Talk:England

English Common Law

This picture should be included on the England page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Common_law_world.png

The spread of English law, is just as impressive as the English language. Ben200 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cornish language?

As per this Cornish is no-longer classed as an active langauge - should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article states that a UN report has classified it as extinct, but that experts in the field are surprised at this and are suggesting there should be a new classification for languages like Cornish and Manx that have undergone a revitalisation. I don't think Cornish should be removed on the basis of this one report. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think including a language less than 1000 people are fluent in is a waste of time. I would suggest that are probably 100 languages that are spoken by more British citzens than cornish is 86.16.44.160 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Demography of England

"The generally accepted view[citation needed] is that the ethnic background of the English populace..." Citation needed, come on! Even if it is needed, how can this be left uncited? You could put down Stephen Oppenheimer's study wihch reveals that the Anglo-Saxon contribution is vastly overrated, with fully 2/3 of English people tracing an unbroken line to Celtic ancestry originating in south-west Europe. Stephen Oppenheimer's study estimates a meagre 5% of English DNA is Anglo-Saxon.

 Done Citation added. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

england article

please change the england article, it says they were there for at least 700'000 years, bullshit, no humans were around then.

The article doesn't say humans, it says Homo erectus - and per the Homo erectus article: "H. erectus originally migrated from Africa during the Early Pleistocene, possibly as a result of the operation of the Saharan pump, around 2.0 million years ago, and dispersed throughout most of the Old World." I'll see your bullshit and raise you one reading and comprehending ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welsh act of Union

There is no distinction drawn between the kingdom of England, which by the terms of the act of union of 1535 [1]includes Wales, and the presently constituted state which excludes Wales. We list the other acts of union - what about the Welsh!! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Try again - the reference to the Welsh act of union is not in the first section which is where the reference to the Scots one is! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The introduction refers to the Kingdom of England as including Wales, and the later section in Medieval England contains a paragraph explaining how that kingdom was formed. The process was quite different in Wales to that in relation to Scotland - the Kingdom of England conquered and (in administrative terms) assimilated Wales by increments over several centuries culminating in the 1535 act, whereas the union with Scotland was a single event agreed (albeit not by equals) by treaty which ended the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. In my view the balance in the existing article is reasonable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current version seems fine to me, although perhaps it might be more helpful if on the 3rd paragraph of the introduction where it says "Kingdom of England (including Wales)" if the "including" linked to the England and Wales article which talks about how they formed a single legal unit and Wales became part of the Kingdom of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article was nominated for Good Article assessment, however it is not ready to become a GA. I've removed the nomination so interested parties can do a lot more research and work on it, to eventually bring it up to or exceeding GA standards.

I did this as an IAR removal as in my view that was the most appropriate option in this case. If you disagree with my removal and re-nominate it straightaway, I—or somebody else—will "quick fail" it, and it will have failed GA nom in the Article History box—something that can be avoided.

I strongly urge against you doing so. Please work on the article (much) further before renominating.

A few problems with the article and with recent changes: * The GA assessment process requires that nominations of articles with multiple maintenance tags, that are obviously still valid, be failed. The article has:

* Wholly uncited/unreferenced section tagged as such since July, 2008.

* Multiple {{fact}} tags.

 Done Fixed all that :)

• The 'Nomenclature' section is simplistic and an embedded list; ditto the 'Engineering and innovation' subsection.

Finished the Engineering and innovation section :)

• The 'References' section shows a real mess of bare links and a myriad of different formats.

* Poor sourcing. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable third-party secondary sources.

Used numerous alternative sources; see diffs.

* worldstatesmen.org states on its webpage it's "an online encyclopedia" - that's a tertiary source.

 Done Replaced with alternative and better reference in the form of a book. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

* clairethornton.com website states she is a fiction author of historical romance novels. If you're writing on historical matters in an article use appropriate authoritative secondary sources, such as history books published by university presses or peer-reviewed academic journal articles, ideally those specialising in the specific topic area.

• academon.com paper. While there are indeed many MA theses and PhD dissertations on this topic, usually one does not use theses and dissertations unless there are no other sources available. In this case, that is not true. There is published scholarly material on English history. Second, that is an essay selling website; it is far from being an appropriate source.

• I actually wanted to ask; the above articles, even if the general type is far from appropriate, these specific links seem to be fine. I'll see if I can find a replacement reference, though. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently no technical requirement a nominator has worked on the article they submit for assessment. (See also GA criteria and advice for nominators.) However, particularly for larger articles, it is generally better the nominator has worked on the article over quite some time, rather than under 24hrs. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed many of the above; I've now worked on it for a few days and more than 10 edits. Still, I don't feel this article is ready for GA; could you provide more advice and problems that I could resolve for this article? Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Border Description

England shares land borders with Scotland to the north, Wales to the west and the North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel and English Channel.

