Talk:England/Archive 6

Cornish language?
As per this Cornish is no-longer classed as an active langauge - should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article states that a UN report has classified it as extinct, but that experts in the field are surprised at this and are suggesting there should be a new classification for languages like Cornish and Manx that have undergone a revitalisation. I don't think Cornish should be removed on the basis of this one report.  Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Demography of England
"The generally accepted view[citation needed] is that the ethnic background of the English populace..." Citation needed, come on! Even if it is needed, how can this be left uncited? You could put down Stephen Oppenheimer's study wihch reveals that the Anglo-Saxon contribution is vastly overrated, with fully 2/3 of English people tracing an unbroken line to Celtic ancestry originating in south-west Europe. Stephen Oppenheimer's study estimates a meagre 5% of English DNA is Anglo-Saxon.
 * ✅ Citation added. Cheers. Im per a t § r (Talk) 13:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

england article
please change the england article, it says they were there for at least 700'000 years, bullshit, no humans were around then.
 * The article doesn't say humans, it says Homo erectus - and per the Homo erectus article: "H. erectus originally migrated from Africa during the Early Pleistocene, possibly as a result of the operation of the Saharan pump, around 2.0 million years ago, and dispersed throughout most of the Old World." I'll see your bullshit and raise you one reading and comprehending ;-) Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 11:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welsh act of Union
There is no distinction drawn between the kingdom of England, which by the terms of the act of union of 1535 includes Wales, and the presently constituted state which excludes Wales. We list the other acts of union - what about the Welsh!! Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Try again - the reference to the Welsh act of union is not in the first section which is where the reference to the Scots one is! Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

A few problems with the article and with recent changes: * The GA assessment process requires that nominations of articles with multiple maintenance tags, that are obviously still valid, be failed. The article has:
 * * Wholly uncited/unreferenced section tagged as such since July, 2008.
 * * Multiple tags.
 * ✅ Fixed all that :)


 * The 'Nomenclature' section is simplistic and an embedded list; ditto the 'Engineering and innovation' subsection.
 * Finished the Engineering and innovation section :)


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

* Poor sourcing. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable third-party secondary sources.
 * Used numerous alternative sources; see diffs.
 * * worldstatesmen.org states on its webpage it's "an online encyclopedia" - that's a tertiary source.
 * ✅ Replaced with alternative and better reference in the form of a book. Cheers. Im per a t § r (Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * * clairethornton.com website states she is a fiction author of historical romance novels. If you're writing on historical matters in an article use appropriate authoritative secondary sources, such as history books published by university presses or peer-reviewed academic journal articles, ideally those specialising in the specific topic area.
 * academon.com paper. While there are indeed many MA theses and PhD dissertations on this topic, usually one does not use theses and dissertations unless there are no other sources available. In this case, that is not true. There is published scholarly material on English history. Second, that is an essay selling website; it is far from being an appropriate source.
 * I actually wanted to ask; the above articles, even if the general type is far from appropriate, these specific links seem to be fine. I'll see if I can find a replacement reference, though. Cheers. Im per a t § r (Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Fixed many of the above; I've now worked on it for a few days and more than 10 edits. Still, I don't feel this article is ready for GA; could you provide more advice and problems that I could resolve for this article? Cheers. Im <font color=#7B68EE>per <font color=#6495ED>a <font color=#87CEFA>t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe something like the following would be better?

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


 * No objections form me looks to be an improvement --Snowded (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you do it? I can not edit this page for some reason --Wgh001 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - the article is semi-protected and you have not been around long enough to count as "established"!!!
 * I believe you mean autoconfirmed :-) Fribbler (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TaWgh001 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad; while I was revising the thesis, I copyedited it from an obsolete previous version and didn't notice the "land" part :) cheers, <font color=#4169E1">Im <font color=#7B68EE>per <font color=#6495ED>a <font color=#87CEFA>t <font color=#4682B4>§ r (Talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "celtic sea"? Never heard of that. Wouldn't "The Atlantic Ocean" be better? Stutley (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Celtic Sea might help you out --Snowded (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already read that and noted the following: "the residents on the western coast [of Great Britain] don't refer to it as such". Stutley (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

No mention of the traditional borders!
No mention of Hadrians Wall in the Roman period, one of the longest walls in the world and a traditional defining point of where England ends and Scotland begins (even if not strictly true). Similarly but not to such great extent, no mention of Offa's Dyke being built in the Dark Ages as a mark of ,traditionally, were England ends and Wales begins.Willski72 (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of those predated the existence of "England". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * I believe the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. Can you verify these "traditional" borders of England with reputable sources? I'm not keen on the term "traditional" though - its very weasely and emotive. Also, it's a common misconception that the Romans only controlled (what were to become) England and Wales - they actually held sway over the majority of the Scottish Lowlands, upto the Antonine Wall, if not further. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 19:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Bad grammar/style
"Crime in England and Wales increased in the period between 1981 and 1995 though, since that peak, there has been an overall fall of 42% in crime from 1995 to 2006/7.[63] Despite the fall in crime rates, the prison population of England and Wales has almost doubled over the same period, to over 80,000, giving England and Wales the highest rate of incarceration in Western Europe at 147 per 100,000." would be better rewritten as: "Crime in England and Wales increased between 1981 and 1995, although it fell 42% overall from 1995 to 2006/7.[63] Despite this fall in crime rates, the prison population of England and Wales almost doubled during the same period to over 80,000: giving England and Wales the highest rate of incarceration in Western Europe at 147 per 100,000." Was the "peak" an all-time peak even greater than in Victorian times? If not, then it misleads. 78.146.17.231 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've made the edit accordingly, although I'm not thrilled by "1995 to 2006/7" - surely it should be in the format "1994/5 to 2006/7" or "1995 to 2007"? Perhaps someone who has the time could check the source.
 * Re "peak", yes, clarification is needed. It's not a very informative word if we don't specify whether it's an all-time peak, postwar peak, or whatever. Barnabypage (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Coat of arms
Snowded quite rightly questioned the use of the words "Royal coat of arms" and the associated image, I checked that England does indeed have a coat of arms independent of the references on this article and on Coat of arms of England - I thought A Complete Guide to Heraldry sufficient as it is states the arms a number of times in that book. I then put the image back and changed the words to "coat of arms" which can be seen in this version, which I think makes this part of the page right - note that the link under the coat of arms goes to the Coat of arms of England page and not "Royal Coat of Arms" as it did before (although the link redirected to Coat of arms of England anyway). If the version I left it at isn't the correct, could someone explain why not?--Alf <sup style="color:green;">melmac 05:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you provide the page references to what is a long book it it might be possible to validate the claim.  The article you reference makes it clear that these are the Royal Arms, they link back to the identity of England with the King, and the use of England to cover Britain.   Wales and Scotland do not have a coat of arms (although Wales has one recently created) in the info box which is also relevant here.   --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it was raised at Talk:England/GA1 which notes that it has no current official usage, which is a fair point, and in which case both the image and the descriptor need to vanish. Pages I checked (for your interest) are 136 where it mentioned when used in canton (usually top left quarter), 181 - a page about heraldic lions "The lions in the quartering for England in the Royal coat of arms are "the lions passant guardant in pale", 182 where it described as both the Royal arms and "the three lions passant guardant of England", and 274 where it is mentioned as being two quarters of a shield "gules, three lions passant guardant in pale or (for England). I occasionally meet with one the officer of arms, I will ask if it was ever codified by them and whether there is a publicly available record of such if it is the case.--Alf <sup style="color:green;">melmac 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I reinstated it, you didn't get any support here (although I concede no objections. Better to tidy it up and bit and improve the formatting, but it has useful information, deletion is too drastic --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, a few short paragraphs of text, summarising the terminology used and showing some (but not all) examples, would be much more informative and encyclopedic than the current list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * , its a mess at the moment but doesn't justify deletion and you were more than fair, raising it here first then being bold is fine. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Totally agree with Nev1, BritishWatcher and Ghymrtle. At the moment it's unsourced, so should/can go. Even if it was cited, is it notable? I think not. Not seen any other country with this, and certainly not a country article that's been through any formal assessment. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jza, I think I am agreeing with Ghymrtle as well to quote "a few short paragraphs of text, summarising the terminology used and showing some (but not all) examples, would be much more informative and encyclopedic than the current list" --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more of the inclination there are more important areas of the article that need sourcing and attention. If there is a really strong desire to keep this in the article, then sure, a paragraph might help. But I'm still not sure what function it serves. This is the English language WP afterall. and WP:COUNTRIES doesn't seem to recommend it as part of its FA-achieving layout. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid position, just pointing out that there is a position that it should be summarised down (Ghymrtle and myself), BW and Nev1 may or may not agree with that, all agree it should be cut down. Your first sentence was the one I was objecting too.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a first go - any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me, and nothing there that couldn't be supported but citation if needed --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, but it does require citations ("if needed" is an interpretation of WP:V I've not come across before, and I'm not a fan). I'm wondering though if the section couldn't be merged with Etymology and usage? Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well some things are easy to verify (the Welsh for English etc) to quote "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". So if challenged there is nothing that cannot be cited.  I'd be happy if if was merged as you suggest. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited out the interWiki links to the England articles in the other language WPs - are they acceptable as citations in cases like this? If so I (or anyone else) could easily reinstate them.  The problem with merging the section into "Etymology and usage" is that that section is the first one in the article, and readers approaching the article from the top down really won't want the contents of what is now the Nomenclature section at that point.  I'd prefer to keep it lower profile, where it is - though looking at it now it could do with a few more tweaks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the prose is a vast improvement, I'm still not sure what value this is adding to the page. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wales has something akin to this, and I think it would contribute to the lead being a little more encompassing of England as a topic. Up for revision and debate of course. :) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be bold and put it in, it would balance the over emphasis on political history --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 21:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
"England became a unified state in the year 927 and takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled there during the 5th and 6th centuries."
 * But wasn't England unified by Wessex? If so, some mention should be made of this to prevent confusion. 82.139.86.4 (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

