Talk:England

GDP

Just one small simple complaint, I would like to request that the GDP be written in GBP first using the £ symbol and possibly in USD underneath for reference, being a citizen of the UK i think its important to use our own currency to display our countries domestic income. as I think all other articles relating too countries should have there GDP written with relation too there own currency first then possible USD after. Jamie Witts, 14:05, 07 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.226.51 (talk)

Edit request from 86.148.32.45, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Subsequent to the act of Union England ceased to exist as a political entity (as did the other constituent parts of the UK). Scotland, Wales and Ireland have since regained their Political identity due to the devolution of Government, As a result England does not in actual fact exist as a political Entity. 86.148.32.45 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for an edit - the point is already made under Governance - "There has not been a Government of England since 1707, when the Acts of Union 1707, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, joined England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: no need for change and if there is it will require more debate to get the wording right so removing the edit request template. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

'Upgrade' two photos

Hi guys,

I'd like to suggest we 'upgrade' two photographs that appear on the article, but keeping their captions and position:

• File:Night London Panorama with Full Moon.jpg with File:London from the air.jpg
• File:Fish and chips (crop).jpg with File:Fish 'n' Chips.jpg

Reason being for their overall quality. These images should be of a much higher quality if implemented. The only remaining image to replace (at least for some time in terms of its low quality) would be File:Sunset at Heathrow on Christmas.jpg. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes, just think that File:Sunset at Heathrow on Christmas.jpg needs upgrading at some point in the near future. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I don't understand the following from the History section:

• "According to John T. Koch and others, England in the Late Bronze Age was part of a maritime trading-networked culture called the Atlantic Bronze Age that included all of Britain and also Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal where Celtic languages developed with the Tartessian language the first written Celtic language so far discovered."

Was this meant to read as...

• "According to John T. Koch and others, England in the Late Bronze Age was part of a maritime trading-networked culture called the Atlantic Bronze Age that included all of Britain and also Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal where Celtic languages developed with the Tartessian language to produce ?a particular language? that was the first written Celtic language so far discovered."

Yours, confused, --Jza84 |  Talk  15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tartessian language has been suggested as an early Celtic language, though looking at the article it seems as though this is disputed. It would be better if the sentence was split to read something like: "According to John T. Koch and others, England in the Late Bronze Age was part of a maritime trading-networked culture called the Atlantic Bronze Age that included all of Britain and also Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal. In those areas, Celtic languages developed; the Tartessian language is the first written Celtic language so far discovered." And, then, it may well be even better if the second sentence was removed as it seems to be contested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear on the meaning of the following from the Population section,

• "The European population totals at 89.90%, including Germans and Poles." Thanks Mrchris (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

History of England Error

I guess I cannot edit this article, but if I could, I would correct this article's count of the deaths of the English soldiers in the trenches from "thousands," to "millions." This error is painfully insensitive to those soldiers' memories, and needs correcting FAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference used is wrong, I think it should be this one (this ref is for "100 years ago"; the ref used is for "150 years ago"). However, the "100 years ago" ref says "The English lost a million lives in this war..." so "millions" wouldn't be quite right. I'd suggest (a) updating the ref, and (b) changing the current prose to "a million English soldiers died in trenches fighting for the United Kingdom". Thoughts? TFOWR 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The source used is not exactly the most reliable. The revised one (I am sure TFOW is right, that is the one that should have been referenced) says a million for England, from memory, 900,000 for Britain is the usual estimate, so the figure would be lower for England alone. Perhaps a better source and "hundreds of thousands" might be the best way of putting it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass murder

The English have killed more foreign individuals than any other people on planet Earth during history. Mostly, they killed civilians in large numbers and not even soldiers. Why is this topic not even mentioned in this article?--93.244.101.1 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable evidence for your assertion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the actions of the 'British' empire and/or the numbers killed in the two world wars then you're probably on the wrong page; this page concerns 'England' which hasn't been a sovereign state for over 300 years, and so it seems very unlikely that any such estimates would be available that pertain to just England and not the United Kingdom (formerly Great Britain) as a whole. You should probably therefore go to the United Kingdom or British people pages and make any such suggestion there. Thanks. Brunanburh (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like tripe to me. I doubt even the British Empire in all history dispatched a tenth as many as the Germans or Russians during the 2nd world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society and Industrial Revolution

I think "England's Royal Society" is a misattribution and should be removed. It was the Royal Society of London. It soon became a very much British rather than England only affair. Likewise the Industrial Revolution. James Watt was a Scot. You could hardly exclude his input. The topic page right lists it as a British phenomenon. Any objections based on sound references? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This whole England/Britain overlap is a problem that crops up all over the place, and there is no simple answer, since for a long time until very recently there wasn't officially such a thing as England, other than in the sense of "that part of the UK that isn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". Even "English law" is actually "England and Wales law". It is possible to discuss England as a geographical entity, up to a point, but not as a legal entity in its own right. I think some parts of this article belong in the UK/Britain article, if they are not there already. -- Alarics (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You say it was named the 'Royal Society of London'; is London not in England? In addition the Royal Society was formed in 1660 within what was then known as the Kingdom of England, and predates the formation of Great Britain (and the UK). Either way I have no problem with it being mentioned on the England, Great Britain (historical) and UK pages; why not? Again I fail to see why we need to strip everything with a broader British relevance from the England page (such as the industrial revolution). Surely these subjects belong on both pages. Brunanburh (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point is proved by the existence of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article appears to contain a fair number of sources that are not reliable.