How does it have a land border with the North Sea...

Maybe something like the following would be better?

England is bordered by Scotland to the north, Wales to the west and the North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel and English Channel. Wgh001 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections form me looks to be an improvement --Snowded (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you do it? I can not edit this page for some reason --Wgh001 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - the article is semi-protected and you have not been around long enough to count as "established"!!!

I believe you mean autoconfirmed :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

TaWgh001 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad; while I was revising the thesis, I copyedited it from an obsolete previous version and didn't notice the "land" part :) cheers, Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"celtic sea"? Never heard of that. Wouldn't "The Atlantic Ocean" be better? Stutley (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Sea might help you out --Snowded (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I had already read that and noted the following: "the residents on the western coast [of Great Britain] don't refer to it as such". Stutley (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, here's a funny thing: the residents on the western coast of Great Britain don't refer to where they live as the 'western coast [of Great Britain]'. So I wouldn't take too much notice of that. I haven't looked, but I'll bet there isn't a citation for that statement. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A phrase first coined in the last century which almost nobody uses is better than "the Atlantic Ocean" which almost everybody does use and have done so for centuries? Stutley (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The article Celtic Sea says 'The northern portion of this sea [the Celtic Sea] had previously been considered as part of Saint George's Channel and the southern portion as an undifferentiated part of the "Southwest Approaches" to Britain.' rather than "the Atlantic Ocean". Daicaregos (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a nonsense name that no one uses. The article on Wales uses the Atlantic Ocean (though I suspect that will change as soon as you've read this...). Stutley (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the traditional borders!

No mention of Hadrians Wall in the Roman period, one of the longest walls in the world and a traditional defining point of where England ends and Scotland begins (even if not strictly true). Similarly but not to such great extent, no mention of Offa's Dyke being built in the Dark Ages as a mark of ,traditionally, were England ends and Wales begins.Willski72 (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of those predated the existence of "England". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By that logic a large chunk of the early history should be got rid of, the Romans predate "England" the Dark Ages (or early Middle Ages) predate England). Hadrian's wall was built in the Roman period which is mentioned and Offa's Dyke was built in the early medieval period which is also mentioned. One was built by the Romans as a border of their lands (splitting Roman controlled England from the picts that made up Scotland in those days) and the other was built by Anglo-saxons to keep out the celtic Welsh. These things helped to CREATE England.Willski72 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c Just curious, like, but roughly what date do your history books say the Romans controlled England? And for how long? Daicaregos (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. Can you verify these "traditional" borders of England with reputable sources? I'm not keen on the term "traditional" though - its very weasely and emotive. Also, it's a common misconception that the Romans only controlled (what were to become) England and Wales - they actually held sway over the majority of the Scottish Lowlands, upto the Antonine Wall, if not further. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the article! That tells you when the Romans controlled England. (If you want me to say it then, the Romans began their invasion of England in 43AD and Hadrain's wall was begun in 122AD under Emperor Hadrian! The end of Roman rule is officially classed as 410AD when Emperor Honorius told the Romano-Britains to defend themselves although by this point Hadrian's wall had been abandoned for a while and Picts had been raiding Northern England for many years). It wasnt called England at the time but, if the Romans are on the page already then you might as well put its biggest lasting structure (wall!) in the British Isles. The Romans did push North to the Antonine wall but if my history serves me it was made of wood, considered undefendable after relatively few years and abandoned. I agree that using the word "traditional" is not encyclopedic and could perphaps be replaced with another word that reflects their historical importance. If you follow the length of the wall and the border between England and Scotland you will see quite an astonishing similarity considering the almost 2000 year gap. Even if we were to abandon the traditional border thing, Hadrian's wall should be mentioned as being one of the biggest and oldest defensive walls in the world.Willski72 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from now. The article does not tell you when the Romans controlled England, or that the Romans began their invasion of England in 43AD (I did check, just to make sure). The article says that the Romans invaded Britain in 43AD. England did not exist for many centuries after that event. This is an encyclopedia and the information needs to be as accurate as possible. This part of the history section has only been included to give some background to the Anglo-Saxon invasion and subsequent control of the parts of Britain that would become known as England. The historical information needs to be referenced through reliable sources. No reliable historian would suggest that the Romans invaded England, for example (well, perhaps David Starkey, but no-one else I can think of). Other articles discuss Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke in great detail. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I reckon David Starckey would give it a go! I didnt realise that there were already articles on my two bugbears (my mistake) and i see your point, probably best to let this one lie then. If anyones desperate to know about them they can look at the respective articles. Thanks everyone!Willski72 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Parliament/ary system

