Jump to content

Talk:England/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Cornwall

Discussions about Cornwall moved to Talk:England/Cornwall. Marnanel 18:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re government, Queen and Prime Minister

Why does the infobox have a cell saying that the form of government of England is constitutional monarchy, that England has Queen Elizabeth II as Queen and Tony Blair MP as Prime Minister? England does not exist as a political entity within the UK and has no government of its own (unless we want to consider it a confederation of counties). According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has secured the perpetuation of its name, England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit—unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which all have varying degrees of self-government in domestic affairs.

I think that that cell should be removed, however, the structure of the template does not permit deleting those entries. The template would have to be substituted to e.g. Template:EnglandInfobox and after modification it could be transcluded here. What does everyone else think?--Rudjek 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right. Mucky Duck 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried and failed to tweak Template:Infobox UK nation into making the 'government' cells optional. I just substituted the template here for now and removed the 'government' cells. We could make a Template:EnglandInfobox like I proposed above, except that would mean we'd have to go through a TFD to get it deleted, and someone around here may be able to fix the UK nation template.--Rudjek 21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be a platform for anglosupremacist views. The Queen is not the Queen of England, she is the Queen of the trination United Kingdom- supposedly a constitutional monarchy. Look to the constitution! Scotlochy

The Act of Union (1707) certainly implies that England not longer exists as a kingdom and therefore does not have a monarch in a technical sense. However, as a constituent country of the Union it can be seen to share the monarch of the union. Also, the Scotland, Wales and NI pages all use the template shown here: surely if one changes all should for consistency? Jshiell 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
England must exist as a seperate entitiy. It has its own system of government through privy councils, a court system, as well as legally defined ruling bodies such as lord majors councils and so on. England itself is very much a part of the Commonwealth, it is a seperate entity to Wales and Scotland (as well as Mann, Jersey and Gurnsey) in many cultural and political ways under the Commonwealth, and in fact one of HM's many titles is 'Queen of England'. However my main arguement would be to dishtingish EWS's three court systems and law principles as to why England is a seperate entity.
Another point could be that the terms 'UK' and 'England' are regularly interchanged by anyone outside of Europe, even if wrongly. Though England may technically not be a state, perhaps a majority of people think it is, and that is surely work a mention if not substancial more reference to this grey area. Monkus 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox is highly misleading at the moment. England is not a sovereign state. England has no government of its own or a head of state. The last Queen of England was Anne I of Great Britain and there has never been a Prime Minister of England. England has not been a political entity since 1707. Reference to the Queen/Government etc should either be removed or modified to qualify their inclusion is a result of England being a part of the UK. RE:User:Monkus So what you are saying is Wikipedia should pander to ignorance and misunderstanding. England is not a sovereign state and the reference to the queen/PM suggests otherwise. The existence of people ignorant of the fact that England is simply a part of the UK is irrelevant. siarach 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox should be based upon that found on articles such as Bavaria or Texas which are, of course, equivalent to England in that they are former sovereign entities which now merely form a part of a country. siarach 12:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is most certainly head of state, as explicitly stated in the coronation oath. None of the constituent parts of the UK has seperate representation abroad, those functions are pooled, but England is a seperate political entity within the UK and Queen is Queen of England among her other titles.

England does not have a motto, that is the royal motto which derives from Norman French, not modern French. The box should be ammended, or removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.81.226 (talk • contribs)

Er, no she isn't. See here
Each reigning British monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. With regard to who she is Queen of in the UK, she is most definitely the Queen of England, just as she is the Queen of Scotland and of Wales. Of course her official tile is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With Great Britain constituting England, Scotland and Wales. It is just that Great Britain is stated rather than England, Scotland and Wales. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal(s)

I see this article is listed in the category "Articles to be merged", presumably because of the suggestion to merge the section England#Transport with the article Transport in the UK, but there seems to be no discussion as yet. There is an article stub Transport in England. Personally, I would suggest merging the article Transport in England into Transport in the UK but leaving the section here with a reference to Transport in the UK as the main article.
Or have I missed some English "nationalist" issue? --Boson 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the Merge in a previous discussion but it seems to of disappeared. Reason I proposed for a Merge was the lack of information (Although "Air Transport" had been expanded since time of writing) in all transport sections. I proposed the merging with Transport in UK because it had much longer article than Transport in England section. Chaz247 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

additional languages...

Possibly I'm missing something here, but how do we resolve the following two sentences with each other: "British law does not recognise any language as being official" and "Unlike Cornish, BSL is an official language of the UK" So, what is "official" and who decides it? 

Previous comment added by Js70062 (talk · contribs) 2006-10-27T15:55:28

As I understand it, BSL was officially recognized as a minority language in 2003. But Cornish appears to have been officially recognized as a minority language in 2002. This is, of course, not what the article says; so more checking is necessary. --Boson 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

White Dragon Flag

At present there is a section about a symbol of England which is the White Dragon Flag. I'm inclined to suggest that this flag does not hold enough significance for the main England article. Additionally, I do not believe that the source provided is reliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and you will surely agree), as it's content does not cite it's sources and has multiple (albiet subtle) race-related slurs (hence it's reason for promoting the flag). Unless a more reliable source for this flag can be found, it is not permissable to include mentions of this flag on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Jhamez84 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, that site isn't what would be called a reliable source. I have removed the section. Thanks/wangi 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
See also: Talk:England/Archive 2#White Dragon Flag of the English. Thanks/wangi 20:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I very much suspected this was the case. This flag has also appeared on Flag of England article (inserted by the same user), with claims to it being the predecessor to the St. Georges cross. I'll remove this also on the grounds forsaid. Jhamez84 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That would perhaps be the flag of Wessex? JamesAVD 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling

I changed Catherine of Arragon to Catherine of Aragon as there was an extra 'R'. --Xsamix 11:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the British find having a Monarchy to be Necessary?

I was wondering if their is any feeling amongst the British people as to whether or not the Monarchy was really all that necessary......is their a strong sense of National pride concerning the Monarchy? Are most of the British indifferent? Are their people who would like to have the Monarchy abolished?

None of this comes up in the article, and I have never heard anything along these lines myself, but I am rather curious about the subject.......

Thank You Mrlopez2681 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all remember that Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom (as well as a number of other countries such as Canada, Australia, Belieze and Jamaica) not of England specifically.
Though there are a few groups who would like the monarchy abolished, none of these have any serious political representation - for example, the only political party to have an MP in Parliament who also are anti-monarchist are RESPECT. Even in this case, their position on the monarchy is a very small part of their policies (to the extent that the Wikipedia article on them doesn't mention it at all). None of the 'big three' parties in the UK are against it.
I think, in general, the majority are fairly indifferent. A recent book review from the Independent, of a Jeremy Paxman book on the monarchy, sums it all up pretty well - see here. --Robdurbar 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Even if we did abolish the Monarchy we'd just replace it with a Presidency or something similar. Same difference so what's the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

in any case, her majesty the quenn is queen of the United Kingdom, and so should not be mentioned on this page. No monarch has held the title of queen of england since before the act of union of 1707. --Chickenfeed9 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

England is part of the UK, therefore she is queen of England. TharkunColl 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So is Croydon. Does that make her Queen of Croydon? I think not.86.29.78.52 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Very dumb comment. It doesn't matter what piece of land you sit on within Great Britain, the Queen would still rule over it, even though there isn't really any point in having a queen, as we have government. And by the way, the queen could snatch any land you own, no matter where abouts in GB it is. 85.12.80.128 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that she is not queen of Croydon? Which statement is more true? TharkunColl 12:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol - the queen can only be the monarch of a kingdom/s (Croydon is not a kingdom, but part of one). Therefore she is the queen of the UK and of Canada which are both regarded as royal possessions, but rules over Croydon through the Kingdom of Great Britain. From 1603 until the act of union in 1707 the monarch was king/queen of England and of Scotland - the two countries being in personal union (i.e having the same head of state) but not political union (i.e. still separate countries). This would leave the unusual position of the monarch being able to go to war against themself if they so chose!. The queen could be queen of Croydon separately as well, if Croydon declared independence from the UK government, but retained the queen as head of state I suppose.....Freedom for Croydon! Mammal4 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Far better than a president, thanks. (God save the Queen) Bilbo B 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All very entertaining, but what on earth does it have to do with this article? Anyway, Croydon was annexed by Poland in 1307 and has never been formally returned, so it is now really a crown posession of the Mayor of Riga via endless chains of primogeniture stretching over millenia. The same thing applies to Washington DC, which really belongs to my male heirs so long as they are catholics. MarkThomas 13:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

QEII is not the Queen of England, she is the Queen of the UK, Canada etc. Having a monarchy is much better than presidency any day in my opinion. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues about the use of a new map style and the merits or otherwise of including EU member states on maps for European countries. We could equally apply this to the map for England alone: I've made a first stab at creating an England-within-the-UK map for this page, though I note there are questions about the scale. More than happy for anyone to revert this if they feel it inappropriate; please comment at the link above if you have time. JamesAVD 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) England is as big as Alabama.


Lets make http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Europe_location_ENG.png the offical map? Much better than the current one. The Red Roost3r 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Whilst this article has improved somewhat over the last few months, it is still very, very bad. Articles such as our neighbours Scotland and France, and further places such as Japan, and even Bangladesh are vastly superior articles. Certain settlements are also better than England, such as New York City; this is the standard we should be aiming for.

We really need a push from the editting community to bring the England article (and it's daughter articles) upto scratch (something which Scotland has done very well).

There are still basic pieces of info which are needing citation such as England's etymology, and alot of the prose has been hijacked for unencyclopedic means.

If no-one objects, I think that one of the following tags should be provisionally added to the top of the article:


Thoughts/agreement/objections? Jhamez84 13:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, I am considering founding a WPE, in an effort to mimic the success of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Again I'm asking for thoughts. Jhamez84 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Go for it; I'm afraid I've lost a lot of interest in contributing to this page but I do agree that it needs a lot of cleaning up. Robdurbar 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a WPE, at my userpage for now, but the project page needs polishing up. Feel free to edit it, probably along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Thanks, RHB 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Education

I've done a basic summary of the article at Education in England, found on the UK page, but it is by no means complete or well-written. Anyone care to have a crack at it? Thanks RHB 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, Scotland's section is here]. And its big RHB 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing My Sources- Author

How do I find out who wrote this article? I need to cite my sources. ---Nicole McInyre 11-25-06

No individual wrote it - that's the nature of Wikipedia. If I were you I would just cite Wikipedia. If you want to see who contributed to the article click on the History tab, but most won't have given their real names, anyway. Barnabypage 10:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Border country, a hive of scum and villainy

Border country currently contains the line "This made the Borders into a hive of thieves, outlaws, robbers, cattle plunderers, and the like." - 201.51.221.66 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a problem? Sounds fairly accurate to me (speaking as someone who comes of a Borders family). Jshiell 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Border Rievers.... says it all.