Poor England!
It seems that the Article on England is rather neglected compared to the Articles on Scotland and Wales. While the latter Articles focus allot on there contributions to society and how “Great” they are, this article is drab and sad… Why isn’t there an Article on the “English” Enlightenment for example? There’s one for Scotland! All I see is bias/lack of commitment…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, it is true far more effort is given by Scottish and Welsh editors to their articles than English editors on this article and others about England or its history, but that is only to be expected i guess although it is pretty shameful when you consider population sizes lol.  BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason for that, IMHO. If you look at the history of the Wales and Scotland articles, for example, you'll see that many of the editors (not all, but many) who have developed them define themselves as "nationalists".  In England, "nationalism" is a very difficult concept.  What national self-belief there is in England arises not from an inner sense of pride which applies across the country, but from England's historic oppositional position to many other countries (Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, etc etc) and its past heritage of triumphalism, whether in industrial development, trade, war, football/cricket matches, etc.  Those historic positions generally no longer apply.  In addition, England itself is (and has always been) a complex mixture of different groups, defined genetically and by location - between, for instance, the areas where the Angles and Saxons dominated and those areas where the Brythonic characteristics lasted much longer (eg Cornwall, Cumbria); the North v the South (or, the industry-based regions v the trade or service-based regions); towns vs countryside; London v the rest; etc.  "England" as a concept dates back to the Anglo-Saxons - but many "English" people have genetic heritage which predates that period; many (very many) descend (in whole or in part) from later Scottish, Welsh or Irish immigrants to England; many descend from more recent immigrants from all other parts of the world.  Many of these groups would have some hesitation in describing themselves unequivocally as "English"; that is why much higher proportions than in Wales and Scotland are more comfortable defining themselves as "British".  Those factors do not apply to the same extent in Wales or Scotland, where to some extent national pride has developed as a reaction against "Englishness" (and the real or perceived English takeover of the concept of "Britishness").  Hence, "national pride" in England, in a positive sense likely to encourage improvements to articles like this, is in short supply.  That's my theory anyway - feel free to delete/ignore it as appropriate.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true, many English editors are far more likely to focus on British articles rather than England ones which do get over looked. You are certainly right about nationalists being responsible for many developments to the Scottish / Welsh articles, which is slightly concerning and troubling but they do a good job and most of the time do it in a fair and balanced way. ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors' personal views don't "concern" or "trouble" me in the slightest, just so long as everyone maintains a NPOV in their edits to articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as long as no one thinks that England doesn’t have a rich culture and heritage, has not contributed significantly to the modern world, I’m fine. The articles on Wales & Scotland are not neutral, as far as I can see, because of there over use of extravagant wording and just about everything written there is praise praise praise… I’m not saying that these people are in any responsible for the over all lack of enthusiasm on this page, but I always wonder when I see Welsh nationalists (In particular) here and taking a specific interest in this Article. I always have this feeling they are here to make sure this Article does not reflect on anything significant (Or dare I say it, Great) that England as a nation has achieved. This kind of rather petty nationalism seems to only exist on the internet. Been to Scotland once before, national pride? Yes. Anti-English? No. Anti-British-A bit. Generally resentment against the crown and government. And I’m no supporter of the Monarchy either…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yorkshirian's edits, July 2009
Yorkshirian made wholesale edits this morning, without any prior discussion here so far as I am aware. I've taken some of them into account, reverted others, corrected his grammar and spelling where necessary - but I won't have picked up all the changes, and it would be useful if other regular editors on this page could check to see what other changes and corrections are needed - hopefully, without reverting wholesale. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be safer to revert all the changes - which were made without agreement, despite requests. There were so many, some are bound to be missed. Just as an example - the reference to Cornish language in the infobox has been deleted (& the royal standard - noted by BritishWatcher, below). And, btw, having varied political viewpoints is an important way to ensure balance (please read WP:AGF). - Daicaregos (unsigned)
 * "..having varied political viewpoints is an important way to ensure balance.." ..??.. Is that aimed at me? If so, I totally agree, but don't understand why you raise it...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's in response to this and this. Daicaregos (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The United Nations officially declared in February that the languages status is now "extinct". Varied political viewpoints are a good thing certainly, however, since the SNP and Plaid exist purely to present Anglophobia and as Misortie raised in the message above, there is a problem of various exponents of said movement bringing this bias POV into their editing of England related articles, its certainly worth watching. I mean if you compare the quality of England articles to Scotland and Wales ones, its certainly somethig that needs looking at. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A) the United Kingdom has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of the Cornish language (among others). B) Thank you for sharing your theory that " ... the SNP and Plaid exist purely to present Anglophobia ... ", which, highlighting both ignorance and paranoia, allows us all an insight as to the quality of your edits. C) I'm guessing you didn't get around to reading WP:AGF. D) It's probably best to to get as many edits in as possible before you get banned again. And E) Do even you know what you're talking about, because I don't have a Skooby Doo. Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly the British government in its wisdom does recognize Cornish as a regional language, doesnt really matter if the UN has declared it extinct, it should be mentioned like it is mentioned in the infobox of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "sadly", BritishWatcher? Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added it back in to the article, it seems a bit pointless that the government recognises a UN exist language that nobody has spoken as native since the 1700s haha. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for readding, it does seem rather pointless to me too but im sure they had their reasons. Ofcourse the more regional languages a country has the less we have to do to promote each one.