"England has the world's oldest parliamentary system," The Manx Tynwald is declared older. Is there something about the system as distinct from the Thing that makes the statement from the current vrsion of the text correct? Midgley (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad grammar/style

"Crime in England and Wales increased in the period between 1981 and 1995 though, since that peak, there has been an overall fall of 42% in crime from 1995 to 2006/7.[63] Despite the fall in crime rates, the prison population of England and Wales has almost doubled over the same period, to over 80,000, giving England and Wales the highest rate of incarceration in Western Europe at 147 per 100,000." would be better rewritten as: "Crime in England and Wales increased between 1981 and 1995, although it fell 42% overall from 1995 to 2006/7.[63] Despite this fall in crime rates, the prison population of England and Wales almost doubled during the same period to over 80,000: giving England and Wales the highest rate of incarceration in Western Europe at 147 per 100,000." Was the "peak" an all-time peak even greater than in Victorian times? If not, then it misleads. 78.146.17.231 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've made the edit accordingly, although I'm not thrilled by "1995 to 2006/7" - surely it should be in the format "1994/5 to 2006/7" or "1995 to 2007"? Perhaps someone who has the time could check the source.

Re "peak", yes, clarification is needed. It's not a very informative word if we don't specify whether it's an all-time peak, postwar peak, or whatever. Barnabypage (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Article of interest

Editors here may want to look into Constitutional status of Cornwall and Cornish Self Government Move and add to the merger talk.--130.243.155.229 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Snowded quite rightly questioned the use of the words "Royal coat of arms" and the associated image, I checked that England does indeed have a coat of arms independent of the references on this article and on Coat of arms of England - I thought A Complete Guide to Heraldry sufficient as it is states the arms a number of times in that book. I then put the image back and changed the words to "coat of arms" which can be seen in this version, which I think makes this part of the page right - note that the link under the coat of arms goes to the Coat of arms of England page and not "Royal Coat of Arms" as it did before (although the link redirected to Coat of arms of England anyway). If the version I left it at isn't the correct, could someone explain why not?--Alf ^melmac 05:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you provide the page references to what is a long book it it might be possible to validate the claim. The article you reference makes it clear that these are the Royal Arms, they link back to the identity of England with the King, and the use of England to cover Britain. Wales and Scotland do not have a coat of arms (although Wales has one recently created) in the info box which is also relevant here. --Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it was raised at Talk:England/GA1 which notes that it has no current official usage, which is a fair point, and in which case both the image and the descriptor need to vanish. Pages I checked (for your interest) are 136 where it mentioned when used in canton (usually top left quarter), 181 - a page about heraldic lions "The lions in the quartering for England in the Royal coat of arms are "the lions passant guardant in pale", 182 where it described as both the Royal arms and "the three lions passant guardant of England", and 274 where it is mentioned as being two quarters of a shield "gules, three lions passant guardant in pale or (for England). I occasionally meet with one the officer of arms, I will ask if it was ever codified by them and whether there is a publicly available record of such if it is the case.--Alf ^melmac 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

England is not a country

Its not England but United Kingdom which is a country. [2]. So suggesting to remove the reference as country in the introduction. Please reply in case of conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Go and read Countries of the United Kingdom. This has been debated, England is a country so the the UK. --Snowded ^TALK 14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The source cited by Aravind contains (at least) one basic and fundamental error - it confuses the concepts of "country" and "independent country". England is not an independent country, but it is nonetheless a country, to be more precise a constituent country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how is part of a country called country itself? If England is a country and so are Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, then shouldn't the United Kingdom be considered as a Union of countris (like Europian Union)? Or if, the United Kingdom holds the ultimate command in the federal structure, then shouldn't England be called a state or province of UK?Aravind V R (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

England is in no way a "province" of the UK - it has no powers of government (unlike the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). The UK position is probably unique - it is in some senses a union, but it is also a sovereign nation state. All this has been discussed here many times, and is explained in many WP articles - I suggest you read them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No amount of "discussion" will change the fact that England is NOT a country, under any criteria. No country in the world recognises England as a "country". There is no English parliament, no English passport, etc etc... just a few third rate sports teams. England is a REGION of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This article needs a complete re-write by people who aren't 'English Nationalists' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.176.5 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of country, i understand how you feel and i felt the same way not so long ago. There is a difference between a Country and a Sovereign state. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is both a country and a sovereign state. England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are described by many sources including the British government [3] as countries.

