Talk:England/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Currency Format?

Why is the currency is USD? Surely it should be both, or just the national currency.

Richard Arkwright – inventor of the first industrial spinning machine

in the section about Engineering and innovation

Richard Arkwright didnt invent the spinning machine

as it says in the article; Sir Richard Arkwright (Old Style 23 December 1732 / New Style 3 January 1733 – 3 August 1792), was an Englishman who is credited for inventing the spinning frame — later renamed the water frame following the transition to water power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dace83 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why British English??

Why does the England page use British English? The United Kingdom article uses British English, the Scotland article uses Scottish why does the England article not use plain English? The language originates in England so why should the article not use "the purest form of English"? = ) Yours confusedly, --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define what the purest form of English is! Do you mean the Queens English? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why of course! "Her Majestie The Queen shall be the Fount of all English"! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I understood that English English pertains moreso to speech and dialect rather than formal writing. Whilst British English would be viewed more as Standard English in writing. I could be wrong though. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Then surely the same applies to the other constituent countries?...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep! But I think folk like to assert the (sub-)national variety, for reasons I couldn't possibly comment on! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, it's one of those things again. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to do, what with England having a much larger variety of dialects.--Jack forbes (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As it's kept purely on talk pages, it's not been a concern of mine. It's a bit odd though- kind of like saying on Liverpool, we use Scouse English. It just doesn't work. The reality is we use Standard English, with British English spelling. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I don't agree with the term Scottish English. It's all English with different accents. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why can't everyone just speak proppa like what I do!? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah dunno! --Jack forbes (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"purest form of English"? Is there really such a thing? Honestly though, what in this article is not written in standard English? Kman543210 (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Omitted names of notables, and section on the visual arts and film

The debate could continue indefinitely as to whom should be included among the list of notable contributors to specific fields of endeavour, but there appears to be a few surprising omissions imo which need consideration, and the inclusion of a section covering the "Visual arts" and Film. Figures for consideration would include; Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, John Constable, J. M. W. Turner, John Ruskin, and William Fox Talbot. Figures for addition to the current sections: Pope Adrian IV, William of Ockham, John Harrison, and Samuel Plimsoll. –Oneblackline (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Can I just make everyone aware of WP:DENY. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Im getting fed up of seeing so many people coming on to the talk page, talking a load of crap about the Article aka England. It’s annoying as hell seeing so many Scottish/Welsh/Irish and American Editors (Mostly) coming here with no interest in the state of article, there only aim is to cause a flame war. Give it a rest why don’t you. (Butters x (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I hope you don't include me in that list. (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Actually. From reading your comments above it is clear you have no interest in the true article well being but are intent on insulting English people, along with Scottish and welsh persons by saying there not proper countries, which is absurd. You are clearly Anglophobic. And that’s the main problem with this talk page, there is far too much Anglophobia here. (Butters x (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

The only time I have come even remotely close to 'insulting' them is by saying that they are too proud to admit that England isn't a country. After all the references I have given it is "absurd" to say they are. (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please guys assume good faith. I would be very careful about making comments like that. You seem to be insinuating that foreign people do not have a right to edit English topics. Just a friendly note = ) --Cameron (T|C) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sentence style in introduction

It is pretty seamy to me to begin three of four sentences in third paragraph of intro with known name of article "England ...". They educated us in elementary school that is not good style of writing. :)

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and make some amendments as you see fit :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, because I thought that is pretty important article, so I won't made some bigger corrections without consensus.
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of pictures in history section = bias, Protestantcentric

  • First in the Reformation, we have a picture of Elizabeth I. IMO it needs to be a full, family portrait including Henry VIII and Mary I. Even though this is an article about England and the Tudor family are Welsh.
  • During the Civil War section we have a picture of Cromwell, but neither Charles I of England or Charles II of England one of the most popular monarchs in the history of the country. If the Welsh Tudors manage to slide their picture in, then the Scottish Stuarts surely deserve the same. Otherwise in that section there should be a picture of Cavalier and Roundhead soldiers fighting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Henry VI was part Welsh, Henry VII and his offspring less so and they were Kings/Queens of England. I would have thought a picture of James was more appropriate to the Reformation than Elizabeth however. I agree that Charles should be added into the Civil War section. --Snowded (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure adding more pictures there would be a good idea, but reconsideration of the image up now, may be a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the directly above. Also England is a historically prostant nation. Further, the Tudors are of English and Welsh heritage whereas the Stuarts are purely Scottish. --Cameron (T|C) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooo! They're descended of an Englishman, paternally, and their house name is derived from an English word. There's an ocean of European geneaology in the Stuarts, like any Royal dynasty really. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Country within a country" wording proposal

Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors on this page need to be aware that a consensus is being built on talk:United Kingdom to replace refrence to England being a country with the phrase "England is a constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the southern two thirds of the island of Great Britain" --Snowded (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NHS "free at the point of use"

This is rather misleading, a foriegner might think it meant that you get sent a bill later on. Cannot it just say "free" and paid for by taxation? Also, it would be good to point out that the "charges" are only a few pounds and nearly always a tiny fraction of the real cost (especially when you include overheads and staffing costs etc, or compare with likely private charges for the same thing). (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps 'at no cost to the patient' would be the wording we are looking for: there is a cost but not paid for by the patient. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't free! You have to pay for medication (unless you're unemployed, retired, etc). You have to pay to go to the dentist, although it is subsidised by the NHS. Consultations, hospital treatment, outpatient appointments, etc, are free... but not everything. Dharma6662000 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The point being that the NHS is free (to the patient) but doesn't cover everything. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings under History

The emphasis on Kingdom of England is rather unusual for histories of England, and places undue weight on constitutional structures (which were probably rather weak for much of that time). Most histories of England would identify the Saxon settlement, the Norman conquest and the Reformation as the major turning points. Kanguole (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. A fair point so let me explain my changes. I didn't like the way the history section was so divided into further subsections each about a paragraph long and to be honest I think the section would be much better without any subheadings. If we are going to have subheadings, we need to decide how many would be appropriate and then identify what they should be. If it was felt that 3 subsections were appropriate for England's history, these could be 1) prior to a unified England, 2) the period of the Kingdom of England 3) the period after the Union, but, of course, other ways of dividing could easily be used and may well be more appropriate - I don't have a strong view in any direction, but I do feel the article is better with less short subdivisions. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with 4 or 5 subheadings; England has a rich and varied history. But I've never seen any account divide it into the 3 you suggest, and as I said, it places undue weight on constitutional structures. It doesn't match the main article it's supposed to be summarizing either. I'd suggest 1. Iron Age and Roman England, 2. the Middle Ages, 3. Tudors and Stuarts, 4. after the Union. Kanguole (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Status of English Language in England.

The section no 'Other languages' is contradictory. I can't edit it because I don't have the knowledge, but it needs amending. It starts by saying "UK legislation does not recognise any language as being official..." Then in the next paragraph when talking about Cornish it says "This has no official status (unlike Welsh)" Then in the next paragraph it says " BSL is not an official language of the UK and ...!". Clearly the issue of what status languages have in the UK needs to be clarified and the article made self-consistent. (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was England the first modern parliamentary democracy?

I don't believe that the English parliament (prior to 1707) would satisfy today's understanding of parliamentary democracy, and even if it did, could England be the first 'modern' parliamentary democracy over 300 years? What counts as 'modern'? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And how would other republics (e.g. Venice) older than that count? Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting one. There are a range of Republican forms of government that predate the English Parliament. I think the unique thing is a parliament and a constitutional monarchy. However it is true to say that the current wording is an overclaim - it needs to be modified. --Snowded (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If the "unique thing is a parliament and a constitutional monarchy", I would have thought that Scotland was in the same position, also having "a parliament and a constitutional monarchy". I tried to check the reference but couldn't find anything that backed up the claim. As you say, this claim needs work! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland's parliament is about as old as England's and recent research shows that it did exercise a lot of influence over the Scottish king. See historians Michael Lynch or Tom Devine's recent works, so I doubt that England has any more of a claim to 'earliest parliamentary democracy' than Scotland - IMO neither were very 'democratic' in our modern sense anyway.

--Gandalf x (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And why would monarchy be a qualifier of modern parliamentary democracy. It is one form of such a system. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The monarchy is irrelevant in this context. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the republican system that operated in Venice was akin to the Roman senate in that it consisted of a body representing noble families. The English/British parliament consists of two houses one consisting of the nobility, the Lords, and one representing everyone else, the Commons. The model parliament of 1295 summoned knights or sherrifs from the shires and burgesses from the boroughs. These men were elected by their peers, guildsmen and men of property and the like (Forty Shilling Freeholders). It was not a universal suffrage to be sure, but it was democratic to an extent unheard of elsewhere (as far as I know), and it was a parliament and not a senate. Jooler (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Venice was a senate of nobles as far as I know. However, the lack of universal suffrage makes me doubt whether the 1295 parliament would match the "modern" classifier. I don't have sufficient knowledge of English history to be sure. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I didn't catch on to the fact that it was the word "modern" that was problematic. I've just looked at the article and the cite next to "modern parliamentary democracy" doesn't support the text. The cited BBC article says it is the "oldest parliamentary democracy". I dunno why the word ""modern" is in the article. The word is subjective. Universal suffrage wasn't adopted properly in the UK until 1928. In some case blacks were disenfranchised in various states in the US until the mid-1960s and in France women were not granted the vote until after WWII. When is modern? The English system, the Westminster system was the first of its type, as a parliamentary system. It was a democratic system because the members of the commons are elected by popular vote. The lower house is not meritocratic. It's the oldest its type in these respects, but how can you class it as modern? Many would say that the British system still needs a lot of modernising. I think the word modern in the article is misplaced. Jooler (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Isle of Mann? It'd parliament dates back to 1237. (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

History images

No, no, nothing to do with the lead for a change! I'm seeking feedback about the use of images in the History section. I'm a bit concerned about the amount first and foremost: as MOS:IMAGE states "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other". Could we reduce the amount or reorder them in someway to improve the look of the section?