Nation

The greatest nation in the world. That pretty much sums it all up.

I make no apologies for being pedantic, but England is not a Nation - the English are a nation, as the word nation refers to people, not land. England is a country, or (constituent country). With the opening line stating England is a nation, I feel somewhat embarrassed at the level of literacy our nation are convaying on the international scene. This needs changing. Jhamez84 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

is convEying Notreallydavid 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its pedantic. There is a certain discrepancy in the way in which the terms "nation" or "country" are understood internationally and how they are used within the UK to refer to Scotland, England, Wales etc all of which are really regions within a country - country usually being synonymous with Nation-state. I cannot imagine that many, if any, of those who so frequently insist that England is a nation would attribute the same status to Texas or Bavaria - both of which have more recent status as a sovereign state while currently forming merely a part of a greater nation-state. siarach 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the contact, I've since found a (governmental) source which outlines that England is a country... it's just within another country. Thanks again however, Jhamez84 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This has been a long-running debate on Wikipedia carried out on pages like this one and United Kingdom. Actually, in international law (for example at the UN) "England" meaning the traditional country of England (eg, not Scotland, Wales, or any part of Ireland) is not a country in the sense of international recognition or law now. It is however traditionally identified as a country and hence the oft-confused nature of international nomenclature, where many people, particularly in the US, interchangeably use the words "England", "Britain" and the "UK" with only a vague sense of exactly what each means, but probably all meaning (nowadays) the UK. The truth is that England is a predecessor "old core" nation of a medieval empire "Greater England" which conquered Scotland and Wales and became Great Britain which later transmuted into modern times into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to give it the proper UN name.
Perhaps a good foreign analogue for this is Russia, which has had many meanings over the centuries but during Soviet times was often called "Russia" meaning the official UN state of the Soviet Union covering many other "countries" - with "Russia" just being one of them. MarkThomas 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
England did not conquer Scotland. siarach 12:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, agreed, as it was originally merged by the first Act of Union, but subsequently after the Battle of Culloden Cumberland and his army go into Scotland and effectively occupy and oppress the highlands in particular. The British imperial ruling class of the 19th century certainly regarded Scotland, and treated it, as just another colony. MarkThomas 12:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
POV. Culloden was the culmination of a British civil war and that battle in particular was fought by a majority of Scots on both sides. Your last statement is untrue although perhaps has some legitimacy with regard to specific Highland/Island regions. Even so the fact remains that England did no conquer Scotland anymore than Scotland conquered England - although given the fact that England ceased to exist under the Scottish royal family in 1707 and that the Scots were disproportionateyl over represented in the new British parliament one could quite happily put forward the latter view ( although i would not). The simple, irrefutable, truth is that in 1707 both England and Scotland ceased to exist as sovereign-states they both merged to form Great Britain. Any other view on the event, such as your own "conquered Scotland..." is simply POV and no supported by the facts. siarach 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You use POV like a dirty word Siarach but it isn't! It's just an opinion, but one borne out by some facts although I won't waste time getting bogged down with it by attempting changes to the article. I was just making a comment above. However, despite your "POV" blunt accusation, I note that you then go on to partly agree with me about Cumberland! Also note Queen Victoria's attitude to the Scots, the Clearances, absentee British landlords, the lowly role of Scottish working class in relation to the English - I could go on. It's difficult not to at least partly agree that England has played an oppressor role towards Scotland, otherwise why the cultural significance of that view, the success of Braveheart the movie, etc, etc? MarkThomas 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposed attitudes following 1707 are irrelevant - the facts surrounding the union are perfectly clear and are not affected by subjective interpretation. siarach 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Very many historians don't agree with you An Siarach that the facts are so clear-cut. Your fundamentalist view on this is itself POV. I can write clipped abrupt accusatory sentences as well. :-) MarkThomas 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My views are a reflection of nothing more than the pure facts, untainted by subjective interpretation or wishful thinking as yours are. Scotland and England were two independent nations which merged in 1707 to form Great Britain - this is fact, your views are not. siarach 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you completely certain that 1707 was a voluntary act by the Scottish nation then? MarkThomas 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, to quote from the Wikipedia page on the subject:

The Acts of Union were far from universally popular in Scotland, particularly amongst the general population. Many petitions were sent to the Scottish Parliament against union, and there were massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish towns on the day it was passed [citation needed], as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in the imposition of martial law by the Parliament. Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, a Jacobite and the only member of the Scottish negotiating team who was not pro-incorporation, noted that `The whole nation appears against the Union'. Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was `contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom'. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from Scottish localities. Anti-union petitions were received from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?"[2]

MarkThomas 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I quote from An Siarach himself: Your last statement is untrue although perhaps has some legitimacy with regard to specific Highland/Island regions. - does this cast light on An Siarach's ringing certainties?! MarkThomas 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


No more than it was by the English nation but then that is hardly surprising given the lack of popular democracy at the time. Both parliaments agreed to the union and thus Great Britain was formed. As ive already pointed out the facts concerning the union and subjective interpretations of one nation conquering the other are quite seperate. You can choose to interpet the union any way you wish but the objective fact remains, as ive repeatedly pointed out, that Great Britain was formed by the merging of two nations not by the conquest of one by the other. siarach 22:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As to your quoting of me i agreed with the possibility of the type of attitude you mentioned but again as ive previously pointed out any attitudes which may have come into being or been present following the union are utterly irrelevant with regards to what the union itself was which was not by any reasonable, objective, stretch of the imagination a conquest of one nation by the other. Ive said it before, il say it again, the facts could not be clearer. The union of parliaments was accepted by both that of Scotland and of England. The creation of Great Britain was voluntary both by Scotland and by England. Attempting to question the legitimacy of the union by bringing innapropriate, and anachronistic, modern concepts of popular democracy and the like only serve to underline how irredeemably subjective your pov on the matter is and particularly so given that the topic is not one which is clouded in any amount of ambiguity or mystery ( regardless of how much certain nationalists might wish it were so). siarach 22:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the acts of union took place. What's being discussed here is the concept of "conquest" - I agree that means military takeover, but as discussed above, isn't that exactly what followed Culloden? You take an overly simplistic view. 1707 was if not a direct military conquest, very much a purchase of Scotland's aristocracy by the English. If you don't agree, you need to go and fundamentally alter the pages on that. Bet you get short shrift if you try! The fact is that I don't disagree that we English didn't "conquer" you Scots in 1707 but we did plenty of other times. Once you've been hammered enough, it's easier to give in and sign a piece of paper. Scotland was hardly a free agent in the "merger" and the "United Kingdom" has always been a bit of an English propaganda item. And it's rubbish to imply that this is just my personal POV - very many have said so. I think in fact you have a (stroppily defended) POV which is that Scotland was a totally free agent that somehow was never subjugated. This is not the view many people have. Wikipedia should reflect that. Nationalist sentiment is not good guidance for objective history writing. MarkThomas 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise nothing which i havent already dealt with in previous comments or which is not ultimately self defeating in being demonstrably untrue and illustrative of a subjective, nationalistic, take on history such as "we English didn't "conquer" you Scots in 1707 but we did plenty of other times". Your last statement is significant and one which i happily direct, in a more pertinent direction, back at you. "Nationalist sentiment is not good guidance for objective history writing. " Your above comments are motivated more by the former factor and are far from qualifying as the latter. siarach 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Scotland was conquered post-Culloden and also it was already a subjected nation with a corrupt ruling class easily out-manouvered and purchased by the English ruling class in 1707. This isn't just my POV, many Scottish and English historians think the same. MarkThomas 07:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I really should resist given that ive already pointed out the flaws in your arguments but your culloden argument is so inherently flawed i simply cannot. Scotland had not existed for some 38 years by the time of Culloden and it takes a considerable stretch of a determinedly subjective imagination to look at the occupation of the Scottish highlands by Scottish soldiers of the British army in the aftermath of a British civil war fought between two royal families differentiated by religion as a supposed "conquest". Quite how any event or factor like Culloden or Queen Victorias supposed attitude can retrospectively confer the status of conquered nation upon Scotland despite the reality of 1707 is beyond me and is really quite detached from any rational objective approach to history. siarach 08:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your POV An Siarach. Scotland is a property of England. MarkThomas 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And so it happens - the inevitable switch from the trumpeting of a POV to simple trolling when faced with simple, objective facts which cannot be countered. You have undermined your credibility in quite impressive fashion and i consider that an end to the matter. siarach 13:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just couldn't be bothered to persist trying to have an intelligent conversation about something you visibly don't want to have - eg, if Scotland really freely entered into the Act of Union or was in fact just manouvered into it by dominating England. You simply deny that and go all accusatory if I bring it up, yet very many people believe Scotland was essentially seized by England regardless of the mere legalisms you trumpet. I think you have a deeply held personal POV that Scotland has always been an equal partner, but this is something few others would agree with. Stand by for the immediate mindless accusatory brainstorm that inevitably follows this, pretending to be An Siarach's thought processes. It clearly isn't worth attempting a sensible conversation with you about this. MarkThomas 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow - this one dragged on. Sorry Mark, don't agree with you. Reading over what you're saying makes this look like Scottish Nationalist propaganda, in the sense of the Scots justifying why they joined the Union (we didn't do it voluntarily - we were forced - when Scottish aristocracy really screwed over the Scots). This kind of re-writing of history usually serves to just cool English/Scottish relations to push forward for the ultimate goal. Inedpendence.
Let's not forget it was Scotland's king who unified the crowns(eventually) and that ironically, I would say that Scotland currently rules England. That's another whole political hotbed... ;-)White43 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Siarach. 'Conquest' in its normal sense requires military force, and also the lack of choice for the victim. Neither of these elements were present in 1707. The Parliament of Scotland made a choice. And to say that Culloden resulted in a later 'conquest' strips the word of any sensible meaning. One might as well say that the Young Pretender 'conquered' the north of England before rapidly retreating. (I probably shouldn't say this, but the current nationwide fit of pique that seems likely to stop all celebrations of the 1707 Union saddens me greatly. Angel of Islington 16.28, 12 January 2007 (NZT)

I agree with siarach too. Somebody should tell Mark Thomas that the film 'Braveheart' was not based on facts but based on Mel Gibson's personal bigoted vendetta. Thus, the reaction in Scotland to that film was based on lies and can not be used in any sort of argument regarding the subject of the Act of Union in 1707.TammiMagee 10:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Britain?

I took the quote someone had about Tacitus' observations from the prehistoric section and put them into a section called Celtic Britain,
Is there not a period of time that should be called this? as opposed to going from prehistoric times to the Roman era,
Please add to this section,
Or if I am crazy, please re-edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spettro9 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

While I agree that there was a Celtic period, this 'quote' from Tacitus appears not only to be irrelevent to the article but also seems to be someones generalised impression from reading the Annuals of Tacitus rather than a direct quote. I think it should be deleted Mighty Antar 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem

Why is the National Anthem for England still showing as "God Save The Queen/King" when on Scotland's page it displays (Multiple unofficial anthems), this is just discrimination against the English. I wouldn't be suprised if a Scot was an editor for this "England" page.