Use of the term country is not misleading nor influenced by nationalists, it is agreed by consensus backed up by many reliable sources. We have made sure its clear that whilst they are countries they are still part of the United Kingdom in the first sentence of each article. That seems reasonable and further information as mentioned above can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in the place for fifty two years and I've never heard it called anything else except here. This isn't a question of promoting it beyond any status you feel it may have: it's just what the place is called. I've really, really, never heard it called anything but a country. Except here. This will be my only contribution to this debate as I have better things to do with my time. Britmax (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Virginia, and Alaska called states but not countries? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they are states of the United States of America and New York has never been a country, only a British colony then US state.. the British government and many sources describe England, Scotland and Wales as countries. Again there is a big difference between sovereign state and country, wikipedia makes this very clear and we rightly do not allow England to be placed in international lists along sovereign states.. only the UK belongs there.

If we did not call England a country im not sure what exactly we could call it, England has its own regions so its not a region of the United Kingdom. The only option is country of the United Kingdom. BBC call England a country, British government do, its not for wikipedia to decide these things we can only use the sources and the clear majority now (maybe they wouldnt 20 years ago) do say country.

as i said before i understand how you feel because less than a year ago i was here arguing exactly the same thing that the intro should not say "England is a country" but that was based on my understanding of the word country (i only considered sovereign states countries) but if you read Country its clear this is not the case BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

What does this section add to the article? At the moment it's a list of names for England in other languages which I don't think helps the reader much. Is it even encyclopedic? Nev1 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Could i suggest that the Georgian language be moved to the European languages section? Georgia is more usually considered a European country.78.149.198.37 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer an issue because, as there have been no objections here, I've removed the section. It was unreferenced and as I stated above I don't think it helped the reader much. Other opinions would be welcome and the edit can always be undone. Nev1 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated it, you didn't get any support here (although I concede no objections. Better to tidy it up and bit and improve the formatting, but it has useful information, deletion is too drastic --Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view, a few short paragraphs of text, summarising the terminology used and showing some (but not all) examples, would be much more informative and encyclopedic than the current list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, forgot to mention that I removed it per WP:BOLD. At the moment it smacks of original research and needs to be referenced. Well at least it got people talking. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

, its a mess at the moment but doesn't justify deletion and you were more than fair, raising it here first then being bold is fine. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current list should go, no problems with something replacing it but not a list like that. What England is called in certain African languages is not important enough to be on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Nev1, BritishWatcher and Ghymrtle. At the moment it's unsourced, so should/can go. Even if it was cited, is it notable? I think not. Not seen any other country with this, and certainly not a country article that's been through any formal assessment. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jza, I think I am agreeing with Ghymrtle as well to quote "a few short paragraphs of text, summarising the terminology used and showing some (but not all) examples, would be much more informative and encyclopedic than the current list" --Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more of the inclination there are more important areas of the article that need sourcing and attention. If there is a really strong desire to keep this in the article, then sure, a paragraph might help. But I'm still not sure what function it serves. This is the English language WP afterall. and WP:COUNTRIES doesn't seem to recommend it as part of its FA-achieving layout. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid position, just pointing out that there is a position that it should be summarised down (Ghymrtle and myself), BW and Nev1 may or may not agree with that, all agree it should be cut down. Your first sentence was the one I was objecting too. --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a first go - any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, and nothing there that couldn't be supported but citation if needed --Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better, but it does require citations ("if needed" is an interpretation of WP:V I've not come across before, and I'm not a fan). I'm wondering though if the section couldn't be merged with Etymology and usage? Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well some things are easy to verify (the Welsh for English etc) to quote "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". So if challenged there is nothing that cannot be cited. I'd be happy if if was merged as you suggest. --Snowded ^TALK 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited out the interWiki links to the England articles in the other language WPs - are they acceptable as citations in cases like this? If so I (or anyone else) could easily reinstate them. The problem with merging the section into "Etymology and usage" is that that section is the first one in the article, and readers approaching the article from the top down really won't want the contents of what is now the Nomenclature section at that point. I'd prefer to keep it lower profile, where it is - though looking at it now it could do with a few more tweaks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the prose is a vast improvement, I'm still not sure what value this is adding to the page. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

We're permitted to have four paragraphs for the lead section, and a major topic like England should, in my humble opinion, make use of this. As WP:LEAD requires us to give (wherever possible) a broad overview of the article, I want to propose we insert a third paragraph like (emphasis!):

In contrast to Scotland and Wales, England is a predominantly lowland country, although there are upland regions in the north (the Pennines, Lake District and Yorkshire Moors) and in the southwest (Bodmin Moor Exmoor, Dartmoor and the Mendip Hills). The population of England is concentrated in London and South East, as well as conurbations in North East England, North West England, and South and West Yorkshire, all of which expanded as major industrial regions during the 19th century.