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


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


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


 * WP:GAC anyone? Yorkshirian? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 20:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * Not sure on the first one. There is an unsourced claim in that article saying it hasn't existed since 1707 due to the union, but this is contradicted by the Royal Standard of Scotland article. The lions are certainly still in use in the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom with them specifically representing England. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're 'not sure' it should not have been added, as you cannot have sourced your claim. How many other of your edits are you 'not sure' about i.e. WP:OR? Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


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

I just looked into some sources and it seems to always state that it is the royal motto of England, rather than just the royal motto of the monarch. If that makes sense, I'll put the refs into the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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


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

Great Job
Just to say well done on the overdue revamp of this article, looks so much better and rightly so. Signed a proud Englishman! SuperDan89 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done, gentlemen! A big improvement! -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Population concentration
In the lead when refereing to the population concentration should we be using Yorkshire and the Humber which is a current region rather than Yorkshire which is a historic county? Keith D (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aarghh!! Definitely not!!!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should be using the current counties rather than historic especially as the other areas are current areas. Keith D (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * West Yorkshire, maybe, as North and East Yorkshire are largely rural and less well populated.--Harkey (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I modify my initial gut reaction? There is in my view no need whatsoever to use the current Government regional terms in the lead.  A term like "Yorkshire" is not (just) a historic county, it is a widely known and globally recognised geographical area.  Having said that, I would not oppose using a pipelink - Yorkshire - to provide a better link than the one to the historic county.  The conurbations are in West and South Yorkshire, not East and North (Hull not being large enough to justify a reference - if we did, the sentence would have to be expanded to cover Bristol, Brighton, etc. etc.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; whilst Yorkshire is not a County (with a capital C), it is a cultural region and used in a geographic frame of reference. At best it should be "and South and West Yorkshire", but Yorkshire would be a breach of WP:EGG. I'm still happy with the status quo though, and it remains a truism. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Culture/visual arts stops too early
England is among the leading countries for modern and contemporary art and I'd love to update the Visual Arts section with information on that basis. Currently it stops at the Romantics and the Pre-Raphaelites, when I would say it's worth an update to add in the influence of England's artists, schools, and postwar funding structures on the development of numerous movements including early pop art, conceptualism, the [dreaded but influential] YBAs, probably more I need to look up, and current important tendencies that don't yet have their 'isms' named. Perhaps I need to get an account and generally become trusted in order to edit this locked article? I'd be very happy to research and contribute the necessary references.81.105.203.146 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's something not too disimillar from this at the third paragraph of British_people. The sources are about British art, and explicitly say so, but I imagine alot of it relates closely to English artistic sensibilities. Your proposal sounds fine by me, but would personally like us to use sources that explicitly discuss England and the English. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jza84 for the quick response and the invitation to register (I am deciding on a username as we speak...:). I understand your point about referring specifically to 'English' modern and contemporary art and will bear this in mind. With this awareness it definitely seems worth mentioning the Arts Council of England as a notably influential body, as well as the London schools who had their heyday in the 1960s such as St Martin's, Chelsea, the Slade, and those who continue to be influential such as Goldsmith's and the RCA. Out of such institutional references would naturally come a few names. I prefer this method, as art by English artists (or by any artists) is rarely nationalistic in content and this would be a factual way of tying them to England without reducing their work to nationalistic intentions or interpretations. And yes, stupid of me to mention YBA as an 'english' thing. I'll make a draft with references and will propose it here shortly. 81.105.203.146 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Albion
Both Albion and Albiones are most likely derived from alb- meaning "white". Albiones could the mean "the white tribe" or "the tribe of the white (cliffs)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It generally means "The white caps" (on top of the mountains) and is used to name mountainous regions. For instance, Albania. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the meaning of "Barinthus", celtic: "white top" who, according to St. Brendan, had traveled to "America". (line 4). St.Trond (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?
In the Middle Ages section, it says England's "ties and nature, however, were forever changed following the Norman conquest of England in 1066". Could someone please clarify why and how and to what magnitude, using reliable sources please? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This section still needs sorting out, but I presume what it means is that in a geopolitical and cultural sense, the relationships and focus of England moved away from the Nordic areas (such as the Vikings, Germanics, etc) which it had been in previous centuries, towards the Continent to the south - infusing more Latinate cultural tendencies once again. The Normans also brought feudalism. It changed the nature of the English language in a major way; around 40% of our words are of French origin largely in part to the supremacy of Norman French. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - I don't dispute it was a, if not the watershed of English history, and for the reasons you say. It was the ambiguity around the statement and the lack of explanation which lets the section down at the moment. We just need someone to elaborate really. :) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps
It would be great, if at all possible, if we could ensure that all our new, revamped references employed a consistent and proper format. I'm thinking that as a team, we need to sift through the page and make sure that all references use citation and harvnb (the latter for printed sources). This would be a requirement of FA rather than GA, but has many benefits for editors and readers alike. Thoughts? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go on then. That sounds like a job for someone who knows the ins and outs of GA and FA criteria, rather than those of us who are just interested in improving the readability and relevance of the article!  (Sorry...;-))   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite a big job, so I'm not sure I'd be able to make this so by myself. It may seem superficial, but using a professional reference style does bring substantial benefits to readers (and editors) looking for further info. It's part of the FA criteria for a reason. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It's just that some of us are here to enjoy ourselves, not to implement guidance - that's what paid work is for.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The bibliography also needs to be put in alphabetical order—another somewhat tedious task. Is there an easier way to sort references? Perhaps automatically? Hayden120 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

England does not have the worlds oldest parliamentary system.
The article states the flowing "formed the world's oldest parliamentary system[9]", however the source cited does not substantiate the claim in anyway. The Icelandic Althing, Manx Tynwald and the farose logting not to mention the regional things in Norway such as the Gulating, are all examples of assemblies that are considered to be parliaments that predate any English parliament. http://www.tynwald.org.im/ http://www.althingi.is/kynningarefni/index_en.html http://www.gulatinget.no/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.130.127 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source cited does in fact say "Palace of Westminster, home of the world's oldest parliamentary democracy", in a picture caption. However, Wikipedia's article on Althing states that it was founded in 930, while the article on Parliament_of_England suggest that this evolved after 1215. I am not changing the article - obviously research outside Wikipedia is needed - but the claim that England "formed the world's oldest parliamentary system" does appear dubious.Hobson (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Eradication of the Black Death
Was there any particular reason for the recent eradication of any mention of the Black Death from this article? Michael Glass (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you talking about? It's mentioned under England. Hayden120 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread this page:.

River Severn
The Landscape and rivers subsection has the statement "The longest river in England is the Severn which is 354 kilometres (220 mi) long and empties into Bristol Channel." It is incorrect. The River Severn is the longest river in Great Britain, at 220 miles (354 km), but it is not the longest river in England. The Thames has a length of 215 miles (346 km), all of which flows in England. More than five miles of the River Severn does not. Daicaregos (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is no opposition to this, the following may be suitable:


 * The longest river entirely in England is the Thames, which is 346 km long. 


 * Hayden120 (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: it appears neither source directly says it is the largest in England, I will continue looking. I have updated the source. Hayden120 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

History
These issues need to be addressed before GA review.