My second point is their selection. Call me mad (well don't per WP:CIVIL), but I'd expect to see a part of the Bayeux Tapestry (perhaps the image of William I of England) - the Norman conquest of England being a watershed in English history. Thoughts??? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking just the same thing. The text does seem rather "sandwiched" but then again there are so many wonderful images to add to such a vast article. I am definately pro adding bayeux images! = ) I think the cromwell image could be removed easily. --Cameron* 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Also agree that the tapestry image on William I of England would be very suitable. Charles II is surely less significant than Oliver Cromwell or a Civil War image. Kanguole (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

rank by population

"If it were a sovereign state, England would have the fourth largest population in the European Union and would be the 25th largest country by population in the world." Does this take into account that if England by itself were a sovereign state, the UK would not be above it on the list? --Random832 (contribs) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume it does on the basis that Germany, France and Italy would be above it, placing it fourth in the EU. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

It doesn't make any sense to organize the names by language family, except for the Celtic branch (and possibly Germanic), because these names aren't old enough to have a common history within language families. A geographic organization makes much more sense, because the names spread through borrowing from neighbours. Witness, for example, the names in Basque, Maltese and Turkish. Kanguole (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Ukrainian (I wish I did!), but I do know Russian and I also know that Ukrainian is another user of the Cyrillic alphabet, so "Anglija" is not the right form for the Ukrainian rendering. I'm pretty sure - I have neither a Ukrainian nor a Ukrainian dictionary to hand - that the Ukrainian form is the same as, or very similar to, the Russian, as is, probably, the Belorussian form. (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regional recognised languages

The info box should mention that Cumbric and Cornish are recognised regional languages.

Phoenix Bird Of Fire


They are recognised minority languages of the United Kingdom, AFAICT. Something a little bit different. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought that Cumbric was long extinct? Cornish, anyway, has a much more solid status than Cumbric does (or arguably ever has...) --She'sGotSpies (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cumbric is long extinct, and not recognised. It's vestiges are a few place-names, as far as I know.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is extinct regionally, but Cumbric was absorbed into Cymraeg ((Welsh) - Welsh literary heritage includes a number of works written by the Britons of the north west of England, since there was no real difference between Cymraeg & Cumbric (both were the contemporary living form of Brittonic/Brythoneg) - other than that Cumbric died out, and Cymraeg continued to evolve into the modern language surviving in Wales. Technically, Cornish is dead too. There may be an increasing number of speakers, but it's not a living language yet, as it is nobody's 1st language. The only 'surviving' languages of the Celtic Britons are Welsh & Breton of which probably only Welsh has any speakership in England (scattered about, and not least in Plaid Cymru's offices in Westminster). Homoproteus (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Piped link in the first sentence

I suggest changing the piped link [[constituent country|country]] in the first sentence back to [[constituent country]] (as it was until the recent consistency drive), per WP:EGG and WP:MOS#Opportunities for commonality. Kanguole (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Pureditor 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind either way what people wish to call England, though we all know that it is a country! I thought that 'country linked to constituent country' was a very clever way to satify both 'sides' since it reads as country but the link goes on to explain more detail of the particular arrangement of a 'country that is part of a larger country'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowded has not commented here, but has reverted to the piped link with the comment "Discussed but not agreed. Wales under mediation, Scotland uses country. Please discuss." He has formerly justified keeping it on this article by reference to the mediation that was then in progress, and is now arguing on Talk:Wales that that article should change to "a [[constituent country|country]] within the United Kingdom" for consistency with England and Scotland. Yet the Scotland article has [[country]], and the editors there seem to feel strongly that to mention the relationship to the UK in the first sentence would grant it undue weight. So it seems there's a degree of circularity in the argument regarding England and Wales. Such are the problems with seeking uniformity, which is why the mediation ended devolving the decision to each individual talk page.

So, what is the argument for the England page to keep the piped link, without reference to the other pages? I have cited a couple of policies above that argue against it. Kanguole (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Would anyone be in favour of adopting a map closer to the one in use at Scotland or Wales? -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Scotland and Wales have maps which show the European location rather than just assuming everyone one knows where the UK is so I would support the change --Snowded (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would. The maps on Scotland and Wales (top one) accurately reflect their status, while also giving useful context, and they're prettier, too. The appropriate amount of context depends on the relative size and location of the part you're talking about: W and NI need less, S and E more. Kanguole (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and changed the map, if anyone has any objections feel free to revert. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a bit less of the Atlantic, but going south far enough to show the northern coast of Brittany. That would give relevant context, including the English Channel, and also place England closer to the centre of the map, while still showing the whole UK. Kanguole (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nice map but it seems to be missing the Scilly Isles, so it still needs a little tweaking. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately they're not shown on the original Image:Europe_location_ENG.png from which this is cropped. Kanguole (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to the current map which I have just added?-MichiganCharms (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is as good as the one on Wales which shows more of Europe. Suggest you go to that one. --Snowded (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please quote appropriate references!

Hi all. I don't mind whether editors believe that England should be decribed as a 'country', a 'constituent country, or a 'constituent part' but could I ask that editors wishing to change the term should at least change the references also! It is simply wrong to attempt to change a sentence to describe England as a 'constituent country' but leave the 3 references which don't describe England as such! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. Will do that.Pureditor 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Why is it being pushed that it is a 'country' even though it is clearly a disputed issue? Surely the very name of this article: Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, shows that we should be using "England is a subdivision of the United Kingdom." MinYinChao (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Counties, municipalities, duchies, islands are all subdivisions. The term is just too vague to do justice to the special status of the constituent countries. Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not being "pushed" multiple editor discussions have established that England Wales and Scotland are either countries or constituent countries (the debate is between the two). The main source is in the article, namely the UK Government. You owe it to your fellow edits to check back on the discussions and the formal mediate that took place on the United Kingdom Page. --Snowded (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would put it slightly differently: everyone agrees that both "country" and "constituent country" are reliably sourced in British English, and indeed "country" is used throughout the article; the question is how best to introduce the article. I would like to suggest again an idea originally proposed by Ddstretch: "England is a part of the United Kingdom, variously described as a constituent country, country or (in sporting contexts) home nation." Kanguole (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you look at the mediation on the Wales page (which has DDstretch's agreement) to a form of words that would work there and could be copied across to England and (dare I say it) Scotland. We are pretty close now to something consistent and sustainable. Especially with independent mediation. Note also that merging constituent country (in respect of the UK) with sub-divisions of the UK also looks to have been agreed, and the mediation suggests a reference to that. I have some hope that the controversies might be at an end for a bit. --Snowded (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm so glad for Wales, but any agreement there has no bearing on the England article. Kanguole (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but the suggestion there is a form of words that could be a basis for agreement on this article as well. It at least merits consideration and if the editors on this article reject it, so be it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deja vu here, but haven't we been here before? - with User:Wikipéire and User:Malarious? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, a publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states England (and Sco/Wls/NI) "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division".[1] England isn't a "subdivision of the UK"; part maybe, but the UK isn't subdivided on the basis of four parts, it is united on that basis. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The above phrasing uses "part" as a common English word, not as a technical term, and I think we can agree that it's accurate in that. I recall that back on Talk:UK Kman consulted three encyclopaedias, and found that they started with "part", "national unit" or "political division" (all common, non-technical terms), though they used "country" later. I don't think they do that because they're pushing some POV, but because they want to be clear. Kanguole (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite. And I use "part" with a small-p, in the same sense that you and the source material asserts. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So we're in heated agreement that England is a part of the UK in a non-technical sense, are we? Kanguole (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems so. Who'd have thought two users (as opposed to normal people!) would think this!? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) If someone is proposing or supporting a wording supported by citations then it is not bias. Please stop throwing provocative remarks about. It does not help. --Snowded (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure MinYinChao meant to say that this wording is even-handed, because it includes the competing terms, all of which are supported by citations. Do you see any problem with the proposed wording? Kanguole (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I do. We're a bunch of intelligent editors - I think we should be capable of articulating the situation a little more scholarly. Also, though I'm a self-confessed unionist, I have to admit that "country" has sat comfortably in the lead for quite some time. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Given his other edits (MinYinChao) I doubt that. Yes I do see problems and it does not have my support. (i) England is a "country which is a part of" the proposed wording deemphasises country to something which may be used as a description. (ii) Wales & Scotland both start (with variations) with the country label and I think we need some conformity between the pages. --Snowded (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reasons why this wording is unsuitable for England, apart from conformity? Kanguole (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is more complex than that. That proposal is one that appears to be designed to displease all in an effort to bring about, or force a consensus. That's admirable - of course - but, as I say, "country" is verifiable, tends to be the most prevailent term on WP and elsewhere and has sat in the lead comfortably for a long time. I think the existing wording in the opening sentence adequately reflects/describes realworld practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it should displease anyone, unless they insist that their term and no other must come first. All the terms are verifiable, and "country" is used throughout the article. We're talking here about the first sentence, where there are additional criteria, such as clarity. And you're mistaken about "country" having sat there comfortably for a long time: that was "constituent country", which was changed to "country" and then frozen during the mediation, since which it's been held at "country" by Snowded and Malarious's reverts. Kanguole (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It has always been country or constituent country both of this work. Clarity and accuracy are both important in the first sentence and that supports country in some form together with a clear statement that it is a part of the UK to avoid POV. --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do have other reasons and stated them. The citations and common use support the fact that England is a country and the article should reflect that. Conformity is a second argument. Come on Kanguole you have been around all these discussions for long enough to know the issues. --Snowded (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am neither a unionalist nor a nationalist thank you, but since Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides, surely both should be reflected? MinYinChao (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Min - If you're here to disrupt the process then don't bother please. The account you're currently using (you have already admitted to creating others), highlights you are a very inexperienced editor. With all due respect, (and assuming good faith that you're not a highly comparable sockpuppet) I don't think you could possibly be fully aware of the dynamics behind this issue. May I recommend you start on something a little smaller in scope first? To counter your point - the issue isn't about unionism and nationalism, its about reflecting source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
JZA48, I consider your behaviour during my time here to have so far been very rude. I come here, and am accused of creating fake accounts, or even being one! Then, I am told to stay away from an article! Well no, thank you very much, I shall continue to edit wherever I see fit. And did I say anywhere that I thought this issue was about unionism and nationalism? The fact of the matter is that since differing official bodies classify them as differing things, this must be shown in the opening paragraph. MinYinChao (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Please STOP this disruptive behaviour No one has told you to stop editing, they have just asked you to have the decency to do some research and respect other editors. --Snowded (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