Wales has something akin to this, and I think it would contribute to the lead being a little more encompassing of England as a topic. Up for revision and debate of course. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be bold and put it in, it would balance the over emphasis on political history --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it could do with a couple of tweaks, such as:

In contrast to Scotland and Wales, England is a predominantly lowland country, although there are upland regions in the north (including the Lake District, Pennines and Yorkshire Moors) and in the south and south west (including Dartmoor, the Cotswolds, and the North and South Downs). The population of England is concentrated in London and the South East, as well as conurbations in the Midlands, the North West, the North East and Yorkshire, all of which developed as major industrial regions during the 19th century.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"England became a unified state in the year 927 and takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled there during the 5th and 6th centuries."

But wasn't England unified by Wessex? If so, some mention should be made of this to prevent confusion. 82.139.86.4 (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yea. But at what point did the kings stop calling it Wessex and start calling it England? It's one of those things that has always baffled me - a West Saxon kingdom rises and unifies the country. They name it after another tribe???? Why'd it never become Saxland? or Wesland? Perhaps someone can be good enough to fill us in....! 81.187.49.29 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the people were already called English - all of them, including the Saxons. ðarkuncoll 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

England, the name

Angle as a name of something visible only from the air (a "fish hook") is misleading. As the name has followed the tribe from Germany or Denmark, one should look for the meaning in these languages. Fairy Mary may qualify to be an angel, but may not qualify to be an Angel. St.Trond 11:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Link 17 in the article is dead. You should rather search a Danish or German dictionary for the meaning of "England". St.Trond (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Economics

This section states that there was a certain amount of beef exported "last year". Should this be changed? Mattbondy (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor England!

It seems that the Article on England is rather neglected compared to the Articles on Scotland and Wales. While the latter Articles focus allot on there contributions to society and how “Great” they are, this article is drab and sad… Why isn’t there an Article on the “English” Enlightenment for example? There’s one for Scotland! All I see is bias/lack of commitment…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

lol, it is true far more effort is given by Scottish and Welsh editors to their articles than English editors on this article and others about England or its history, but that is only to be expected i guess although it is pretty shameful when you consider population sizes lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a good reason for that, IMHO. If you look at the history of the Wales and Scotland articles, for example, you'll see that many of the editors (not all, but many) who have developed them define themselves as "nationalists". In England, "nationalism" is a very difficult concept. What national self-belief there is in England arises not from an inner sense of pride which applies across the country, but from England's historic oppositional position to many other countries (Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, etc etc) and its past heritage of triumphalism, whether in industrial development, trade, war, football/cricket matches, etc. Those historic positions generally no longer apply. In addition, England itself is (and has always been) a complex mixture of different groups, defined genetically and by location - between, for instance, the areas where the Angles and Saxons dominated and those areas where the Brythonic characteristics lasted much longer (eg Cornwall, Cumbria); the North v the South (or, the industry-based regions v the trade or service-based regions); towns vs countryside; London v the rest; etc. "England" as a concept dates back to the Anglo-Saxons - but many "English" people have genetic heritage which predates that period; many (very many) descend (in whole or in part) from later Scottish, Welsh or Irish immigrants to England; many descend from more recent immigrants from all other parts of the world. Many of these groups would have some hesitation in describing themselves unequivocally as "English"; that is why much higher proportions than in Wales and Scotland are more comfortable defining themselves as "British". Those factors do not apply to the same extent in Wales or Scotland, where to some extent national pride has developed as a reaction against "Englishness" (and the real or perceived English takeover of the concept of "Britishness"). Hence, "national pride" in England, in a positive sense likely to encourage improvements to articles like this, is in short supply. That's my theory anyway - feel free to delete/ignore it as appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very true, many English editors are far more likely to focus on British articles rather than England ones which do get over looked. You are certainly right about nationalists being responsible for many developments to the Scottish / Welsh articles, which is slightly concerning and troubling but they do a good job and most of the time do it in a fair and balanced way. ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors' personal views don't "concern" or "trouble" me in the slightest, just so long as everyone maintains a NPOV in their edits to articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as long as no one thinks that England doesn’t have a rich culture and heritage, has not contributed significantly to the modern world, I’m fine. The articles on Wales & Scotland are not neutral, as far as I can see, because of there over use of extravagant wording and just about everything written there is praise praise praise… I’m not saying that these people are in any responsible for the over all lack of enthusiasm on this page, but I always wonder when I see Welsh nationalists (In particular) here and taking a specific interest in this Article. I always have this feeling they are here to make sure this Article does not reflect on anything significant (Or dare I say it, Great) that England as a nation has achieved. This kind of rather petty nationalism seems to only exist on the internet. Been to Scotland once before, national pride? Yes. Anti-English? No. Anti-British-A bit. Generally resentment against the crown and government. And I’m no supporter of the Monarchy either…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum about England, it’s about the England Article. Try and keep on topic please!--Wiki Gnome3000 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have seen on Wikipedia's England articles is various nationalists (particularly SNP, but also Plaid) holding back progress on England articles, though I'm not sure why or what purpose. :s I think England's article is the only one without ultra-nationalist rhetoric running through it from start to finish. I've tried to work off some of the things which were on the "to do" list (five months in the making) and am certainly interested in working on other England articles if anyone else would like to assist. I think we can work on getting this to GA if the history section has a touch up. I'll put it up for a peer review and see what they say. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's edits, July 2009

