From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article England has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Countries (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject England (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject UK geography (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Coat of Arms of England[edit]

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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamWilson989 (talkcontribs) 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)

Sovereignty in the time of King John[edit]

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,[1], 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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)