There seems to be an inconsistency regarding England's national anthem. The infobox has it as "God Save The Queen/King", while the "National Anthem" section states that "England does not have an official designated national anthem". Should the infobox not state "none"?--Michig 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so. If it is not an 'official designated national anthem' then the infobox should say 'none'. 85.12.80.128 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference could be made instead to the 'unofficial' national anthem of the Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 which is played at sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games where England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete as separate teams. Aegirthor 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Or Land of Hope and Glory at Rugby? It is in danger of getting messy.--Regan123 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Land of Hope and Glory is Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 - therefore, no mess. Aegirthor 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia treats them as two seperate articles, Land having the music recycled as it says. Regan123 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
So refer to it as Land of Hope and Glory (Music: Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1) Surely there's a convention for referring to similar situations? Aegirthor 11:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN/KING IS NOT THE ENGLISH NATIONAL ANTHEM IT IS THE UNITED KINGDOM'S NATIONAL ANTHEM. LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY IS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL ANTHEM!

England does not have an official national anthem!!!! God Save the Queen is the BRITISH national anthem! Land of Hope and Glory can not be classed as Englands national anthem just because its sang at Rugby matches. Anyway Land of Hope and Glory refers to Britain and the British empire so how can it be Englands national anthem? I for one would not support Land of Hope and Glory being put as an official or unofficial national anthem! Songs sang at sport events can not simply be added as national anthems 'just because'.TammiMagee 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically I believe both are anthems through common usage - anthems for both the UK and England have never been legislatively defined. 'Land of Hope and Glory' is used at the Commonwealth games to distinguish England from the UK, but again, I believe this is from common usage. Jshiell 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have you overwrote everyone else's commments? Englandera7 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people will almost certainly agree with your remarks being "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN/KING IS NOT THE ENGLISH NATIONAL ANTHEM" however we keep pushing and pushing for change. Englandera7 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Jerusalem" played as the English national anthem at the recent Commonwealth Games? I think it's also used in English cricketing circles. Millbanks 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics

Is England really still big in textiles and shipbuilding? Notreallydavid 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No! I've modified this segment - please review. Thanks. MarkThomas 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the GDP statistics correct? They seem to be identical for those of the UK as a whole. And surely France is a bigger economy on Europe than England? User:Ouip 02.41 (GMT), 9th June 07

Population below poverty line

Population below poverty line 17% (2002 est.) Statistically, Britain is the worst place in the major industrialised nations to be a child, according to a new report produced by Unicef.

Why is this subject avoided ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.136.27 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

That's a subject for a page on the United Kingdom rather than one of its constituent parts. 125.239.215.40 09:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag_of_England_(bordered).svg —vs— Image:Flag_of_England.svg

Hi - I've been trying to go through various articles and (mainly) templates to see if Image:Flag_of_England_(bordered).svg should replace Image:Flag_of_England.svg - it's very time-consuming as I don't have any special software like popups or know how to program a bot. If anyone does, please could you give me a hand - thanks!! — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DONE — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Celtic England!??!?!?

There was no such thing. Celtic Britain maybe, but this just looks all wrong. A header and one sentence. England was formed by Anglo-Saxons. Sure, Romano-Britons remained, but it was an Anglo-Saxon overlordship. There was never a Celtic England - this implies England existed as a Celtic state. This should just be removed.White43 11:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of cities, debate?

I'm a bit perplexed by this paragraph under Geography:

The list of England's largest cities is much debated because in English the normal meaning of city is "a continuously built-up urban area"; these are hard to define and various other definitions are preferred by some people to boost the ranking of their own city. However, by any definition London is by far the largest English city and one of the largest and busiest cities in the world. Manchester and Birmingham now vie for second place. A number of other cities, mainly in central and northern England, are of substantial size and influence. These include: Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bristol, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham and Hull.

This is confusing and vague, and it implies there is some heated competition between British cities over which is biggest. The 'preferred by some people' is unsourced - I think there's a wiki-specific term for this kind of vague assertion. It doesn't matter what the definition of a city is in the English language as the only important definition here is that as defined by UK law and convention. Besides, there is already a good article on what consititutes a British city and there are two clear definitions;

  1. It's been regarded as a city since 'time immemorial' usually because it contains a diocesian cathedral
  2. It has been conferred city status by letters patent

Also, Birmingham is England's second largest city. By what definition would Manchester be considered bigger than Birmingham? According to this Birmingham is second with a population of 1,020,589, and Manchester is seventh (removing Edinburgh and Glasgow from the list, naturally) with 448,850. (Also, just look at the cities on Google Earth - Birmingham is vast)

The confusion about the size of Manchester is due, i think, to whether you include Greater Manchester or just the city of Manchester which is much smaller but even so I am very surprised that Manchester is 7th on that list I thought it was third largest. can anyone find another source to confirm this? --Cap 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some mention needs to be made of London's status as a global city as well.

I thought I'd get some feedback on this before ploughing in with an edit, just in case there has been a massive debate on this. I can't see that there has though.

Aegirthor 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The West Midlands conurbation is vast, but it isn't all Birmingham. Solihull residents, for example, don't consider themselves to live in Birmingham, and officially they don't. Since we need to be encyclopaedic, surely the only approach when discussing 'cities' is to use official definitions of cities and official city populations, rather than using 'urban area' figures, which could/should be discussed separately.--Michig 11:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, so we just need to get some official UK Government figures for the populations and areas. I'm sure there around somewhere on the Home Office site. Well, they should be. Still, the paragraph needs a total rewrite as it's nowhere near encyclopaedic. I'll post figures if/when I find them... Aegirthor 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a long running debate exhaustively analysed for example at Talk:Birmingham, Talk:Manchester and at Second city of the United Kingdom where a small group of pro-Birmingham editors persistently refuse to allow an NPOV edit of the page. The fact is that there is very considerable debate about the pecking order of cities in Britain. The simplistic population count showing Manchester 7th quoted above is a classic example of the absurd over-simplification involved in going on local authority boundary counts, which is the basis of that calculation. Many do believe (particularly the UK government and public authorities as well as many international organisations and companies) that Manchester is Britain's second city. There are many criteria for evaluating second city status, and these include conurbation population, business and commercial significance, numbers of public and private organisational headquarters, transport networks, universities, cultural centres, media outlets and other criteria besides. The main challenges in the pecking order in Britain are for second place after London (contenders: Manchester, Birmingham and possibly Glasgow), third place (contenders: Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham) and fourth (Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow). MarkThomas 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, that clarifies things a bit! Since mention of cities and urbanisation is important in any section on geography, shouldn't it be rewritten in a way to avoid these contentious issues? How much of England is considered an 'urban area'? That should be included, along with the ratio of rural to urban dwellers. The whole 'pecking order' debate can be avoided by referring to England's largest cities as, "England's largest cities and urban areas include [list in alphabetical order]" I don't think that the pecking order is a vital enough piece of information to hijack any mention of urbanisation in England. Aegirthor 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but the "largest cities" depends completely on whether you're talking about Local Authority populations or urban sub-area populations. For example, the local authority area City of Leeds has over 700,000 people within and is the second largest English local authority, but includes large rural areas and other towns that quite definitely aren't Leeds. Leeds, the urban sub-area, on the other hand has a population of about 450,000. You have the age-old "London" quandary, as the City of London local authority is tiny (so to say by any definition London is by far the largest English city is false if you select local authority areas) and the daftness that is the large Boroughs of Kirklees, East Riding of Yorkshire, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral and Sandwell - none of whom are cities or towns in any meaningful sense; whilst local authorities such as Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, City of Wakefield and others are agglomerations of towns that are simply named after the largest settlement within.

It's also not true to say that continuously built-up urban areas are hard to define. The ONS defines exactly such a thing - they're Urban Sub-Areas. The list of these can be found at List of English cities by population. That list should be compared to List of English districts by population to gain a better understanding of the issues at stake.

The largest 15 Urban Sub-Areas are:

The largest 15 Local Authority areas are:

I know this all muddies the waters, but hopefully the above should show the extent of the problem, on a purely population size basis. Fingerpuppet 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

England IS NOT a country

England is a province in Great Britain, not a country. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/englandnot.htm

Okay, whatever. I think a few million people will disagree with you. You've clearly not read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country

It's not a province, it's a former Kingdom. It's a constituent country now. White43 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting though because the article calls it a "country" and as we know that tends to imply sovereign state which it of course isn't. MarkThomas 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

England is NOT sovereign, so it should NOT be called a country. Why is this a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.190.177 (talk • contribs)

