to my next sentence you will see that I mention this situation has changed in recent years. Tony Blair, is by best definition a Scotsman, not an Englishman. He went to Durham university, big deal. In fact of course, he's British, but that term seems to be out of use these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.176.110 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact it is all a great deal more complicated than that - read Graham Turner's book "The North Country" on the cultural and economic divide. Of course these are all generalisations and there are always plenty of exceptions to any generalisation, which does not necessarily mean that the generalisation is not true. A radically different way of looking at these issues is Michael Steed's core-periphery analysis, which also calls into question the artificial "a UK of four nations" view we were discussing earlier. -- Alarics (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Michael Steed, I'm not sure a campaigner for regional assemblies in England is a suitable objective source on this issue. Although incidentally, the overwhelming rejection of regional government in the north east in 2004 (78% against), a region chosen as being most likely to harbour a strong regional identity, is good evidence against their being strong regional divides within England, at least in contrast to other countries in Europe (if I dare call England a country on here at the mo...). Clearly though there is a minority who do have ambitions for regional government, including the late Tony Wilson if I remember rightly.

I do of course agree that historic and current regional differences in culture, language etc. within England most definitely exist (e.g. the linguistic, surname & place name legacy of the Danelaw). However, I think it should be noted that England has remained remarkably unified and largely devoid of clear defined regions throughout its history in contrast to many other countries in Europe of equivalent size, hence the difficulties with recent political attempts to promote the subdivision of England along the lines of many European states with pre-existing historical/cultural subdivisions. Brunanburh (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a massively complex issue, and one which is difficult to summarise. I would say that, generally, there is very little sense of a strong "English" identity across England, one which stops at the boundaries with Scotland and Wales - except, in international sporting terms (specifically, for football and rugby - not, for example, in golf, tennis or athletics where competitors are only very rarely categorised by which part of the UK they come from, or cricket in which "England" is taken to include Wales). There are massive cultural differences underlying all parts of England - an area like Cornwall, for instance, has in many ways very little in common, culturally, with places like Bristol or Wiltshire which have been lumped in with it in the same South West region - let alone with places like Essex, or Leicestershire, or Durham. The same arguments apply to all parts of the country. Overlying all those deep-seated historical differences are the effects of the economic dominance of London and the south east, which goes back many centuries but which has been exacerbated in recent years, and the fact that heavy industry largely developed outside the south east, generated massive urban development in other parts of England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and subsequently declined dramatically leading to relative social and economic deprivation in many areas. The combination of these factors means that a "North-South divide" is real in some senses - although areas like Cornwall have more in common with the north than the south east (other than climate!) - but it is still a gross simplification of reality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Englishness is often best defined as a set of cultural characteristics; such as love of fair play; loathing of the French (only slightly joking); enjoyment of ironic humour; taste for certain traditional products such as warm beer, yorkshire pudding and as seperateness from neighbours like the Scots and Welsh. However, I don't think you are quite right Ghmyrtle about the overall lack of, as you put it, "strong" English identity - many surveys for example show that the predominant identification is English. The English are simply not particularly worried about over-claiming patriotic identity. My own feeling is that this arises from deep-seated security - a long-running unity and isolated safety on our little island and the defeats our ancestors inflicted on their neighbours many centuries ago contributed to a sort of "rock-solidness" that meant it was unnecessary to make too many protestations of nationhood. The excessive zeal of newer countries like the US for their nation, flag and identity have on the whole been absent, although they are making some inroads now in England, at least partly due to media coverage of those approaches in the US. Simply put, we are too smug about our own secure privileges to waste time boasting about them. Some would call it arrogance. I call it knowledge of superiority. (joke) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All true, but I find myself very conscious of two broad categories of Englander, roughly described as the southern Saxon and the northern Angle, with different character, tradition and speech. The two would most certainly be more distinct from each other (and who knows, going for autonomy) had they preserved names for themselves as have the Scots and Welsh. Draw a couple of flags and make up a couple of songs, and hey, it could happen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.224.245 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody will mistake the Queen as Monarch of England. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article establishes in the lead and in the infobox that England is part of the United Kingdom, so adding UK to Monarch is superfluous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What of the UK Prime Minister entry? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has posted identical questions on Talk:Scotland, Talk:England, Talk:Wales and Talk:Northern Ireland. As debate is already in progress on Talk:Scotland, I suggest that interested parties comment there. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

25% of English people have Irish ancestry.

This is a surprising figure... where did this come from? The BBC source given doesn't say anything about it. Irish migration to Great Britain gives a different figure, "6,000,000 with at least 25% Irish ancestry (10% of the British population)". Is it actually meant to be that? I did search, but I can't find any figures for England specifically. Rettens2 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This 2001 article (or the survey it was based on) is the source of the claim, I think - but it is based on Britain not England. The 10% refers to the proportion with at least one grandparent from Ireland - so, if you go back further generations, 25% may be just about plausible but perhaps on the high side. As the article says, it's quite possible that some people have claimed Irish ancestry without real justification, because it is (or was) seen as a positive attribute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to match the source above. Would be better to have a figure for England rather than Britain, but I haven't been able to find one.Rettens2 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this to my 87-year old Irish grandmother today. She said "I'm not surprised". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well ancestry goes back a very long way. The English are supposed to be 20-50% Celtic/Briton so hardly news; and I expect the rest is primarily Germanic/Nordic among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.10.204 (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you get to go back 2,000 years, why not 70,000? Then we can say that 100% of English people have African ancestry. That's only marginally sillier than this claim. As the source says: "although many hold passionately to their Irish roots, more than half are probably exaggerating or even lying, say the authors of the report". You have to question whether this statistic should be in the article when even the publishers consider it to be wrong. Rettens2 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly important... (NB, Why the hell would people lie about their ancestry? Sad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τασουλα (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why lie? Because Irish is cool and English is not. Because the English have been demonised in recent years by Hollywood and others. You don't have to look far to find examples of this, because there is one on this very page. It's got to the point where even English people believe that being English is bad, so they call themselves Irish instead. Rettens2 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You touch on an interesting point here. It seems to be cool to be Scottish or Irish these days, even Welsh, but the English have no particular idea of themselves since they are so mongrelised and part of the boring majority, which is not cool at all. Almost everyone in England has some Scottish, Irish or Welsh ancestry, amongst many, many others, and can best be described as British indeed. (Not that Scots, Welsh and Irish aren't mongrelised in the same way, but they get around it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.224.245 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Because ALL humans have 100% "African" ancestry; so that would be a pointless thing to state in the article. I fail to see how it's a "silly" claim however.

Maybe we're using different dictionaries but in mine pointless and silly are synonyms.Rettens2 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording we currently have is misleading. It states "There has been significant Irish migration, with 24% of British people and 77% of Londoners claiming Irish ancestry." This suggests that they are claiming Irish ancestry as a result of the migration - because an ancestor was a migrant from Ireland, in other words - but the article referenced actually suggests that they are claiming it because they just like the idea of being Irish.Hobson (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a bit of both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the article cited to support the sentence I quoted states "more than half are probably exaggerating or even lying, say the authors of the report". The Wikipedia entry as it stands gives a different impression. Hobson (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The figures are not credible. 77% would mean that there are more Irish people than white people in London. A more sensible figure is available from the GLA: "the Irish remain by far the largest ethnic minority in London with nearly one in five Londoners having one or more Irish grandparents and one in ten having at least one Irish parent." [1] Rettens2 (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between people who claim "Irish ancestry" and those who are (or claim to be) "Irish people". I have Irish ancestry but it doesn't make me Irish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the figure on the grounds that the article cited does not suggest that 25 per cent of English people have Irish ancestry and implies the real figure may be much lower (25 per cent *claim* Irish ancestry but "more than half are probably exaggerating or even lying, say the authors of the report"). I do understand that the sentence I have removed used the word "claimed" rather than "have", so it may technically have been accurate but the impression it gave was misleading.Hobson (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JacobiteBoy, 12 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} IN DEMOGRAPHICS, RELIGION: it says "The largest form practised in the present day is Anglicanism,[195]."

The citation given leads one to a description of the nature of the Church of England (C.ofE.). None would doubt that the C.ofE. has the largest membership by Baptism, however in terms of the practice of religion there is significant doubt as to whether it remains the plurality expression of Christianity as opposed to Roman Catholicism. The most recent statistics which I saw had both bodies with a typical Sunday attendance of a shade under a million people, the C.ofE. declining at a faster rate than the R.C.C. in recent years. The nature of the practice of religion is a complex and controversial area, and therefore such a definitive statement should not be made without clear evidence in support of it.

Thank you

Church attendances aren't relevant. Why does one need to attend church to practise their religion? It doesn't surprise me that more Catholics attend church as their religion places a great deal of importance on doing so.--Ykraps (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of factors to be taken into account, but for both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism taking part in public worship is a critical aspect. Thus my point that it is not clear that Anglicanism is the most practised form of Christianity in England...thus my request that the claim be more substantiated. At the moment a 'fact' is stated without any evidence provided in support of it. Jacobite Boy

The BBC says so in the reference already provided: "On any one Sunday more than a million people attend Church of England services, making it the largest Christian denomination in the country." The BBC is a Wikipedia:Reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't like 'de facto' 2

"The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The outcome of discussion is that England is a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation with respect to Wales, though the general issues are common amongst England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales."

Further proof of the problem. It isn't up to some young American lads using a web-site to decide these issues. Britain, like every other country is in the real world and the facts about it are common knowledge (to anybody who isn't strangely 'educationally challenged'.)

"Motto: Dieu et mon droit (French) "God and my right"[1][2] Anthem: None (de jure) God Save the Queen, Land of Hope and Glory, Jerusalem (de facto)"

This is just American 'would be clever' stuff. ("A little learning is a dangerous thing".) :Although the claim that Land of Hope and Glory, Jerusalem have the words 'de facto' pompously added this not a fact. Just a view of an uneducated person. There are many songs associated with Britain

And again, God save the Queen is our anthem - it's discrimination to say it isn't. Ask anyone over 50, say, who isn't very ignorant, and they will tell you that Jerusalem and Land of .. are songs associated with Britain, not England.

You might just as well say the queen's mottos are 'de facto'.

Also how come no: "The outcome of discussion is that the U.S.A. is a country"?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments, using four of these: ~

I think you are missing several points. England is a country but is not a sovereign state, and as such does not have an official national anthem or an official language. The UK, alternatively called Britain, is a sovereign state, and does have both an anthem ("God Save The Queen") and an official language. "Jerusalem" is specifically English, not British. This article is about England, not about Britain. ...and, should you ask, I'm British and not particularly "young". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(I realise it's confusing to just use an ISP number but I don't have time for joining just now. Also please bear in mind my last edit didn't go through- I will re-post it if I can.)

Re "England is a country but is not a sovereign state, and as such does not have an official national anthem or an official language. "

That's part of my point. 'anthem' should say "none". Unofficial anthems are by definition meaningless posted in the way it is on the page. Better to say something in the text like: "many people/some people associate such and such song with england. Greensleeves for instance is associated with England, Land of ... and Jerusalem are not. It is a myth believed by some young people - perhaps because today's teachers feed them such stuff in Britain's modern 'schools'." Subjective 'chat site' opinions are not appropriate for an article claiming to be encyclopedic.

English is the official language in England because it is an area of Britain. It is not an independent state.

If you aren't young then why don't you show respect for the fact that someone who was there at the time is stating that Jerusalem is associated with Britain not England and just because youngsters came along later and didn't bother to educate themselves on this fact - or care about it's existence- doesn't change the fact. For example The Woman's Institute used it because of its British associations - before they became a leftwing outfit.

PLEASE NOTE: my views above are being censored by snowded who is also firing off hate filed personal abuse to me . please revert if he deletes my views again. ta.

Oh please, its a rant. There are no citations to reliable sources, just a loose jumble of opinions with some "disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" comments on modern education and one of the most hysterical (in the sense of amusing) suggestions ever; the WI's lapse into socialism. If you want to make a contribution you need to use reliable sources to support any position you advocate. --Snowded ^TALK 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

this is a talk page not an article . it is against the rules for you to claim people can only post what YOU say here. my post was polite and whether it stays on here is none of your business. stop braeking the rules lad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) Learn to use colons to indent your comments (ii) learn to sign your comments (iii) Read WP:RS and (iv) read guidelines for talk pages. Oh and both Ghmyrtle and I are a little bit old to be addressed as "lad" --Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Country (revisited)