The final compromise on the Wales page was to leave country in place and pipe link "part of". I think that would make a lot of sense here (and Scotland). That would mean the following:

England is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....

The use of largest in the current intro is unnecessary given he 83% that follows.

Comments? --Snowded (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever ya'll prefer? is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be a good move, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Reasonable move, although I think the "largest" claim is still suitable; every other major encyclopedia makes a note about its size and/or dominance within the UK in its first sentence. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the suggestion. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. That sounds great. Just to be a little pedantic about the grammar, though, it should be either;
England is a country, which is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....
England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....
I'd be happy with either, they both mean the same. She'sGotSpies (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Or "England is a country and a part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ...." which is my preference. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rough consensus for "a country which" along with the a reference to the 83%. I will implement that now. I think "which" is better than "and a" and its got a few more people for it, but if Jza84 feels strongly I would not oppose another change. Now to Scotland anyone? --Snowded (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

I was under the impression that citations are only used in the lede for potentially controversial facts. Currently, there are several citations in the lede for facts that don't appear likely to be challenged (controversial). Why is this? S. Dean Jameson 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think they are controversial, they have been challenged many times, here and also Wales and Scotland. --Snowded (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Industrial revolution

The section "Within the Union", contains the sentence citing England as being the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Yet as this sentence has been replicated exactly in the opening paragraph, and as it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, appearing randomly and likely accidently, do I have the consensus of you all to get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious (talkcontribs) 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would move the Royal Society down to science while you are at it. --Snowded TALK 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't wikipedia label its damn maps. Every labeled land mass or country I've done a search on comes up with a color coded map!! What good is that if the land or countries are not also labeled and its surrounding countries are not labeled. How can a user get a feel for where the subject land or country actually is referenced by its surrounding countries?? I'm finding a different source. This source is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Romans did not leave England

Hi just a small point: At the end of the History section the article mentions that "the Romans left England." Clearly this is not so as historically there has been no such place as Roman England. Surely "the Romans left the British Isles" would be a reasonable edit? Discuss. Pencerdd My apologies for not signing correctly I hope this will version include my signature Pencerdd (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Pencerdd

Referring to the British Isles could suggest they held sway over Ireland, which was never the case. I'd say the Romans left Great Britain, but even that's an anachronism because the big island only got that name many centuries later. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Adding to that... I believe there was a mass exodus of the Romans from Britain, but many did stay. Indeed there was Romano-British settlement for decades, if not centuries prior to Viking and Anglo-Saxon migration/invasion. So, not quite accurate to state so sweepingly that they left England outright. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is accurate in a way. The Romans who remained in Britain had no communication or took orders from Rome itself. So when we say the Romans left Britain, I think we mean the power that was Rome was no longer there Skipper 360 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: Most of the Roman army in Britain were made up of people from across the empire, so the chances are, most who did not leave were most probably not Romans/Italians in the literal sense. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, If british isles is not useful and I see your argument Jackofoz then "britain" or even when the Romans left what is "now called england". Atlantic Archipelago could do but england is really misleading in any Roman context and I think it should be changed because it's an historic impossibility, is misleading and factually incorrect regardless of the weakness of the alternative names. Perhaps the "romans officially left their province of brittania" is the answer to the conundrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencerdd (talkcontribs) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Although Brittania originally included the whole of Britain plus Ireland it came to be known as that part of Britain under Roman control, (province of Brittania), and correctly excluded the area known as Caledonia. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Province of Britannia is fine by me. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, why does this article discuss any 'English History' predating 443 AD? England's History ought to start with the arrival of the Angles, Saxons & Jutes; i.e. the English, and the expansion of their colonies. Any history predating this is British, or 'Brittonic' but not English. Other permissible adjectives might be Romano-British/Romano-Brittonic, Celtic, Proto-Celtic or Neolithic as applicable but there really ought to be a politically correct adjective that might correctly refer to the region of England prior to the arrival of those Germanic tribes. England is a socio-political entity composed of the regions of Britain conquered and subsequently controlled by the Anglo-Saxons. It cannot lay claim to the history & prehistory of Britain/Prydain/Britannia which predate it as its own. Why should England be presumed to have existed for eternity when it only came into existence relatively recently in the Dark Ages? Homoproteus (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be pedantically correct but it's not a very useful way of looking at the history. Applying the same logic to Scotland would imply that we shouldn't discuss any history before the Scots invaded Britain either, since it wasn't Scotland before that point, just Northern Britain. Let's not go down that route. The land existed long before and long after the socio-political entities that have controlled it from time to time and if by "England" we actually mean "the land currently known as England", I'm sure that our readers are smart enough to figure that out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yet that is a matter integral to the correct reading of history - not only useful but perhaps culturally sensitive too. John Davies' "A History of Wales" spends a considerable amount of time in its early chapters covering the loss of the Briton's (Welsh) control of Lloegr/England to the Anglo-Saxons. Since this is the case, it would suggest it is not P.C. to make assertions of England's existence and history as perpetual. I'm fairly sure the Scotts when regarding their history are aware of the time limitations & popular distribution of the Picts & Britons of Lowland Scotland. English assertions of a perpetual England however whitewash out the cultural claims on Lloegr (Celtic England) of the Britons of today, being the Welsh & Cornish. Homoproteus (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I must admit I am warming to the logic of this argument. Prior to the end of Roman Britain there was no concept of England, so while there should be a pre-England Paragraph it cannot claim per se the whole history of the geographical area that is now England. --Snowded TALK 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, can I refer readers to the similar discussion as was conducted in the discussion page of "History of England" - I note the same discussion has already occurred in there, with talk of independent articles on "Roman Britain" "Prehistoric Britain" "Iron Age Britain" etc. Homoproteus (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have much sympathy with what Homoproteus suggests, and I further suggest that a useful and perhaps key way forwards would be to address the History of England article first to at least get the sections better organised: there are two major subdivisions of interest for this debate here—(a) The pre-cursor to England (which may itself be subdivided), and (b) The history of England post-formation (which may also be subdivided). The division may be a bit fuzzy, but one can use it as a general yardstick. One those sections are mapped out, then their structure should be used to inform the structure of the relevant section in this article which should then be written in summary style (as is suggested in various wikipedia guidelines for editors). So, I would suggest that the pre-England stuff in here might stay in a shortened summary form, and be marked off from the rest by a subsection labelled somthing like "precursor to England". Ok, rip the idea apart!  DDStretch  (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have no intention of ripping your idea apart, even if I could. I have noticed that other country articles refer to their present names when dealing with pre-state history. Would, and should, any change in the formatting of this article have a knock on effect to these other country articles? I do agree that it is rather strange referring to England as the country when the subject is pre-England, as mentioned at the beginning of this section. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not enough photos of England outside of London

Out of 23 images of England on this page 14 of them are in London and only 9 are in the rest of England, shouldn't there be more outside of London? I mean there out of 20 photos on the Scotland page; 17 are outside of Edinburgh. Edgarnick (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit London-centric. I would suggest to replace London City Hall with another city hall (as there is no reason to focus on London, and in the context rather the opposite). I would remove either the conurbation, or the economy skyline as it stand to reason that the largest area is also the most important in economics (ie images don't add information). I would replace the O2 dome in architecture, if alone because that section focusses on traditional rather than modern architecture (so image text do not match). I would replace either Wembley or Wimbledon, as this seems overfocussing on London. (I would replace Wembley for e.g. Anfield). I would certainly replace Westminster with Canterbury Cathedral, since the latter is the seat of the Anglican church leader. For the rest the London images tend to present something reflecting the whole nation and its institutions. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Any plans to action this? Can we agree on any images that could go, and be replaced with more befitting images? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arnoutf's points, particularly that at least one of the two closely-positioned London skyline photos should go. Personally I think there are too many photos in the article text and not enough in the Gallery, which could be greatly expanded. (A good source for new photos is Geograph). The North of England, and the bigger cities generally (outside London), seem to be particularly under-represented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Galleries are generally discouraged by MOS and peer reviewers I'm afriad. But, we've thousands of images at Commonscat:England. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - if we move the Clifton suspension bridge photo to Engineering and innovation (in place of Babbage - who perhaps would be better placed in English people?) can we then get rid of the Gallery, as what is left is just 2 London photos plus Stonehenge which duplicates one in the article itself? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
... so I thought, shall I just wait forever until we get a Consensus, or shall I just go and do it anyway. So I did it. Feel free to object / revert / whatever. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Raj???