Yorkshirian made wholesale edits this morning, without any prior discussion here so far as I am aware. I've taken some of them into account, reverted others, corrected his grammar and spelling where necessary - but I won't have picked up all the changes, and it would be useful if other regular editors on this page could check to see what other changes and corrections are needed - hopefully, without reverting wholesale. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be safer to revert all the changes - which were made without agreement, despite requests. There were so many, some are bound to be missed. Just as an example - the reference to Cornish language in the infobox has been deleted (& the royal standard - noted by BritishWatcher, below). And, btw, having varied political viewpoints is an important way to ensure balance (please read WP:AGF). - Daicaregos (unsigned)

"..having varied political viewpoints is an important way to ensure balance.." ..??.. Is that aimed at me? If so, I totally agree, but don't understand why you raise it... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's in response to this and this. Daicaregos (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations officially declared in February that the languages status is now "extinct".[4] Varied political viewpoints are a good thing certainly, however, since the SNP and Plaid exist purely to present Anglophobia and as Misortie raised in the message above, there is a problem of various exponents of said movement bringing this bias POV into their editing of England related articles, its certainly worth watching. I mean if you compare the quality of England articles to Scotland and Wales ones, its certainly somethig that needs looking at. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A) the United Kingdom has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of the Cornish language (among others). B) Thank you for sharing your theory that " ... the SNP and Plaid exist purely to present Anglophobia ... ", which, highlighting both ignorance and paranoia, allows us all an insight as to the quality of your edits. C) I'm guessing you didn't get around to reading WP:AGF. D) It's probably best to to get as many edits in as possible before you get banned again. And E) Do even you know what you're talking about, because I don't have a Skooby Doo. Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly the British government in its wisdom does recognize Cornish as a regional language, doesnt really matter if the UN has declared it extinct, it should be mentioned like it is mentioned in the infobox of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why "sadly", BritishWatcher? Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added it back in to the article, it seems a bit pointless that the government recognises a UN exist language that nobody has spoken as native since the 1700s haha. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for readding, it does seem rather pointless to me too but im sure they had their reasons. Ofcourse the more regional languages a country has the less we have to do to promote each one.

Daicaregos, Welsh is clearly a language which deserves recognition and should be equal to English in Wales. About 300 people out of over 500,000 in Cornwall are able to speak Cornish properly and over the past few years they have been making it up as they go along trying to agree on an acceptable written form. Where do we draw the line on what languages should be given protection? Is 5 speakers enough? 10? 100? I have a big problem with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages , The French and others were wise not to sign up to it. But anyway thats just my own personal opinion, i accept Her Majesty's Governments policy on it, so it should be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN is not an authority on the status of a language. If you actually go to the UNESCO site you'll see that it was talking about Traditional Cornish. There is also a video on YouTube where BBC regional news interviewed the guy from the UN who gave it that status, and he admitted that Cornish isn't extinct and that there will be a 'revived' category in the next Atlas. Do you assume something is true after reading it on one fleeting source? Explains a lot actually. Perhaps you only read the headline "UN calls Cornish extinct", without reading the content where Cornish speakers and local government argued against it and even the guy who said it was extinct admitted it wasn't. --Joowwww (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm throughly impressed with the bold changes. The page really needed this kick up the backside. There are a couple of tiny issues with the change, but on the whole I'm more than confident that this revamped page is a massive positive.

WP:GAC anyone? Yorkshirian? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Motto and Royal Standard

According to the article on the motto stated, its the motto of the English and later British monarchy. When the "motto" was first added it was added as a "royal motto". If there is no offical motto of England then should it be removed??? No idea about this but the only sources provided are on the separate article which only talks of English/British monarch.