Those who want to call England "a country" can continue to do so. But an explanation is necessary at the point where it is called a country. Else it causes great confusion. Like Who is the prime minister of England, like Cameroon for UK? Please don't create vandalism by reverting the edit with this explanationAravind V R (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Please read Country. Quote: "A country may be the territory of a sovereign state, the territory of a non-sovereign (or formerly sovereign) political division, or a region associated with a certain people or certain characteristics." Please see also Talk:England/Country, as indicated at the top of this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary meaning of country means a sovereign state. But those who insist to call England can change its meaning in Wikipedia as they want. I don't have any problem with using "country" in this page. But an explanation at the point it is used is utmost necessary. Else none would understand it is actually a province or state.Aravind V R (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You most definitely do not understand the constitutional position. England is most assuredly not a "province" or "state" - nor are the other parts of the UK (except that Northern Ireland is sometimes called a "province" informally in some contexts). I strongly suggest that you do some reading on the history of England, and the UK, before you try to make edits based on your own incorrect (and unverified) assumptions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See I don't want to know the history of UK. I just got frustrated and had to google a bit to understand that England was in effect a state (if not please explain how it differ from Florida or Asir). Only because of that extra work I has to done, I edited it. Wikipedia is something to inform people not to confuse them.Aravind V R (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you "don't want to know the history of UK", it's not surprising that you are quite poorly informed. England (unlike Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) has no government other than the government of the UK. I suggest that you read the articles, rather than relying on individual editors to educate you - it is a much more complex situation than the idea that England is like a "state" or "province". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me the name of England in CIA's world fact book which contains list of ALL COUNTRIES of the world [2] (or for that matter any list of countries by international organisations). If my village is 'X' and its "extra-intelligent" local government passes all its resolutions stating "the country X" should I be insisting that the page for X should define it as a country as its government uses the term country or a "consensus" is reached? If not a state, what the hell is England then? A state or province is a part of a sovereign country. The same is the case for England. I am not to discuss any history of any nation. Discuss with me only about what defines a country or a state or a union of independent sovereign nations (like European Union or African Union) and which of them applies to England in relation with UK.Aravind V R (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Aravind V R please do not keep inserting the same edit, when there is clearly no consensus for it. You need to note the WP:3RR and it would be helpful if you were to self revert your edit so that you can avoid this danger and a potential WP:Edit War (it is a good idea to note that it is a self revert in your edit summary so that any admin will be clear about it) and then attempt to get consensus for any changes here first. I cannot tell you how little I wish to get involved in a debate about England as country at this moment (see the debate at United Kingdom#A re-written Intro, ignoring the current group-consensus of avoiding “constituent” and “British Isles”. But if we must do this it would help if you could start by proving your sources for saying that England is not a country to get things rolling.--SabreBD (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to stuff my personal thoughts here. If we are going to discuss this explanation will never come with the usage of "country" here. Every country has insane nationalists. Aravind V R (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Insane nationalists"? Comment only about content not contributors, thank you --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussed to death and resolved, including the CIA Handbook issue. Read the archives and stop edit warring. I have put a formal warning on your page and another revert (no matter if you wait 24 hours) will result in a report and a probable block--Snowded ^TALK 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the best replacement would be Constituent country as it would avoid confusion and would get acceptance from those who insist England as a country and country doesn't mean sovereign nation. The same is used in case of Faroe Islands. What say?Aravind V R (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rigsfællesskabet bears no relationship to the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And that option was discussed and rejected in favour of "a country which is a part of" several years ago. The current phrasing is unambiguous and does not need a pipelink to a term that is rarely used and always needs explanation --Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why must the article use kilometres in favour of miles when all Englishmen use miles and not this crap foreign muck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.126.186 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the changing of that. The page for The USA has miles usually followed by the kilometre value in brackets. And this seems to be the standard on the site. But the England page has the opposite, and one 'kilometre' on its own. I'll change the kilometres to miles. If anyone disagrees let me know why, but we obviously don't use kilometres officially or otherwise in Britain, so there's no need to wait. Ansotu (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As the page is semi-protected I'll leave it for people to comment. Ansotu (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this is a global encyclopedia - the article does not exist for the benefit of UK residents, or US residents, but everyone in the world, most of whom use kilometres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Shall I change the USA page to kilometres? Ansotu (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Why not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On reflection; I'm now not sure. I agree that most of the world use kilometers and this is a global site. But the English speaking part of Wikipedia will be read by English speakers, most of who use miles. I've asked for comment at the US page. Ansotu (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:UNIT - "UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include: Miles for distances..." So the answer is to use both measurements (using a {{convert}} template) but, if you wish, put miles first and km in brackets. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. But I'l leave it for someone else or do it tommorrow. I've no time now. Ansotu (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: London is the largest financial center in the world

This is contradicted in both the tokyo, new york, and london articles. This information should be changed and confirmed.

London's nominal GDP is $565 billion, which is actually 6th in the world, not first. It is unofficially recognized as one of the three financial hubs alonside the aforemention cities, but is most definitely not the largest financial center in the world. That honor belongs to Tokyo, at $1.479 trillion dollars. New York was recently bumped down to second at $1.13 trillion. Paris, Chicago, and Los Angeles all surpass London as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.205.198 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it depends on how it is measured. The article cites this report, which clearly places London as #1. Do you have an alternative reliable source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that 68.231.205.198 is confusing total city GDP with the size of the cities' financial services sectors.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Channel Islands and Isle of Man

For the avoidance of possible doubt, I suggest adding, to the end of the first paragraph, something based on "not including the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom either, and their relationship with the UK is summarised in that article. If we start adding to the article mentions of places that are not part of England, where would it end? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of name of "England" into Cornish

If it is asserted that Cornwall is a part of England, which this article does (although this is a contested area), then the Cornish language translation of "England" should be included at the top of the article. This is "Pow Sows". The alternative is to remove all references to Cornwall being part of England Govynn (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to welcome you back into Wales and ideally reverse the effect of the Battle of Deorham. However you need to provide a reliable source to say that Kernow is an official language for this change to be made --Snowded ^TALK 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is the Cornish Language Partnership [3], which is an official body. England itself has no de jure official language, so any autochthonous language within the territory of England should be included. Which actually includes Welsh, since it is traditionally spoken in certain border areas on the english side Govynn (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, most recently here. Until you get agreement here that the infobox should be changed, we should maintain the stable version. Incidentally, Govynn's suggestion as to the name of England in Cornish bears no relation to that suggested previously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

" The alternative is to remove all references to Cornwall being part of England " - I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense and would never happen anyway. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And should we include the name of England in other dead languages too, such as Cumbric? Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the Cornish name is not an exact equivalent, in that it no doubt doesn't include Cornwall itself, whereas the name England does include Cornwall. ðarkuncoll 10:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree Tharkun but Cornish isn't a dead language! Anyway, this should be a case of relevance. Cornish, while experiencing a strong revival, is still a minor language, having it in the lead to soothe nationalist sentiment is not a basis for inclusion. "Asserted" as the OP claimed is ridicules, it is not asserted it's fact, which is contested by roughly half of the Cornish population (And I still want updated poll data on this, hint hint). This is nothing but a POV debate. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete non-starter. The indisputable fact is that Cornwall is part of England. Some people may wish it otherwise, but that is neither here nor there. I might as well maintain that Northumbria is not in England because it was once a separate kingdom. -- Alarics (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the England article should say that Cornwall is not part of England, but that if it says that Cornwall s part of England, that it should give the name of England in Cornish as well as English Govynn (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. Could you just explain why one thing necessarily follows the other, there maybe a guideline I have missed.--SabreBD (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cornwall is clearly a part of England, if Kernow has official status within Cornwall then this an argument to support providing the translation. I'm not totally convinced as it is (i) revived (ii) has a smaller number of speakers than say Urdu (but that said it is an indigenous language). However I have yet to see any reference that says it is official in any way. Without that its a non-starter, with a reference then there is a case--Snowded ^TALK 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Govynn: "England itself has no de jure official language, so any autochthonous language within the territory of England should be included." (For convenience; 'autochthonous' means 'aboriginal'.)

Hello Govynn. I think it's been established now that note (1.) for the article is wrong. Please see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012519 and the article should be updated on this point.

The UK's official language is English, therefore it must also be England's official language. I don't see any translation of England' into other languages at the top of the article, and I agree with SabreBD. I don't see why the article "should give the name of England in Cornish as well as English".

If you're referring to this bit: "An alternative name for England is Albion." and " ... Another romantic name for England is Loegria, related to the Welsh word for England, Lloegr, and made popular by its use in Arthurian legend."... then Albion isn't an alternative name for England, - we don't say: "I live in Albion", and the Welsh word given isn't popular. Rather it is very obscure.

I can't find any reference to the belief of some people that Cornwall should be separate from England. You might like to add a bit about that to the article. I think that would be relevant, and I don't see why the Cornish word for England shouldn't be included in that bit. Ansotu (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"This is a complete non-starter. The indisputable fact is that Cornwall is part of England." - What a pompous, outrageous statement to make. If this 'fact' is so 'indisputable', would you like to remove the article on 'Constitutional status of Cornwall'? The 'fact' here is that it is anything but 'indisputable' and your uneducated assumptions here are likely to offend and upset many ethnically Cornish people. Funnily enough, the utter English hypocracy here is that the Welsh 'Wales' article has the English translation in the lead paragraph!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it is true Cornwall is administrated as part of England - this is inisputable. Whether parts, and people of it are culturally and traditionally English is disputable. Enough of your frankly stereotypical English hating (The very reason most Cornish nationalists don't do there cause any good is rabid anti-English rubbish) The "English" translation is about the English Language. An English translation is totally appropriate for that article as everyone who speaks Welsh whether a first or second language, also speaks English. Also, this is very common on this Encyclopaedia and has nothing to do with "English hypocracy". And how do you know these editors are English? Because I most certainly am not. Don't assume. We have a rule called talk about content, not contributors. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Again - double standards. Yes it is true it is administered as a county of England, but as a regular contributor to the Cornwall discussion page you will know full well that they opening paragraph that quite clearly stated it was administered as a county, but was an 'area' who's status is challenged, has been completely reworded to state that it is an English county full stop. And English hating? I am English, and proud but who mentioned hating anything or anyone? How am I stereotyping anything? You then go on to accuse me of assuming that these editors are English by proxy, but then do exactly the same by insinuating I am a Cornish nationalist. I wasn't even responding to your post. I agree with the content of this entire article and have no desire to see a Cornish translation of the word English in the opening paragraph. I was simply responding to someone who's shouted 'facts' are likely to upset people which is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite a sensitive topic for some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.63.181 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 49.14.81.250, 18 August 2011

In the sports section of england you have wrote that the cricket world cup of 1983 was won by england but, that is not true that was won by india so please check details and correct them. THANK YOU. -Rohit.A.rathod

49.14.69.19 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note - It says they hosted it only, it doesn't claim they won it in 1983. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011

{{FIFA Worldcup Host nations}} Bmoq (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Some people

Vandalism I provided information confirming that Jenny Powell, Kelly Brook and Thandie Newton are all English. This was removed. WHY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainyman (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's unimportant and unencyclopaedic. See WP:NOT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominal GDP

The figure given is higher than that of the entire United Kingdom in 2009, according to the UK wikipedia page. The figure given here is clearly wrong. Op finish them (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good spot. Looks like someone has incorrectly taken the UK figures for GDP PPP and Nominal and put them in the England infobox. By comparison, Wales and Scotland use what appear to be (although they are not referenced) ONS estimates just for GDP PPP Total and Per capita in their respective infoboxes. Propose we look for a good up to date source for England for the GDP PPP Total and Per Capita figures to harmonise with Scotland and England. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The British nominal GDP dropped enormously as a result of the financial crisis, so this isn't valid reasoning. I can't find an actual figure for 2006 but it isn't implausible that this is actually true. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't likely it's fallen that much. We just need a recent source that gives separate figures for the four constituent countries - so far I haven't been able to locate one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It fell 1/4 - 1/3. The appearance of living standards obviously didn't, since nominal is far less reliable than PPP, which hardly changed. Since England is ~80% of the population of the UK it is within the margin of error. I may be wrong, but the assumption isn't very strong on its own. You should try to find an explicit source for the 2006 figure. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is true, the quoted GDP figure is given in dollars, so the fact that UK GDP fell by about 30% during the late 2000s recession is correct given that it is quoted in dollarsm due to exchange rate fluctuations. Obviously this is not true when measured in GBP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Two months have passed with no progress, so I've removed both GDP figures from the infobox pending a source. If PPP figures were to be extrapolated from the nominal figures provided by the ONS, this should be clearly indicated. Note that the Scotland article no longer uses ONS figures, but rather the SES2008 ones. No such corrected English figures are available from official sources so far as I can see. I did offer a suggestion how they might be calculated at Talk:List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars, but I am concerned that this would constitute WP:OR. A further problem is the claim, in the economy section, that (something) "... has the 18th highest GDP PPP per capita in the world". Which something, England or the UK? If the UK, why include it? And what's the source? Assuredly not the ONS figures since they are nominal GDP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for link to Labour Party (UK) page under Politics heading

I would like the term "Labour party" in the 2nd paragraph of the Politics subsection to be linked to Labour Party (UK). I didn't know what the labour party was and had to search for it manually, which led to a hefty disambiguation page.

Mghoffmann (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't like 'de facto'

One of the things certain people are obssessed with on wikipedia is this ignorant use of the term 'de facto'.

"English is established by de facto usage. ". This is wrong. If you read the British Government's site you will find it expressly stated that English is the official language of The UK. this is the same procedure as for any other country. It's just the usual discrimination against Britain by an American site that insists Britain is different from other countries and has no rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 May 2011

Have to agree with this point. Why hasn't this been addressed yet, I haven't seen any valid arguments as to why the de facto reference hasn't been removed. Come on wikipedia, sort it out.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I admire the article on the whole, the 'National symbols' has some things that are wrong. So is this stuff about the 'agreed' 'national' anthems. No such thing is agreed and is just the pet of certain people on the wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 May 2011

Hmm... this article is almost entirely controlled by UK based editors I believe, so chill ^_^ --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A link to the website you reference would be useful. Daicaregos (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is refering to this page - English is the official language of the United Kingdom and is spoken by around 400 million people around the world. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I've seen it elswhere too. But of course the point is anyone British would know the fact already.

I agree, Land of Hope and Glory and Jerusalem are simply not, either in a de jure or de facto way, national anthems.Tklink (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If they are viewed as de facto national anthems by the populace then surely that makes them so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this. I am not aware of anywhere established in law any 'official language' for Britain. I am not sure if merely stating it on a website makes it so. For instance, if the British Government wrote on one of its websites that it is now illegal to eat an apple on Tuesdays, this would not make it so, as there would have been no act of Parliament. It is easy to cite, I agree, but the matter hardly seems settled. Current approach smacks of laziness. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Map.