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

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

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

Should it not be a reference or at least a link to Doggerland? St.Trond (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages

 * The contention above that "the area of 'England' around 500 AD was not the same as the area of England today" in my view raises a fundamental issue about this article. In my view, the article must relate to the whole of the area which is now called England, stretching from Cornwall to Northumberland - and not just to the area of "Anglo-Saxon settlement", which obviously gradually expanded after the 5th century or so.  Clearly, many of the cultural features of the area which is now called England pre-date the Anglo-Saxons (placenames, folklore etc.), and in parts of England (most notably Cornwall, but also Devon, the Welsh Marches and the North of England), many of these lasted longer and retain much greater significance than in other parts of England.  In my view it would be a fundamental error to define England purely in terms of its post-Anglo-Saxon history.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course this article should cover the whole of the area that is now England. But there is no reference to the areas that were not part of 'England' before the 7th century - the west of England and, 'most notably Cornwall, but also Devon, the Welsh Marches and the North of England', nor how they became England. As I say, the formation of England and the English is a crucial historical period. Not to cover it in an article entitled "England" seems rather odd. And, as Ghmyrtle points out, we should cover the parts of Britain that were to become England several hundred years later too. Daicaregos (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More work is certainly needed covering that period - this article is particularly useless! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a first attempt at revising the text - may be better balanced, but perhaps also too long. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're allowed? re: this and this. After all, you don't live in England, do you? Daicaregos (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't live in Cornwall or Brittany either - hasn't stopped me editing there! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Druids? There were no druids in Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Or is that another racist slur? Sorry you don't feel that the fomation of the English people and of England is an important part of an article about England. Perhaps you're right. Daicaregos (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Racism? Hmm, perhaps you think Yorkshirian doesn't consider himself of the same race as you, or is it that you like to call people racists to silence them?  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Calling people “Racist” is both unconstructive to the topic and serves no purpose. Letting your own personal beliefs interfere with your activities on Wikipedia is not acceptable.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI A Merry Old Soul has been indefinitely blocked - again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Folklore
I've reverted an edit which deleted any mention of folklore pre-dating the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In fact, much folklore dates from the period of the Britons, who also populated Wales and much of Scotland, and this should in my view be recognised in an article on England - that is, the area, not just the post-Anglo-Saxon culture. I will seek out additional references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Justifying including Celtic traditions and legends on this article by saying that those legends were extant in the area that would become England is (vaguely) plausable only if it is noted explicitly in the text. For example, noting that: the legend of Old King Coal is based on Coel Hen, a British leader in the Hen Ogledd&mdash;the Brythonic-speaking part of northern England and southern Scotland, who was based in Eboracum, the site of modern York&mdash;before the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Great Britain. Even less plausable is the inclusion in this article of reference to King Arthur as part of English folklore (unless it's made clear that this relates only to Cornwall (& possibly Cumbria)). King Arthur defended Great Britain from those who would establish England. As the article King Arthur says "King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century." Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "English folklore". If you mean Anglo-Saxon folklore, then obviously Arthur wouldn't be covered - but if you mean the folklore in areas that became England, it is entirely reasonable, in my view, to include a reference to him given that he may have existed in the north or south west of what later became England (just as he may have existed in what became Wales, Scotland, or Brittany).  More generally, many of the articles listed at English folklore clearly indicate pre-Anglo-Saxon origins, which in my view do not make them "un-English", and do make them deserving of a brief recognition in this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course Welsh nationalist vandalism of folklore should be reverted. Its like saying Picts don't deserve a mention on the article of Scotland. Its hardly relevent to say every other sentence "this was before the Anglo-Saxon invasion", since the folklore has a continuity in English tradition long after, it continued to influence many English writers including Shakespeare. I think the section is self-explanitory; perhaps in the article on Wales though, Daicaregos would like to mention every other sentence "but this happened before Gwynedd conquered the rest of the area to create Wales in the 12th century". Perhaps we should say for Norman and after periods "this was after the Anglo-Saxon conquest", such info isn't really that relevent to be repeated every other minute. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism??? Rather uncalled for, don't you think? Daicaregos (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * England has a diverse folklore culture of three types: Greco-Roman, Gallo-Britannic and Anglo-Scandinavian. There is no need to quibble about ownership.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare was aware of the origins of those influences. Just as he was aware that the origins of the characters for his plays Hamlet, Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet, for example, were not English. I don't understand why that information shouldn't be provided for readers of this article. Is it any attempt to Disneyfy everything? Consider this scenario: a child watches a DVD of the Disney classic The Sword in the Stone and is told that by pulling the sword from the stone Arthur will become king of England. The parent wonders "Was Arthur really an English king?" Just to check, the parent decides to look at the England article, in the folklore section and, as King Arthur is there, it is confirmed. That is doing a disservice to the reader. The Matter of Britain is not English folklore. Stories collected by The Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen and others are well known in England, yet they are not in this section. That is because they are not English folklore and have no place here. Daicaregos (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should have enough confidence in our collective editorial skills to make sure that readers are not confused. Although Arthur fought the Saxons, he may well have done so (we don't know) in the area we now call England. "England" is a geographical area which has a complex history, and much of the culture of that place does not derive from the Anglo-Saxons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this matter is, that there are particularists and exclusivists who don't believe in common cultures between various British islanders, thus seeking a fight for their differences, which they assume nobody else can truly like or respect, that it is all a sign of cultural appropriation. Like it or not, England and Wales share much of their existence with beginnings in Rome, whether of the Latin Classical or Frankish Medieval kind.  This is obviously a large difference between us and the Gaels, but it isn't necessarily a reason to demarcate social relations in the present day and age, or squabble over what has come to us and enriched our heritage.  For instance, the first known ancestor of Robert Aske (political leader) was Conan de Aske, obviously Breton but his family lived for centuries in England and never thought it strange that they shouldn't be Germanic, nor thought it pertinent to agree with Henry VIII just because he was Welsh.  Given the White Rose faction which always made trouble for the Tudors, who could say that even the Welsh should assume common cause?  The English Catholics of the 17th century looked to Glastonbury and Avalon rather than Augustine.  Why draw lines where none exist?  Consider the names Bryan, Marmaduke and Conan...they are considered indubitably Irish Gaelic, but why are they so historically important in England, specifically our modern version of "Ogledd"?  Alan is another name treasured in England just a tad higher by English than those formally "Celtic" haters of the English...why?  You see, there is no absolute truism about ethnicity and culture here.  Who sees an Iron Curtain?  Don't rant about Offa's Dyke.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's two more cents: Arthur has figured fairly substantially into English folklore, and not just in Cornwall. The cave legend (about Arthur hibernating in some local cave or another) is fairly widespread throughout Britain, including England and a number of geographical features in England bear his name or are supposed to be his household furniture. Then there is the folk and literary lore connected with the time before the English controlled what we now know as England, such as the Glastonbury stories.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there are Bran the Blessed's ravens in the Tower of London. If we assumed that English connections to Welsh culture was all some grand conspiracy of cultural appropriation, it would only be to serve irredentism and this false claim that all of Britain belonged to the Welsh.  Even during the Roman period, the parts now called England had been governed separately from Wales.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't suppose that we have to read political subtext or some hidden agenda into it. That Arthur figures into English folklore is a verifiable fact, and that is enough.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear of an interest in verifiable fact, as that is what should appear in the article. The text on Arthur has yet to be referenced correctly. These may help: the BBC tell the story: "The core myths of the Celtic peoples centre on the great cycle of stories based on the life and exploits of King Arthur ... leading Britons into battle against Saxon invaders". Britannia have him styled as "King Arthur, General of the Britons". Britannia (again) give "King Arthur's Twelve Battles". In none is he fighting for the proto English. In short, Arthur is not a creature of English folklore, but of British folklore. If there is a WP:RS saying that King Arthur is part of English folklore it should be added. Otherwise, this looks like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one is suggesting, here or in the article, that Arthur fought on behalf of England or the English. We know that he fought for the Britons against the Saxons.  But he may have done that in the area now called England, which is the subject of this article and which now, demonstrably, includes areas like Cumbria and Cornwall.  The article deals with the folklore of - that is, within - the whole of the area which is now England.  That is not the same thing at all as "Anglo-Saxon folklore", and so far as I can see no-one is suggesting that it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)  PS: Here's some sources:    [ http://www.amazon.com/Arthur-English-Arthurian-Medieval-Literature/dp/0708314775 ]. Ghmyrtle (talk)
 * I think we need to be clear about what constitutes folklore, as opposed to history or literary tradition, and we need to further give a defined context on what we are talking about. As Ghmyrtle says, no one is saying that Arthur fought, in history or any long-standing tradition, for the proto-English. However this is a different thing entirely from saying that Arthur and his legend has been incorporated into English folklore and literature. The New Arthurian Encyclopedia has a good entry on Arthurian folklore, and more dedicated entries on such things as topography and the cave legend. There is quite a lot of topographical lore involving Arthur throughout England and Scotland; the farthest example from any (modern) Brythonic region that I can think of is Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh. The cave legend is also quite widespread throughout Great Britain, and Arthur is regarded as the leader of the Wild Hunt in the Cadbury, Somerset. I will provide cites for all this as soon as I'm able. The reason this is notable is that while Arthur figures into the literary tradition of virtually every Western nations, he does not figure widely into their folk traditions. In the case of the English, however, he does figure prominently in their folklore.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting really sick of this. We English are the only ethnic group on wikipedia who constantly have our teutonic ethnic origins insulted and messed with by Anglo-saxon selfloathers or general Anglophobes. No other peoples on this site have to deal with these insults about their own origins even if they have no facts at all! I knew when i came here that wikipedia was Anglophobic but not this bad!English Bobby (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Prominent Authors
Can we really list Enid Blyton amongst this country's finest?---Streona (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Her Wikipedia article suggests she's of global significance. Prominent? -- yes. Finest? -- down to personal taste I guess. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 17:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Racist? Yes. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of 19th century Britain was racist, or held racist sentiments. Not justifying it, just putting it into perspective. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean 20th century? (Uh-Oh, corrected an Admin *Runs*) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I was English I would be pretty ashamed to have Enid Blyton as representative of any measure of literary quality (quantity maybe) --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  [[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090"