Also i see the Royal Standard was recently added to the info box. The article on Royal Standard of England says since 1707 there has not been one. So should the infobox clearly state this is the OLD royal standard of England or should it be removed completly? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on the first one. There is an unsourced claim in that article saying it hasn't existed since 1707 due to the union, but this is contradicted by the Royal Standard of Scotland article. The lions are certainly still in use in the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom with them specifically representing England. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're 'not sure' it should not have been added, as you cannot have sourced your claim. How many other of your edits are you 'not sure' about i.e. WP:OR? Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the motto, it was already in the article, ta. I'm pretty much "sure" about information I actually add to articles and have quite a good command of resources. Though expecting me to be "sure" about things I didn't add is a bit ambitious. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked into some sources and it seems to always state that it is the royal motto of England, rather than just the royal motto of the monarch. If that makes sense, I'll put the refs into the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is the motto not of England but of the Order of the Garter displayed on the Royal arms (a personal badge of the King/Queen, not the badge of England), as the sovereign is the head of the order. However, if there are sources I am prepared to be proved wrong Brixtonboy (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor point I know, but I'm pretty sure children attend primary school from 4 to 11 and secondary school from 11 to 16. Either that or I stayed an extra year at Primary school and nobody told me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

I was wondering why all the images on the article have been changed without consensus. I recently tried changing some images back to the original ones but that was reverted. Bambuway (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the previous images should be restored, the ones that were added and decided upon by many editors over time and had consensus, hence their being on the article untouched for so long. Bambuway (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on your basic premise; one of the main checkpoints listed at the top of the talk previously on the to-do list was to "improve picture quality". Thus consensus of things to-do was to improve the picture quality of images which had been randomly inserted. In this cirumstance, your position is that you'd like to propose replacement of an image of a red double decker bus, with a mirky picture of a eurostar train. I disagree on this point as sources say that red-double decker buses are one of the most famous "symbols of England",[5][6][7] thus it is more representative of the article subject. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the images you have added are of a high quality and I also would like to thank you for the additional content you have provided to the article. Bambuway (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Job

Just to say well done on the overdue revamp of this article, looks so much better and rightly so. Signed a proud Englishman! SuperDan89 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done, gentlemen! A big improvement! -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Population concentration

In the lead when refereing to the population concentration should we be using Yorkshire and the Humber which is a current region rather than Yorkshire which is a historic county? Keith D (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Aarghh!! Definitely not!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we should be using the current counties rather than historic especially as the other areas are current areas. Keith D (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

West Yorkshire, maybe, as North and East Yorkshire are largely rural and less well populated.--Harkey (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I modify my initial gut reaction? There is in my view no need whatsoever to use the current Government regional terms in the lead. A term like "Yorkshire" is not (just) a historic county, it is a widely known and globally recognised geographical area. Having said that, I would not oppose using a pipelink - [[Yorkshire and the Humber|Yorkshire]] - to provide a better link than the one to the historic county. The conurbations are in West and South Yorkshire, not East and North (Hull not being large enough to justify a reference - if we did, the sentence would have to be expanded to cover Bristol, Brighton, etc. etc.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; whilst Yorkshire is not a County (with a capital C), it is a cultural region and used in a geographic frame of reference. At best it should be "and South and West Yorkshire", but [[Yorkshire and the Humber|Yorkshire]] would be a breach of WP:EGG. I'm still happy with the status quo though, and it remains a truism. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA review comments

I note this has recently been put in the queue for a GA review. I'm not going to review at this stage, but thought I would just flag a couple of likely issues, to give people an opportunity to respond before a review is done. First, "Economy" is currently a subheading under "Infrastructure". This is the wrong way around. "Economy" should be one of the most important sections of the article, and 'infrastructure' is a subcategory of this (which would cover things like power generation, transport, etc etc). Second, the Culture section is generally thorough, but is missing dance altogether (and opera), while the visual arts section is (surely uniquely on wikipedia) suffering from the opposite of recentism. It lacks 20th century british visual arts, including (for one example) perhaps the most famous sculptor of his time worldwide, Henry Moore, and the prize everyone loves to hate and is reported in the news worldwide, the Turner Prize. Just some thoughts. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

History

These issues need to be addressed before GA review.

Disscussing the last Ice Age, the Prehistory and antiquity sub-section, says "In the subsequent recolonisation, after the thawing of the ice, genetic research shows that present-day England was the last area of the British Isles to be repopulated, about 13,000 years ago." The reference is given as Oppenheimer. Firstly, Francis Pryor gives a different timeframe: "Around 10,000 years ago, the latest ice age came to an end.". Secondly, this is counter-intuitive. Southern Great Britain would have been the first part of the British Isles to have become free of ice (and the land bridge would still have been intact) while northern Great Britain remained under glaciers, and later, tundra. Why would people repopulate an area with few living creatures before an area that had become teeming with life. Does anyone have a copy of Oppenheimer? Is this what he says. If so, is he a reliable reference source?

The second paragraph begins "By AD 43, the time of the main Roman conquest of Britain, Britain had already been the target of frequent invasions, planned and actual, by forces of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire." Frequent? One actual (55 BC), but how many were planned over the following 97 years? Two? Five? The speculation isn't sourced, so we can't tell. BTW the last Roman garrison actually left Great Britain in 407, not 443.