When did England become a seperate member of the EU? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It says in the description - "in the European continent" and not in the EU itself. --Nutthida (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Still though, why is that in the map. It creates the impression that England is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't - the rest of the UK is shown in a different colour, explained in the key. WP articles need to assume a certain level of basic intelligence in the reader, but can't cater for everyone. (Separate. Independent.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed. Such maps should only be used in sovereign state infoboxes. Our concern is where England is within the UK, not Europe. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is where you are absolutely wrong, GoodDay. It needs to be shown in a European context as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Such maps should only be used in sovereign state infoboxes." GD is free to take up that argument in a more appropriate place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We only need to know their location within the United Kingdom. You don't see a map at Alberta, showing where Alberta is in North America. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here we are back on that dreary treadmill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's this non-stop push to put E/W/S/NI on equal footing with the UK, that's gotta stop. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, they are nations within the UK. Why do you have a problem with that?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? They shouldn't be treated as sovereign states within the maps. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state this on the maps?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to state it, the fact that the map is used, creates that impreesion. I've little more to add & will let others discuss this further. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a map that shows the location of England in the UK and in Europe, it is just so the reader knows where it is, dont see the problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm speaking of. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What the little inset that shows where Europe is in world, are you suggesting we dont need to show where Europe is? that has nothing to do with your points above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong it this article's infobox. Leave for sovereign state infoboxes. PS: The bigger map is OK, indeed - I was perhaps its biggest proponent. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry what has an inset showing where Europe is in the world have to do with When did England become a seperate member of the EU? are we both looking at the same wikipedia page? MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The EU part was my mistake (as I've already admitted), I meant to say Europe itself. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you cant be a member of the European continent you are either part of it or elsewhere, as you clearly are not making much sense perhaps perhaps you believe that England is in North America or Asia. It is clearly part of the the continent of Europe (as shown in the maps) so perhaps we should just end this discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

London is within Europe. Do we add an insert map for that? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dont know you can ask for it the London page if you want, it has nothing to do with the consensus here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its GoodDay's latest little campaign - raising it on other articles in parallel. Suggest its ignored --Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the inserted World map. Please ignore Snowded, he's trying to have me censured from these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are now, but you start by saying UK only saying the European context is removed. Classic attempt to stir the pot. Suggest the discussion takes place in one place rather than four articles (or ideally just stops). I have responded to GoodDay's sudden change of position after a provocative opening in the talk page of Wales --Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on contributor, is a no no. Anyways, I agree to centralizing these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 8-days & there's no consensus for deleting the inserted World Map. Proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

English Cuisine

I contest the reference about the French viewpoint on English cuisine as completely irrelevent to the article, and suggest it should be removed. Lots of countries think lots of things about other countries but that does not mean that those viewpoints are either accurate or correct. The inclusion of this point does nothing to enhance this section of the article.198.28.69.5 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree, it was an obscure and ill-fitting sentence that didn't seem to have any real bearing on what was being discussed, plus there was no direct translation into English of the French word(s). It could also be non-NPOV, representing one rather unknown phrase from one country. I removed it. --Nutthida (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision of population?

According to these 2011 government figures England's population was 52,234,000 in mid-2010, which by my calculation gives a population density of 401 people/km2 - considerably higher than the figure of 395 given here. Perhaps update this? 184.146.132.140 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Winchester

Is mentioning Winchester in the lead really necessary? No other conventional overview of England does this? London has been the capital for 1,000 years, which says enough. Saying "London took over" isn't a great description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.45.126 (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Density

I'm not sure what's happened to the density bit of the infobox, but something seems to have gone wrong in the last couple of edits. It's currently displaying Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "?". -86.31.60.217 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed and put the 2001 figures back (as 2010 only an estimate and 2011 census data not released yet). Rettens2 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion?

I'm intrigued that Anglicanism is "practised", while others "..claim to have no religion". If the basis is the census, isn't everyone making a claim?

There's a difference in weighting here that could be construed as bias.

How about "...have no religion" or "...practise no religion"?

InelegantSolution (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Repair dead link: Industrial Revolution

Can someone please repair this dead link.

Currently the code is:

web |url=http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Industrial_Revolution.html |publisher=Ace.mmu.ac.uk |title=Industrial Revolution|accessdate=1 February 2009

It needs editing to:

Wayback |url=http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/global_warming/Older/Industrial_Revolution.html |title=Industrial Revolution |date=20090327190052

86.156.98.25 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadway Tower

2012 image

2007 image in current article

Recommend replacing the 2007 image with one from this year. It places the tower in the context of its surroundings, has more natural lighting and colouration. The suggested replacement is hi-resolution unlike the current image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument against is that the current image is a featured picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The original looks better, on another note any idea why an unknown folly is being used to represent English Architecture? must be more iconic examples than a tower that nobodys heard of. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The original might make a better postcard but it is hardly encyclopaedic. The 2012 image is featured on Commons and is considered the most Valuable Image of Broadway Tower because it shows context of its surroundings and as indicated, a high quality image. As to its inclusion in the article I will leave that to others to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

2004 image

No offence (as I suspect this may be your image) but the original is better. Yes it's edited, but not excessively so. And if the surroundings are really that important then there is this 2004 one which is again better (albeit low res). Rettens2 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, but I am curious as to how you define better? As a photographer, a former wikipedian (a bit of irony there) and someone that has visited the Tower on several occasions I find these assessments quite unexpected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it unknown. Quite a famous landmark imo. Rettens2 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dont think it is that famous in my opinion, I had never heard of it until I read this question and perhaps untypical but as somebody who has lived in various areas of England for more than a few years. Which is why I asked why a different structure couldnt be used that better represent English architecture and possible better known. But that said the 2004 image is actually better, it show the structure better. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's popular with tourists. But I agree the image could easily be of something else. What would you suggest? Personally I'd like to see something more modern here, like The Shard. Rettens2 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadway Tower has links to Capbility Brown and the Arts and Crafts movement. Nevertheless, not sure the Tower rises to the level of holding a spot on the main England article despite its beauty. However, if it does remain, the 2012 image is current, hi resolution and is better in all other regards as an encyclopedic resource except perhaps as a postage stamp. Images should be selected for reasons beyond just their efficacy as a thumbnail in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

David Bowie

Personally I believe that England should honor its cultural and musical heritage that is personified in the figure of David Bowie. You point out musicians such as the Beatles, Elton John, and Queen, yet you ignore the greatest musician of them all: David Bowie. Add David Bowie to this page, for the sake of justice and the good of English humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.153.120 (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Highly ranked national teams

It should include in sport section that England is one of the only nations with four of its national teams ranked top 10 in the world in four different worldwide sports. England is the 4th ranked Rugby union team in the world, 3rd Rugby league team in the world, 6th association Football team in the world, and 1st ranked Cricket team in the world Ben200 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

... so long as you have a reliable source, does not derive from your own research, and is kept up to date. Personally, I don't think it's of any encyclopedic value whatsoever. I'm sure that sports can be cherrypicked so that many countries will rank in the "top ten" of several of them. USA? Australia? India? etc etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually misread the first comment as just someone wanting to add England's top-sports teams to the article but it's not, as that's already there. I don't exactly see it as being very encyclopaedic now either...why four? --Τασουλα (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wordy Intro

The matter in the intro about the Angles and the first population etc should be moved to the History section, so that the contents links can get onto the first screenful. Sweavo (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Census results

New census info is out. England's population is 53.0 million [4]. I can't edit the article as it is locked. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick edits made, but may need some tweaking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 130.88.141.34 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Transport

Bus transport across the country is widespread; major companies include National Express, Arriva and Go-Ahead Group.

I would hardly have thought the Go-Ahead Group were one of the three major bus operators in England. The Scottish owned Stagecoach Group and FirstGroup are much bigger players in the English bus market. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Patron Saint

Why is St George mentioned but not St Edmund? 86.6.187.69 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Because he didn't like him, and changed it to St George. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flag

Can some whiz-kid who knows how, place a border around the flag so that it looks better. Thanks. 81.135.131.228 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is the curse the English flag has which is: not looking very good against the background here... The flags on the Wales & Scotland articles are lucky enough to have either two flags in there respective info-boxes or a flag that simply looks better against the backdrop. I agree that the flag here doesn't look too great as it currently stands, and perhaps a border could be in order. (...don't look at me) --Τασουλα (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Info box

Why are we using a symbol, (the escutcheon showing gules three lions passant guardant in pale or), when such has not existed in official use in that form for centuries? 81.154.106.17 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As attractive as it may be, this has been obsolete for centuries and therefore has no place in the infobox of England - the country within the UK, as opposed to England, the former Kingdom. This rendition of the arms of the former Kingdom of England has no contemporary use whatsoever and as such should be removed. This version has as much a right to be shown, but would be equally inappropriate. 81.154.110.11 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that argument is correct, so I've removed the image. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Although, on second thoughts, perhaps it could be re-added as part of the History section. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's in the symbols section, so should be OK (can't see the need to add twice, and this article is pretty beautifully illustrated in the scheme of things). There is validity in what 81.154.106.17 is saying - is my view too. --Jza84 |  Talk  08:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The three lions shield was re-inserted this morning by User:Brunanburh. I've reverted that change on the basis that the current consensus here is not to include it in the infobox, but I'm happy to have further discussion. As User:Jza84 says, it is included in the "Symbols" section, and - as its use is, so far as I can see, historical rather than current - I can't see that it is helpful or informative to include it in the infobox. Thoughts welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. I reverted the image to the royal banner image which has been in the info box for the last few years (current version since November 2009) but was replaced with the three lions shield by User:Сербијана at the beginning of July this year. Either way I thought both changes were made before any proper consensus had been sought or established. When I made the reversion I had only seen posts from two users (one of which I initially and mistakenly thought was unsigned due to their username); it seemed a flippant change given how long we've had a heraldic representation of England in the infobox, hence I mad the reversion. This has been discussed here before, but here are my thoughts again.

It should be present. Pretty much every other country on Wikipedia has their heraldic representation present at the top of the page next to the national flag (compare with Scotland, France, Germany, Spain etc.). If you're going to argue it doesn't have official status then we shouldn't show the English flag (St George's cross) either since this has no official status within the modern UK.

It's an important symbol of England, both historically (since circa 1198) and up until the present day. On the UK passport or the exterior/interior of any UK court/prison/government building; the 3 lions in the UK Royal Standard continues to represent England to the present day, just as the now unofficial (presumably previously official) St George's cross represents England within the British Union Jack/flag.

Many aspects of British, but especially English, nationality do not have official status and are not written into law, but are simply de facto, e.g. flag, common language etc. Therefore a Wiki page excluding all these items would be very bare indeed, and not representative and informative of what is established and in common use.

Anyway, I was never interested in a tit for tat edit war. Please share your thoughts/opinions. Cheers. Brunanburh (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you indicate any sources that confirm a current use of either the banner or shield to represent England? If they are only used in a historic context, or have been incorporated into other symbols, I don't see a case for including either in the infobox. But, I don't have a problem with including one of them in the "Symbols" section, with a brief explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have another new editor adding this into the information box. Its not used as far as I know to represent England, its a royal standard and as such represents the the Crowns capacity for England and Wales - there is a separate standard for Scotland. As a symbol the three lions is used in some sporting contexts - but that is not a use of the banner itself. Inclusion of in symbols is fine but not the information box. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They tried to add GDP figures to the article too, but that was removed as being unref'd by you - yet the articles on Wales and Scotland have there GDP listed, which are also unref'd? What gives? England has the highest GDP output in the whole of the UK and is the only part with a truly global city. I find this to be pretty unbelievable. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is unreferenced! If someone can do that I have no problem with inclusion. I think in Wales and Scotland it was discussed at some stage. But overall unless such figures are official published I don't think they can be used. So I won't oppose any removal from those two articles ----Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Angeln

Hey, i would like to know why the region Angeln in Germany is not called Anglia in the English Wikipedia. The ending -n or -en for regions is the German form and not the English. For example: Saxony = Sachsen, Pomerania = Pommern, and even Wagria, a region which is far less important in English history than Angeln, and which is also in Schleswig-Holstein, is called Wagria in English and not Wagrien. Hamburger90 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlike, for example, Saxony, it is not an area that has ever had a common name in English, presumably because it was only a small area, subsumed as part of Jutland - so, it is referred to by its German name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision of opening sentece

Only the most basic details were added and gave a preview of information to be elaborated upon. No information posted on the article was inaccurate. What was written about, borders on common knowledge and made the bland and unusually short topic sentence, more typical of how the primary sentence of an article should read. If you dont happen to respond by tomorrow I'll be reverting to how I introduced the article, until I hear from you. --WesternEdD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, you would like to edit the opening sentence to read: "England is the dominant constituent country of the United Kingdom, seat of the former British Empire, and home to the English language and Anglo-Saxon nation." Your suggestion of adding the word "dominant" is debatable - do you have a reliable source that so describes England? The question of whether England should be described as a "constituent country" (rather than simply a "country") has been much discussed here and on other pages - I suggest you look through the archives of this page first. England was not "the seat of the British Empire" - Great Britain was - the clue is in the fact that it was not called the "English Empire". (Perhaps it should have been - but it wasn't.) The English language - admittedly important - is mentioned in the second paragraph. There has never been a single "Anglo-Saxon nation" - unified pre-Norman England was the English nation. You might benefit from reading WP:MOSBEGIN, and the other material on how to edit collaboratively that was placed on your talk page earlier. If you intend to continue to edit here (I see you've, apparently, done fewer than 30 WP edits so far, in total), it would help if you tried to take a less confrontational approach, and avoid purporting to set ultimatums which will be ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(Labelling it an all-English empire is about as far off the mark as it is to label the plantation of Ulster as such, I think, but a lot of people like to guilt-trip the English today into thinking they're all evil imperialists, something akin to the Catholic ideal of original sin, lmao!) Opposed to all the above. Lets not over-complicate things, especially in the lead. As the lead is supposed to represent the main body of the article in short form, it's highly inappropriate to mention something such as the empire in the lead, when England was only a small, small part of the empire...Britain was the seat of the empire as pointed out...--Τασουλα (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In a simillar vein, what's the view on this edit? I seem to remember that the latter version was agreed upon after a long, long debate. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It added nothing of real value and I see no reason to disturb a stable agreed wording ----Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The earlier version was not immutable. Stating that England is the most populous part of the UK is useful and uncontentious basic information that helps readers around the world, so I favour its retention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it should've followed WP:BRD really - the population element is repeated in the lead, and it removed the all important "part of" wording. I'm in favour of the earlier longstanding version. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 'part of' was one of the key elements in the final agreement. If we drop it here we should drop it on the others. Also why population? Scotland is the most mountainous country in the UK ....----Snowded ^TALK 14:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind much either way - I've no objection to it being changed back, though I'm opposed to the idea that the articles on the four countries need to have matching wordings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

They don't need to, but it's a conflict reduction device! ----Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - and I think it now opens it up to further "medling" (for want of a better and less bitey word) such as "...and most dominant/rich/biggest/largest by area in the United Kingdom". The original was much simpler, avoid repetition, and (as I've always said) much more like you'd find or expect in most other encyclopedias. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

and now we have edit warring. This is silly its a minor issue. How about a straw poll? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think one edit by a previously uninvolved and unknown (to me) editor counts as "edit warring"! But, I'm not going to revert either way - as you say, it's a minor issue, and I doubt if a poll is going to shed light on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well on the basis of the participation here it should revert, I was trying to be open! ----Snowded ^TALK 17:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick Poll

Restore the original

• ---- Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• ---- Daicaregos (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• ---- --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• ----Hayden120 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC): the original wording was agreed upon after much debate, and I see no good reason to resurrect that controversy. Also, as Jza84 said, the current version is open to further meddling.