face="Baskerville">TALK ]] 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just say she's British *Shifty eyes* --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'm not a fan. I believe User:Yorkshirian added her during the revamp of the article. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 19:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets remove her then, the others mentioned are enough. Although considering the number of book sales she had i dont see a problem with her remaining.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just included the best know and most successful English authors to be honest. Enid Blyton seems to fit that bill, selling over 400 million copies. Not much of a Noddy fan personally! (much more of a Sooty and Sweep or Rainbow fan, though I'm still not sure what Zippy was) But if we took the thought police into concern and expunged from history anything some claim is retrospectively elitist or "racist" then most European and Eastern literature would be empty. Where would we stop?

Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist without Fagin? All copies of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice burned? Matter of Britain and the Matter of France changed so that everybody is cuddling and kissing, with flowers in their hair instead of fighting (send violent bigot King Arthur for "toleration" lessons). Cú Chulainn sent to have a word with the local animals rights activists (maybe they'll let him off if he sticks out his bottom lip and claims to be an "oppressed" republican). Dante in Paradiso claims that miscegenation leads to the decline of the city, throw him into the inferno too (pun undeniably intended). - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm not too bothered whether shes in the article or not, but I think "thats racist" is a pretty weak rationale to remove an author who has sold 400 million copies worldwide. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed entirely. Rudyard Kipling is perhaps another example of this (though his work is more markedly British than English), and H. C. McNeile. Quentin Tarantino gets challenged for racism in his work, but is still a successful and prominent film director. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Blyton should be included on notability grounds; for me the slightly odd thing is characterising her as a "novelist". perhaps she deserves her own phrase within the sentence, along the lines "...children's writer Enid Blyton,..." hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * She may be a popular author within a specific time period (and she is very much confined to a period) but he is not an outstanding or notable novelist. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

National Sport
Under the Cricket Heading, it states that Cricket is England's National Sport

Quote : "The England cricket team is a composite England and Wales team—cricket is regarded as England's national sport."

If i remember correctly the National Sport of England is Association Football.

Wikipedia's Page on National Sports

Adzy 12 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think England has several national sports (does it say anywhere you can only have one?): footie, cricket, rugby, possibly even angling (God help us). With this in mind, I don't think it's helpful to single out one particular sport for preferential treatment. Perhaps best to ditch the term? Or say that there are several national sports? Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that cricket is the national sport: it says that cricket is regarded as the national sport. Which it probably is. Britmax (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But when there are several sports which can make the claim, is it helpful to have that phrase at all? The implication, as demonstrated by Adzy, is that only cricket is the national sport, and I don't think it should be given preferential treatment. Better to remove the term from the article in my opinion. Nev1 (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed the term should be removed. Perhaps a sentence about the difference in support for cricket in England compared to the rest of the UK (if a good source can be found) would be informative. Most sports like Football, rugby are popular across the UK, Cricket is clearly more limited to England (although its meant to be the England+Wales team rather than just "Englands") which complicates matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the phrase from the article. It's good suggestion to add a sentence on essentially the relative popularity of cricket in England compared to the rest of the UK, and while I agree with what you say finding sources actually stating that might be hard to find. I'll see what I can do. Nev1 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes i had a quick look before but couldnt find any site which would be considered a reliable source. Id guess something like that would need to come from a book on the sport talking about its history and development. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo.com might offer something, especially in relation to Ireland as there's been a recent boom in popularity there due to the Ireland cricket team beating every non-Test nation in sight and nearly defeating England the other week. Success breeds popularity and there may be some news story comparing popularity in Ireland with England. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings comrades. Football is defiantly more popular than cricket. But Cricket is something seen as quintessentially English by most. It’s more of a cultural aspect. Calling it "National" is in my opinion poor wording. --CommunistWikiGnome (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regions, counties and districts
Might not be the case on all systems, but for me the clickable map under Regions, counties and districts is unreadable, all the names overlap on this very tiny presentation which, on the whole, makes it worthless as far as I can see. The size of the map should be increase or its detail decreased.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Even at 400px (the maximum width allowed by MOS:IMAGE) it's still not clear. I think what might work is increasing the map with to 300px and replacing the names with numbers, perhaps putting them in the image caption. This would result in a very long image caption though. Nev1 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think previously we had a map of the regions of England, which had less info, naturally, it was a little easier to read and navigate. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See United States. Seems to have got to GA with a larger/clearer map.--Harkey (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, I think something like that (ie: big and at the end of Regions, counties and districts section could work. The only downside I can see is that it would leave a lot of white space because it's portrait. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The artwork is alot better at the US page too - more befitting for such a high profile article. The closest I found was at Counties_of_England. That may be too big though. As for MOS:IMAGE, this may be a case of WP:IAR. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