The Middle Ages sub-section begins "The history of Anglo-Saxon England spans the period of early mediæval England from the end of Roman Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th century until the Norman conquest of England in 1066." Yes, it does. But nothing is mentioned of any of the period before the 7th century, other than "From about 500 AD, England was divided into seven petty kingdoms, known as the Heptarchy". This is a crucial period. The formation of England and the English. It should at least be noted that the area of 'England' around 500 AD was not the same as the area of England today. From the way this has been written it would appear that the Anglo-Saxons simply took over England from the Romans. Daicaregos (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages

The contention above that "the area of 'England' around 500 AD was not the same as the area of England today" in my view raises a fundamental issue about this article. In my view, the article must relate to the whole of the area which is now called England, stretching from Cornwall to Northumberland - and not just to the area of "Anglo-Saxon settlement", which obviously gradually expanded after the 5th century or so. Clearly, many of the cultural features of the area which is now called England pre-date the Anglo-Saxons (placenames, folklore etc.), and in parts of England (most notably Cornwall, but also Devon, the Welsh Marches and the North of England), many of these lasted longer and retain much greater significance than in other parts of England. In my view it would be a fundamental error to define England purely in terms of its post-Anglo-Saxon history. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course this article should cover the whole of the area that is now England. But there is no reference to the areas that were not part of 'England' before the 7th century - the west of England and, 'most notably Cornwall, but also Devon, the Welsh Marches and the North of England', nor how they became England. As I say, the formation of England and the English is a crucial historical period. Not to cover it in an article entitled "England" seems rather odd. And, as Ghmyrtle points out, we should cover the parts of Britain that were to become England several hundred years later too. Daicaregos (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More work is certainly needed covering that period - this article is particularly useless! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a first attempt at revising the text - may be better balanced, but perhaps also too long. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you're allowed? re: this and this. After all, you don't live in England, do you? Daicaregos (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't live in Cornwall or Brittany either - hasn't stopped me editing there! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The history section needs a lot of work in general I think. Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff, it doesn't mention currently that for a while the area served as the centre of the entire Roman Empire under Septimius Severus, not information about the Angevin Empire. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Druids? There were no druids in Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Or is that another racist slur? Sorry you don't feel that the fomation of the English people and of England is an important part of an article about England. Perhaps you're right. Daicaregos (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Racism? Hmm, perhaps you think Yorkshirian doesn't consider himself of the same race as you, or is it that you like to call people racists to silence them? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Folklore

I've reverted an edit which deleted any mention of folklore pre-dating the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In fact, much folklore dates from the period of the Britons, who also populated Wales and much of Scotland, and this should in my view be recognised in an article on England - that is, the area, not just the post-Anglo-Saxon culture. I will seek out additional references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Justifying including Celtic traditions and legends on this article by saying that those legends were extant in the area that would become England is (vaguely) plausable only if it is noted explicitly in the text. For example, noting that: the legend of Old King Coal is based on Coel Hen, a British leader in the Hen Ogledd—the Brythonic-speaking part of northern England and southern Scotland, who was based in Eboracum, the site of modern York—before the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Great Britain. Even less plausable is the inclusion in this article of reference to King Arthur as part of English folklore (unless it's made clear that this relates only to Cornwall (& possibly Cumbria)). King Arthur defended Great Britain from those who would establish England. As the article King Arthur says "King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century." Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "English folklore". If you mean Anglo-Saxon folklore, then obviously Arthur wouldn't be covered - but if you mean the folklore in areas that became England, it is entirely reasonable, in my view, to include a reference to him given that he may have existed in the north or south west of what later became England (just as he may have existed in what became Wales, Scotland, or Brittany). More generally, many of the articles listed at English folklore clearly indicate pre-Anglo-Saxon origins, which in my view do not make them "un-English", and do make them deserving of a brief recognition in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course Welsh nationalist vandalism of folklore should be reverted. Its like saying Picts don't deserve a mention on the article of Scotland. Its hardly relevent to say every other sentence "this was before the Anglo-Saxon invasion", since the folklore has a continuity in English tradition long after, it continued to influence many English writers including Shakespeare. I think the section is self-explanitory; perhaps in the article on Wales though, Daicaregos would like to mention every other sentence "but this happened before Gwynedd conquered the rest of the area to create Wales in the 12th century". Perhaps we should say for Norman and after periods "this was after the Anglo-Saxon conquest", such info isn't really that relevent to be repeated every other minute. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

England has a diverse folklore culture of three types: Greco-Roman, Gallo-Britannic and Anglo-Scandinavian. There is no need to quibble about ownership. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Albion

Both Albion and Albiones are most likely derived from alb- meaning "white". Albiones could the mean "the white tribe" or "the tribe of the white (cliffs)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)