If it's not a country then it doesn't have a capital city so London needs revising. Aroberts 10:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In what way aroberts? London does make it fairly clear that it's a de-facto capital and has never been formally announced as capital city. This belongs to the mists of the British "constitution"al "arrangements". :-)
Actually, I stand corrected - just checked and that's what it used to say - now it boldly claims in the first line that London is the capital city of England and the UK. Whilst this is of course traditionally correct, it isn't technically - England is not a country in the modern since so it has no constitutional capital - the other capitals, Cardiff and Edinburgh have a similar "traditional capital" status. MarkThomas 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
But England is a country - that's how the word "country" is used. A country does not have to be a sovereign entity, otherwise Scotland wouldn't be a country either. In any case, since England comprises 83 percent of the population of the UK, which it completely dominates, it seems a bit disingenuous to say that it isn't sovereign. TharkunColl 10:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Read Country - quite true that the concept of "country" does not always imply current sovereignty, but sovereignty is more of a legal international concept than country, and by international legal standards, Scotland, Wales and England are not sovereign. The UK is the sovereign entity. "Disingenuity" has nothing to do with it. MarkThomas 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
England is not a country, and it shouldn't be called one here. There has to be a way to change that first sentence. How about "England (pronounced IPA: /ˈɪŋglənd/) is an area in north-west Europe and is the largest and most populous constituent country". That sounds more honest and less redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.58.190.177 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. A slight improvement on that would be England (pronounced IPA: /ˈɪŋglənd/) is an historic nation-state and (since 1707) constituent country of the United Kingdom and is the largest and most populous constituent country? I think most people know it's in NW Europe and it has the locator map in the infobox to help. We should also emphasise the historic nature of England as a former national state. MarkThomas 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that, but could we replace nation-state with sovereign nation which is perhaps a touch more specific? --Regan123 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Country n. Region; territory of nation. * Nation n. Society united under one government in a State. (Oxford dictionary). Of course England is a Country. 80.192.242.187 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Could England, say, switch to the Euro whilst the remaining part of the U.K. stay with the Pound? If it was a sovereign nation it could. As it isn't, this is an impossibility. Does england vote in any world governing bodies like, oh, I don't know, the United Nations? No, of course not. It would be like Utah decidng to go it alone and design their own money. England may be a former country, but is certainly not one any more.
Insisting that England is a "country" seems like a definite anglophile POV statement. Lighten up...
This whole argument fundamentally ignores the difference between a sovereign and non-sovereign country. It is is the latter case which applies here - at least three of the "constituent countries" of the UK are commonly considered to be (non-sovereign) countries. As to the "world governing bodies" question, I can immediately think of the International Football Association Board, which determines the rules of football ("soccer" to some), where England, Scotland, Wales, and (Northern) Ireland each have 1 vote, and FIFA, representing the other 200-odd football-playing countries of the world, has 4 votes. -- Arwel (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't we are ignoring that point Arwel, that's what the debate above centres on. We really do need a new opening sentence. At the moment it is too definite and does not make the sovereignty issue or the historic nation/sovereign state issue clear. MarkThomas 01:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Football is so trivial a matter, that it plays no part in this discussion. Great Britain (United Kingdom) is made up of four countries, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. And London is NOT the largest city in England, like it says in the article. 80.192.242.187 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Might be worth you having a read through British Isles (terminology) - the comment above and your recent edit to the article leaves me believing you're not aware of the differences between the terms United Kingdom and Great Britain... Ta/wangi 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain hence the sovereign state's name being United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And London is the biggest city - the City of London is not however. They are two very different things. --Regan123 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just read about it and I am wrong in what I thought! I understood Ireland to have been part of Great Britain and that Northern Ireland had remained so after the separation. You learn something new every day! Whatever will they think of next? 80.192.242.187 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
That's why we have British Isles (terminology). There's quite a long precedent on England, Wales and Scotland for calling them all 'country'. The thing is, the term 'country' is ambiguos, compared to the terms nation/(sovereign) state which are well defined (if misused). Now many definitions can be found to contradict these but they ARE WRONG. This is taken from this book which I own. I'll try and find an online source too. Anyway, according to social sciences - "nation" is a group of people with a shared history and identity based on either ethnic or civic ties; "(sovereign) state" is a collection of institutions that together control a given territory; "country" is a rather vague term referring to the land and peoples of either a nation or a state.
So England=coutnry. The point is, its an unspecific term. Robdurbar 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


In the commonwealth games england ,scotland,wales and even the isle of man compete seperately and the term used is nations, so you could say england is a nation of the united kingdom.

No! Because a nation is a group of people, not a division of land. It might be worth mentioning that every other respected/major encyclopedia article about England opens with the fact that it is a constituent country of the UK. This was also referenced some time ago in this article and should not have been altered. It is the most technically accurate, and verifiable, (not to mention true), that England is a constituent country. 81.132.6.112 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article contains a link to constituent country surely that explains the technicalities.

I just changed the article this morning to emphasis that England is a constituent country, and someone changed it back to saying that it is a country! This really needs to be sorted out because most people's interpretation of country is a sovereign state, which England is not. We have already established that the term country is ambiguous, but not everyone understands the differention between nation, nation state, sovereign state and country; to most people these 4 terms mean the same thing, but during the course of this discussion we have established that they're not. So, rather than argue about what a country really is, let's use a layman explanation of what a country is, then determine if England fits that description. If this means that England is a 'country', then so be it, but I don't think this will end unless we all agree one way or the other. Sjetha 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources of the United Kingdom article quotes the title of a page on the 10 Downing Stree website: Countries within a country, which would suggest that each Constituent country is exactly that exist within a sovereign nation, the United Kingdom. I agree completely that England should be referred to as a constituent country, not merely a country. If you find another official source (i.e. on a government website or the EU) that says otherwise, then maybe we need to reconsider. --Jatkins 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the person who actually brought this up and thank that person again because I am not the only one who is debating this constantly. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not countries but are nations undeniably. Hence the term "Home Nations" rather than "Home Countries". Also, one could point out that England has not signed a treaty since 1707, given that it doesn't have that authority?Sitegod 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. England is, and historically always has been, a country. I've never, ever, heard England referred to as a "sub-division of the United Kingdom". Technically that is true, because it is, but moreover it is a country. I believe it is appropriate to say "constituent country", as, since the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that is the status that the four consistuent countries have aquired.
But they are still countries. Don't try telling a Scottish person that Scotland isn't a country. Nor tell a Welsh person that Wales isn't a country. Or a Northern Irish person that Northern Ireland isn't a country.
In the same way, England is a country They are all countries, but also members (constituent country) of a larger country, the United Kingdom.
I'm all for discussion, however, but I will always believe this is correct.

--J. Atkins, an English Wikipedian. (talk | contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you there, Jatkins. Although I would be wary of saying "Northern Ireland is a country", as that's a very contentious statement.  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I would have to say in my opinion that England is very much a Country in that it has a powerful nationional identity. What it most definately is NOT is a distict and seperate political Entity.

Scotland

I've noticed on the Scotland article editors won't allow the fact box map of Scotland to display the rest of the UK in a shaded colour, making Scotland seem like a separate country outside of the UK. Can editors from here who support union the UK please help make sure that UK country fact boxes keep the rest of the UK shaded in a lighter colour especially with how popular Wikipedia is on the internet now and at a crucial time for union of the UK it's silly and dangerous to the UK for people to push separatist POV on UK articles unless people want to see the future of the UK become like that of the Balkans. Please help keep the UK together for everyone's sakes.

The maps show locations, not connections or affiliations. (One might as well argue that the rest of the EU should be shown in yet another shaded colour.) Also, introducing intermediate levels of colouring could be confusing - there will be Wikipedia readers who don't have the faintest idea where Scotland is, and a simple distinction between Scotland and not-Scotland is the best way to illustrate it for them. Barnabypage 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Where in the policies of Wikipedia does it say factbox maps are only for simple location and not for connection or affiliation? The only guidance I can find, on infoboxes generally, says that is exactly what they are for. MarkThomas 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Military of England

I suggest a section be included in the article on the military of England like the Scotland article has. Also a new article on the military of England should be created. Somethingoranother 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and where is the information on tourist locations that are popular?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against allowing the natural rivalry between Scotland and England to escalate into trying to make each article better than the other. We are not here to outdo each other. Admins have been informed of my concerns of this "wiki-war".Gavin Scott 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The England Map on the England page is wrong - its a UK map.

The "England" Map on the England page is wrong?, A UK map is shown, not map of England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.55.16 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Err. This map? [1] That's definitely England, there in green. I'd recognise it anywhere. --Khendon 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Country

I have changed the first sentence of this page from 'country' to 'entity', as contrary to popular belief England is an entity, as part of the UK and is in fact not a country alone. --Ash online 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this. This is well trod territory with regards this and other UK articles. The current lead to this article is the result of much discussion and consensus building and shouldn't be changed without discussion. The use of the word country does not imply sovereignty (which is I think what you're driving at here - the UK is the only soverigh country). Take a look at the definintion at Country and Constituent country which explain this difference more clearly. Also take a look at the definition on the government Number 10 webpage [2] which describes constitutent country (countries within country).Mammal4 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, and you are correct, however, England is best described as an entity of the UK, since the act of union between England & Scotland in 1707. --Ash online 15:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Entity is not the best word to use to describe England as it isn't used in common palance to describe geography and isn't going to be understandable to the majority of casual readers. The term country on the other hand, whilst often misused in everyday speech is a term familiar to all and the suble shades of its meaning are well described on wikipedia such that readers can easily find out what the specific geographical/historical/political breakdown of the UK is.

It seems that you are new to editing wikipedia, so maybe are aware of how consensus is built on an article. Generally on established articles such as this it is customary to post suggested changes on the discussion page first and form a consensus opinion especially where changes to the lead section are concerned, so as to avoid an edit war. It is often likley that the specific wording has undergone much discussion/revision by a succession of editors and the result reached through a group decision, and is not the result of a signle careless uninformed edit. I will drop a set of guidelines on your userpage when I have a moment. Take care Mammal4 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Further to the above, I would also like the template, which appears on many pages, such as Market Deeping to be changed, so that it shows the Union flag at the bottom and not St George's cross. Otherwise there is no mention on any of the pages that feature that table that they are part of the UK, as their country, and not England. --Ash online 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. It seems inconsistent to show the map of the UK and the flag of England in the same template. This is the sort of thing that leads to England/UK confusion. In order to avoid this confusion, the UK map should be changed to an England one, or the England flag should be changed to a UK one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In order that this be effective, all UK towns would have to the Union Flag in my view. However, it is unlikely that Scots would put up with that, so it looks as though we're going to have to change the map, much to my malcontentedness! Lofty 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
just another point...should this discussion be in the talk of Template:Infobox England place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lofty (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


New Table

I would like to start a debate regarding the use of a new template on various UK settlement pages, to include the union flag at the bottom, unlike the English version (Template:Infobox England place) in the hope that it will increase public awareness of the difference between England and Britain. In order to do this a concensus is necessary and I would therefore appreciate any possible support. A copy of this template can be seen on the Market Deeping page or here is the template itself Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. Many thanks. --Ash online 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We have templates for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I'm not aware of any settlements within the United Kingdom that don't come under one of those categories. Average Earthman 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that sticking a union flag on the bottom will particularly help, although in the previously mentioned context of the UK map with a St George's Cross I must agree that the new template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map makes more sense. it does not make sense to have the place in a UK context, with the St george's flag. Unfortunately it does remove my beloved wiki continuity. Lofty 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The most appropriate place for a discussion is probably at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography as this page seems to be watched by the broadest section of UK geography editors Mammal4 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Without expressing any view on the matter, I'd just like to point out that Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map has been nominated for deletion. If you wish yo comment on this nomination, go to the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Galery

This article is already too long, do we really need this gallery section? What purpose does it serve? You would need hundreds of pictures to show even a snapshot of England. I will remove it tommorow if nobody objects. Luke C 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I object. The gallery is an increasingly common feature of Wikipedia; For ne it served to stop the main text becoming overpopulated with images, helped to link to articles that otherwise would not be, and help to establish a visual context for readers who may be impaired or of low learning ability (dyslexics, young children, non-English speakers).
I'm going to re-instate the gallery on these grounds. Jhamez84 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for country articles

There is a recommended template on WP:WPC, where the sections go as follows:

Each section should have a {{main}} below the heading.

The sections are:

  • History - A brief outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs should do), including at least a paragraph on the current events going on there. Link to "History of X".
  • Politics - Short overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Link to article "Politics of X", and also to "Foreign relations of X".
  • (Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available.
  • Geography - Quick description of the country's main features, climate, . Include link to "Geography of X".
  • Economy - Something brief about the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Link to "Economy of X".
  • Demographics - Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Link to article "Demographics of X".
  • Culture - Give a short summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known artists. Link to article "Culture of X".
  • Miscellaneous topics - a list of links to all the other topics closely related to the country. The four other default CIA subpages should be listed here (communications, transportation, military, foreign relations)
  • External links - Links to (official) websites about the country.