England is not a country
Its not England but United Kingdom which is a country. . So suggesting to remove the reference as country in the introduction. Please reply in case of conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go and read Countries of the United Kingdom. This has been debated, England is a country so the the UK.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source cited by Aravind contains (at least) one basic and fundamental error - it confuses the concepts of "country" and "independent country". England is not an independent country, but it is nonetheless a country, to be more precise a constituent country.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, how is part of a country called country itself? If England is a country and so are Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, then shouldn't the United Kingdom be considered as a Union of countris (like Europian Union)? Or if, the United Kingdom holds the ultimate command in the federal structure, then shouldn't England be called a state or province of UK?Aravind V R (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * England is in no way a "province" of the UK - it has no powers of government (unlike the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). The UK position is probably unique - it is in some senses a union, but it is also a sovereign nation state.  All this has been discussed here many times, and is explained in many WP articles - I suggest you read them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The poster above is clearly delusional and not worth a scrap of merit. You whine about 'English nationalists' yet you have the hypocrisy and indeed audacity to take a stab at England's sports teams... you are pathetic, absolutely pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.131.51 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on your definition of country, i understand how you feel and i felt the same way not so long ago. There is a difference between a Country and a Sovereign state. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is both a country and a sovereign state. England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are described by many sources including the British government  as countries.
 * Use of the term country is not misleading nor influenced by nationalists, it is agreed by consensus backed up by many reliable sources. We have made sure its clear that whilst they are countries they are still part of the United Kingdom in the first sentence of each article. That seems reasonable and further information as mentioned above can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Then why are places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Virginia, and Alaska called states but not countries? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are states of the United States of America and New York has never been a country, only a British colony then US state.. the British government and many sources describe England, Scotland and Wales as countries. Again there is a big difference between sovereign state and country, wikipedia makes this very clear and we rightly do not allow England to be placed in international lists along sovereign states.. only the UK belongs there.
 * If we did not call England a country im not sure what exactly we could call it, England has its own regions so its not a region of the United Kingdom. The only option is country of the United Kingdom. BBC call England a country, British government do, its not for wikipedia to decide these things we can only use the sources and the clear majority now (maybe they wouldnt 20 years ago) do say country.
 * as i said before i understand how you feel because less than a year ago i was here arguing exactly the same thing that the intro should not say "England is a country" but that was based on my understanding of the word country (i only considered sovereign states countries) but if you read Country its clear this is not the case BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this topic has been heavily debated and supposedly resolved and it´s a touchy subject for some but the article should state that England is a "constituent country". The name "country" is mainly used by English citizens and the nomenclature is not recognized well outside the UK. Much like Denmark is a constituent country under the Kingdom of Denmark. England, Scotland and Wales are constituent countries under the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See this article for a greater insight. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/englandnot.htm Most people outside the UK will probably agree that England is NOT a country but a constituent country. It should be considered the same as the cases with Denmark and the Netherlands. All I am asking is that the entries for England, Scotland and Wales get the same definition given to them as Denmark. Fjl307 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing
I'm new to this article, and I've done a bit of copy-editing (per suggestion by the GA reviewer) - so far, just the lead and the Etymology section. I've also checked a few links and dab'd one of them. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by various parts of the following passage in Etymology:


 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of "England" to refer to the southern part of the island of Great Britain was in 897 and its modern spelling was first used in 1538.[2] The earliest attested mention of the term in general is by Tacitus in his 1st century work Germania, where the Latin word Anglii is used.[3]


 * Was the first known use of "England" really in 897? If so, how come "its modern spelling was first used in 1538"? If the 897 word used wasn't "England" but something like it ("Englaland", as used further up, perhaps?), then the article should say so.
 * ..."was first used in 1538" is not necessarily correct - the OED deals in "first recorded uses.
 * What does "the first attested use of the term in general" mean? What term?  "Anglii" sounds like Latin for "the Angles" to me, not "England".

--<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Country or "subdivision"?
We have an editor at Constituent country insisting that England is not a constituent country of the UK, but only a "subdivision". It looks like it will be an edit war if it's only him and me. Any other voices? kwami (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time this has come up - Talk:England ! Britmax (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking to the prior history. Here is the current dispute in question. Your prior history link concerns precisely this dispute. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read countries of the United Kingdom, it also includes a lengthy list of sources. Hayden120 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Encarta
I recommend finding alternatives (or perhaps using Internet Archive) for the Encarta website as a reference, Microsoft intends to discontinue it in October 2009. Hayden120 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow there goes a bit of computer history, i still remember my first Encarta CD, amazing how insignificant and incomplete it would be considered today.
 * Anyway we should change the source, the only one labeled as encarta is one about independent schools, i have found this source . its for 2008 so more recent and accurate than the encarta one, it gives %s for children of primary and secondary school age in independent schools, not a single total % though.     BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