What about the Raj history in the History section??? Reading the article, one feels as if such a thing never happened!!! (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What Raj? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing, but I think the point to be considered is whether matters like this or this are adequately addressed in articles such as this one, or even this or this. If you take a view of Britain as it is seen from the rest of the world, rather than a view from within, it may seem that the articles are written from quite an insular (ho ho) perspective, rather than considering how the history of England and Britain impacted on other parts of the world. But IP might not have been meaning that at all! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the articles on British India and the British Empire. CelticMuffin (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Along with British Raj too, of coarse CelticMuffin (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something to consider for the UK page, not England, really, IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

England is not a country but a constituent country. United Kingdom is the country and has been since 1801. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles77a (talkcontribs) 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively debated and the word country should not be equated with "sovereign" There are tables of references at Countries of the United Kingdom which establish this. Please read those rather than reopening a debate long past. --Snowded TALK 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Languages

We have an editor who is removing languages from the page inconsistently. He doesn't like Welsh, Scots or Romany but is leaving other languages. He argues that he is entitled to delete uncited material in which case half the article has to go. The proper procedure is to insert a [citation needed] and/or discuss. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No the proper procedure is for whoever re-adds material to satisfy the burden of proof. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Operating (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically correct yes. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". However, can we look at working together on this? Citation shouldn't be difficult to be find, and if it is then perhaps that is telling in itself. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The key phrase is "may" and in this case the user was not being consistent - removing some but not others. It took me minutes to find a reference on Welsh (see amendment) only to see the cited material removed. The editor could have made the same check with the same results. Jzza84 you are harder than most on citation, but you normally start with a tag either on the whole page or in text - and that process is outlined in Wikipedia processes as the way to go. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree to a very very broad extent, but my point was that the user was (at the time - they've since been less-than-diplomatic!) working within the scope of policy and acceptable practice if we were to take this further. Adding citation makes for a stronger encyclopedia so I commend users being bold seeking verification. However, I also agree that a [citation needed] tag or a friendly note on the talk page would've been far more courteous and productive here than the selective, even destructive airbrushing of easily-attributable factoids. Perhaps this is a mistake of this new user? I don't know. All seems to be ok now though. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but the compounding error was that they only selected some languages and left others (uncited) there. Also when I cited one, that was also reversed. That sort of behaviour worries me. In fact large swathes of the article could be deleted. However it looks like its over so lets see. --Snowded TALK 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the statement "English is the only language used in England for general official business" in this version [1] seems to me to be wrong surely. There are several local councils that have publicity/websites in minority languages. The cost of doing so is a regular issue on slow news days. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point Mick, given translation costs this should be a note. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Bangla and Urdu has a strong (and contentious) presence in the borough I live in. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vast culture?

There's no doubt England has an influential culture, but the combination of "vast" and "influential" seems to be unnecessary. It would be more appropriate not to discuss the influence of English culture before the main content-related characteristics of this culture have been introduced. And its containing both elements of the old and new sounds empty and hackneyed.

Opening section

The opening section is FAR too heavily focused on teh early history of England as a seperate sovreign nation, which it hasn't been for centuries. The article is misleading in its opening paragraphs and could lead people to believe it is an individual nation. Not a constituent division of the United Kingdom. Tom Green (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. See the archived talk and FAQs at Talk:United Kingdom as well as UKCOUNTRYREFS#UK_terminology. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relative size of England to Scotland and Wales

England does not take up 2/3 of the landmass of mainland Great Britain. Just going by the information on land mass used in the info boxes on each of the different areas, England is only 50% (Scotland being 40% and Wales 10%). To continue to state the 2/3 statistic is grossly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "England"

There does not need to be a reference immediately after the paragraph which explains that using "England" to refer to the whole United Kingdom is not only incorrect but also offensive. It should be self explanatory to anyone reading the article that denying the existence of Scotland and Wales or implying that they are part of England is likely to offend people from Wales and Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a very common mistake made by people overseas and given the function of the WIkipedia to inform the sentence is useful. --Snowded TALK 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that the sentence should not be there. Indeed, I think that it should be more prominent than it actually is. However, the point I was trying to make is that there does not need to be a reference after the sentence. Putting a reference implies that the statement is not a fact and is up for debate, but it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am, of course, referring to this sentence:

"The term is widely used; the usage is problematic and can cause offence.[citation needed]". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need citation here. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Can cause offence" is meaningless. Either it does or it doesn't. If it does, then a source can be given showing that it does. If no source can be given, it is original research and should be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, why do we need to cite a statement that is completely obvious and self-explanatory? It should be completely obvious that Scottish and Welsh people will be offended if someone asserts that they are part of England or that they don't exist. Suggesting that we need a reference here is like saying that you need to prove that Jews are likely to be offended by someone who denies the Holocaust. There are some things you do not need a citation for as they are so plainly obvious. I would suggest that the line quoted above be changed to the following:

"The term is widely used; however it is incorrect and is likely to cause offence to the non-English people of the United Kingdom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

England and the UK

England is not synonymous with the UK. Therefore England does not have a government, a PM, a head of state, a legislature or an official language. Nor is England the world's oldest democracy, since England hasn't been a -cracy of any sort since 1707. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt that England has a GDP. GDP cannot be calculated without trade figures, and I doubt that specifically English trade figures exist. The GDP figures must be sourced if they are indeed for England, or deleted if they are for the UK. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that these issues have been discussed before. States combine (in the act of Union) but can still inherit characteristics. I suggest you check some of the archives on this talk page and come back if you have new arguments to make. At least discuss changes here if there are controversial. --Snowded TALK 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • When I see errors, I correct them.
  • The existence of this article is predicated on the assumption that "England" is a different entity to "Britain" or "the UK." If you want to argue that there is no difference, then this article can be abolished. If there is a difference, however, then statements cannot be made about England which apply to the UK as a whole, because they are factually false. It is nonsense to say that Elizabeth II is the Queen of England, that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of England, that the Parliament of the UK is the legislature of England. England is a sub-national entity within the UK, It doesn't have a head of state, a head of government or a legislature. Is Juan Carlos the King of Castille? Is Angela Merkel the prime minister of Bavaria? Is the US Congress the legislature of Texas? These are exactly analogous statements, and just as false. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Please have the common decency to read past discussions on this topic, if you have a point make it without bluster. --Snowded TALK 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the questions I have asked rather than diverting the discussion onto silly procedural questions? I am perfectly entitled to edit articles without reading seven years of archived Talk. Is it your position that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of England, as the article now states, thanks to your reversion of my edits? Can you produce a source to support this assertion? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading six months will do fine and that will give some time for other editors to be engaged. In the mean time please assume good faith and tone down the belligerence. You should have taken this to talk on the first revert. --Snowded TALK 07:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so unwilling to discuss the actual issue with the article? Let me ask again: Is it your position that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of England, as the article now states? Can you produce a source to support this assertion? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You made several changes - lay them out with arguments and we can talk about them, or is this the only edit you want to assert? Also read prior discussion, look at the Countries of the United Kingdom article with its references etc. On the specific question you raise (to show willing as you have ceased to accuse people of being ignorant for over an hour now) I think the article should state that Gordon Brown is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (as it does on other country pages) but I don't think the line should be deleted. --Snowded TALK 07:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states:

  • That English is the official language of England. Since England is not a political entity, this can only be true if there is a UK statute or some similar instrument stating that English is the official language of England, as opposed to the UK. I very much doubt such a statute exists, but I'm open to correction.
Discussed on many pages - a language can be official without a statute, compromise elsewhere has been to just use "language" --Snowded TALK 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Something cannot be "official" unless a law of some sort makes it so. Of course English is the majority language of England, but that doesn't make it official. Unless someone can point to a legal provision somewhere making English the language of England, this assertion cannot be sustained. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a good point, but I agree with Snowded that a language can be official without legislation. For example, after the Norman conquest till the 14th century, French was the official language of England and I doubt legislation was passed to change it. Usually the official languages are the same as those of the legislature. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That England is a constitutional monarchy, that its monarch is Elizabeth II and that its Prime Minister is Gordon Brown. Since England is not a state, and hasn't been since 1707, none of these statements can be true. This is not really a matter that can be debated, it is plainly a fact.
See above point on Gordon Brown, England is a country within a constitutional monarchy so you might want to think of other words --Snowded TALK 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about England. Of course England is part of the UK, but that doesn't mean that England has a head of state etc. Is George Bush president of Ohio? No. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDays point below - a simple change in wording would clarify. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That the legislature of England is the Parliament of the UK. Once again, England is not a state, and it doesn't have a legislature. Of course it's true that the Parliament of the UK has jurisdiction over England, but that's not at all the same thing.
previously discussed and agreed - you need more than your opinion to change a concensus --Snowded TALK 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
So far there only two people in this debate, so if you agree with me we have a consensus. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Again I believe a simple word change to state that the legislature for England is the UK parliment makes it correct. --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That England has a GDP. I didn't delete this because it might be the case that an English GDP can be calculated, but that would require that separate English trade figures be kept, including its trade with the other parts of the UK. I doubt this is so, but maybe it is.
They are kept for Scotland and Wales to my knowledge --Snowded TALK 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone has cited figures as the GDP of England. Those figures need to be sourced. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So unless you have any further procedural objections to throw at me, I intend re-editing the article tomorrow to reflect these facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advise you not to, as you will be in danger of being seen to be gaming the system by waiting for 24 hours before repeating edits in the edit-war to avoid a WP:3rr contravention. However, WP:3rr covers that situation. Be very careful from now on.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See above comments - I suggest that you edit lightly and ideally propose first otherwise you will just get reverted again (and waiting 24 hours does not absolve you from the 3RR rule if discussion is active on the talk page). --Snowded TALK 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
While supporting Snowded, I can see that there may be a case for differentiating more clearly in the text and infobox - probably best by footnotes, as already exist for some statements - between those statements which unquestionably relate solely to England (area, patron saint, GDP if figures are calculated in official statistics, etc.) and those where the UK position is widely accepted within the UK as a proxy for the England position but where those worldwide readers who use a different definition of "country" may expect some further clarification. For example, Gordon Brown may not be de jure PM of England, but is de facto, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's an absurd statement. If Gordon Brown is PM of England, then he is also PM of Sussex, PM of Stow-on-the-Wold and PM of the Isle of Dogs, since these are all places in the UK, of which Brown is PM. This article should not make any statement other than that England is a constituent part of the UK. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not absurd, but common parlance. See for example this.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English..... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the relevance of that statement to the matter under discussion? This is not an issue of "varieties of English". There is no variety of English in which the statement that Elizabeth II is the Queen of England is correct. The primary function of an encyclopaedia is to give readers accurate information. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to assert that your usage of the word "country" is the only "correct" one. It is not - there are others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. I am quite aware that England is officially defined as a "country" within the UK. But a country is not necessarily a state. England is not a state and has not been one since 1707. The constitutional status of the Crown and the government are perfectly clear - they are the Crown and the government of the UK, of which England is a constituent. But Sussex and Kent are also former sovereign states which are now parts of the UK, and no-one asserts that Elizabeth II is "Queen of Kent." This is really a very simple matter and I don't see how anyone can defend the obvious falseness of the statements in the current infobox.
I just returned to the internet after a good meal with friends and I see its been busy. Some points/opinions
  • I agree with Ghmyrtle that there need to be some changes and clarification
  • I do not think that Toad should edit until there is agreement
  • The other country pages (Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland) all include the PM of the UK and the Queen, England should too, but the PM and Queen should not be designated as PM or Queen of England as that is not the case (maybe not in the case of the Queen by the way as the realm of England still exists in some contexts. A constituent country can have a head of state (although it may need a note to explain it
  • A language can be official without a statute, especially in the UK which bases law on statute and precedent. Toad is wrong to say that without a statute it is not official.
  • It would be reasonably to say that the Parliament of the UK acts in all respects as the government of England (maybe a note here as Ghmyrtle suggests
  • The Stow on the Wold argument is novel but absurd, England existed as a state prior to the act of union and might do if it is dissolved, it is a country Stow on the Wold is not.
  • Toad really needs to read the prior discussions on these issues. --Snowded TALK 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown are not Monarch & Prime Minister of England (nor of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). They're Monarch & Prime Minister over England (and over Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). They're Monarch & Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out a common error - whatever its status with regard to the UK, England does, nevertheless, have a government. Most government departments, such as the Home Office, deal almost exclusively with England, especially since devolution. Hence the relevant Secretary of State can make changes to the English health service, or education, but not to those in Scotland, Wales, and NI. Even before devolution those countries had their own departments, with the difference that they were still based in London (but administered separately). The only major exceptions to this are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. In almost all other matters the departments of government have jurisdiction over England alone. Therefore, England does have a government - even if MPs from outside England can participate in it. ðarkuncoll 16:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By this reasoning, prior to devolution, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also had their own governments.

Agreed.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Things would've been alot easier, if England had a devolved government (like the other 3 UK components). Oh well, whatcha gonna do. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that would make things infinitely more complicated and probably unworkable (see my reply on my talk page). ðarkuncoll 17:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
In agreement, on reason that the UK Parliament is located within England. Had the UK Parliament been (for example) located in Scotland? There'd likely be a devolved government in England (and none in Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
But that scenario simply couldn't have happened, given the relative populations and economic importance of the countries, the fact that it was England that pushed through and dominated the union, and all the other factors involved. Not least that the English would never have contemplated union on such terms, whereas a bankrupt Scotland had no real choice. ðarkuncoll 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying, had Scotland forced the Union in 1707 onto England, things would be reversed today. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not least that the English would never have contemplated union on such terms, whereas a bankrupt Scotland had no real choice".

What terms are you referring to? The decision to house the new Parliament of Great Britain in Westminster was merely a matter of logic and does not imply anything about the relationship between Scotland and England. In 1707, England was roughly six times larger than Scotland and thus had a much larger economy. Thus, when one considers that the number of MP's from England and Scotland was determined by the size of each nation's economy, it was obvious that the parliament would be in England. It always amuses me when people imply that England's dominance within the union since 1707 has been due to anything other than its much larger population.

The Union was not forced upon Scotland by England. Scotland was indeed close to bankruptcy and saw a union with England as a way out of the nation's finacial problems post-Darien. The decision to unite with England was made by the Scottish parliament. By suggesting that the union was forced implies that England gave Scotland an ultimatum; unite or be conquered. This is not the case. The union was a merger between two sovereign and independent nations on equal terms. The fact that England subsequently dominated the union is a result of its larger population and nothing else.

Yes, no doubt... but in fact, James VI/I tried something very similar in 1604, and the English told him to get lost (though to be fair his merged parliament was intended to meet at Westminster, so it's not quite the same). ðarkuncoll 17:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
and of course the simplest way to avoid all these issues would be to make Westminster the government of England, Wales and Scotland then join the EU, England becomes part of the North American trading group and anyone with a cross border farm will make a lot of money. --Snowded TALK 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with LITERALLY every point made by Intelligent Mr Toad here. Tom Green (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Mr Anonymous above) Er... Yes, that's precisely what I said. England was able to dominate Scotland because of its massively vaster resources. But you're wrong about there being no ultimatum though, even if it was never phrased in such stark language. Scotland was already bankrupt, and England closed its border to Scottish trade. For Scotland it was a question of starve, or unite (with very nice bribes for all its MPs). The idea that it was a union of equals is a patent legal fiction, invented to allow the Scots to save face. ðarkuncoll 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are suggesting. However, there is a difference between England giving Scotland an ultimatum and Scotland realising it had no choice but to unite. You are also forgetting that England had hugely important reasons for wanting to unite with Scotland; issues surrounding royal succession and Scotland's alliance with France. Thus, to suggest that Scotland had no bargaining tools when discussing the terms of the union is wrong.

You say that "the idea that it was a union of equals is a patent legal fiction, invented to allow the Scots to save face"; what evidence can you provide for this assertion? There are three legal documents which established the union- the Act of Union with Scotland, the Act of Union with England and the Treaty of Union. There is nothing in these documents which implies that Scotland is a lesser partner. Again, I must stress that England's dominance of Scotland is purely as a result of its far larger population and economy and not because of any legal or political document.