Whats the general opinion and moving to this? I think it would cut the article greatly without losing any real content - the history section goes into a fair amount of detail for example, as do other sections. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on this? RHB Talk - Edits 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember editting the England article to conform more with this template when I gave it an overhall last year. I think the article conforms to this guide for the mostpart, but may need a tweak and prune here and there.
My main concerns are the lead section (it is often hijacked by new or anon editors who contribute inappropriate content), the Politics section (it has an overbearing amount of content on English independance and reads as if it is compromised), and the Culture section (which was pathetic in the summertime, but has now overmatured and needs some pruning back.
I think we could do with some leadership to help maintain the England article a little better, and direct new contributions to sister articles such as History of England, Culture of England, Music of England etc. This is something Scotland has been very successful at achieveing.
Bangladesh is a featured country article which may be useful to use as an example. Jhamez84 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man and Channel Islands

Both of these are Crown dependencies that is dependencies of the Crown the clue is in the name, they are nothing to do with england and Somethingoranother could you provide a source stating that England accounts for 98% of the UKs GDP --Barry talk 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Somethingoranother's talk page. Please monitor contributions. Jhamez84 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you don't believe that England accounts for 98% of the UK's GDP you should try working it out for yourself... Somethingoranother 23:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti England sentiment by editors

I have noticed that a lot of information on this article is regularly being deleted particularly any which presents England in a positive sence. I have also noticed that a lot of this information being deleted on a regular basis is done so by editors who on their talk pages have very pro Celtic statements and their contributions list shows they regularly contribute to Cetlic related articles, which I checked were always contributed to in a positive manner in contrast to their negitive edits of England related articles. Can this Anti-England sentiment from what looks like users who are from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Celtic sympathizers in the USA please be stopped and if needs be reported so that further damage to this article cannot be allowed to continue. I fear if left to their own devices they'll cut this article down to nothing more than a stub. Somethingoranother 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Such concerns deserve to be taken seriously; but I've just taken a look at some of the back-and-forth in the page's history and I have to say the main difference between your versions and the responses to them by other editors has not been pro- or anti-England POV: the main difference has been encyclopedicity. We are all striving to write something which seems like something a serious and responsible encyclopedia would write. I'm an ardent Anglophile and I'm quite satisfied, looking at most of the reversions your edits have suffered, that their editors were wearing good-faith 'make the wikipedia better' hats, nothing more sinister. Doops | talk 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I also echo these sentiments. I'm an Anglophile, and have contributed much to get the article upto scratch, but there are strict policies with regards to content inclusion which we all must adhere to. With regards to the text both under this heading, and the above heading, perhaps it may be useful to ask for a peer review to help move the article forwards? Jhamez84 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


English did not originate in England. The Anglo-Saxons brought it to the whole east-coast of Britain. In fact, in Aberdeenshire, there is a dialect spoken there called 'Doric' which is said to be the closest dialect in the UK to how the Anglo-Saxons originally would have spoken.

What a random (and wrong) statement! First off, the Anglo Saxons were not one people (the name is a bit of a give away to start with) and spoke a raft of different Germanic language dialects, not English. Secondly, English as we now know it developed from these dialects in England over the subsequent centuries whilst also taking influences from Norse languages, Norman French and the indiginous celtic languages; although related it is distinct from these Anglo Saxon languages. Saying that the Saxons brought English to England makes as much sense as saying we all really speak Proto-Indo-European from which all Indo-European languages are derivedMammal4 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
if english didnt originate in england why is it called english?, i assume that by this sentiment 'french' didn't originate in france 'german' didn't originate in germany and 'yankee doodle dandy bulls**t about england not being a country' didn't originate in yankee doodle dandy land (aka US America). iammadeofjelly 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


Has anyone read the book called The Evil Empire: 101 ways england ruined the world? Phu2734 07:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

English people

Hello everyone. Was wondering if someone could explain this statement: "It is believed amongst English nationalist circles that the 'natural culture' of England is comprised of legacies of Brythonic tribes of Celts and Anglo-Saxons appearing in waves of gradual migration" Don't understand the inclusion of the word 'nationalist'- how does this interpretation of history/archeology justify the 'nationalist' tag? I gather that there are simply two competing theories in historian circles, and support of one or the other doesn't seem to me to have bearing on political orientation- have I missed something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atillashardermate (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Agree - this smacks of attacking nationalists for the sake of it. The statement is fact, the English are a result of Anglo-Saxon and Brythonic tribes migrating and intermingling. White43 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP and GNP figures for England

Could somebody supply a good reference for the GDP and GNP figures for England?

GDP ? Are you crazy ? The GDP of England means nothing, we should be more preoccupied about the inequality between the people in this country, and our 17% of 'under poverty line'. The UK has the worst rate of child poverty in the European Union – a third of Europe’s poorest children live in the UK.


Through the recent article history you can find this information was previously in the article:

GDP (PPP) 2006 

- Total 	$ 1.8 trillion IMF 2006
- Per capita 	$ 35,300 IMF 2006


Now the article says this:

GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate 

- Total 	$1.9 trillion (6th)
- Per capita 	$37,482 (5th)

And also adds this:

GDP (nominal) 2006 estimate 

- Total 	$2.3 trillion (5th)
- Per capita 	$45,373 (7th)


Though it is far from clear why a nominal figure is at all useful.

Even the earlier "IMF" figures were not provided with an actual reference.

Additionally, the rankings in parenthesis seem misleading, linking as they do to tables of states and/or internationally recognised independent countries, and England is neither of those. When it says "5th" for GDP-PPP per capita, for example, it links to a table where Iceland, not England, is 5th. Robertbyrne 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

HDI

How come it says in the Infobox that England's HDI fell? I find this hard to believe considering almost all HDIs increase apart from extreme cases like Zimbabwe and North Korea. Could someone please change this. Userofwiki 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the HDI for the UK and it also says 9.40 which is also the same figure given for the HDI of England but the difference is it says the UK's HDI increased. I think the HDI given for England isn't actually England's HDI and is taken from the UK's HDI. It seems to conflict that England's HDI says it fell. Userofwiki 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

London, Largest City in England?

The article states that London is, 'by any definition' Englands largest City. The City of London is clearly NOT the largest City in England. Greater London is NOT a City, as it does NOT have 'City Status'. Wikipedia has conflicting articles on this. Greater London article says Greater London is not a city, London article says City of London is one square mile, yet England article says London is Englands largest city. ? 80.192.242.187 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

The confusion here is that the City of London is simply the name for the financial district of London - a bit like New York's Wall Street. While it is only comparatively small (The Square Mile) London itself is a large city and, depending on how its boundaries are definied, is a global city. (Ajkgordon 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Major city...

... is one of the three most major cities in the world alongside New York City and Tokyo [5] and is a Global City ...

First, this is useless information. Second, the 1991 article/book is a bit outdated for today's reality; and last what does major cities and Global city mean anyway? Why Paris, Sydney, São Paulo, Beijing, L.A., Rome, (and the list go on and on), is not included there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.175.209.212 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

have a look at Global city. People in the past have tried to categorise cities by importance, and grade them in some way. There is some stuff in this article about some of these different methods - global city is a term used within this type of study Mammal4 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

English law

Why is English law only mentioned in passing in this article? Surely the fact that English law played a key role in the history of law worldwide (eg. foundation of US law) is worth a little mention in the introduction, plus its own subsection? -- Mais oui! 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ytgutbsyt

i wantedjust to tell that you need to translate this page in ewery languges that is in the world!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.110.11.158 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GazMan7 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

re the penultimate point - see Turnham Green


Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i can see a typo

under the heading Anglo-Saxon England it says "mediaeval England" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.41.68 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

British English spelling and usage is preferred in this article, as per the Manual of Style.
As has been said above, it is not an error. It is British English and as this article is about England it is perfectly acceptable to use it. Tangerines 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ETHNICITY

why is it necessary to include ethnicity alongside the population when researching english towns and cities. It only appears to be on the english towns and for some reason not scottish, welsh, or irish let alone cities in places such as france and germany which are far more ethnically diverse than England. I just wish the government would stop promoting multiculturalism etc. as we are not the most multicultural place in europe yet propaganda wise it seems we are. Would someone please explain this for me. Thank you from England! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.66.62 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

in and out of power

"the Kingdom of England would fall in and out of power between several West-Saxon and Danish kings." is unidiomatic. I'd rewrite it if I knew what it meant. Does it mean that the kingship of England was held by both west Saxon and Danish kings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.112.162 (talk • contribs).

Yes. 84.12.47.154 13:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily Vandalism of this article

It seems that not a day goes by without this article being vandalised, and often a number of vandal edits each day. It is easy enough to remove of course, but is it not time now to restrict editing of this page to registered users only, at least for a specific time period?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was protected temporarily earlier this month (see [3] and [4]). England is an obvious target for political reasons, so I will put forward that it be protected again.
Done — [5] [6]
Thanks for that.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Her Majesty thanks you 80.47.156.154 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Have recently uploaded photos to my commons [7] page some of which may be useful... Merlin-UK 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IDM

I think the Intelligent Dance Music genre should be included in the music section since it's birthplace was in England, and it's a pretty big scene.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pewpz (talk • contribs) 22:00 $ May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Nomenclature

Turkish is not a european language as referred in Nomenclature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.92.233.87 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

According to the Turkish language article, Turkish is a member of the Turkish, or Western, subgroup of the Oghuz languages, and the Oghuz languages form the Southwestern subgroup of the Turkic languages including Eastern Europe.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

cuisine

I've done some preliminary cleaning-up of the cuisine section, but if someone had time to do a proper digest of the main article on the topic that would be great. As it stands, I feel it greatly over-emphasises Asian food - while it is indeed an important part of today's English food scene, it's by no means the only thing people eat. Barnabypage 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS THE FRENCH LARGER IN WORDING FOR THE MOTTO THAN IT IS FOR ENGLISH

Well? What a bloody outrage!! Tourskin 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here:

Motto Dieu et mon droit (French) "God and my right" Tourskin 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the motto is "Dieu et mon droit", the bit underneath is just a translation. Is there any reason why the section header is in all caps? Joe D (t) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the caps. But the bigger writing should be English and the French underneath shouldn't it?Tourskin 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I now see the error of my thinking. Apologies. Never realised it was French to begin with.Tourskin 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
My congratulations, appreciation and respect to Tourskin who is a person who can admit an error. Many of us could stand to learn from you, and I hope to have your grace when it is my turn ;-) --Slp1 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, see Dieu et mon droit for an explanation. It is not uncommon for countries to have mottos in a foreign language, e.g. Latin in the case of the United States.