Accept the 'most populous change

Should .uk be listed in the info-box?

A discussion concerning the above question is ongoing on the Talk:Northern Ireland. Tentatively, I would say that a consensus is emerging there. The consensus is to remove .uk on the basis that it is assigned to the UK (not any part of it specifically). If consistency is going to apply, the same approach should be taken in terms of de-lisgin .uk on the Wales, Scotland and England articles. Do people support this deletion of .uk from the info box. Feel free to participate here (or on the Talk: Northern Ireland page where a lengthy discussion has already taken place. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

An update: the consensus that has now clearly arrived at Talk:Northern Ireland is not as described above but to keep the relevant domains (in Northern Ireland, those are .uk and .ie). Brocach (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Etimology of England

root eng derives from ang, eng and ong that means "corner, edge" lat. angulus „corner“, umbr. anglom-e аd аngulum, old church slavonic ѫгълъ γωνία old greek Όγγλος, Онгъл. It is a term that indicates the form and the place of the land and the population there is "angli" or "engls" "people from the land on the edge".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source, or is that just original research? Various theories of the origin of the placename Angeln - the place of origin of the Angles - are discussed at Angeln#Name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course Eng, Ong, Ing are from the Proto-Indo-European root *ang- (“corner, hirn”) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/angle#English all other forms are dialectical. For example there is proto bular word Ong meaning , corner it is derived from proto indo european root - Ang. http://bg.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%8A%D0%B3%D1%8A%D0%BB

Etymology

I would like to add an explanation for the etymology of the word England as opposed to the one stating that Eng is a corruption of Angle, thus England supposedly means land of the Angles. An English speaking person seeing Eng either as a syllable of a word or on its own would pronounce it with a hard e but England is, however, pronounced as though spelt Ingland. This is the clue to the correct meaning of England. The Old Norse word Eng which is also a modern Danish word, and in Danish pronounced "ing", means meadow. England was named by Norse settlers who on first landing on our shores observed that it was a land of meadows - thus England in Old Norse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profoundpaul (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reputable reliable source setting out that theory, it can be included. If you can't - for instance, if it is based on your own research or thoughts - it can't be included, and if you try to include it, it will be removed as contrary to policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I live in Denmark and speak Danish and know what England means in modern Danish - literally Meadowland.

I only intend here to present another possible explanation not Dogma.

I live on a road in Vejle Denmark called Vestre Engvej - pronounced Ingvi. It means West Meadow Way!

--Profoundpaul (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Paul. As Ghmyrtle points out, it would need to be suggested in a textbook before we could use it in a Wikipedia article. However nothing wrong with bringing it to our attention here on the discussion page. It's interesting and certainly sounds possible. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

But, whether or not it "sounds possible" - and I'm sure generations of linguistic experts have considered the possibility previously - it shouldn't be added here unless it has reliable sources to back it up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Err, I just said that... -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

GDP Contradiction

If you compare the nominal GDP figure for England on this page and the nominal GDP figure for the UK on the UK page, it will tell you that England has a higher GDP than the UK. That doesn't seem right. 201.223.171.246 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The figure is out of date. GDP fell sharply in 2009. Although it seems high even for 2008. A more recent and reliably sourced figure is needed. Rettens2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013

where it says united kingdom shares with wales and Scotland you forgot to put Pakistan and other 3rd world countries 2.219.106.122 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Request denied - doesnt make sense. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

ECON indicators ?

Why isn't there the economics indicators summary like there is for other countries (such as France or Germany) with GDP, GDP/capita, GDP/capital (PPP), Gini Index etc. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.117.25 (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Banner

Does the Royal Banner have any contemporary and official use in representing England? I appreciate what it symbolises and how the three lions from the Royal Arms of English monarchs appear in English sports team logos, or as part of symbols relating to the United Kingdom, etc. etc. but is what appears in the article actually in use today in an official capacity? If so, can someone please advise where and under what circumstances I could see it being flown from a flag pole, for I can find no evidence of any such official use, and I think I've researched all the 'obvious' places which one can do online.

Thanks in advance. AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.176.108 (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If actual contemporary and/or official use is not a prerequisite to inclusion in this article, and what the image symbolises is of greater importance than any actual or official use, surely a shield would be more appropriate than a flag? It would look so much better than the twin flags currently shown.86.165.255.182 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Flag

England does not have an official flag. The St. George's Cross is now the football flag of the England team and was the historical flag of the Kingdom of England before the Union of the Crowns. It is better to remove the flags altogether. The only official national flag in England is the Union Flag which was known as the English flag worldwide from the 1600s to now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.88.106 (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable reference for that as I suspect you are one of only a few people in England who thinks that. Did you know that the government says St George’s flag is a unifying symbol for England, which is one of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The St. Georges flag is the Flag of ENGLAND! not the Union jack. Im directing this at the first comment made. and I agree with the comment made by (MilborneOne) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.202.107 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in England

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of England's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

• From United Kingdom: "Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014 – Salmond". BBC News. 10 January 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
• From Referendum: Q&A: Bulgaria's nuclear energy referendum BBC News, 25 January 2013

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Official language

That English is an official language in de facto rather than de jure terms is factually correct, pertinent and interesting. Why the need to remove this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As Britain has an unwritten constitution, most the content of the info-box is de facto, not de jure. The flag, motto and anthem are all also de facto official. I think an appropriate way to inform the reader that these are de facto, not de jure would be to include a footnote in the info-box along the lines of "No law was passed prescribing the flag, motto, anthem, or official language of England. In the English tradition, such laws are not necessary; but rather proclamation and usage are sufficient enough determine these." Otherwise, it suggests that things not stated as being de facto, are de jure, which is misleading. Regards, Rob (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As Welsh is de jure official in Wales, it is worthwhile specifying in regard to other languages that they do not have de jure official status in the UK or any of the constituent countries. If your option of using a statement to cover all these matters is to pass muster, it will have to have strong citations to support the wording. Also if you are comparing the constitution of the UK and the traditions of one constituent country, you ought to exercise care. Again, it might be simpler for this one matter to specify its status. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

England is also the only country with a de facto, but not de jure, official flag, and so there is similar reason to contrast this with Wales and Scotland. You could use "British tradition" instead also, possibly more appropriate. I don't think my proposed statement does need citations really, its evident by the inclusion of the symbols on this article, which are all determined though proclamation and usage. The flag is determined though usage. The official language is determined though proclamation, and is currently referenced at United Kingdom. The anthem is determined though usage. The motto is determined by either proclamation or usage, however I don't know what those references are, but it's definitely not legally constituted, as nothing ever is regarding England. Rob (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather uneasy at the argument that the inclusion of something in a Wikipedia article is evidence that it should be included in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My argument really was that references for the flag, motto, anthem, and official language together would form enough evidence to support my statements inclusion, however most of those are unreferenced. I'm going to self-revert, because your points are perfectly valid. I will do some research, and see if I can find I cited way of covering both the official language and flag, and possibly the motto also, in one footnote. I'm not really sure about the anthem, as I don't even think it has enough usage to be determined official or even exclusive. Regards, Rob (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on guys Both of you should know better than this. Stop the edit warring gaining momentum. This is not a threat, it is friendly warning. You both are stepping close to the limit now. If you both feel you have not succeeded in persuading the other, step away for a while, and resume discussions, not edit warring. It also not important who did what first: it takes at least two to edit war, and this time it is both of your unlucky days.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anything less like an edit war in my life. An amicable discussion about content between users with a resolution satisfactory to both. Where's your beef? I certainly don't have one with Rob. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Struggling to see how Rob reverting his own change comes anywhere near edit warring? As you say, it takes two... Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little misled by the timing of things, but the self-revert was 8 hours later. It certainly looked like the start of an edit war with an edit, a reversion, and a reversion of the reversion, self-reverted only 8 hours later. I was trying to be preventative, but I made a mistake. My apologies to both of you. I'll strike it out.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sport

While I do intend on adding further text to the sport in England page, I believe that sport itself deserves relevant notation on the England page itself. Why therefore is there mentions of cricket, darts, football and rugby, but none about golf and motor racing, for example? This is why I have now added these. However, the section is beginning to increase in size which defeats the object of other sections. Yet, I would argue that sport deserves a substantial summary on this main england page because many international sports were conceived in England and sport is at the top of english cultural life, it deserves adequate notation. Just want to make my point as several pieces of content have recently been removed which I added and edited. The reason given for removal was because these additions were considered 'puffery' despite the fact that indeed, Dan Wheldon won the Indy car championship in 2005 and Nicola Adams also became the first woman to win olympic gold in 2012. Both english. Why, for example, is other content concerning Phil Taylor, not considered puffery? Facts are facts, and the fact that English formula one drivers have also driven and won in indycar championships is fact. Why is this also considered puffery? According to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) puffery is defined as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined." According to the puffery page, "mere puff" is not meant to be 'taken seriously'. In other-words 'false exaggerations' are key. None of the above statements are exaggerations. Dan Wheldon did in fact win in 2005, for example. Stufroguk (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor

Does "Glastonbury" in the last paragraph under "Prehistory" refer to the town Glastonbury or to Glastonbury Tor? Thanks. Risssa (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Glastonbury Abbey, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion

The last paragraph in the Religion section implicitly claims that Islam is an Eastern religion. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, not an Eastern one. If religions from the Middle East are to be considered Eastern religions, than Judaism and Christianity would also have to be considered Eastern religions and no major world religion would not be an Eastern one. See the Wikipedia page for Eastern religions, which I have never edited, or any other source for confirmation. I would like to make this uncontroversial edit, but the page is not open to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.20.176 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I've now tweaked the wording and removed "Eastern". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for making the fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.20.176 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing establishment

The date of establishment is missing. Please tag this with Category:Year of establishment missing. Thanks. This is not my last name (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Or, we could include a date. When would it be? 927? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The land of the English has existed since the 5th century. The unified kingdom wasn't 'established' in 927 either. Generally, the 10th century is agreed as the period in which the unified kingdom was formed, but in reality, this was simply when the West Saxon kingdom (formed in the 6th century) gained control over all of the English. When Wessex and client states became one kingdom is nor any clearer; and it's questionable as to whether that distinction can even be made. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

2.25.237.210 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 Hi. Your headline indicates that the battle of Brunanburgh took place in 929 ad.
        Was it not 939 ad?
        Please can you check?

Not done: There is no mention on this article about a Battle of Brunanburgh, or the mention of the date 929. Did you perhaps mean Battle of Brunanburh? Cannolis (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Standard and Governance

I have read below an argument on the placing of the Royal standard back on to the England page. I note that the Scotland place has it in place, yet I would imagine should be removed as it is technically redundant, but perhaps in more use due to the nationalism that exists in Scotland today. England its self is only just emerging as English so I would imagine its flags and heritage will come into contemporary life in England. The fact that one user Rob984 seems to have taken control of this entire article for England seems rather unjust and undemocratic. Will it be possible that the issue of the Royal Standard can solved with a vote or more democratic approach, rather than one persons view of wikipedia policy.

To add the Government section in the infobox seems to have also been removed by this user. Why has this user been able to edit with an iron fist in this manner? Theno2003 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Royal Standard is here: #Flag, Motto, Anthem.

England has no government, why would we have a government section in the infobox for a region with no government?

Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. There's nothing undemocratic about my edits.

Rob (talk | contribs) 09:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

north west should be northwest 70.231.140.18 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)  Not done Concatenation (joining them up) would be correct in US English, but UK English uses north west, or north-west - see MOS:COMPASS - Arjayay (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

More Representation

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to suggest a few things that we might discuss including in the article as the infobox in particular is looking quite boring. The main aim of this would be to give England better portrayal as a country in it's own right. NOTE: ROB984 DO NOT BOTHER COMMENTING.

1. I notice that the dates of formation are missing, whether over the course of the 10th century or specifically in 927 we need to give the time period in which England as we know it was formed.

2. The government section is missing. England is governed by the UK government and has no devolved aministration, but has been pivotal in the formation of the UK through Magna Carta and Common Law, and as such we should recognise this.

3. The Monarchy is missing. Queen Elizabeth can trace her heritage all the way back to William the Conqueror and the rest of the Kings and Queens of England, and she remains the Queen of all the constituent countries of the UK including England. There has been much debate already about the inclusion of the monarchy, it's motto and royal banner in England but I feel that the country and its royalty are essentially conjoined and are representative of each other, and that the article would benefit from the inclusion of this. I'd like to know how you feel about this.

4. I'd like a more definitve article on heraldry, the Royalty and the heritage of the English in general. If it is still a mysterty to some of you as to why the user Rob984 has been told to stay away it is because this individual has embarked on an abhorrent campaign to virtually destroy every item of national symbology in articles relating to England, and is directly responsible for the damage to this article as well.

5. Can we just in general jazz up the article? Add a few more facts and figures, like government, legislature (common law), all Englands formation dates from Alfred the Great through to the acts of union, and the lauding of Englands contribution to science, literature etc.

Thanks a lot guys! - H (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We should certainly add back in the Royal Banner. Precedent for displaying accepted heraldic symbols on country/nation pages in the absence of cast-iron official status is clearly already apparent on Wikipedia, with for example France. Brunanburh (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Requires reliable source. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I think heraldic symbology in England lacks any de jure status due to the country's tendency to be a 'de facto democracy' which requires symbols to be upheld by use rather than official legislation, exemplified for instance in the recent World Cup, in which the three lions is used heavily. Rob take your 'reliable' bs and stay out of my conversation.- H (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep it civil and do not claim ownership of an article or its talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You might do well to read the guidelines for Wikipedia talk pages. You need to realise that you do not own this conversation and that you are not in a position to exclude Rob from it. I suggest you take a look at Verifiability, not truth too, as it's difficult to make lasting changes to even mildly contentious articles if you're not aware of the encyclopedia's verifiabilty policy. NebY (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke?? I did not 'claim' ownership genius I set up the conversation to allow other people to have a say in an article that I consider has suffered significant vandalism in the name of one persons view. - H (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are picking and choosing who you allow to "have a say" in that "conversation", which you must not do. I see a dispute over content but no deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Slinging about such accusations does little for your credibility.