I just think you should have been more careful about choosing the word "force". Many people would assume that this meant that England had conquered or annexed Scotland, but this is not what happened. There is already a huge misunderstanding about what Great Britain actually is with many people believing that Scotland was incorporated into England in 1707 and that GB is actually just a "Greater England". Obviously it is essential to dispel such beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This helps the England article how exactly? Let's respect the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines please and focus on how to improve the article, not speculation. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This helps the article because of the fact that many people outside the UK (and even some in England) see Scotland as being a conquered country. However, it is important to note that England and Scotland have equal status within the union, even if England is dominant by virtue of its larger population. As far as I am aware, nowhere in the article does it mention that England gave up its independence and sovereignty in 1707. Nor does it mention that the English parliament was abolished. Can someone explain why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IP; would you please create an account? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The acts of union contain a guarantee that the Scottish legal system and church would remain intact, and that the Scottish crown jewels would never leave Scotland, for example. No equivalent provisions exist for England. So it was indeed recognised that Scotland's position was weaker, or why bother including such guarantees? And in any case, as I said above, military force was used in 1715, just eight years after the union (and also in 1745). ðarkuncoll 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
We must remember, the 1715 & 1745 incidents were in hopes of assuming the British throne (not just Scotland) for the Old Pretender. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Miltary force? I assume you mean the British army, ie, the united armies of Scotland and England? In 1715 England was no longer a sovereign nation and therefore did not have an army with which to engage Scotland in military action. Not to mention the fact that Scotland itself was also no longer a sovereign nation and could not engage England in military action. Thus, any military force was essentially a British civil war, not England versus Scotland. Secondly, the provisions that you speak of were a recognition of the fact that the Parliament of Great Britain would always consist of mostly English MP's. It was realised that preventive measures would have to be taken to ensure that these institutions would not be abolished via an act of parliament. In other words, without these provisions, the English MP's in the British Parliament could have abolished the Scottish legal system, etc if they so wished as they were the majority. Thirdly, is it your position that the Treaty of Union was an act of conquest on behalf of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is idle speculation and doesn't help the article. If WP:TALK isn't respected I will restrict the editting capabilities of those who are circumventing policy. If you wish to debate the nature of the union, do so in user talk, not article talk. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much in agreement with Jza84 here, and would like to add to his very useful link the following two: WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, which may be useful material to review and conform to as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps showing the differences between England, Britain, and the United Kingdom

The middle map seems to have been just added. Isn't there something wrong with it? The problem is glossed over a little by the caption "Britain", but I think we should try to do better than that. It can't be "Great Britain", as the islands of Anglesey, Wight, and the whole host of Scottish islands are shown, but it is a matter of dispute whether it could be the "British Isles" or even corrected to a version showing the British Isles that would reach any consensus view, and the piping seems a bit awry for it. Can I suggest that the recently added map is simply deleted until a new one is found which colours solely the island of Great Britain, with the appropriate caption. I think we should try to avoid spreading the dispute about "British Isles" around more than it could be, and this article has enough problems of its own without adding to them. What do people think?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Already removed while I was typing the message, I see. That seems better to me.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I took them all out. I see no point in having any of them there, the difference is more than adequately shown in the infobox map image. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New article needed

A new article should be created which CLEARLY identifies the EXACT political, international and legislative nature of the entity that is England. This article MUST clearly state that England is not a separate sovereign state, with no individual armed forces, currency, international internet domain, dialling code, currency and everything else that is true of it and that has been discussed here. I'm undecided on the article's title. Tom Green (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Even if such an article was written, would it not be obvious that such an article should be merged with the current 'England' article? Perhaps a better solution would be to simply improve the current England article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is impossible, as the countless arguments and battling here have proved. The fact is, while it is called a country and has statistics listed in the same way that sovereign states do (regardless of whether or not this is correct), I would say thousands of readers could be mislead or not be clear on England's actual status. Tom Green (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say thousands are not. Have you done an analysis? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It is widely known (do not be sarcastic and ask me to prove that point as it is common knowledge to anyone that has heard Americans) that MANY Americans believe England to be a sovereign state with its own Queen and Government. Wikipedia is about promoting accurate knowledge which includes displacing common mis beliefs. Tom Green (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Right. OK. So you have no verification? Apologies if I've appeared sarcastic, but these are fundamental aspects of building momentum for a major change in direction. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is OK as it is (IMHO). Now, if it were a re-direct to the article United Kingdom? we'd have a problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that many people outside the United Kingdom believe that the terms England and the United Kingdom/ Great Britain mean the same thing. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Thus, it follows that many people believe England to be an independent and sovereign state with its own Parliament, monarch and army, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, the article for England should strive, wherever possible, to make it clear to anyone reading that England is only a part of the United Kingdom and therefore it is not independent or sovereign. The issue about people using England and Great Britain interchangeably has been highlighted by prominent historians such as Norman Davies. Please find below a few links to an example of the problem myself and Tom Green are referring to:,9171,797212,00.html (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One unreliable source, one article from 1945 and another that doesn't exist on that url. I've no doubt some people think England is an island but the opening sentence of the lead makes it clear that England is "part of the United Kingdom". --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I really wish that you were correct in suggesting that everyone knows the difference between England and Great Britain, however, if you think that is the case then you are deluded. How is this for an example, written by the chief sports writer of the Times, Simon Barnes. (you need to read the whole article, he quite clearly refers to the British olympic team as the England team). I could quite easily find you more examples.--Palefire1983 (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Jza84, the article explains itself well. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a new article. The fact that people frequently use "England" when they should say "Britain" or the "UK" is a constant irritation, but that does not mean that they think England is a separate country, they just think that we are all English (which irritates the hell out of me). Palefile's logic is flawed there. At best there is a case for a single line which states that England can be used in an incorrect way. --Snowded TALK 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think Paleface needs to take care that sentences like: "if you think that is the case then you are deluded" don't stray even further into being personalised comments. The point that the viewpoint he was criticising was, in his view, incorrect could have been made without the claim of delusion on the part of the ditor who had that viewpoint.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Before we start criticising the rest of the world for their woeful ignorance, lets look at it a bit more closely. Perhaps they're just being realists. A country that controls 83% of the votes in any given state is surely, for all practical purposes, in charge. ðarkuncoll 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. That would be like saying Ontario & Quebec combined, control Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ther're not combined. That's the whole point. ðarkuncoll 23:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TALK, WP:SOAPBOX please. This isn't a productive line of enquiry. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jza. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There already is a sentence which explains the correct useage of "England". however, it is not clear enough in my opinion. See section above.--Palefire1983 (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with the film Johnny English? It portrays England in the manner which we have been dicussing. Films are designed to appeal to the masses (notably Americans) and this just proves people's ignorance. The film constantly refers to the Queen of England and at one point shows a map of the whole of the United Kingdom changing to red when a change to England is being described. Tom Green (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, just to point out that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland "should not be considered as a first-order administrative divisions" of the United Kingdom ([2]). The UK is united on this basis, not divided on it. They are not subdivisions.
I'm also very concerned about the two single-purpose accounts that have appeared in the last 24 hours (User:Palefire1983 and User:Lecochonbleu). Can you assure us you're not using multiple accounts? I can assure you we're not going down the route of edit wars. No consensus = no change. Secure a consensus before making controvertial edits. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm agreement with this concern. There's also the editor known as "Intelligent Mr Toad" who started to engage in an edit war a few days ago, having had no previous involvement with this article, and who was declaring that he/she was going to re-insert some contentious material. The style and manner of that editor's contributions was potentially problematic here.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I too am concerned, with those 2 new editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The blue pig (Lecochonbleu) has also been up to tricks on United Kingdom.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Soon be time to lower the hammer (i.e. blocks). GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why the contributions of myself, Tom Green and Intelligent Toad are being treated with suspicion and yet the contributions of the likes of Jza84 and Goodday are somehow undisputed. As far as I am aware, literally everything raised by Tom and Toad are veriable facts. There seems to be a lot of people on here who regard England as being a state of which Scotland and Wales are merely regions or provinces. For example, see the contributions of TharkunColl. Why is nooone questioning this person? I don't mean to be rude Jza84, but who are you to decide what is a productive line of discussion? In my opinion, debating the nature of the union is a productive line of discussion since this is the only way we can determine precisely the political status of England.--Palefire1983 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Partly because I'm an administrator, partly because I've been a WP user for 3 years, and partly because I'm citing policy amongst other things.
GoodDay is clearly a seperate user as evidenced by his contributions, whereas you joined WP the other day, and jumped straight into this discussion.
Debating the political status of England is not productive if you're not prepared to cite reliable sources. Polarising the community, stiring up angst and bringing your opinion to debate is not going to facilitate a change in direction. However Palefire, note that the status of England has been discussed to death for about 5 years - even going to formal mediation. Familliarise yourself with all the archives and we can then pick things up from there. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I will not confirm or deny any such thing regarding multiple accounts. As an administrator, you have the ability to determine if I am doing such things. I intend to create a new section on this article tentatively titled 'Common misconceptions', the section will be reliably and multiply referenced. I trust this will not anger anyone as it will be stating relevant facts about how 'England' is perceived by its residents, those of the rest of the UK and the wider international community. Tom Green (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No, a checkuser has the ability, not all administrators. I have the ability to block distruptive users, and protect articles from harm. If there is evidence of abuse I will use those measures - but we shouldn't need to go down that route should we?
I do strongly object to your proposal however. You've provided no quantitative research or reliable source, and your changes would break guidelines on section layout by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be alright, if TomGreen create an article dealing with this misconception. Then have that new article linked to this article & United Kingdom article? GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
We already have one: Terminology of the British Isles. This section deals with the issue adequately. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
At best we need a sentence about any confusion - a well referenced sentence to avoid edit wars - possibly in the lead. Terminology of the British Isles could be linked. What we don't need is users changing formally agreed upon wording to the unsourced "England is a province" or "England is a subdivision" when it is formally not. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(after a number of edit conflicts) I'm not sure why a brief link (if it doesn't already appear) in this article to the link that Jza84 provided would be inadequate in TomGreen's opinion. Perhaps he could explain why in much more detail than merely making assertions and declarations of intent. In fact, if he feels very strongly about it, I strongly suggest he does what is commonly done on other articles in similar circumstances: He writes the section he says is needed in a subsection of a special section here for the addition (yes, on this talk page). After that, he should include another sub-section containing reasoned justifications as to why it should be included in this article, and (also importantly) why it cannot be adequately covered by a link to the section on the page that Jza84 has already provided. It can then be discussed to see if a consensus for it to be included emerges. I strongly advise him not to merely add the material to the article, as (a) it is clearly contentious to include it here, (b) it breeches guidelines for article structure, and (c) the way forward I have provided completely addresses the matter in a way that will show the consensual method of working on wikipedia to its full and will not result in non-consensual disruption to the article itself.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in reference to the film Johnny English mentioned above. Can people not appreciate satire when they see it? ðarkuncoll 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is huge differences in articles across wikipedia when it comes to the makeup of the United Kingdom and the relations between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It really is troubling that such problems exist and simply lead to more confusion. For example on nationality, When talking about Actors, Authors, businessman or any other profession, some pages describe people as British, others describe them as English or Scottish. Others call someone British of "English and Scottish parentage" There is no clear method on wiki for all of these issues and they really need sorting out. One of the first problems is the fact we describe England as a country, which in many peoples opinions its not. The Kingdom of England use to be a country, its now simply part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talkcontribs) 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Much of the information in the infox requires a statement or footnote such as 'as per the United Kingdom'. It is factually misleading to have these details displayed in the way that they are at present. IE) the international internet domain or dialling code is not something which is alloted to England, but the whole of the United Kingdom. Tom Green (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I clarified it immediately so that you can have more time in preparing the material that was discussed in the previous section prior to posting it on this talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Calling code, government type, monarch and prime minister also need need similar footnotes. I have decided not to persue my above intention at this time as I beleive we are making steady progress within the article. Tom Green (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article