Etymology

There's a few different "origins" claimed out there for the word Angle, would it make sense to mention them all? Hot-dog

Yes, if they can be referenced

Vandalism

The article has just been vandalised by Liamcymro, buit I do not have a login o cannot correct it, apparently 195.82.123.61 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthem

England anthem is not God save the Queen it's Hope of land and glory God Save the Queen is United Kingdom anthem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamcymro (talk • contribs)

Not according to Land of Hope and Glory it ain't. Love the Spoonerism by the way! Barnabypage 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Must admit that I think that Jerusalem makes a far better English anthem than LOHAG anyway. At least Jerusalem refers to England by name whereas LOHAG only refers to its country by implication. And the implication, (Thine Empire shall be strong.), implies that the country concerned is Britain rather than just England. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not a spoonerism, just a mix up of the order of the words. A spoonerism involves interchanging letters from 2 different words, eg. Land of Glope and Hory. Also, this isn't the place to debate what might or might not be a better anthem than the existing one. JackofOz 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor to discuss the correct definition of "spoonerism" but no harm done, eh? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite right - the definition of spoonerism is more precise than I thought, as I found on reading the article. This word-swapping can henceforth be known as a Liamcymroism. Barnabypage 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the dablink should be expanded a little more and point to the UK.

This article is about the constituent country of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see England (disambiguation).

or

This article is about the country. For the modern state that it forms a part of, see United Kingdom. For other uses, see England (disambiguation).

As we all know, many people confuse the term England, UK and Britain. I think its like that one of these people would put England in the search box when they meant the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but in the opening sentence it goes on to explain England's status. However, people are more likely to read the disambiguation than the opening sentence. So, I would put it in, despite my reservations. My preference would be for the first. In the second, "This article is about the country" is not entirley correct, and is actually quite contentious.

English versus British Nationality

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this and, if not, would someone be so kind as to tell me where might be.

I am having difficulty understanding why so many English people, especially celebrities and such-like, are being branded as English rather than British. It's also not uncommon to see nationality as English. All this would be more acceptable if English was being used as a modifier but it seems to be used to the exclusion of British. It doesn't make sense at all. Is there a Wikipedia policy for this? Or is it an English nationalist push? (Ajkgordon 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Most people in the UK identify with England, Wales, Scotland etc. over Britain as their home country. I would say that the wholesale changes you have made to nationalities without consensus/reason are quite contentious, unless the person themselves identifies as British first. However, it is quite correct to say that they are both English and British, however I think there is potential reduncy in this, as English is, by default, British, whether one identifies with it or not. And don't even start on Welsh or Scottish!
I've only made changes to a handful really to prompt debate - as my questions about the matter were not being answered on the relevant talk pages. I was careful to avoid being contentious by ensuring that the changes were both accurate and inclusive where possible. Place of birth, for example, was changed by the addition of UK to England rather than replacing it. I even added the UK flagicon rather than replacing the England one. However, on the question of nationality, I simply replaced English with British. Nationality refers most commonly to citizenship of a sovereign state, in which case the only relevant nationality is British.
Additionally, I find your claim that most people identify with the constituent countries rather than with the UK as contentious itself. While that might be truer for the Scots and the Welsh, the English have often used the terms English and British synonymously. If pressed, many English would either say something like "Well, it's the same, innit?" or they would admit that yes, they are ultimately British. In the same way that a Texan would identify very strongly with the State of Texas, it would not be contentious to describe him primarily as American.
I understand these national sentiments. But, while the UK remains, Wikipedia should strive for accuracy when describing things like this. Country and nationality are pretty cut-and-dried as can be seen in their respective entries. (Ajkgordon 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Percentages of each home nation identifying as "British", "British and X-ish", or "X-ish" are in the Briton article. British in any sense forms a minority of every home nation. The numbers can be increased if you allow answers like "More X-ish than British". --sony-youthpléigh 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Valid no doubt, but are we not agreeing on what nationality means in the context? In Eddie Izzard's article, for example, there is an entry in the infobox for nationality. This surely means his official nationality (passport, citizenship, etc.) as defined by the Wikipedia entry on Nationality. If he identifies himself as English to the exclusion of British (which I doubt considering his childhood), then perhaps another entry such as ethnic identity or some-such should be included. To encourage the inaccurate reporting of his actual nationality because of his probably non-existent nationalistic sensitivity is doing Wikipedia a disservice. I can imagine many a foreigner who doesn't understand the uniqueness of British identity arguing that various people are not British they're English or vice-versa based on entries in an encyclopaedia. Moreover, doing a quick Google on the man, it transpires that he is more often described as British by such sites as the Guardian and the BBC. Even more moreover, Izzard himself appears to interchange English and British when describing himself in interviews.(Ajkgordon 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Good point. How about something like this:
United Kingdom United Kingdom (English)
or
United Kingdom British (English)
But getting consistency (and consensus) on these kind of matters is important. Does a UK manual of style exist? An Irish - all-island - one does WP:IMOS. I personally wouldn't be opposed to a British Isles MOS that would cover issues like these. From a Northern Ireland perspective think it may be the most workable - as opposed to a purely UK - otherwise the benefit that's been got from the IMOS would be lost. Or to a distinct Great Britain MOS, which would ruin the purposes of such a thing for the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
United Kingdom United Kingdom (English) and United Kingdom British (English) seem sensible. If, of course, that really is how the subject identifies himself. I would suggest that it would have to be sourced and not just the odd quote from the subject where English could be synonymous with British. It would need to be a definitive "I am English, not British".
The trouble is British and UK doesn't mean just Great Britain nor does it mean the British Isles. It means (of) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British Isles is purely geographical and has nothing to do with Nationality. Great Britain likewise although it is often used synonymously with UK particularly when abbreviated, i.e. GB.
While your idea is an interesting one, I fear that it would probably cause more problems than it would solve particularly with regard to the Irish question.(Ajkgordon 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Do be careful with the term "British Isles"-- it is quite politically charged. Marnanel 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Inappropriate for a question about nationality. While it is strictly a geographical term, it can be offensive to the Irish who discourage its use. (Ajkgordon 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Sure. I meant an MOS for these islands - a name for such an MOS might be troublesome, but if you're proposing to change all references to peoples' nationality from "English"/"Scottish"/"Welsh"/"Northern Irish" to "British", and do that uniformly so ... I think you're going to run into the same problems that the B* word meets with describing the islands - and just as quickly. If you really want this done, I'm suggesting that you need consensus and a lot of careful input - a discussion on the Enlgand talk page will not cut it (how would you present it to others - "Yeah, we talked this over in England, so its been decided."? Eeeek!) I'd suggest starting an MOS project and as an Irish editor, I'm suggesting that if you do then to at least liaise with the Irish MOS (and I don't think that a British-Irish MOS would be unworkable.) --sony-youthpléigh 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Chaning all the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish to British will cause major problems due to the fact that people do not use that term as the Briton article points out and I would oppose and such attempt all the way. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I simply don't understand it. Let's look at this logically. Look at the Wikipedia entry on Nationality. It's quite clear that the most common definition of the word is one of nationality or citizenship of a sovereign state. The UK is the relevant sovereign state. There is no such thing as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish nationality! (Not yet at least). Personally I think a combination of official nationality modified by self-identity if it conflicts would be the most accurate. This is an encyclopaedia and we should strive to be as accurate as possible. Having an entry that includes "Nationality: English" is simply incorrect and causes confusion among those who don't understand the subtleties of national identity in the UK.
Barryob, I see form your user page that you support the break up of the UK. That's fine and I respect that. But it's very POV and shouldn't influence the accuracy of an article in an encyclopaedia. (Ajkgordon 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Please read WP:ATTACK and pause for a moment over the section that mentions "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Barry's politics are irrelevant, as are yours. --sony-youthpléigh 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Woah there! I'm not dismissing or discrediting anything. And I am certainly not attacking Barryob. I'm simply asking if his strong POV might be influencing his desire to "oppose... such an attempt all the way" when dealing with accuracy. Can we please stick to the assumption that nationality in this context is one of a sovereign state. If we conclude that it isn't and it's something to do with self-identity, then accuracy would be served and I will concede. Either way, POV should play but a minor role. (Ajkgordon 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
OK, but surely you must be able to see that this affects a LOT of pages, not just England. It would also be controversial - whether the controversey is justified or not. There are a lot of issues to be considered here - what about the whole of Ireland between 1801-1922? You said that using English/Scottish/etc. is fine so long as the person has identified themselves as that - what's the threshold for justifying it? Is it just info boxes are you proposing to change or article content too (e.g. 'Somebody-and-the-other was a Welsh something-and-the-other ...' >> 'Somebody-and-the-other was a British something-and-the-other ...')? This is a BIG change - its not unreasonable, and I'd like it discussed too, but it needs VERY broad input and frankly this page is not the place to be discussing it. If I was to support it, I would need a manual of style. --sony-youthpléigh 16:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, which is why I started discussing it. Here seemed as good a place as any. I had asked on the talk pages of a few British people, actors mainly, but didn't get very far. So I made a few changes to prompt debate while ensuring that I kept the changes accurate. Most of them I notice have been reverted probably by supporters of UK break-up (although maybe not - assuming good faith, etc.) which is fine as it has at least prompted a debate. It's worth noting here that, although I self-identify as British rather than as English or Scottish either of which I could justifiably claim, I am only interested in accuracy. It just seems to be that there is a lot of nationalism creeping into British subject pages on Wikipedia at the moment and I find it hard to justify calling someone English rather than British unless the subject has expressly identified as being so. The only definitive nationality outside of self-identification is their nationality of a sovereign state. It's indisputable if the information is available. Take Hugh Laurie, for example. There is no source that shows him as identifying as specifically English rather than British. And I would be surprised given his education and background if that were the case. But he no doubt has official British nationality - citizenship, passport, etc. And in the name of accuracy that is what I feel we should be highlighting. Let the debate continue. (Ajkgordon 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Shorten Indent Of course I have a point of view like the majority of Scots I say I am Scottish not British and that is not just Scottish nationalists any such propsal would be met with stiff opposition from all sides. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm afraid I'm going to have to labour the point. Barryob, can you answer my point on the nationality thing please? For clarity I could repeat it but I may bore you to death! Suffice it to say I mean the point about official nationality rather than self-identification. (Ajkgordon 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
You reference the Nationality page but it says nothing of about a sovereign state you seem to be getting it mixed up with Citizenship in which case yes I am a British citizen but my nationality is Scottish. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
AJKGordon, it appears to me that you lack an understanding of the issue here. The concept of multi-tiered nationality is not unique to Britain (cf. Spanish vs. Basque), and your example of Texan vs. "American" is a poor analogy. Whether or not people, and that includes the English/British themselves, are ignorant of the finer points is neither really here nor there. As an 'educational' material, we should not stoop down to the level of ignorant people who, if prompted, would say, like you said, "English, British, same thing innit?". That is simply not the case. I agree that a Manual of Style or other policy is needed to clarify this. However, as it stands, leaving references to English, Welsh, etc. is fine, as clicking on the relevant wikilink would take any confused reader to an artcile which explains the statehood of each entity.
If you understood this, you would not think that it needed changing. Extrapolate this argument to changing a notable Chechen's nationality to Russian, for example, and you can see that life is not as simple as you think. One's passport is not necessarily one's nationality, whatever an official might think.
No, superbfc, my understanding on this issue is perfectly clear. I know exactly what it means to be British or English or Scottish. My argument is very simple. Actually it's two arguments.
1. How are we defining nationality? If, as the entry in Wikipedia suggests, nationality is most commonly understood to be the nationality of a sovereign state, then that is what we should use when describing a person's nationality. And that, Barryob, is what is says. (There is also a perfectly good article on British Nationality Law. I see no such equivalent for English, etc.)
2. We should not be imposing Englishness (or Scottishness, Welshness or Northern Irish) on people who don't clearly and unequivocally state that that is what they are in preference to being British.
I have a good understanding about how the sensitivities that various national identities and cultural attachments confuse this issue. Which is why I want to clarify it. It seems that there is a nationalistic push on this which, quite frankly, I find rather distasteful. Describing someone as having been born in London, England is disingenuous. At the very least it should be London, England, UK. Redundancy is not an excuse to exclude the UK bit. It is either ignorance or POV. No other encyclopaedia would ever do it so why should Wikipedia?(Ajkgordon 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
"I have a good understanding about how the sensitivities that various national identities and cultural attachments confuse this issue. ... It seems that there is a nationalistic push on this which, quite frankly, I find rather distasteful. ... It is either ignorance or POV." No, Ajkgordon, it doesn't sound as if you have a good understanding. I think this is worth perusing, but you need to temper your line. The elephant in the room is clearly Northern Ireland - a part of the United Kingdom but with joint British and Irish citizenship (aside from the usual mixed identity). But even where citizenship is clean cut, ignoring "home nationality" suppresses a clear and obvious fact about the life and identity in the UK. Why do I care if Eddie Izzard is British? Because, I want to know where he comes from (to understand where he is "coming from") - not what state issues his passport. English is more informative for what I want to know. Maybe British is more important for what you want to tell? --sony-youthpléigh 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I fear, Sony-youth, that you may be missing the point. The point is about accuracy when describing a person's nationality as described by Wikipedia. Can we please deal with one issue at a time. National identity is not the same as nationality as is most commonly understood (according to Wikipedia). There are even separate articles on these. If this is not agreed then fine. But that means the article on nationality needs changing (which personally I think would be a mistake). Sean Connery's nationality is British. It says so in his passport and any other legal documents that may be relevant. His national identity, as is well reported and claimed by the man himself, is Scottish. And that should be respected. But it is not the same thing. Eddie Izzard spent his early years in Yemen, Northern Ireland and Wales. That he would exclude himself from being British is doubtful. This is not (or should not be) about nationalism. I don't need to temper anything. I am seeking accuracy. And now I'm going to bed as it's 11.30 here in France!(Ajkgordon 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Oh, by the way, Sony-youth, I don't think Northern Ireland is necessarily the "elephant in the room" here. In some ways, it's less contentious because of the various cultural compromises that have been made (even forced) upon the people of the province. I worked for many years with an ex-Irish rugby captain. While very much a Protestant Ulsterman, he moved to Dublin (where I worked with him) and had no problem describing himself as Irish and British. It seems that many of his countrymen have taken the practical decision of leaving the politics to the politicians and just getting on with the job of having dual identities neither of which seemed to conflict. I'm going through a similar process at the moment (but without the historical baggage) of claiming French nationality in addition to my British one. It's fascinating stuff and raising all sorts of issues about identity. (Ajkgordon 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Ajkgordon, that didn't answer any of the concerns I posted above. Please stop assuming that those with concerns about the proposal have a nationalist agenda (as I read from: "This is not (or should not be) about nationalism."). I started off agreeing with you. Now I'm getting tired (in Holland) and feel I'm being barked at by someone that I only wanted to help along their way with a fairly reasonable proposal, but one I feel needs to be worked out more (and in the proper venue).