On another matter, your suggestion 5 above advocates "lauding" various things, whereas content should be written from a neutral point of view. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I expressed I did not want him to participate as I did not want him effectively dictating to others what can and can't be included, I started the conversation so others might have a say without being harassed by him but as you can see above this has been ignored. If you truly believe in neutrality and about having discussions for the good of the article then the individual I refer to goes against every notion you stand for 90.199.147.74 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In regard to your second point why should England not be allowed to be proud of its achievements, history and symbols like virtually every other article for a country on Wikipedia? Unless you too believe that rather than a country in its own right with a significant history, England is just some sub-division of the UK and a 'region'.90.199.147.74 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Flag, Motto, Anthem

Can we please have the royal banner restored to the England page please. The Royal Standard of England, otherwise known in contemporary terms as the Three Lions has been used extensively in England for centuries since it's adoption by Richard I on his ascension to the throne. This in turn comes from the Royal Emblems depicting lions from the Norman Dynasty. The Royal Banner does not represent any particular land or area, it does however represent the sovereignty of the Royal Family. To say that it has no informal use today is a very poor reflection of English culture, the most famous example of the three lions being utilised is on the crest of the English National Football Team. A more official use of this is in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants of the current Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, and on other royal/governmental insignia and logo's. Looking at the England article in comparison with earlier versions it is missing its famous motto 'Dieu et mon droit', again used extensively prior to England joining the union. It is also missing governmental information. I would like to remind editors that England has not been dissolved. It continues to remain a constituent country of the UK represented in modern day terms by its own separate legal system of England and Wales. In other words the page should not be reduced to merely just geography and statistics. England should be given better representation as a country.

- H (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the motto, 'Dieu et mon droit' means 'God and my right', referring to the monarch's right from god to rule the country. It has little to do with England in its entirety, and nothing to do with its people. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Royal Standard, I agree the three lions are representative of England, I'm just not aware the Royal Standard of England, last used officially in the 16th century is still used today. Source? Rob (talk | contribs) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dieu et mon droit was used at the Battle of Gisors by Richard I as a battle cry, and later officially adopted by Edward III. It referred to his right to rule as you pointed out, and in modern times can be seen on the current British passport underneath the crest. The Royal Standard can be seen being used extensively, with the England football team being one of its many cultural usages. In more official terms it forms two quadrants of the current royal standard, which symbolise England as part of the United Kingdom. Individually the royal standard for England would consist of the three lions without the additions of the Scottish and Irish flags. A lot of England, including its flags and motto's etc is not de jure, it's de facto and simply cultural. But just because its not set in stone doesn't necessarily mean these things don't form an important part of English culture and history. - H — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source of contemporary usage of the Royal Standard, and that 'Dieu et mon droit' is the motto of England? That it is present on the Royal coat of arms of the British Crown, which happens to double up as a coat of arms for the UK, really isn't surprising, nor conclusive. Rob (talk | contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Standard of England has a variety of active uses. The arms of both the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board have a design featuring three lions passant, representing the Royal Arms of England. In 1997, and again in 2002, the Royal Mint issued a one pound coin featuring the three lions again to represent England, and also first/second class stamps with the arms. Several English towns depict the Royal Banner upon their seals, such as the arms of Faversham Town Council. It features on the tabard worn by the English officers of arms. It is also featured on garments worn at the state opening of parliament, at the coronation of the british monarch, at state funerals and also at the annual procession and service of the order of the garter. These are just some well known contemporary uses of the arms. Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the British monarchy IN England, and appears on a scroll beneath the English version of the Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Notice that there are different versions of the United Kingdom's coat of arms, and in England - this is the motto used. There is a different version in Scotland with a different motto used. You must remember that unlike other countries England is represented on a legal and governmental level by the monarchy itself, hence the monarchy's motto and arms become England motto and Arms. This can be observed throughout all of Englands history except during the English civil war. - H - H (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Do you have any evidence of contemporary usage of the actually Royal Standard? Not just the three lions, which I'm well aware is used represent contemporary England.

There is no English version of anything. I don't think Wikipedia is very clear on this matter, however the so-called English versions of the coat of arms are now use throughout the UK and abroad, with the Scottish versions being largely redundant since the time of the Stuarts.

You will need to provide a source that the 'monarchy's motto and arms become England motto and Arms'.

Rob (talk | contribs) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no English version of anything? Of course there is. Unless in your opinion you believe that a country of roughly 53,000,000 people and well over 1000 years of history, who've been calling themselves English since 897, don't have a motto or royal banner?....... this is an extraordinarily misplaced belief. And you only need look at the court system of England and Wales in contrast with the separate legal system in Scotland, where you will find both the coat of arms and motto I mention here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Banner_of_England#As_a_banner

In terms of the royal banner like I said as a constituent of the United Kingdom the royal banner IS in use...just alongside other flags of the United Kingdom in the current standard. This does not mean that it ceases to exist. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/RoyalStandard.aspx

Please refer to the Duchy of Lancaster (a royal duchy) for individual use of the banner, merged with the crown since 1399. - H - H (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2014

@HWallis1993: In what way is England's “own separate legal system of England and Wales” separate? Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

England and Wales has a seperate legal system from Scotland. This is known as English Law. Scotland on the other hand has Scottish Law, which it retained after the acts of Union. Together with Northern Ireland Law it makes up the three legal systems of the United Kingdom. - H 90.219.162.124 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How is that separate ... or relevant? This is the England article, not England & Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide a source of contemporary usage of a non-defaced Royal Standard that is not part of another Royal Standard, being used to represent England. In case you didn't know, the English nation is relatively new. Pre-1950, the people living in England did not distinguish between English and British, and thus England has little to represent its self. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Daicaregos why don't you spare me the sarcasm? I gave it as an example of where the phrase 'Dieu et mon droit' can be seen in contemporary use.

Again Rob I can see you seem to be deliberately undermining English heritage. 'England has little to represent its self' and that 'the English nation is relatively new'?! This is a seriously misguided view and frankly quite disgusting. You seem to be taking a specifically anti-English line here, and I will be attempting to file a complaint again. Every other country on Wikipedia has their heraldic representation present (France, Scotland, Germany, Spain etc) If your going to argue it has no official status then why show the England flag at all? - The answer is because it is a very important symbol of England. Why not show the shield instead of the flag if you are going to argue that actual contemporary usage is a prerequisite for inclusion into the article. I personally, like the rest of England, believe that what the Royal Banner and St Georges cross symbolise is far more important than any official use. Being born and raised in England, I know this to be the case. To claim that we have little to represent ourselves is absolutely outrageous, and shows you lack any real perspective on English culture. Furthermore, and as you pointed out yourself, you do not own this article - therefore I will not be going to great lengths to prove the already obvious. It is quite clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of England and its history that the three lions is a proud symbol used over 800 years of history since it's adoption. - H - H (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Neither of my questions was sarcastic. Your statement was complete nonsense, but I decided to give you the opportunity to defend it, rather than say so. Instead of backing up your argument, you chose to attack me. Please read WP:NPA.

Dieu et mon droit is not England's moto, it is the British monarch's moto and is used in many circumstances that have nothing to do with England e.g. passports. Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has been about the motto of England and it's coat of arms. I was referring the the current arms of the united kingdom of which England is a part to back this up, and from which the motto originates. In addition I used the courts for contemporary usage of the specific coat of arms of England, in contrast to the Scottish courts who use a separate one. And as I have said previously England is a very old country, where the monarch has represented the country on a political level. Fair enough about sarcasm, I was just generally referring to your derisive tone throughout the conversation so far, but what's nonsensical about the rest? Try reading the whole conversation before you judge. Then again observing the fundamentally anti-English line of editing that has taken place I hardly find it surprising I have to face such criticism. I notice Wales, Scotland and pretty much every other country are allowed to enjoy motto's, and virtually every one is allowed a royal or Presidential emblem or flag. There is a deliberate attempt at undermining English culture here and I will be reporting it. - H - H (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. In answer to your question, What's nonsensical about that?; stating that a legal system is separate, when it relates to two countries is nonsensical. You have demonstrated that the coat of arms and moto is used in England and in Wales. I have showed it is used in many countries. It is not specifically an English coat of arms and moto. It represents the British monarch, not England. Consequently, it shouldn't be shown on the infobox in this article. Daicaregos (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this piece on English National Identity. You might think great of your English nationality, separate from that of the Scots, Welsh, and Irish, but your ancestors from the 18th and 19th centuries did not. They saw themselves as British (or English, meaning British), and they did not distinguish between the United Kingdom, and what they called England. Maybe this is a harsh reality for yourself, but numerous reliable sources show this to be the case. England lacks officially used symbols because when Great Britain was united into one kingdom, these were adapted to become those of GB, and later the UK. I'm not anti-English, I've lived most my life in England, but yes, I would consider myself British, not English; not that I actually bother to distinguish between the terms. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rob984; my ancestors extend further back than those of the 19th Century. To your surprise it may seem. England has been a country since the 927 AD. It has only been part of the United Kingdom since 1707, that’s 314 years out of a total of 1087 years of history since its establishment as a unified state. I think you would be unpleasantly surprised at just how many of the English consider themselves ‘English’ rather than British. This is the reason we have separate sports teams. And to be clear this is coming from someone who is half-Scottish and half-English. I enjoy both my nations’ heritages separately, and feel rewarded in doing so. I would suggest you go to Glasgow in Scotland and suggest they are British...you may be in for quite a shock. Or you might receive a similar reaction in an English pub before the match. People are no longer proud of being British; this can be reflected in the fact that there is an upcoming Scottish referendum in September, which may in effect end the ‘United Kingdom.’ Sad I know, but it shows that there is a distinction to be made between being British and being English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. There’s no reason why you can’t enjoy being British AND English, for example, and I would like the England article to reflect this. I would like the Royal Banner restored for cultural reasons, which you will agree is also very important.

Daicaregos; you keep repeating yourself, and missing the point that I am trying to make. Your claim that the English Coat of Arms is not specific to England? This is false, take a look here to see just how many there are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_england and try not to get confused between the Monarchy’s crest and Englands Crest. Up until 1707 - the two are the same thing. It doesn’t just represent the monarch, it represents England AND its monarch. You say it is not specifically an English Coat of Arms. Like I said to Rob, please attend an English football match, or go to one of the Royal ceremonies I mentioned. Ask any Englishman, young or old, and they will all associate with the same thing: the three lions. This is more than definitive. If we are going to argue about definition why don’t we remove the Welsh Flag and motto, I’m sure they aren’t the first to use a dragon – so therefore by your reasoning it must be removed? The legal system in England and Wales was the legal continuation of the Kingdom of England, and has a separate coat of arms from Scotland. Likewise the monarchy has different coat of arms in England and Scotland. I was using this as an example, there’s no need to get so quite so upset.

In summary I really don’t get what the big deal is. It is quite clear to anyone living in England that the three lions is a distinctive representation of England. Daicaregos is in plain denial of this, which is ironic. And Rob984 claims that the existence of the British Empire for a few hundred years therefore means that it cannot enjoy its own distinct history? Like I said England enjoyed around 773 years as the Kingdom of England before its inclusion into the United Kingdom under the treaty of union, and it continues to exist to this day as a separate legal system in England and Wales (a fact lost on Daicaregos) distinct from Scotland. In all 773 of those years of history England enjoyed 37 different English monarchs who were all part of a Monarch-Parliamentary system that you are claiming had no emblem or flag? This is not true, and as I was explaining the English Royal Banner can be observed in the current Royal Standard – in which England is represented BY the three lions as an individual constituent country. England is not a borough or county of the UK. It is not a province like Northern Ireland, nor a principality like Wales. It is a Kingdom which forms one half of the ‘United Kingdom’ and I feel that the page should reflect this. - H - H (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Provide a source of contemporary, non-defaced usage of the Royal Standard solely (not on another banner), then its inclusion may be considered here. A source for the motto also. Your view that the UK is a union of kingdoms is not supported by most sources. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain, in the words of the acts themselves.

Not that it's really relevant, but I don't see myself as English as, while living in the very north of England I realised that really, the people here share more in common with the Scots then they do with the English living in the south. The UK is economically, politically and culturally split between the North, and the South, not between 4 countries.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I must ask you divert your attention to the top of the page. You seem quite convinced that England is part of a country, rather than a country itself. For this I must ask you to refer to the paragraph highlighted in orange above, in particular I quote:

' The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The outcome of discussion is that England is a country.'

And again at the beginning of the article itself:

'England (Listeni/ˈɪŋɡlənd/) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.'

So on this basis I refer to what I said before; that the quadrant given to England on the current standard as part of the United Kingdom which displays the three lions is sufficient evidence that the three lions represents England at national and international level. - H - H (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the consensus is that England is a country. I was just giving you my personal opinion, since you stated 'There’s no reason why you can’t enjoy being British AND English', which I strongly disagree with. This however has nothing to do with this discussion.