For example, http://historyofengland.net, a self-published source This is cited ~30 times in the article. It's not the only one either:

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/heroes_adventurers/h_saints.htm
http://www.castles.me.uk/ancient-roman-architecture-england-wales.htm
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/costume.html
http://www.travelsignposts.com/England/traditional-English-food-specialities.php
http://www.worldsquash2008.com/the-championships/history-of-squash.aspx
http://www.travelbritain.com/England/Kent/index.html
http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/index.htm
http://www.goffsoakmethodistchurch.co.uk/page4.html
http://mambiz.com/main/?cat=28
http://www.aboutequalopportunities.co.uk/aboutoursite.html
http://visittoengland.com/england/transport.htm

Really, a GA article shouldn't be using sources like these... Rettens2 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

England vs Britain

I was a bit confused by this article, and I think it comes from a confusion between England and Britain. Some parts of this article should go to the article about Britain and not into an article about England. As the article points out, England didn't come into existence until sometime between 450 and 927, so including information about Boudica or the Romans is misleading since it has nothing to do with England at all, only to do with the piece of ground where England will one day be. So I believe there should be a clearer demarcation between Britain and England, and since there is already an article about Britain, only England should be treated here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemboid (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote only yesterday a little further up this page:

This whole England/Britain overlap is a problem that crops up all over the place, and there is no simple answer, since for a long time until very recently there wasn't officially such a thing as England, other than in the sense of "that part of the UK that isn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". Even "English law" is actually "England and Wales law". It is possible to discuss England as a geographical entity, up to a point, but not as a legal entity in its own right. I think some parts of this article belong in the UK/Britain article, if they are not there already. -- Alarics (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

At what point did England come into existence recently??? England as a country does not exist in any meaningful sense. It exists as a cultural and sporting identity in many arenas but politically, there is no entity to grapple with called England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with your second and third sentences. In reply to "At what point did England come into existence recently?", I had in mind the fact that certain England-only official institutions have now been created by default, purely as a consequence of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland now being deemed to need their own separate ones, e.g. "The Children's Commissioner for England" and "the Standards Board for England". Previously there was, as you say, no separate political entity called England. Alarics (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment of the first point here, as historical reference to the geographic region which we now call England, before England even existed, does seem rather awkward. On the other hand I don't see why England should be different than any other country/region in including this general history of the geographic area. I'm sure such details are present in the pages for France, Spain etc. Are we really saying that references to pre-Anglo-saxon Britain are any more at home on the UK page than on the England page, especially given the UK's relatively brief existence. Personally I think not.

As for the second point here, I really don't think the existence of a region of such cultural and historical significance is determined by whether it's legal system includes Wales or not. Why should the England article be stripped of detailed and relevant information about the country/region because of overlap with the UK? England has existed since 927; the UK in it's current form has existed since only 1922. Given that the UK/Britain has inherited much of its culture, customs, legal and parliamentary system, important institutions (such as the Royal Society mentioned above) etc. etc. from England, I think we need to keep a perspective as to where relevant mention of these belongs. Brunanburh (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would call into contention the notion of calling England a country at all (incidentally the same goes for Scotland, Wales and N.I.), at the beginning of the article. It does not exists as a political entity at all. It is only a country in the cultural memory, and then only of some. For most English people Britishness subsumes the English identity. So who is defining 'country'? Wikipedia lists the Basque country (!) not as a country but as a region or cultural region. Perhaps England should assume the same moniker. The Basque Country in contrast with England, DOES exist as a political entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree about Scotland, which has continued throughout to have separate legal and education systems with their own administrations in Edinburgh. The case for Wales is very much weaker, and for England zero. All these problems arise, in my view, from the UK now being an asymmetrical quasi-federation the consequences of which the politicians have never properly thought through. It has forced people in just the last few years to start thinking and writing about the UK as if it were a state consisting of four "nations" of notionally equal status, which historically is nonsense. That is why the WP article about "England" has taken its present highly unsatisfactory form. -- Alarics (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree but you are rather backing up the fallacy by your statement. Scotland cannot be a country if Wales and England are not. There must be some absolute definition of country here. Analogy of nation-state is about the best one can do I think. On the subject of Scotland one cannot claim it is a country on the basis of having a judiciary and education system. The same is true of many territories around the world, perhaps including the States of the USA, none of which (except maybe Texas) make any claim to being a country. The current situation is indeed a mess as you point out, but with an eye on the broad EU agenda, it explains why culturally these days we are given to believe there are 4 countries out there called England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Presumably the days of the United Kingdom are numbered. Similarly, look at Wikipedia articles about British people. 9 times out of 10 they are listed as being English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, none of which are actual nationalities that actually exist in any legal, political or provable sense. It's completely erroneous but completely accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With reference to timescales, in modern history (the last 300 years anyway) English history is inseparable from the rest of the UK, which makes all the nationalistic Scottish revisionists very annoying indeed. Pre-King Alfred I agree with whoever said you are merely discussing a territory-which-would-become-England and such discussion is perhaps best included under Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 November 2010 (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)

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)