With regard to the "elephant in the room", I was not referring to identity, but to citizenship, and I did not miss your point - there is no inaccuracy of describing Eddie Izzard (or any other Englishman or woman) as being English by nationality:

nationality: "the status of belonging to a particular nation"
nation: "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language. inhabitating a particular country or territory"
If you would, please read back over my post. I put some thought into it because I think this is not a bad idea, but think it would benefit if you would appreciate better the complexities involved. --sony-youthpléigh 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm going to call it a day on my participation in this debate. I appreciate the advice you have given me but really, I do appreciate the complexities involved. My quest was one of accuracy regarding the use of nationality as I understood the common definition. Some of you seem to disagree (fair enough) which I would suggest means that the entry for nationality should be changed to better include the meaning of national identity. If I appear to have been "barking" at you, that was not my intention. To be honest, I don't really understand what the proper venue would be if it isn't here. Now I really am going to bed! (Ajkgordon 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
tbh for consistency, natives of Germany and Spain should also be identified by their (often significant) regional identity. I see we don't do that. Not, presumably, for encyclopaedic reasons but because no personal motives of English speakers are served. Well, that's not very encyclopaedic. At the moment the practice tempts chauvinistic impulses on the one hand and embellishes a certain U.S. confusion about (or lack of interest in) what Britishness is on the other. I may live in England, my parents may be Mongolian for all the difference it makes, but if I have a nationality, it's British. I like the idea of User:Sony-youth a little earlier: appending a bio with something like:
United Kingdom United Kingdom (Welsh).
That would hopefully keep people who don't wish to be exclusively British happy, people who in an encyclopaedic sense maintain that the nationality is British, as non-English wikis incidentally seem able to do, and as international convention and the law in England, Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland also does) and would erode the U.S. misunderstanding that tends to have English, Scots, Welsh etc. as separate from British.
Finally this fuzzy translating of national identity (eg English) into nationality (er, English, apparently) is getting a bit old. What about Black Britons? Or British Muslims? Hakluyt bean 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Although I'm afraid you'll find that some people will object to the word British and even the flagicon. While I try to assume good faith, there is no doubt there is a lot of agenda pushing here. Which is a shame. (Ajkgordon 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
If England, Wales, Scotland are not nations, then please explain the following: Six Nations Championship, England national football team, Scotland national football team etc. etc.
I'll play :) They're separate football associations. Also known as the Home Nations. There's a clue in there. Fifa allows it as a concession to the historical roots of football. Fifa makes other concessions for other reasons to teams not representative of nation states, eg. Hong Kong and the Palestinian national team. Anyway, the point is, Fifa is an imperfect reflection of the real world. Similar provision is made for rugby (Union only, League has a GB team). Cricket has an England team of course (not a v good one), but any British citizen can represent it. The Olympics on the other hand only recognises Great Britain & NI. For most sports, there's a regional team and/or a Home nation team, then a 'national team'. ie a British team.
Come on :) There's only one answer to the question 'what is your nationality?' asked of anyone who is a British citizen. Except down in the south-west.... where they might say 'Cornish'. Heh. Hakluyt bean 22:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find its not just the Cornish who would not say British, nationality and citizenship are not one and same. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever said that England, Scotland and Wales (and even Northern Ireland) are not nations. But one cannot deny that to most English-speaking people in the world nationality means what one would expect it to mean - one's nationality of a sovereign state. By mixing the two and describing some people's nationality as British and others' as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish exclusively causes confusion and is not as informative as it should be. To my mind, the best solution would be to have the joint description where necessary but not insist on Englishness (or the others) if it is not expressly stated by the subject in question. Even though this is probably the most neutral solution, I know that there are sadly many on Wikipedia who will object purely because they object to any mention of British or the UK if it can be justified however spuriously. Look at the page on London. The infobox has a map of London, the capital city of the UK, situated in England for goodness sake! If I was a cynic, I would have to say that was agenda-pushing POV if ever there was.(Ajkgordon 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Look :) So far so much fun, but this shouldn't even be a debate. It's an indulgence to allow any mention of England Scotland etc. as 'nationality', and it exists only by courtesy extended by other editors.
"I think you will find its not just the Cornish who would not say British, nationality and citizenship are not one and same". I think some editors should reflect that 'nationality' is not whatever you want it to be. You only arrive at a 'nationality' of English by asking the question: 'do you consider the bio subject to be English?' That is not the question an encyclopaedia asks. It is not up to a WP editor to determine what 'nationality' the subject is, or to interpret the question of 'nationality' in any personal or subjective way. That leaves just the legal and universally recognised definition. Which is unambiguous. The encyclopaedic question is: 'what is the nationality of the subject?' And the answer, for any British person, who necessarily may also consider themselves (but is not obliged to consider themselves) English, Welsh etc. is 'British'.
To add to the unanswered questions/cases in point I've already raised (pls see above if interested): why should a Texan or a Californian be given the nationality 'American'? Because that's what his nationality is. The day an American or German bio entry on WP is given the 'nationality' of the constituent state they were born in is the day English as a nationality begins to make sense on this site.
Finally, it's in the spirit of WP (I would say) to acknowledge and allow that some editors insist on referencing English etc. as a 'nationality' even though by domestic and international tradition and law it isn't. My reasoning is that it doesn't do much harm, and may also be said to be of encyclopaedic interest. For example a Scottish footballer should be referenced as 'Scottish', and there's no reason or excuse to hide it. But there's no reason to hide the fact either, whether this or that editor likes it or no, that he is also British.
The idea floated earlier of --- United Kingdom United Kingdom (Welsh) seems a reasonable compromise. Putting the case for 'English' as a nationality is one thing, but it would be quite another for WP editors to also deny the use of 'British'. I'm even happy with two flags. Easy to do. If the Yanks complain that they only have one flag, so what. Hakluyt bean 20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
United Kingdom United Kingdom
England England
I don't have a strong view on whether English (and Scottish and Welsh) or British is used, but I'd warn against applying this debate to England only, which seems to be what is implied by the original question (I'm happy to be corrected). Whatever policy is followed needs to be consistent. We can't say that English people are British but Scottish people are Scottish and Welsh people are Welsh.Hobson 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Good points all, Hakluyt bean. The only problem is I don't know where to take this debate next to achieve consensus. (Ajkgordon 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

After 1987 people born in England are British. I don't what the correct usage is, but I say ethnicity first, then the place you live. So (being born in England) I am English British. But if you were born and lived in two different countries, (eg if I was born in France but lived in the UK), I would call myself French British. Similarly if I (being born in England) moved to South Africa, I would refer to myself as British South African, not English South African. It'd probably be wrong, but it makes sense to me. Nationality is complicated. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth place and current residency do not necessarily define nationality. I was born in Germany and currently live in France. I'm not "German French". I'm British because both my parents are. I don't have German nationality just because I was born there. Although I may become "British French" because I can apply for French nationality through my French wife :) (Ajkgordon 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Needs semi protection.