Regardless of what either of us think, you need to provide sources for the motto and Royal Standard, per WP:RS, as I have specified.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the views expressed and as an observer only, much of today's discussion strays well into general forum territory, so please can we make sure any continuation focuses on the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem though - looking through the records you seem to have removed the banner yourself on nothing more than personal opinion, where it is quite clear that aside from representing England on the current standard it remains heavily used in sporting and ceremonial events and therefore relevant. I have contacted the college of arms to see if I can get some closure on any other uses of the flag, however reverting back to my original point the flag is cultural just like many other aspects of England. However just because it is not de jure doesn't mean it should be excluded as it forms an important part of the English identity (very similiar to the flag of St George, not even used on government buildings, yet very important and relevant). I keep repeating myself on this point. _ H - H (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a source to remove unsourced material. I will repeat, please provide contemporary usage of the motto and Royal Standard (solely and not defaced). This isn't my POV, this is Wikipedia policy. You should also consider looking at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you completely ignore Wikipedia policy, editors are inclined to simply ignore you. Although I'm aware you haven't already done so, I'd like to inform you that performing edits contrary to Wikipedia policy constitutes as disruptive editing. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing I have said can possibly be considered a personal attack. This is a debate in which I am criticising certain edits that have taken place. It was you in the first place that suggested I use this page to propose making the change. - H - H (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't expect an editor to be reasonable with you after making some pretty exaggerated assertions, and recommending them to be banned. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, you have my apologies for that. However this is not going to get resolved when you believe in official representation and I believe in cultural usage as sufficient representation - H - H (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require 'official representation', it requires a reliable source supporting your claim that the Royal Banner (not part of another symbol, and not defaced) is used to represent England. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright here are just a few of the sources I found just now in two minutes of browsing -

Sporting sources: http://www.thefa.com/england/News/2010/FAQ_ThreeLions_Badge http://www.ecb.co.uk/twelfthman/interactive/q-and-a/491,491,QA.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-world-cup-group-three-2897859

Current Wikipedia sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Arms_of_England

A design article: http://www.downwithdesign.com/logo-design/three-lions-the-history-of-an-emblem/

Hopefully these meet the criteria for sources, there are countless more - H - H (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I'll repeat. You need to provide a contemporary source supporting your view that the Royal Standard, not part of another symbol, and not defaced, is used to represent England. I'm aware that the three lions represent England, but you have not provided a source that supports the view that the actually Royal Standard of the now not existent English monarchy is still used to represent England. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As you yourself pointed out when the Kingdom of England became part of the United Kingdom these symbols, flags etc became absorbed into a new crest and flag for the United Kingdom. It probably isn't possible to locate some source where it is used to represent the current monarchy - who is a monarch of the UK, or England as a whole because it is now part of the UK. It's use is cultural, that is why I am suggesting that we revert back to the banner or arms used before 1707. - H - H (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox provides information on contemporary England, not pre-1707 England, which does have it's own article at Kingdom of England. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but surely we should be aiming to represent England's history as well. England is the same country it was in 1707, the same borders, the same parliament etc, it's not a different country. If we cannot agree on the royal banner do you have any other suggestions regarding heraldic badges or flags for England, of which there are many? Perhaps the coat of arms of England prior to 1707 which included the fluer de lis? Used from 1399 up until the treaty of Union. - H 90.206.144.219 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The infobox provides information on contemporary England. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is contemporary does not mean it should not be allowed to enjoy it's heritage.....like virtually every other country on Wikipedia - H 90.206.144.219 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it. You don't dictate what should be used to represent contemporary England. You need to provide a reliable source that supports your view that the Royal Standard of the now not existent English monarchy, not part of another symbol and not defaced, is still used to represent England. Wikipedia policy is very clear that contended material must be entirely supported by a reliable source. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazing...You are the only one here dictating, the Royal Banner was present on the England article for years before you removed it without consulting anyone. There's no need to keep repeating yourself as I know what you mean, however if we apply your kind of thinking to the article why have an England flag at all? That's not contemporary...it's not used at government level, but it still exists as an important symbol of England. You completely fail to understand this, and you have not been clear at all in your definition of sources, or what constitutes a 'defaced' symbol. Anyway I have requested a dispute resolution, and I have nothing more to discuss as you as clearly you aren't willing to consider anyone's opinion but your own and this conversation will continue to go in circles. - H - H (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You wont gain anything out of a dispute resolution, except for wasting more people's time. In response to your statement on the English flag, the flag often used to represent England today. Notably on Tower Bridge for example. Defaced refers to the Royal Standard being adapted in any way, as many of the examples you provided are. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Rob984 the flag on Tower Bridge is infact the City of London flag here: Another example please, otherwise I believe you should remove the England flag in line with HWallis1993 request.Theno2003 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To add the Three lions are in use today, which derived from the original royal arms. England National Football team emblem, England Cricket Team emblem, an entire mint of one pound coins features the three lions, representing England. I am sorry, but it is clearly a sign of England in modern day use. I suggest the Royal Arms are displayed next to the England flag instead of the Royal standard. Clearly as this is in contemporary use as an emblem of England. Theno2003 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Theno, thanks very much for your message! and it really means a lot for a fellow Englishman to come forward and fight for his heritage. Unfortunately you are quite right. Rob is the callous, uninformed type to totally disregard others and as you might be able to observe above, where my attempts to reason fell on deaf ears. I highly suspect he is French. Nonetheless I took my argument to the dispute resolution notice board because I believed as you do that the arms of England remained a strong symbol for us and therefore representative of our nation, as it had done for quite a while before Rob removed it without consultation. Unfortunately the powers that be decided that I was wrong, contradicting the very statement at the top of the page outlining England as a country with a proud heritage, and not as some boring constituent subdivision of the UK. Therefore I would ask you to please not waste your valuable time as I did trying to convince this jobsworth and the rest of the clowns on here of the obvious. You can still enjoy your heritage my friend, be English and Proud! I'm afraid this lot are rather a lost cause ;) - H ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 May 2014‎

The dispute resolution noticeboard is only to help resolve disputes, it doesn't dictate the outcome.

I'm actually English. I've lived in France and my girlfriend's French, but I'm definitely not French. There's a significant proportion of English people who simply don't consider the English a nation. If you look into Great Britain's history, you will quickly realise that there aren't 3 distinct nations with clear borders. It's simply bullshit. I fail to see how I differ from a Scot, 100 km north, more then an English person, 300 km south. Ethnically? Nope. Culturally? Nope.

Theno, please read the past discussion. Do you have any evidence of contemporary usage of the actual 1369 Royal Arms of England? Not just the three lions, which I'm well aware is used represent contemporary England. The England National Football team emblem is not the 1369 Royal Arms of England, it is derived from it, but it is not it. You're free to remove the Saint George Cross per WP:NOR. I don't actually care if it is here, but I'm sure another editor will provide a source, as there are hundreds of examples of its usage; for example at the English–Scottish border.

Rob (talk | contribs) 09:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, clearly you are not English as you have stated previously you don't consider yourself English? But I do consider myself English and the fact some people don't consider it a nation I and many others do consider it a nation. But it would appear your opinion is in fact the law? Well no it's not bullshit there are massive differences in our culture and ethnic backgrounds. I guess My right Honorable friend Mr HWallis is right. I can be proud without some wikipedia page and shall be. God Save England. Theno2003 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see myself as English. I also see myself as European. I do not see either of those as my nationality, which is British. Is that a difficult concept? When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, they did not slaughter every Celtic being in the region we now call 'England'. In England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from Celts, while in Scotland, this is only slightly higher at 73 per cent. Additionally, northern English culture is very much a transition towards Scottish culture, and much of Scotland's culture originates from the English kingdom of Northumbria. Like I said, there's really no clear border between what you call 'nations'.

I have nothing against adding symbols which represent contemporary England, provided they are supported by reliable sources. It's not my wrong doing that your wishes don't adhere to WP:NOR.

Rob (talk | contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"There's a significant proportion of English people who simply don't consider the English a nation".....O_o Unbelievable. I'd like to meet this significant proportion, they probably call themselves Rob! Theno old chap I think Rob's attitude to the English can be summed up in this one sentence. It is nonsensical, irrelevant and not representative of a country where a strong national identity has been expressed for many centuries. From the football terraces to the battlefields. Whilst I feel strongly about this, I would hate for you to spend many words, as I did, trying to convince Rob the Blob that his fantasies are tragically wide of the mark. He is not worth the effort, and whilst this leaves us with a Wikipedia article that is plain and boring (which England is not) people like Rob will never be able to take away our English heritage. People like Mr Europe can undermine it all they like, but they will not succeed in erasing our amazing and splendid history. God Save England. - H — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWallis1993 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My dear Sir, a wonderful response! God bless England. 149.254.51.59 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

England does not have an official flag, unlike Wales and Scotland. The official national flag used in England is the Union flag. The St George's cross is only used by sports teams, especially the England football team. It is a football flag. The image of the St George’s Cross should be removed. It was not used as a national flag for England. before the Union Flag became England's national flag in 1606.

It was came from the Order of the Garter originally because England did not have a cross flag like Scotland did. The St George's cross was invented as a result of devolution, to strip the Union flag of the Scottish and Irish crosses to have a flag for the the territory of this article. It is used by sports fans, not by the state. The State uses the Union Flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.66.76 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cross of St George originates with the Plantagenet Kings who used it to distinguish English troops from their French counterparts on the crusades. After some swapping and altering it was historically adopted by Richard I as an alternate to the Royal Banner (displaying the three lions on a red field) which embodied the monarch. The idea that it is a 'football flag' is incorrect and does not reflect its historical significance. Furthermore your request for it to be removed on the basis that it is not a de jure national flag is petty, as it's widespread use as a symbol of England in several fields besides football says otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.196.204 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

GDP claim

Can anyone provide a link confirming England's nominal GDP in this article? There's no reference or anything.

The International Monetary Fund, the most "generous" institute regarding British nominal GDP givers a total of $2,535,761. How can England manage to have a nominal GDP total of $2.68 trillion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.218.162 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The British Regions surely?

Since England is a "nation" with no national anthem, no currency, no international recognition and no government of its own how can England be a nation? Surely it would be better if it was renamed the British Regions instead. SJNM (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, considering the fact that the English people have:

1. A common culture

2. A common language

3. A common history

4. Common ancestry

5. Common identification

Everything that makes a group a nation/ethnicity is present among the Pommies. Guy355 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe England as a 'nation'. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

False information in sec. Population

"There is an English diaspora in former parts of the British Empire; especially... Chile"

When was Chile a part of the British Empire? ★ Nacho ★ ★ 05:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Error now corrected - thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Map

Zacwill, since there's no definition of what a 'country' is, it's an inadequate basis for anything. The green-grey map scheme is used for sovereign states on Wikipedia. The 2012 locator map scheme is used for sub-divisions of sovereign states. This convention is not set or mandatory, but it is, de facto, a convention. And therefor it's misleading to suggest that the UK's countries are more like sovereign states then sub-divisions. They are not. They have no sovereignty at all for that matter. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The green-grey map scheme is used for countries of any kind. Note that the article on Greenland uses that map, though Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Zacwill16 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A country is just a region called a 'country'. Unless your stupid, you should realise how pointless and misleading it is to group 'countries' in any kind of meaningful way. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greenland is a quasi-dependency (there's no clear convention for dependencies) 1000 miles from Denmark, within the Kingdom of Denmark, a quasi-federation. England is simply a sub-division of the UK. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is similar to the Kingdom of Denmark. Those are the only two cases where I can see using non-conventional colour schemes is reasonable. The UK isn't Benelux. It's a unitary state. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Still not a reason for using a different map. The U.K. is clearly marked on this one, it's not like it's suggesting England is an independent country. Even things that are not countries by any definition, such as provinces and counties, use maps in a similar style to this one. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is suggesting England is a sovereign state (or as you say, 'independent country') because that colour scheme is used by sovereign states. And let's be specific here. We are not talking about the standard green-grey scheme. We are talking about the scheme used for European sovereign states solely, which differs from the standard convention used more generally (for islands, landmasses, geopolitical organisations, etc). So specifically, we are suggesting that England is a European sovereign state.
Regardless, the main reason for using the 2012 locator map scheme, is because it's consistent. But you're right, we are far from widespread roll-out, however the maps are available...

Current situation				Widespread roll-out of locator map scheme
UK	France	Spain		UK	France	Spain

So you're opposed to having a universal consistent mapping scheme for subdivisions because currently some 'things' use a 'similar style to this one'? Is that not using an argument based on existing inconsistently, to justify not progressing towards consistency?
Apologies for my impudence, but I'm finding it very difficult to understand your argument.
Rob (talk | contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Education system

The information in the Education system is false, stating that compulsory education in England ends at the age of 16 in a secondary school. Nowadays, compulsory education ends at the age of 18, with students primarily attending a sixth form, college, or combination thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisismeavp (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be closer to 18 for some but it's actually "until the end of the academic year when you turn 17". Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's changing next academic year to 18. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"You must stay in some form of education or training until your 18th birthday if you were born on or after 1 September 1997." Rob (talk | contribs) 00:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014

London is no longer the world's largest financial centre as indicated on this page. 50.179.225.125 (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Sovereignty in the time of King John

So far as I know, User:Stroganoff is right that King John subordinated his kingdom to the Pope. I don't have very good sources at hand but John, King of England#Dispute with the Pope offers some. Whether Richard became a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire during the shenanigans of 1194 is another matter and Stroganoff has offered no sources for that. It does seem a bit anachronistic to describe England as a "sovereign state" rather than just part of John's kingdom, and if we are going to go down that road we will have to describe much of Europe as not consisting of sovereign states at that time. NebY (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

it's a problem of nuance and good sourcing - modern historians are much less prone to throwing around absolutes - and we should not be using outdated sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, please explain where I can find the policy about outdated sources, since I don't know the wikipedia source-dating-policy that makes my sources invalid. Stroganoff (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

NebY, I wouldn't say much of Europe did not consist of sovereign states at that time - All territory was ultimately under someone's sovereignty. But if you mean that today's sovereign states were rarely sovereign in the modern form at that time, I think that would be correct- which makes this information not at all extraordinary. Stroganoff (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources. Three different editors have reverted as your edits are controversial and you have not shown that they are supported by modern scholarship. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stroganoff, none of your sources describe England as a sovereign state or as losing that status. That is your interpretation and it constitutes original research. Some of your sources show that the Pope still regarded England as John's kingdom, making your conclusions even more dubious. None of your sources show that Richard became a vassal of the HRE, which in any case would still not justify saying that England had previously been a sovereign state but then ceased to be. Furthermore, you are inserting this material into the article's introduction but it does not appear in the body of the article. Do read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead should be a concise overview of the article body and with your additions it is not. But at this point it would not be appropriate to insert that material into the body of the article either, while it is under discussion but clearly against consensus. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring. You cannot impose your will on other editors by repeatedly clicking "undo". You have made so many reverts that if you insert that material again anywhere in the article after being warned here and on your talk page,[5], you will be liable and likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I see nothing in the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources which discounts my sources. The word "modern" does not appear on that page. The "modern source" requirement seems to be invented by this page's editors.
2. Other editors have provided no source for their unbroken sovereignty claim, which therefore currently constitutes original research without any sources.
3. If several editors on this page have problem with basing wikipedia on sources, that has no influence on the facts of the question. Several contributors to this page have a worrying indifference to basing information on sources. The number of editors who oppose sources makes no difference to the fact wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources. Editors on a given page cannot edit by coming to a consensus to ignore sources. This is the first page I've seen where they have even tried.
4. Threatening to ban editors who use sources for challenging your currently sourceless version of events is not good.
Stroganoff (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, about "You cannot impose your will on other editors", in principle I don't care whether England was subject to the pope, I am just interested in the facts. All I am considering is what sources say, which other editors are not. Perhaps they wish to keep reverting to impose their will on the sources? Stroganoff (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

See "However, some scholarly material may be outdated" - which would definitely qualify for sources over 160 years old. Your sources are outdated. And right now, your addition makes no sense - "On 1 May the Kingdom of England – which after 1284 included Wales – entered a political union with the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.[16][17] putting into effect the terms agreed in the Treaty of Union the previous year, resulting in In 1801, Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland through another Act of Union to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." duplicates information and is ungrammatical. No one uses "John Lackland" in serious prose anymore - this is one reason why using outdated sources is a bad idea. You're not even summarizing your sources right - this says John in 1213 submitted to the pope - you say 1212. This also says 1213 as does this. Did you even actually read what you google-searched and cherry-picked? And you are editwarring against other editors. You wouldn't be blocked for using sources, you'd be banned for repeatedly inserting information against consensus of other editors. (And this leaves aside the issue also raised above that the information must be in the body of the article for it to be in the lead). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. I can add a little

I've found that the material Stroganoff is fighting to insert into the lede comes from History of England#England under the Plantagenets: "The Kingdom of England was a sovereign state until the reign of Richard I who made it a nominal vassal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1194 as part of a ransom when he was captured after a crusade. Facing internal disorder, in 1212 John made the Kingdom of England a tribute-paying vassal of the Holy See, which it remained until the 14th century when the Kingdom rejected the overlordship of the Holy See and re-established its sovereignty." (Stroganoff's first edit:"The Kingdom of England was a sovereign state until 1194, when Richard I made it a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1212, under his brother John Lackland, the Kingdom became instead a tribute-paying vassal of the Holy See which continued until 1365, when parliament decided to end the arrangement.")