Can we have some discussion about which images to have on the article instead of having one editor making undiscussed changes to what is there? It would help to remove any chance of someone imposing their own personal likes on the article.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a long overdue point, and an excellent one at that. We need things that are characteristic of England - images that other encyclopedias or Short Guide to England type publications would use. We also need to bare in mind representive-ness of the whole of England, and the quality of images.
That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with having four monarchs in the History section. I'm keen on having images of Featured picture quality (its a system on WikiCommons), and of things like Grade I listed buildings or UNESCO Heritage sites etc where possible. Any other suggestions? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I agree that we should aim to get as many Featured Pictures that are relevant in the article as possible, as that would work towards the final goal we are all meant to be striving towards: getting this article up to FA status. What are the ground rules or rules of thumb about how many images and where (say two per long section, or more if there is more than one distinctive group of things a section deals with?). I think if the music section is expanded, it could certainly carry more than one image: say at least one of a more "classical" composer and one of a more popular singer or group might do it. May be one way forwards would be to assemble a list of possible images relevant to each section that we can find of Featured Image status, then go down the list of quality. That way, we can see where we stand, if there are any "holes" and so on.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOSIMAGE has all the formatting issues we need to worry about (although they're pretty straight forward). Featured photographs of England I can find at commons are:
I think some of the above could be used to swap out poorer, or older versions (for example the Picture of the Year Finalist must surely be better than for architecture? - we have enough London shots anyway!). There are loads more great England free-to-use images at Flickr too, this being an example. I don't think the following images are of a befitting quality:
I also think the Image:Charles Ernest Butler - King Arthur.jpg should be replaced with something about Robin Hood - Arthur is associated with parts of Wales and Scotland, and relates to pre-English unification. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
" editor making undiscussed changes to what is there.."...? Was that me? There had been discussion, but there was then no discussion for 2 weeks so I was momentarily bold. But anyway, no problem with further changes so long as the previous over-emphasis on London, and southern England in general, is not repeated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - it wasn't you at all, Ghmyrtle.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the images will depend on the content of the sections, and they may need re-writing. The replacement of the picture of Elgar by that of The Beatles and its subsequent reversion was the image that prompted my message. In that section, there is clearly a need for the content to be rewritten, though I myself only know about the more "classical" music side of things. Elgar is an all right choice, but I think there are more telling arguments in favour of Ralph Vaughan Williams, as it was he who was said to have revived English composition finally after the dearth that followed the disasterous death (I understand it was called a "National disaster" at the time, though I would have to check in one of the standard biographies I have of him) at an early age of Henry Purcell, many years previously. (Henry Purcell might also be another contender for the picture) Vaughan Williams was one of the pioneers along with some others, of recording traditional English Folk Songs which led to a revival of interest in them before they died out all together, and his music makes great use of them and their underlying structure (modal as opposed to tonal music, for instance) One could argue that he is much more a classic example of an English composer steeped in the musical history of England than Elgar is. But I'm not going to put an image of him in, as I may well be just using my own personal preferences here: it needs to be discussed. I also agree that we need to avoid a preponderance of London-based images. Incidentally, one of Vaughan Williams' anniversaries is this year (17 October to be precise, if my listening to te radio and my memory of the biography of him I have is correct.) Also Music of England redirects to Folk Music of England and Music of the United Kingdom, and this latter article is a dreadfully biased and incomplete shambles.

 DDStretch  (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Elgar and Williams, they seem far more appropriate and futureproof than something more contemporary. Like the UK article, whole parts of the England article need completely rewriting.
On another note, I've found some more featured images at Portal:United_Kingdom/Featured_picture.
So do we have a plan of action? Or is it a case of being bold? It is my understanding that we swap out lower quality photographs for like-for-like featured content, where possible. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say Elgar or Williams and then either Britten or Birtwhistle who represent a major international presence in Opera. The music section needs a rewrite to reflect not just that, but the folk and popular cultures. --Snowded TALK 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to root out some more images, then, so we can look at them. The best and most "iconic" image of him is the one I gave, which in this case has some problems of use, and the image quality of that copy is not as good as it could be. Just as an aside, Vaughan Williams has a double barrelled surname that isn't hyphenated, and that can cause some slip ups, as the obvious choice of what his surname is will often be incorrect. So, his given name most known is "Ralph", and his family (surname) is Vaughan Williams.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to throw in a comment - in my view one consideration should be that the images should be known or at least interesting and relevant when seen by an international, rather than simply an English or British, readership. So, I think there should be some iconic images (Big Ben for example, or the Beatles), some chosen for their merits as images (eg from "featured pictures"), and some designed to encourage readers to find out more (Vaughan Williams perhaps). And on top of that, a balance between places/objects/landscapes and people; and geographically balanced so far as possible. No doubt there are other criteria as well (didn't Jza84 come up with some a few months ago?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that was for the British people article - which was tough to say the least! :S
I agree though, we need to work together to find a really good way forwards, with some concessions and compromise. We might have to work out geographic representation by region, rather than county or city though for simplicity. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify - I'd hate to see any rigidity or "quotas" in the geographical balance, merely a recognition that, as many of the most internationally recognised iconic images of England are likely to come from London and the south, they need to be balanced by others from other regions. The Angel of the North would be a good example, as would somewhere like Liverpool Pier Head, the Lake District or Yorkshire Moors, Cornwall or Devon coastline, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. As an extra place to consider, how about the Eden Project? Don't know about the quality of any images, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Eden Project geodesic domes panorama.jpg is a featured picture. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) Is there any reason not to use good quality photos from Geograph? I've been merrily inserting them (as licensed) in other lower-profile articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, is there a particular photo you were thinking of? Do we have any ideas or even consensus as to what is or isn't missing in the article? On a simillar note, the edit history shows some of the recent changes to the images were reverted by another user. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No particular thoughts on that, no - there are millions to choose from at Geograph though, at least 1% of which are quite good! I would have thought a photo or two of typical landscapes or typical scenes would be valuable, and not too stereotypical if not overdone. Looking through these the choice is quite limited, but possibly this or this could be used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

England Goverment

There shouldnt be a goverment part in the infobox they dont have there own goverment therefore dont use the UNITED KINGDOM goverment as they are incharge in the UK NOT ENGLAND --The Who Present For Ya (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley6.  This flag once was red  22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, several departments of the UK government deal ONLY with England! (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DaveBurstein (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) A simple change of tone allowed the article to avoid taking sides without seriously diminishing acknowledgement of England's role. So I changed tone of certainty but not substance about industrial revolution and RS. Scholars disagree, with some seeing Chinese antecedents, etc. New text acknowledges English role without favor. Fixed my typo. Historians including Andre Gunder Frank have advanced the work of Needham, the great English historian, into earlier advances in science.

Tees-Exe Line

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change:

The approximate dividing line between terrain types is often indicated by the Tees-Exe line. To the south of that line, there are larger areas of flatter land, including East Anglia and the Fens, although hilly areas include the Cotswolds, the Chilterns, the North and South Downs, Dartmoor and Exmoor.

To this:

The approximate dividing line between terrain types is often indicated by the Tees-Exe line. To the south of that line, there are larger areas of flatter land, including East Anglia and the Fens, although hilly areas include the Cotswolds, the Chilterns, the North and South Downs.

Note that in fact both Dartmoor and Exmoor lie very much to the North/West of the Tees-Exe line and this sentence implies that they are hilly areas lying to the south.

Hothatch (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrected! Thanks! --DA Skunk - (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coat Of Arms

Is it correct for the Coat of Arms to show, This is the coat of arms of the KINGDOM OF ENGLAND England has no official coat of arms anymore.--Bread & Butter (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we need a consensus. The coat of arms has been in the infobox for a very long time. It is an emblem of England, but certainly not its coat of arms. Really, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should use the flag only, and nothing else in my humble opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can see where Jza84 is going with this along with Bread and Butter. I dont think that it should just the 4 the country's flags but maybe the UK Coat of arms. For example Scotland has there own coat of arms for HM The queen, therefore should it be shown. Scotland also has a coat of arms for the Scotland Office, that should maybe be shown as well.