This article needs to be semi protected, I know same people who have some strange vendetta against England (mostly Americans) would like to see it get vandalized by IP users…But for the good of wikipedia...

I agree, although i don't think most of them are americans.. Jackrm 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It was protected reacently. Someone must have requested unprotection.

English artists?

There is a bit of a disparity as to who is listed as being English. Belfast born C.S. Lewis (see quote "thank the gods that I am Irish" in the Wikipedia entry) is included as an English writer. If the suppressed premise is that he spent a lot of time in England, one would then surely have to exclude Bradford-born Delius in the music section. This being due to him having spent most of his life outside England.

Needs Fixing

This article needs correction. England is a constituent state of the UK, and is not a country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.138.43 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 13 June 2007

England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and the article doesn't need amending or fixing. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately England is not a country any more. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now make up the country along with it which is the UK. England itself is the most popular constituent state, but is not a country. Please read the following article for clarification purposes, and correct your misinformation.

"Definining an Independent Country While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

States and Independent Countries

Let's start with what defines a State or an independent country. An independent State: 

   * Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
   * Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
   * Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
   * Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
   * Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
   * Has a government which provides public services and police power.
   * Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
   * Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

There are currently 192 independent countries or States around the world. Territories of countries or individual parts of a country are not countries in their own right.

Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.)

A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States of America).

Nations and Nation-States

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience.

When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."

There are nations without States. For example, the Kurds are stateless people."

Link to source 

213.202.138.43 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that just defining independent country? The later use of the word country in that article you quote seems to apply to its definition of independent country. The UK itself describes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries so who are we to disagree? (Ajkgordon 08:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
England is not a state as it has no polity to represent itself, beit as an independent state or as part of a federation. It is properly called a country, and in particular, a constituent country of the United Kingdom, which is a state - capital 'S', if you like for the nation-state, and small 's', if you like, for part of the EU (although, despite having a degree in politics, I have never seen anybody differentiate between the two by using capital and small letters). --sony-youthpléigh 08:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Trouble is the words nation, state and country all have overlapping definitions depending on context. It would be incorrect to refer to England as a country when talking about, say, international trade negotiations or UN peacekeeping but perfectly correct when talking about the English border with Scotland or (possibly) the World Cup. (Ajkgordon 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
True. The issue is with "nation": that defines "country" (in the sense we mean here) and in the modern era has come to define "state" also. --sony-youthpléigh 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


No, still I think that reffering to England as a country is incorrect. It is a region, not a seperate country. Ireland is a seperate country, England, Wales and Scotland are not. They all share the same prime minister, and the same queen, use the same currency, And act as one in international affairs. That makes the UK a country, and Scotland, Wales, and England regions of that country. 213.202.147.151 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Singapore is a state but it is not a country. Antarctica is a country but it is not a state. The two words may often be used as if they are synonymous but that doesn't mean that they are. Some states are not countries and some countries are not states. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, the opening line: "England is a country ..." - yeah, nation, as per Scotland might be better. (An cross-article inaccuracy maybe that England as described on this page was not the former country, yet it, and Wales, of the two former kingdoms of Great Britain, are the two articles that use the term "country"?) However, I don't think it is too wrong or misleading to call it one. We had a similar bust-up on Republic of Ireland - what is the country: the island or the state? To make it worse, both are called Ireland, however in the end this in fact provide a route for the compromise that is the first two sentences. --sony-youthpléigh 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect, what we think is irrelevant. The UK itself describes England as a country. Definitions of country include what England is. (Ajkgordon 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
Furthermore, Ireland is not a country, but an island, divided into two countries. England is a country, and source material backs this up - its the common usage of the word country which causes confusion. For the record I'm a Unionist, and not trying to assert any kind of nationalism.
There are issues with regards to the use of the United Kingdom vs ENG/SCT/WLS/NIR on Wikipedia - Scotland states it is a nation (which is a group of people, not a divison of land!), whilst some Scottish nationalist wikipedians state that certian individuals have Scottish nationality whilst, for better or worse, it's techically British. The use of small flags and city status also have discepancies.
Debates are certainly welcomed to try to codify a policy, but careful, centralised and inclusive organisation is needed, backed up by source material. Jhamez84 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
As Ajkgordon says, the UK states that England is a country, and that is what is important, not what we think, or anyone else. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite right... to an extent. Perhaps an extra reference or so would help confirm this however??? I'll try to take a look in some print material I have. Jhamez84 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Although Ireland can also refer to the state of the Republic of Ireland. Tricky with all these shifting sands. Largely contextual.
All this talk about whether England (or Scotland, Wales, NI) is a country or not I find rather pedantic. The use of the word and its meaning is quite dependent on context and is blindingly obvious what is meant when used correctly. When used incorrectly, however, particularly with heavy POV, it can be very misleading. Describing England as a country outside any reference to the UK is highly misleading. The use of the word country exclusively implies, through common usage and understanding, an independent sovereign state, which England or any of the other constituent countries of the UK are not. It is this usage that is disingenuous. When using the word country to describe any of these entities, it should either be contextually obvious that the word doesn't mean independent sovereign state or the word should be modified by the inclusion of a descriptor such as "constituent".
Language is, let's not forget, about communication. If we end up communicating a false idea or information then we are not using the word properly. (Ajkgordon 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree, though we have a considerable amount of nationalist editors that object to the use of "consistuent country of the UK" as the primary geographic frame of reference in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and... Cornwall (reducing in intensity in that order - with Cornwall being the antithesis of Scotland). Personally I think the UK should be the primary reference frame for these country articles, though the counstituent country should be used as a locator for the opening sentence of British settlements... though I'm happy to compromise on the current wording of England as it currently exists. Again though I think a broad, well organised and inclusive debate should be considered as to how to best and consistently use the C.C or the UK in a whole host of situations, including the use of flags, nationality, birthplace, etc. Jhamez84 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have already tried to start a debate on nationality specifically but it's attracted little more than statements of position by those who would retain a nationalistic POV when editing. Even the London article has a location map for the capital of the UK in an England map! Assumption of good faith is all very well and good but there is a very clear agenda being pushed in detriment to the status of the UK. While many of us can respect those views, arguing the merits of a nationalist POV is not the job of a Wikipedia editor. The statement of fact is.
Constant references to England (or any of the others) as a country in a context that is bound to cause readers to believe that it is a sovereign state is not stating fact. I move to reach a consensus on this but I don't really know how. (Ajkgordon 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC))
I once initiated a large straw poll about the use of flags here, on the UK place infobox. I posted to every UK related wikiproject and notice board, as well as certain user groups and central talk pages before the straw poll took place. Interestingly, in this instance, there was a massive consensus not to use any flags!
My point is that important codification like this is possible to achieve through inclusion and organisation. A broad enough "caption area" would neutralise any efforts from extreme POV groups (ultra-unionist and ultra-nationalist), and a more mainstream rule would be created. Jhamez84 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't assume that people who express a view are doing so because of their own personal political views. They may simply believe that what they are saying is accurate. In any case, I would like to suggest the following for the intro as a sentence that might deal with some of the concerns raised here: England (pronounced IPA: /ˈɪŋglənd/) is the largest and most populous constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, located to the northwest of Continental Europe.Hobson 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hobson, I don't assume anything. Many of those who consistently edit to use references to England, Wales, Scotland and NI to the exclusion of the UK are avowed nationalists as stated on their user pages. Or, if not nationalists, then certainly in support of nationalist POV as indicated by their userboxes and/or their talk pages. The trouble is these debates are scattered all over Wikipedia from here to here to here. Consensus, if ever reached, is often ignored by editors who charge in and delete all mentions of British/UK and change to English/Scottish/etc. The fact that this is often tolerated shows a courtesy by the majority that is not reciprocated. (I must admit here that I changed a couple of articles on people to British without first reaching consensus. My edits were entirely innocent as I thought that this was correct and could find no discussions to the contrary.) I will continue to ask how best to achieve consensus but I'm not getting any answers! (Ajkgordon 08:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
A question I often ask when faced with a difficult question like this is "How do other encyclopedias tackle the problem?" Hobson's standpoint on describing England is that taken by Britainnica Online. Though whatever is used for England, should be used by the other three nations. I also believe there is room for compromise - assuming someone is born after 1707, we could always use a formula such as "Mr X is a British Z, born 1800 in Newcastle, England" for biographical articles.
We also have problems with the use of flagicons, particularly when listing twin towns - though I believe the constituent flag should be used here, as towns can be twinned within the United Kingdom. Again, I think some leadership and organisation is needed to initiate a centralised debate. This issue will only be solved with the aid of huge numbers of "registered" voters. Jhamez84 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you think would be the best way of achieving that Jhamez84? (Ajkgordon 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
Ajkgordon, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. Everyone, do take a look at my suggested change - it may look like only a small change but what I am saying is instead of describing it as a country, we simply call it "a constituent country of the United Kingdom", which I think everyone agrees is correct? The debate doesn't seem so much to be about whether Enlgland is a country, but about whether the word "country" implies "independent" or "sovereign", both of which obviously don't apply to England. But "constituent country" doesn't imply those things, and leads people to a page which explains in more detail what constituent country means.Hobson 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, no apology sought or needed - I wasn't complaining, just clarifying. I would support your suggested change. "Constituent country" is more definitive in the opening line. The word country can then be used singularly later in the text if necessary. However, we should avoid use of words like regions as suggested by the original poster because England, Scotland etc. are not. (Ajkgordon 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
I think we need a blank sub-page of either Talk:United Kingdom or a sub-page of a UK Wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or rather Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board may be a good place for this). We need to outline and establish the problems there, with diffs of disputes and inconsistencies found across Wikipedia. We should then outline why this is problematic, and why a clear and codified naming convention is needed. We need to give clear options for voting, as well as a header that uncivil remarks, trolling, unregistered and dubious contributions will not be considered. Then, once its set up, we post to every related Wikiproject and article talk page going, stating a straw poll has been opened (possibly for a week, or ten days or even two weeks to ensure a broad enough catchment)..... my opinion of course, but this would satisfy WP:CONSENSUS. My main concern is that whatever is used for England, should be used for the rest of the UK. Jhamez84 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jhamez84. I'll look into it (time permitting). Are you aware of any similar processes like this that I could look at to see how it has worked in the past? (Ajkgordon 07:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Mediaeval

Mediæval æ is not used in the OED Their spellings are: mediaeval, medieval[8] --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Subsidiary title

"King of England" being a subsidiary title of a succession of French-speaking Dukes of territories in what is now France.

The Normans may have prefered the weather in Aquitaine and other parts of France, but in the mediaeval world the title king is not usually seen as subsidiary to duke. So I am puttong a citation needed on the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Stonehenge, Tower of London, Palace of Westminster ok but Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge!! what the hell is that doing there.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England/Archive_3&oldid=1142519080"