The History of England text is not sourced, so clearly Stroganoff ran Google searches for sources and pasted in Google Books URLs, without book titles, author names, publishers, publication dates and locations, or page numbers. The search terms such as "england vassal holy see" and "england tribute holy see" are still visible in the URLs. Of course, such searches largely yielded old texts that have passed out of copyright and only yielded texts that described matters in those terms.

The unsourced claim in History of England that England was a sovereign state until 1194 is seriously anachronistic. Our own article on Sovereign state puts it well; The first states came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state". States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority. These events, couched entirely in the language and forms of feudalism, predate those transfers and that emergence. History of England needs correcting.

The old text in England was also poor: "The Kingdom of England – which after 1284 included Wales – was a sovereign state until 1 May 1707". It didn't quite say that the Kingdom of England was a sovereign state throughout but it could be read that way, especially with that mention of Wales. But the paragraph was solely concerned with England's place in the constitutional relationships of the countries of the British Isles: the annexation, the unions, the secession. The misleading part could easily have been fixed.

Stroganoff's insertions, even without mention of a sovereign state, concern England's relationships outside the British Isles. Placed in the lede, they gave this particular external relationship an unique weight that is not found in History of England nor in his Google Books results. Of course, not being in the body, they shouldn't be summarised in the lede at all. What's more, we don't copy everything in the body into the lede and we don't copy everything in History of England into England - quite the opposite. We fork off detailed history articles to keep the main articles to a reasonable size and accessibility, and we avoid each editor adding their favourite nuggets to the lede.

So I'll restore the original and tweak it, keeping the original focus. Stroganoff, do read Wikipedia:Edit warring and appreciate that confidence in sources does not make edit-warring permissible. NebY (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Year for England have been a country since

Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in "<any year>"" for England?

I do not know how long England have been a country for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.26 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A land of the English has existed since the 5th century. The unified kingdom was 'established' in the 10th century, when the West Saxon kingdom (formed in the 6th century) gained control over all of the English. When Wessex and client states became a single unified kingdom is unclear. Rob984 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Newly-added "-speaking countries and territories" cats

In what terms is the inclusion of this article in the categories "Irish-", "Cornish-" and "Welsh-speaking countries and territories" "especially relevant to the article"? Aside from the fact that all of these cats are up for discussion per WP:SMALLCAT only one of these categories, Cornish, could (and let's not go there) be reasonably be described as native to England but even there it is almost entirely specific to Cornwall alone (0.1% of the population according to the article; what is it for England as a whole?). Regarding the category itself, this would seem to be the least useful as it consists of set (UK), a subset thereof (England) and a subset thereof again (Cornwall), with essentially all speakers in the latter, making the former two redundant. That Wales and Ireland adjoin or are close-by seems insufficient rationale for the inclusion of non-native to England Welsh and Irish and again, the numbers are small. Should we advocate the addition of "Scottish Gaelic-", "Manx-", "Scots-", "Sercquiais-", "French-", "Dutch-" categories on this basis, some similarly tiny in terms of number in England, some probably very much greater? In terms of number there are many languages with a significant number of speakers and close historical ties, so no less relevant: Punjabi, Hindi, Cantonese etc.. There is nothing particularly special or relevant about the recent additions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of England

The official website of the British monarchy states that: "In the design the shield shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third." This means that we should add the Three Lions as the Royal Emblem of England. Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/Coatsofarms.aspx Regards, --Ransewiki (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This article concerns a country. The arms are those of the monarch of that country, not of the country. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Kingdoms and other monarchies almost always use the coat of arms of the monarch as their coat of arms. Just look at Sweden, Denmark or the UK itself. The coat of arms of UK belong to the monarch. --Ransewiki (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It may well be that Wikipedia is making errors with regards to Sweden and Denmark or even that their constitutions are different. Countries do not all have the same relationships with their monarchs and often take pride in their particular constitutional histories (comparing, for example, Magna Carta or the Glorious Revolution with "L'état c'est moi"). But regarding England and the UK, the very page you cite above begins emphatically, "The function of the Royal coat of arms is to identify the person who is Head of State. In respect of the United Kingdom, the Royal arms are borne only by the Sovereign." NebY (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well why is the British monarchs coat of arms used as the UK's coat of arms in many places like the UK's Wikipedia page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there's reliable sources that claim it is also the arms of the United Kingdom. Further, there's no monarch of England. England isn't a state. Rob984 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The page clearly says that the Three Lions represent England (as a country) currently (not any English monarch, as England is not a sovereign state currently). And you can't argue that only sovereign states have coat of arms, also subdivisions (and many, many other things) like the Regions of France (See: Gallery of French coats of arms or the German states (see: Coats of arms of German states, even Scotland has its own coat of arms listed on its Wikipedia page. One could also argue that the Three lions are de facto England's coat of arms, as they are used by almost all sports teams of England/governing bodies of English sport, like the FA (football association) uses it, the ECB uses it (English Cricket Board), and so on. It's probably the most important English symbol, after the flag. However the Three Lions are clearly the "Royal Emblem" of England as stated on the monarchys website. Quote from the website: "In the design the shield shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third." The Royal coat of arms of the UK might represent the sovereign, but as England doesn't have a monarch currently, because it is not a sovereign state. The page doesn't say that the "Royal Emblems" of the Countries of UK are individually any monarchs coat of arms (even if they are quartered in the monarchs coat of arms). It clearly says: "In the design the shield shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters,...". The THREE LIONS OF ENGLAND! That is quite a clear message. And you CANNOT argue that the Official Website of the British Monarchy is not an reliable source, HM is this countrys sovereign and holds the sovereignty of UK. She is de jure also the head of government and the www.Royal.Gov.UK is an official government website. PLEASE READ THE HOLE TEXT, Regards Ransewiki (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the three lions represent England. But you have no source claiming that Royal Banner of England represents contemporary England. Three lions ≠ banner. The banner is derived from the three lions. It is not the three lions. By your logic, we could add a random flag with a Tudor rose on it simply because the Tudor rose represents England. Rob984 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope the page clearly says that the Three Lions ARE the "Royal Emblem". Many countries use emblems in place of coats of arms like India. We don't need to necesserily put the Royal Banner there, just some version of the Three Lions appearing on the current UK coat of arms. Ransewiki (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". – WP:NOR. You need a source which directly supports the materiel you are adding. 'some version' of your choice is not acceptable. Rob984 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ransewiki, rest assured I've already been down this road with Rob. His unhealthy obsession with degrading England to nothing more than a county is the reason for his rejection of what is overwhelming evidence of the three lions as the cultural AND official icon of England. - H (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

His strategy seems to be to go on arguing for so long in the face of all logic and reason that his opponents eventually lose the will to carry on and give up. He can stretch out what should be a short discussion to pages and pages of utter nonsense. Just a moment ago I showed him a source which described the arms of England as three lions, and in response he said it wasn't valid since it used the word 'royal bearing' instead of 'arms'. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the Royal Banner of England, which isn't just the three lions, deserves a place on this page. It is one of the national symbols of England and is instantly recognisable by most people. The lions on their own have a strong case. They are on UK currency, UK sport team crests, they have been on UK stamps. Also the royal banner doesn't have to "represent contemporary England" to be shown on this page. It has hugely strong links to England and therefore should be on here. The Royal Arms of England page, which is classed a good article, states that the arms have come to represent England. I think this version should be shown here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Arms_of_England/File:Royal_Standard_of_England_(1406-1603).svg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamWilson989 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that we are all in agreement and that, for the most part (if not in every instance) consensus is against Rob, shouldn't we go ahead and add it back in? As Zacwill states, there isn't much good arguing with someone who won't be reasoned with - H (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"we are all in agreement"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm in agreement with you. I'm just not in agreement with HWallis1993, not with their personal attacks on Rob984, not with their unsourced arguments, and not with their equally unfounded suggestion that we're all in agreement. NebY (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I was addressing the most recent commenters. In no sense do I agree with either of you, at all. - H (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Having noted this issue had cropped up again I thought it time to find an answer from a reliable source. As the definitive source for any coat of arms in the UK is the Collage of Arms I asked them. Although it may be classed as OR this is the reply I received:-

'"Thank you for your enquiry to the College of Arms, which has come to me as officer in waiting at the time of its arrival.

The coat of arms of the kingdom of England (a red shield with three gold lions passant guardant) can be seen in the first and fourth quarters of the Royal arms of the UK. It does not really have any independent life now though it is a protected emblem. From the 14th century it has always been borne in combination with other coats of arms: those of France, Scotland, Ireland and various European realms reflecting the other nations ruled by our monarchs. However a coat of arms is not really available for general use and it is restricted to Crown or government bodies, with permission to do so.

The Royal badge for England is a crowned Tudor rose. However, like the coat of arms, it belongs to the Crown and it will ony be appropriately used by Crown or government bodies in relation to England, with permission.

National flags began as heraldic badges of the monarch but have in a sense been cleared for general use which is why people can use them without permission: the English national flag is of course the red cross of St George on a white field.

Beyond the flag, other symbols have been used from time to time but they are not official in nature and usually have some drawback. An uncrowned lion is sometimes used for England, sometimes for the UK; since a lion appears in the arms of Scotland and those of the medieval Princes of Wales it is not very specific. An uncrowned red rose is used by the English rugby team but again lacks specificity and could be taken as a red rose of Lancaster (though this is in fact another Royal badge).

The clearest and simplest option is the flag 'of St George', the red cross on a white field.

I hope that this helps answer your question but please do not hesitate to ask if I can clarify further.

Yours sincerely,

C. E. A. Cheesman, MA, PhD, FSA

Richmond Herald

College of Arms"

Richard Harvey (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, however, there is no issue content issue. Just an editor or two with a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. specifically, WP:NOR. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Computer & IT Revolution

My edit [[6]] has been deleted on the grounds 'Not appropriate for that section' which seems extraordinary considering that the new edit is highly relative and appropriate following on from the citations referring to the transition to a Industrial society. Currently, the lede brakes to a sudden halt at England's Industrial Revolution; why just that in the opening paragraph? With respect the revert suggests that England came to an abrupt scientific and cultural halt in 1760. Also, my edit was reverted because.....of a Wiki page that doesn't seem to exist. As a result I will leave the article as it is for a few days giving the editor who reverted time to form a response. Twobells^t@lk 18:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening description query

England is a country with a very colourful past, and yet the opening paragraphs of the article are lacking in substance. I'm aware many of the editors of this page feel England is a 'region' rather than a country worthy of a proper page - but if we compare this page to Scotland's then we can see the difference. Just saying. It could do with a bit more spark in the description, additional info in the infoboxes, and much more content in the history section. 2,888 words is hardly fitting for a nation with such a varied history as England. For example, only 223 words are devoted to Roman Britain! And only 56 are given to the Napoleonic Wars! Thanks, H - H (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have any ideas for a change to the lead based, on reliable sources, you are welcome to suggest it here, as for the history this is just meant to be an overview and the detail is in History of England. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Only problem is that visitors will not instinctively click on the link for the history of England page, and thus they are missing out on a great deal of information that is very relevant to the formation of England as a country and beyond. I think maybe we should expand the history article on this page to include a lot more detail. - H (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is little point in repeating detail from another article into this one. Articles get too large as it is. The whole point of having a main article link is to reduce the page size. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015

Why is the GDP listed in dollars? This is an article written about Britain, so pounds (£) should be the default unit. The entire article has also been written in British English, further fueling the reason for my suggested change. If all countries were to use the US dollar to weigh gdp then this wouldn't be an issue, however they don't. Each country uses their own monetary unit to describe their own GDP, giving no reason for this unorthodox change of standard. Absenteee (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind the use of USD in the infobox is that the authoritative sources we draw on for GDP rankings also release their figures in USD - the IMF, World Bank, the World Fact Book, and the UN. As far as I can tell, the rest of the article does use pounds instead. If you look at any other nation's infobox here on en.wiki, you'll see that England is not being singled out for this - GDP is described in USD for every nation Cannolis (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

142.26.199.182 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Declined - You dont appear to have made any request. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's no English Royal Banner, how can there be a Flag of England?

I've been reading the past discussions on the inclusion (and removal) of the Royal Banner of England and it seems the conclusion is it shouldn't be featured because it's no longer in official use. So why is the Flag of England there? That neither is in official use. In fact, one of the only reasons I've seen as justification is a misguided assumption is that flies on Tower Bridge. Which, of course, it doesn't that would be the flag of the City of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.192.35 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably because the flag of England is still used in things like to identify the England team at the Commonwealth Games and is allowed by the DVLA on number plates of cars registered in England, for example. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Bank of England

"The Bank of England, founded in 1694 by Scottish banker William Paterson, is the United Kingdom's central bank."

Founded by Scottish banker William Paterson? No, not quite. Checking the Bank of England Wikipedia lists "The establishment of the bank was devised by Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, in 1694, to the plan which had been proposed by William Paterson three years before, but not acted upon." Indeed, Paterson's entry itself lists him as a co-founder, not a sole founder.