Wales has a royal badge therefore thet royal badge should be shown in the infobox.

Northern Ireland doent have an official flag nor coat of arms. There have been certain debates about using the Ulster banner or the Flag of Ireland which in the case wouldnt be correct for Northern ireland to use the Republic of Ireland's flag, becuase they are 2 seperate country's.

If England can show a royal coat of arms for the Kingdom of England then so should Wales & Scotland show there Royal Badge for Wales & Royal coat of arms for Scotland.

There was a Massive debate on the Talk:Scotland page about the coat of arms which was going to be used, but currently it is the Royal standard of Scotland. The coat of arms on the Scotland page was remove becuase it was the coat of arms for the Kingdom of Scotland. England still shows there coat of arms for England so what diffrence does it make.

Wales should show there Royal Badge again Scotland should show the Royal coat of arms no matter if it is for the Kingdom England should also do the same.

It doesnt realy matter if it is the Kingdom's coat of arms or not, they should still be shown so

Royal badge for wales (in the infobox on their page) Royal coat of arms for Scotland (in the infobox on their page) --Humberbreadcaliforniababe (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution

Joy! An issue not about England being a county or not!....

The Industrial Revolution; was England verifiabliy the "birth place of the Industrial Revolution, and the first country to industrialise". I'm confident it was, but do we have a reliable source or two or three? I'd be interested to know if sources say it was England or Britiain too (Scotland and Wales were also early leaders) - so we need to tighten this up before we have any more shuffles please. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution has some interesting information, with verification, about it, and so could be raided for verifiable information. Also, the following sites seem to be potentially useful, though being websites, I'm not sure about their status as reliable sources: here, and here. The most interesting point appears in the wikipedia article which seems to be reliably sourced that argues that there is disagreement about when it started and whether it was one revolution, two, or not really a revolution at all. However, in terms of where, most sources do seem to agree that the UK was the initial place. I do know, however, that Belgium is sometimes said to have a bit of a case, though the source I have say only that it contains the area which was the first place on 'continental Europe to enter the Industrial Revolution (The Economy Section here: "The first country to undergo an industrial revolution on the continent of Europe in the early 1800s...", for example)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
How about just saying something like "England as part of the United Kindgom was the birth place of the industrial revolution" There may be sources that claim other parts of Europe had an influence, but no one can strongly deny that the UK was the first country to enter the industrial era. Aslong as it mentions as part of the UK, its not saying England was ahead of Scotland and wales which is my main concern as it was not just England acting alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd much rather we base this on a source as opposed to wording things to avoid research and aiding our readers with the facts. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If my memory serves me correctly then Telford has the main claim (first smelting etc, first iron bridge). OK it was on the Welsh Borders and without Welsh Steam Coal the industrial age would not have happened in the same way, but I do think this is legitimate English claim. --Snowded TALK 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Not being awkward or anything, but some would claim it for Wales (well, Monmouthshire...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Manchester of course being the first industrial city! Sorry, that was mischievous! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well Monmouthshire is interesting - it wasn't fully established if it was Welsh or English until after the Industrial revolution. I think we have to give this one to the English, and Jza is also right about Manchester. --Snowded TALK 13:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
" wasn't fully established if it was Welsh or English until after the Industrial revolution..." - watch out, you'll get in big trouble for saying things like that! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have to be one or the other? If its decided that Monmouthshire is the home of the industrial revolution then who does it go to, England or Wales? I have to confess its the first I've heard of the ambiguity of this part of Wales, but then I'm no expert. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Well I may get into trouble but its true. In fact the real authority before the modern age is the Treaty of Montgomery which excludes it. Now as to what should be within Wales if justice was served, well that would be everywhere to the North West of the Wansdyke. :-) Overall I think we can give the Industrial Revolution to England, the use of natural resources in Wales which followed, industrial development in Scotland are all key contributors, but I think it started in Coaldale on most authorities (although I am in Singapore this week so do not have them to hand). --Snowded TALK 14:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pro and anti english

I was a bit disturbed by Usergreatpower (never sure why you chose that name by the way) comment about anti-english bias as I can't see anything to support the line. If anything the article is the other way. it states all the good stuff (industrial revolution, royal society etc) where England went first, but few of the bad things (first anti-witchcraft act, anti-semitism, first concentration camps, Peterloo, Slavery creating most of the wealth in Liverpool etc. etc.). I'm not proposing anything specific at this stage, but the throw away comment seemed to need some response. What do others think? --Snowded TALK 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re the first point, I've commented. On the others, I agree to an extent, although I'm worried about the flow of the text and how vast it could become. The History of England is in a dire state though. The whole article, like the other home nations and UK page, needs a sweeping improvement drive to up the citation and detail. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


The Folklore section needs a rewrite. The 1st paragraph is ok, but unsourced and not all that interesting or informative. The last paragraph is fine, though still unsourced. However, the middle two paragraphs have major problems: Para 2 - the notion that the Romans invaded England is seriously flawed. England did not exist until centuries after the Romans left, let alone invaded, Britain. Although the idea that the Saxons etc invaded England is quite amusing, it is still unencyclopedic and not worthy of this article. The link to "Arthurian legends" is actually a WP:Easter egg piping into an article called Matter of Britain. This article begins "The Matter of Britain is a name given collectively to the legends that concern the Celtic and legendary history of Great Britain, ..." This seems to be the main problem - the article should be about England, not Great Britain. Para 3 is not suitable for inclusion in this article, unless it's made clear that this relates only to Cornwall (& possibly Cumbria). King Arthur defended Great Britain from those who would establish England. As the article King Arthur says "King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century." It may be better to use the information from the article English folklore and write the section regionally. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries that could affect whether or not England is included in various lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


In the cuisine section it describes British Cuisine, and makes a direct reference to tikka masala, which depending on the source originated from India or Scotland, not England. Should this be removed? Neilnapier (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Roast picture

The description of the picture is "Sunday roast consisting of roast beef, roast potatoes, vegetables and Yorkshire pudding". The picture depicts a roast dinner with mashed potatoes rather than roast potatoes. Has anyone got a picture of a traditional English Sunday Roast with roast potatoes? Stutley (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

State Church

Notwithstanding that the Church of England is the established church in England, and that the sovereign is its Supreme Governor, its bishops are represented in the upper house, and its laws are passed by the parliament assembled at Westminster, is it not misleading to describe it as a state church? To many this could imply that the state, through taxation, gives money to and runs the church, just like we have state schools. Moreover, state gives the image of Whitehall, whereas any involvement of people like the Prime Minister in church affairs is through the Royal Prerogative. Therefore, would it not be more accurate in the last sentence to describe the Church of England as the national church?
Dodgerjammy (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. "Established" or "national" church would be appropriate AFAICT. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My preference of the two suggested would be for "established", since my impression (though not guaranteed to be reliable) is that this term is the one I hear most often in the media to describe it.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Church is a separate "estate" so its clearly wrong to call it a "state church". "Established" is the base language, links to disestablishment in Wales etc. --Snowded TALK 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason that it is a state church is that its leaders are appointed only with the approval of the Government, and that they are part of the parliamentary apparatus. Contrast that with the (national) Church of Scotland which makes its own laws, does not allow the Government to pick its leaders and has no representation within Parliament. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Is England itself technically a country? Being part of the United Kingdom - internationally recognized as a country in its entirety - can it be considered a country by itself? Other countries do not formally recognize its sovereignty, and the same applies to Wales and Scotland. Can anyone shed some light on this, please? (More support for what I said:

At the top of this very page is a box that contains text beginning "the issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised." This box addresses the very issue you raise.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
oooh! I dunno, doesn't this website destroy all the other evidence, including the UN, UK government and the Wales arbcom?.... sorry, couldn't help myself. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
In any case that website states there are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country or not. However we have all agreed that England is not an independent country, so the website does not address the very issue we raise. The issue that we raised was whether England is any sort of country apart from an independent country. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember the raging debates on this last year... Shocked people are still bringing it up!Kasbaar (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a favourite subject for trolls. They know they'll get a response so they keep coming back to it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Its not just a "favourite subject for trolls", it is a legitimate question from some people. The term country means different things to different people, this has always been made clear in the debates and when the final decission to describe the 4 parts of the United Kingdom as country was made on wikipedia. We shouldnt be suprised that some people are confused by this issue otherwise we wouldnt need an entire article at Countries of the United Kingdom explaining it all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
All of which is true and none of which contradicts the point that "It's a favourite subject for trolls". -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot really call them trolls if there unaware of past discussions on this subject. You have the right to be a bit irritated for them having not done there talk page research on it first. If that makes any sense. (Which, i doubt it does, as I am very tired right now,...Weddings...Bloody things).Misortie (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Just browsing this talk page, it is very clear it needs to be archived. It is getting long and untidy with no topics currently active, so I think an archive is in order. I mean, some of the discussions here are eight months old or so. Misortie (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So unless anyone objects... Misortie (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok im going to ask... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misortie (talkcontribs) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

English Common Law

This picture should be included on the England page:

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