It therefore seems rather disingenuous to try and pass it off as a creation belonging solely to him. If anything it should mirror the same sentence found on the Bank of England page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.192.35 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement could do with a citation but wikipedia is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England#cite_note-16 --89.168.192.35 (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mobile app sub title

On the official Wikipedia app, the subtitle displayed for England is "Country in the United Kingdom". For Scotland and Wales it is "Country in Northern Europe, part of the United Kingdom". I propose the change is also made for the England wikipedia page for consistency. --89.168.192.35 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with this article the subtitle comes from wikidata, although I cant see why it should change. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I had no idea it wasn't sourced from the article. --89.168.192.35 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Also other issues such as different "British English" description for no apparent reason, and "north-west Europe" instead of "Northern Europe", the latter being a cultural area usually referring to the nordic countries. Rob984 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --89.168.192.35 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When it was founded

I dont know — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechBoy224 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the part of the article that says: "...This brought about the political unification of England, first accomplished under Æthelstan in 927 and definitively established after further conflicts by Eadred in 953." ...? It was not "founded" - it emerged through a complex set of processes over several centuries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost no countries 'founded' 500+years ago that exist today have an exact formation date. England is no exception.--109.149.122.34 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on England. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524192639/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50075354?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=Angle&first=1&max_to_show=10 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50075354?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=Angle&first=1&max_to_show=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081116055538/http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukm/history.htm to http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukm/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606141607/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/related-139-94056-articles-reviews/River+Thames-London+(England)/related.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/related-139-94056-articles-reviews/River+Thames-London+(England)/related.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120105132032/http://mambiz.com/main/?cat=28 to http://mambiz.com/main/?cat=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205235114/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_087013 to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_087013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516142837/http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_38277/life/GENETIC-STUDY-British-and-Irish-descendant-of-the-Basques/ to http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_38277/life/GENETIC-STUDY-British-and-Irish-descendant-of-the-Basques/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707100949/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8301 to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8301

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Regional language

Welsh is listed as a regional language. Given there are just 8,248 Welsh speakers is this deliberate or is there confusion about the geographical extent of England? --Ian Henderson (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know, but I think it can safely be excluded from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right to remove it, but a quick note on the numbers: I suspect the inclusion was based on calculations like this, which estimated 110,000 speakers. That may well be an overestimate, but the figure of 8,248 is likely to be a serious underestimate, if you're interested in how many people in England are Welsh speakers, as it's based on responses to the question "What is your main language?" I'm a native Welsh speaker, and I speak Welsh exclusively to my children, but I'm married to an Englishwoman and live in the USA; I wouldn't list it as my main language, but you'd want to count me if you were interested in how many people spoke Welsh in my city. Garik (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's spoken by more native English in border communities then Cornish. Places like Oswestry still have significant numbers of Welsh speakers. Rob984 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I should probably clarify, when I say native English, I mean geographically speaking. Many along the border consider themselves to have mixed heritage. This reflects that fact that the current border was established in the 1500s for administrative purposes. Rob984 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to describe Welsh as a "regional language of England". Of course near a country border there will be an overspill of one country's language(s) into another, but is that really what the "regional languages" entry is for? I daresay that if you examined the distribution of speakers of Polish, Punjabi or Urdu, you might find concentrations in some areas of England, but would you call any of those "regional languages of England"? Note also that the body text makes no mention of Welsh as a regional language. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Conwall, from which Cornish originates is a singular county/ region within England. Wales is a Country and neither a County or region within England. There are more speakers of Pakistani, Urdu, Punjabi, etc than either Welsh or Cornish speakers. To include Welsh as a regional language you woukd also have to list those as well. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Of course near a country border there will be an overspill of one country's language(s) into another"—overspill? So people spoke English in Oswestry before they spoke Welsh? Welsh has been a regional language of England. At one time is was widely spoken in the Marches, in addition to other Brittonic languages such as Cumbric and Cornish in their respective areas. How can you say Welsh isn't a regional language while Cornish is, simply because the areas where it is natively spoken are near another country where it is significantly more predominant? Welsh is a native language of England, unlike migrant languages. I accept most of the 8,000 Welsh speakers in England are probably from Wales, but a significant amount will be native English people in the border counties, like I said, where there is significant mixed heritage. Rob984 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The figure of 110,000 is "an estimate of those who could at an earlier time speak Welsh. Not all of them would still consider themselves able to speak Welsh." Many people born in Wales, and all those taught in Wales in recent years, would have learned to speak at least some Welsh. That does not mean they are Welsh speakers now. The claims by Rob984 that Welsh is spoken by "more native English in border communities then Cornish. Places like Oswestry still have significant numbers of Welsh speakers." - need a good source. And, the fact is that Welsh is not an officially recognised regional language in any part of England - though Cornish is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely—as the writers of the report acknowledge (and I myself noted above) 110,000 is bound to be an overestimate, but 8,248 is just as likely to be an underestimate. In any case, as I noted again, I agree that Welsh almost certainly shouldn't be listed in the article as a regional language. The point is not of course how many speakers it has (it has more than Cornish however you count it) but whether or not it is officially recognised as a regional language, or is spoken by a substantial community of people who weren't born in Wales. The first isn't the case, and we need a good source for the second. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there really are any. Garik (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I accept it needs a source. However as far as I know, Cornish is not an "officially recognised regional language" of England specifically. The Cornish council has a policy to support the language, and it's a recognised regional language of the United Kingdom, in addition to Welsh and others. But there's nothing in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages that designates the region of the UK for each language. Rob984 (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I found an interesting peice on this from the Welsh Language Board: Estimation of the number of Welsh speakers in England

The estimate that 110,000 people resident in England can speak Welsh is reasonable. Such a number – together with another thousand in Scotland and Northern Ireland – would mean that the total number of people able to speak Welsh in the UK exceeds 690,000 and that some 17% of them live outside Wales elsewhere in the UK.

And

Applying these percentages to the Census total of 42,358,885 non-Welsh-born residents of England produces very approximately a central estimate of 12,000 with a lower estimate of 8,000 and a higher of 13,000.

Of course, we still can't determine for certain if these are native English, or descendants of Welsh people who have moved to England.

Rob984 (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so I just realised this is the source you were discussing. Oh well. XD Rob984 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Population map caption

The first map in the "population" section carried the incorrect caption "The metropolitan, non-metropolitan counties and unitary authorities of England". The map actually depicts "The metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties", which is a correct and complete description. The map excludes some of the unitary authorities, i.e. those that are not counties, viz. London boroughs, Berkshire districts and metropolitan boroughs. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Angles v Saxons

The present text implies that the Angles were 'less significant' than the Saxons. A glance at any map of Anglo-Saxon England should dispose of this idea. The Anglian kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, and East Anglia covered a much larger area than the Saxon kingdoms, and probably had a larger population. Bede, writing in the 8th century, titled his history (which covered the whole of 'England'), Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. (Admittedly, he was an Angle himself.) The importance of the Angles has probably been overshadowed by their subsequent history, as the Anglian kingdoms were the ones most exposed to the Danish invasions, and never regained their independent status, whereas the kingdom of the West Saxons survived and became the nucleus of the united kingdom of England.86.184.210.77 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

London, urban zone

User:Richard Harvey, what are the other measures of Urban Zone?? It is a concept defined by Eurostat as a harmonised definition of metropolitan area. It includes the urban core as well as the commuting zone around this core, just like other definitions of metropolitan area. The article does not cite a source for London being the largest "Urban Zone by most measures" so please do not re-add that nonsense to the article. It cites the Larger Urban Zone definition which can be used as a source London having the largest metropolitan area. Urban area is a different concept which is actually far more representative of the size of a city, but that's another issue. Rob984 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

In the sports column it is said that Fred Perry is the Englishmen to win the Wimbledon Championship. But it must be changed because Andy Murray won it in 2013 Mohan Kumar 20 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Andy Murray is Scottish, not English. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on England. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309184810/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/energyhall/page84.asp to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/energyhall/page84.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090324214809/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101122125420/http://environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/31439.aspx to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/31439.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090812091322/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/travel/uk/the-complete-guide-to-cathedral-cities-in-the-uk-760201.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/the-complete-guide-to-cathedral-cities-in-the-uk-760201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826104410/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/hub/economy/national-accounts/regional-accounts/index.html to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/economy/national-accounts/regional-accounts/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141007025625/http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/index.jsp to http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/index.jsp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090912093639/http://designmuseum.org:80/designinbritain/isambard-kingdom-brunel to http://www.designmuseum.org/designinbritain/isambard-kingdom-brunel
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091015140534/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/7/3/bud08_chapterc.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/7/3/bud08_chapterc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202112407/http://ec.europa.eu:80/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc135_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc135_en.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100213214406/http://www.yaelf.com:80/history.shtml to http://www.yaelf.com/history.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131007054858/http://www.magakernow.org.uk/default.aspx?page=336 to http://www.magakernow.org.uk/default.aspx?page=336
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721183112/http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/350th-anniversary.pdf to http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/350th-anniversary.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091030154340/http://www.icons.org.uk:80/theicons/collection/the-pint-of-real-ale/features/types-of-beer-finished to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/the-pint-of-real-ale/features/types-of-beer-finished
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091022105915/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk:80/server.php?show=nav.17022 to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.17022
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090411060144/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/parliamentary_archives/handel_and_naturalisation.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/parliamentary_archives/handel_and_naturalisation.cfm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070701163039/http://www.riaa.com:80/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100407215454/http://www.sportbusiness.com:80/news/161923/premier-league-towers-over-world-football-says-deloitte to http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161923/premier-league-towers-over-world-football-says-deloitte
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828200541/http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tourlife/travel/04/08/trans_atlantic/index.html to http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tourlife/travel/04/08/trans_atlantic/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

English Guyana

English Guyana should be considered with England superficy. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Guayanas#/media/File:Guyanas.svg

I have no idea what you are asking but perhaps you need to look at British Guiana. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Population count

The population count of +/- 53 million (taken from a 2011 source) conflicts with the current 2015 official estimate (on the 'List of Countries by Population' page) which stands at 64,800,000. A minimum increase of 10 million, which really ought to be corrected, yet the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.180.236 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

England is not listed at List of countries by population but the United Kingdom is. See Terminology of the British Isles if this is still unclear. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

‘a tribe that was less significant than others’

Wasn't Mercia, which dominated Britain between 600 and 900, an Anglian kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes... could you be more specific as to the problem? Or are you just asking? 10:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Rob984 (talk)

Status parameter = Country in infobox

There is a discussion at Talk:Wales#Status parameter in infobox over whether it must just be country or whether it can say country of the UK. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

England

The Danish word for field or meadow is Eng and is pronounced Ing in Danish as it is in the word "England". Thus England means "The Land of Meadows" and not "Angle Land" ( Land of the Angles) as commonly assumed in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profoundpaul (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not actually assumed but backed up by the references in the Toponymy section of the article, so you would need very strong reliable source just to mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wildlife

Wildlife in England! Should this be included? - could be a big "chapter".Osborne 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on England. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080427080826/http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk:80/eae/Global_warming/older/Industrial_Revolution.html to http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Industrial_Revolution.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126142825/https://observer.guardian.co.uk:80/uk_news/story/0,6903,406152,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,406152,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/citiesandregions/pdf/1073344.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007105828/https://217.154.230.218:80/NR/rdonlyres/8D37DAE2-5937-4FC5-A004-C2FC4BED7742/0/BC_RS_GFCI5.pdf to http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/8D37DAE2-5937-4FC5-A004-C2FC4BED7742/0/BC_RS_GFCI5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007105828/https://217.154.230.218:80/NR/rdonlyres/8D37DAE2-5937-4FC5-A004-C2FC4BED7742/0/BC_RS_GFCI5.pdf to http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/8D37DAE2-5937-4FC5-A004-C2FC4BED7742/0/BC_RS_GFCI5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708200732/https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110223-710213.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00724.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715070548/https://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/scienceandtechnology/3348004/What-does-being-British-mean-Ask-the-Spanish.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3348004/What-does-being-British-mean-Ask-the-Spanish.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522193002/https://www.britarch.ac.uk:80/ba/ba68/feat1.shtml to http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba68/feat1.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580406/independent_schools_in_the_united_kingdom.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227121544/https://www.tiscali.co.uk:80/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023715.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023715.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216224856/https://www.tiscali.co.uk:80/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0028010.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0028010.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831081620/https://www.worldsquash2008.com:80/the-championships/history-of-squash.aspx to http://www.worldsquash2008.com/the-championships/history-of-squash.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011102925/https://www.newstatesman.com/node/143569 to http://www.newstatesman.com/node/143569

When 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Economy

Why is 'science and technology' and 'transport' listed under economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick876436 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Science and technology section

People more deserving than some of those already on the list are Sir Humphrey Davy,Alec jeffreys, Ian wilmut and Peter Higgs. don't they deserve to be included more than the likes of Richard Dawkins. and isn't Boyle Irish?

And significant 'Inventions and discoveries of the English' not included are DNA Profiling by Alec Jeffreys, the hip replacement operation, antiseptic surgery by Joseph Lister and the dolly the sheep cloning was carried out by two English scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick876436 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also In vitro fertilisation (IVF) should be added to the list along with its developers Sir Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe.

Nick876436 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

"England" is normally pronounced /ˈɪŋɡlənd/. Here is a source for this claim. /ɪŋˈɡlænd/ should be changed to /ˈɪŋɡlənd/. 66.103.163.60 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dr Greg  talk  01:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on England. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ln5KtF1u?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.communities.gov.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fcitiesandregions%2Fpdf%2F1073344.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/citiesandregions/pdf/1073344.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615221043/http://statisticalyearbook11.ry.com:80/?id=82856 to http://statisticalyearbook11.ry.com/?id=82856

When 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well done. Cheers to you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Caption missing on counties map

In the section "Regions, districts and counties" the map is missing a caption or description. This might imply that it's a current depiction of counties, but it isn't. The image file name is "English counties 1851 with ridings" and the image has a description which would be suitable as a caption, but for some reason it's not showing on the page. I would just add it, except for the protection. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.152.2 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've no idea why there was an 1851 map here, as the surrounding text is all about the present-day subdivisions. So I've replaced it by a present-day map. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Way of life in England.

What is the lifestyle of people in England? Jessica Janaviraj (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That question is too wide-ranging to be answered here. You need to devise a more specific question, and ask it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, where editors may be happy to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)