London conurbation locality list query
Just a query. In the table of major conurbations, appears Greater London Urban Area. On the right hand side of the column is a list of major localities within each conurbation. The London list is "Croydon, Barnet, Ealing, Bromley". From the other side of the world, that reads as a very strange list. Would one not mention the City of London, or Westminster, or placenames that might be more likely to be familiar to a non-English reader (like Greenwich or Kensington)? Is there a logic that anyone knows of behind the choices in that list? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - as a UK resident that has always appeared odd to me. However, it comes from the official definition used by ONS in documents like this one.  ONS states here that "Major urban areas and others with more than one central focus are divided where possible to produce figures about localities within them", but I've not been able to track down any specific information on their criteria for subdividing the London urban area.  Except around the fringes, the subdivisions seem to be based entirely on borough boundaries - here.  The current list on this page ("Croydon, Barnet, Ealing, Bromley") simply shows the most populous London boroughs.  In my view, this article should really be consistent with this list, where the relevant section was changed some time ago to read "London (dozens of localities of broadly similar size)".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This could be replaced with the two international and eleven metropolitan activity centres identified in the London Plan. This would give Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Harrow, Hounslow, Kingston, Knightsbridge, Ilford, Romford, Sutton, Uxbridge, West End, Wood Green. MRSC (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that works because it lists shopping centres, not residential areas. How about: "Greater London, divided into the City of London, City of Westminster, and 31 other London boroughs of which the most populous are Croydon, Barnet, Ealing, and Bromley." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem with this text is there is ambiguity about the City of London and City of Westminster. It implies both are boroughs. MRSC (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "Greater London, divided into 33 districts: the City of Westminster, and 31 London boroughs of which the most populous are Croydon, Barnet, Ealing, and Bromley. The City of London is Sui generis." Why English geography has to be so awkward to describe I don't know! May need a further tweak. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - does someone have a source that say that Croydon, Barnet, Ealing and Bromley are the four most populous? At least that would be an explanation of why those four are listed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - . 2007 figures - Croydon 339,500; Barnet 329,700; Ealing 305,300; Bromley 300,700.  I'll add a ref to the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Country categories
There have been several recent changes to the categories to which the countries of the United Kingdom belong. Discussion is being coordinated on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Monachy?
There dosn't apear to be much if anything about the curent royal family yet there is a whole section on governence-should their not be a least a paragraph their?--Emilyxxx
 * There should probably be more information in the history section on English monarchs, but there is no need to expand on the current monarchy of the United Kingdom.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hiya Emilyxxx. I'm not sure what a 'monachy' is, but make sure you're not getting the 'United Kingdom' mixed up with 'England'. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Population (density?) map
There are problems with the existing map in the Demography section. To be most informative, it should show population density - the average number of people per square mile (or square km, or hectare) in each area shown. But it does not do that - it shows the crude population total of each area, regardless of the size (area) of each unit. Before I noticed and corrected the caption, it indicated, quite incorrectly, that it showed population density. Worse, it shows population totals on the basis of "ceremonial counties", which are units with little relevance to any demographic assessment. Can a map showing population density - such as this one - - be prepared for inclusion here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References to Cornish language
There's been a bit of edit warring over this section, which needs to be resolved by consensus. There have been various drafts, but essentially the different versions are set out below. Which do editors think is more appropriate?
 * Current revision by User:Yorkshirian as of 07:19, 21 September 2009:
 * Some have attempted to revive extinct Brythonic languages such as Cornish as a second or third tongue—in the county of Cornwall 0.1% have the ability to speak the modern reconstruction which uses Welsh and Breton. It is supported by the government under the ECRM, yet the United Nations has placed it on a list as extinct.
 * Earlier version by Hamiltonstone as of 02:13, 21 September 2009:
 * Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived. Interest in the language increased significantly towards the end of the 20th century, and it is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. As of 2009, it is taught by fifty primary schools in Cornwall, and for some young people is their first language.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, how about:
 * Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived. Interest in the language increased towards the end of the 20th century, and it is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A reconstructed version is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in fifty primary schools.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Perhaps a compromise? Yorkshirian's version seems to be focusing on the fact that the language is extinct, whereas Hamiltonstone's focuses on its revival. I think it is important to note that the United Nations considers the language extinct, but regardless, is protected by the ECRML, and appears to be making a come-back. Can we somehow merge both of these revisions together into something more neutral? Hayden120 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: the compromise seems okay, but it still doesn't mention the UN. Hayden120 (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think the UN ref is very important, but try this:
 * Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century and has been described as extinct by the United Nations, is being revived. Interest in the language increased towards the end of the 20th century, and it is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A reconstructed version is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in fifty primary schools.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're dealing with minority hobbyisms mostly. We've got to keep in perspective, we're covering a country of 51 million people with this article. 200 as a hobby have learned the reconstruction fluently as a second or third language. Expansion to mentioning schools and so on seems to be WP:UNDUE, its paragraph is almost as long as the English one at that rate. Especially when millions of people learn French and Spanish in state education it hardly seems notable. I dare say there are hundreds of languages in England which have more second or third speakers than "Revived Cornish". That version also doesn't mention that the revived version is an artifical construct using Breton and Welsh (according to Celtic Culture book), not organic. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a ref to the fact that the language (which, unlike other languages, is native to the area covered by this article) is being revived, and that the revival is officially sanctioned or approved, as shown by its use in schools. It does refer to the fact that the revived version is a reconstruction.  I'd be happy to take out the ref to the 0.1% (even though it was your suggestion, Yorkshirian), so how about:
 * Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century and has been described as extinct by the United Nations, is being revived, and a reconstructed version is taught in fifty primary schools. Interest in the language increased towards the end of the 20th century, and it is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said regarding perspective and the fact that this artcile deals with a country of 51 million people (thoughts on that would be good). It seems undue expansion and goes into too much detail about the artificial construct which only 200 speak fluently as a hobby. "Interest in the language increased towards the end of the 20th century" such long drawn out expansion on absolute microscoptic minority hobby (200 fluent) seems to belong on the article on Neo-Cornish rather than here. More people can speak Latin in England and thus have learned the language towards the end of the 20th century too. More people can speak Esperanto. The current wording in the article, with the 0.1% is fine as it is IMO, it mentions that the original language died out and that some are trying to create a new construct. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take out unnecessary detail, so long as what is left is neutral. What is important here, in my view, is that the language is native to the area covered by the article; was extinct but has been revived in recent years in a reconstructed form; is officially recognised as a minority language; is taught in schools; but is only spoken by a few people (which I accept is a necessary point - we wouldn't want to suggest that everyone in Cornwall speaks Cornish).  My suggested wording covers those points. But this discussion needs a wider range of editors, to achieve a consensus.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The modern reconstruction has never been spoken as native, since it is a new artifical constructive created in the modern era. If we're delving into "something like it was once spoke as native" territory, what about Latin, Danish and French? All of these once had native speakers in England and still have some second language speakers to this day. If we must change it how about...


 * Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century and has been described as extinct by the United Nations, has seen a small revival, where 0.1% of the county has learned a modern reconstruction using Welsh and Breton. It is supported by the government under the ECRML. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The technical details of the reconstruction process do not need to be mentioned here; neither does your opinion (or WP:OR) on how close the reconstruction may be to what was spoken before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is opinion or OR Ghmyrtle; It's verifiable and gives all perspectives. I'd change "the county" to "the population of Cornwall" mind, just for clarity, but otherwise claiming OR is a red herring AFAICT. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 10:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The introduction to the Cornish language article makes no reference to how close the current version of the language is to the historic version, or refer to Welsh or Breton, or use the word "reconstruction". That is the only point on which I mentioned OR.  Why does this article need to go into that level of detail, or use terms which are inaccurate?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, another compromise suggestion:
 * Interest in Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century and has been described as extinct by the United Nations, increased towards the end of the 20th century. It is now protected and supported in Cornwall by the UK government under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see my name cropped up I guess because I was the last editor when Ghmyrtle extracted a version of the disputed text. I have not actually been an involved editor in regards to this particular para, but I do have two views. First, mentioning Cornish at all here appears to be giving undue weight to a very small matter. My view is the same about the Berwick-upon-Tweed border detail, currently (incorrectly) placed in the history section. However, my second view is that, on the assumption that deletion of the whole thing is not an option, a version of Ghmyrtle's compromise should be used. I propose: Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived, and is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A reconstructed version is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in fifty primary schools. This accepts a point made by Yorkshirian (and another?), that "Interest in the language increased towards the end of the 20th century" makes it sound far more significant than it was or is. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no major objection to that wording (but I'm certainly opposed to deleting the text altogether - Cornish is the only other language native to the area covered by this article which is officially recognised). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Objections
I object to inclusion of the statement that the UN considers the language "extinct". Not only is it misattributed (it was UNESCO), it is inaccurate (the "extinct" label applies to the traditional language only ), it contradicts another UNESCO description ("being revived" ), and the head of the UNESCO group that called it extinct has admitted that it is "being revived". The statement should not be included. The language is not a "reconstructed version" either. --Kernoweger (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the statement on the UN considering the language extinct should not be included, it made headlines on BBC news, its noteworthy. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should not be included for the reasons I mentioned above. This also made BBC News - should we start an article? --Kernoweger (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the UN declaring the language extinct is worthy of a mention on the subject. Its so notable it should be in the introduction of the Cornish language article, but shock horror its not! BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I wrote? The UN has declared the language as "being revived" . --Kernoweger (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "New forms of Cornish", is this the one people have made up as they go along? Ive no problem with a mention of a revival of a new form of cornish, aslong as its clearly put into proportion of just how few people speak it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "New forms" refers to new orthographies. The language is still Cornish, the vast majority of it is exactly the same as what was traditionally spoken. --Kernoweger (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the new form of "cornish written language" was only agreed to by different groups a few years ago. If people had different versions then, it is clearly different to the original. From what i have read on this matter which is very little i admit, it sounds like people have just been making it up as they go along in recent decades, and only in the past few years people came together to plot a single written form. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a myth. The different orthographies were based on different periods of traditional Cornish - all valid and historically accurate. They were all mutually intelligible, all undeniably Cornish and used the same vocabulary and grammar. The standard written form, agreed last year, was an attempt to bring the three different orthographies together into one. The only things that have been "made up" is the new words needed for the 21st century, like 'digital' and 'computer' (like every language does). --Kernoweger (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also object to Yorkshirian's unfounded assertion that Cornish is an "artificial construct based on Breton and Welsh". He cites "The Celtic Languages" by Martin John Ball (1993), page 646, and if you actually view that page, as you can here, you will see that he was referring to the early revival work by Robert Morton Nance and his orthography, not the current language as it is used today. --Kernoweger (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the latest proposed compromise carefully. It does not include the word "extinct", it only says that it died out as a community language. It also does not say that it is an "artificial construct based on Breton and Welsh", merely that it has been reconstructed. Please remember we are looking for a very brief mention in a top-level article that is supposed to cover everything about England. As far as I can tell, the current wording is consistent with all the discussion immediately above. Can these editors therefore indicate if they support my proposed words? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Artificial construct" was in response to Yorkshirian's talk page comments. I object to the inaccurate term "reconstructed version", as it implies the modern language is disconnected from the traditional one. A different wording would be appreciated. --Kernoweger (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but i prefer the current wording in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's current wording, with the terms "extinct" and "modern reconstruction which uses Breton and Welsh" is wholly inaccurate, and is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. Kernoweger (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is decided that the above wording is introduced instead, i want a far far far far far better source for the 50 primary schools statement than the "independent" newspaper. I find that figure rather alarming, will have to do more extensive research on this. Shocking, just shocking if that is the case. I dont know whats worse, the thought that millions is being wasted on such things, or that despite 50 primary schools teaching cornish, theres only a few hundred people in Cornwall who are able to talk it! Please do not add that into the article until there has been further input and more sources found, the current wording should remain in the article until then. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, thank you, but the current wording is not going to achieve consensus, which is why we are searching for a compromise. Can you indicate if you have any objections as to the compromise wording's accuracy? Kernoweger, are you indicating that we have a reliable source that indicates it is not a reconstructed version - for example, a reliable source that discusses last year's decision to integrate the three orthographies? Because I have read the Ball page to which you provided a link, and it appears to me that it uses the word "reconstructed" to apply to the revival of the language generally, not just Nance's work. For example, the next heading is "recent improvements to the reconstruction" - the word is still used. Just to be clear what I am not arguing here, I accept that the reconstruction is of Cornish overwhelmingly using Cornish sources, and that it is not being rebuilt out of parts of other languages. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, I don't think there is a reason to claim the Independent is not a reliable source on this. While other news stories etc i've quickly surfed do not number schools, the story appears consistent with Cornish language initiatives, such as the distribution of books to primary school children, such as that covered in this Carnegie Trust programme. It also appears generally consistent with the trend outlined in Rebuilding the Celtic languages: reversing language shift in the Celtic countries. Again, i am not claiming the book refers specifically to the number of schools in which teaching is taking place. My point is, if the Indpendent is generally an OK source, which i think it is, we have no reasons to disbelieve this particular report, as it appears consistent with other information in the general topic area. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think the current version is perfectly acceptable and see no reason to make a change to it aslong as its sourced. The only bit i have a huge problem with from your proposed wording is "and is taught in fifty primary schools." I find that statement unlikely and what better sources, when we say taught do we mean as a second language like every week whilst someone is at primary school, or just a couple of lessons one year where its mentioned? That statement is very open to interpretation and the Independent is never a reliable source on these lefty issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A source that mentions Cornwall as one of the "celtic countries" is certainly NOT a neutral source which should be used to form any reasonable sentence on this article. I will have to look in more detail about the other one, but its the primary school issue that concerns me deeply and i would like some official sources which clearly define whats happening. Just because there are text books and the odd lesson on something, is very very different to saying Cornish is taught in 50 primary schools, which to me sounds like they are teaching Cornish the way schools in Wales teach Welsh. There can be no room for misleading people on this matter, Cornwall articles already grossly overplay certain issues, we dont want the infection to spread. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed unfortunate that that particular author decided to use the word "reconstruction". I'll see what I can find tomorrow, time for bed now. Nos da. --Kernoweger (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I say that, from my viewpoint on the other side of the planet, the notion that language teaching is a "lefty" issue is odd, and to refer to this as an "infection" suggests we all have some POV issues here :-) I think the source should be accepted. A quick check of the Department for Chidlren, Schools and Families confirms that Cornish is taught as a course (course number 1600). I haven't located a DCSF figure for the number of schools running the course, but I think this should now be let go. I await Kernoweger's comments on a reliable source-based reason not to use the word 'reconstructed'. Do any other involved editors have views on the compromise wording? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that source tells me nothing, i dont dispute there may be some course in England that teaches cornish, what im strongly opposing is the statement that its taught in 50 primary schools. Its not clear from the "independent" what they mean by taught, far more reliable sources are needed before that appears in the main article, because it just doesnt make sense. To me taught in 50 primary schools, sounds like there are children in Cornwall learning cornish throughout their time there, just as children in Wales would learn Welsh.  If this is really the case then there are 1000s of cornish speakers, yet reliable sources say theres only a few hundred (if that). This is not something i can drop, its deeply troubling and i will have to look into this in more detail in the morning. If its true, then its enough to make me vomit. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source does not say "nothing", it provides some context in which to evaluate the report by the Independent. The official Cornish Language Partnership (involving Cornish education authorities) gives some information here, which includes that it is taught in five secondary schools and "an increasing number of primaries". The decision may be devolved to school boards, i can't tell from the webpage. Again, this gives no reason to dispute the Independent report, and the brief language in the article"taught in x schools" is entirely consistent with it being taught either occasionally or regularly - it does not specify. If you wish to vomit please do it elsewhere than on the talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this source, whilst i would not consider it a reliable one it does highlight the issue. Its several years old but it lists the primary schools they are aware of that teach (in some form) cornish. In most of the cases listed it is more like a lunch time project or just involves learning cornish for a few school songs. That is not the same as just saying its taught in 50 schools without clarification as to what exactly is taught, we need a more reliable source. Theres enough misleading and confusing information across wikipedia when it comes to Cornwall matters. To me saying its taught, is like the example of Welsh being taught in Wales where the language is fully part of the curriculum, id be shocked if this is whats happening in 50 English schools. But like i said before, this does need looking into further.
 * This BBC cornwall article mentions 3 secondary schools which is from 2007 so that may be inline with ur 5 secondary schools now, however it doesnt mention there about dozens of primary schools already teaching this.
 * "Since then the number of people attending adult education classes has also increased and now about 50 people a year take exams set by the Cornish Language Board. " 50 people :O BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "to some degree" is the key bit on the source you provided. This is the point i am making. You can not do a blanket statement that 50 primary schools teach cornish.. its misleading, if some just do the morning register in cornish. I wont oppose your proposed wording if the sentence on primary schools is dropped, however i will strongly opppose any change to the current wording if it is to remain in any form which could mislead people or confuse people on what exactly is being taught in certain English primary schools. Ill vomit if a source is found saying its taught properly in 50 primary schools like Welsh is in Wales, but i have yet to see any evidence of that. Far from it, the source you provided offers the "to some degree" disclaimer. As i said before, the Independent should never be considered a reliable source on these sorts of issues. Its the sort of thing they love, bring on the day that company goes bankrupt or gets bought out! BritishWatcher (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OKay, how about this: Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived, and is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A reconstructed version is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in some primary and secondary schools. We have reliable sources that it is being taught. The sentence does not specify the degree of that teaching and since this is not Education in England, let alone Language education in England, I don't see why it matters. I'm not interested in your vomiting, i'm interested in a text consistent with the sources. This is consistent with the sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but to even use the word "some" there would probably be an overstatement considering peoples definition of some. It matters a great deal, we must be very clear what is or is not being taught or we should not mention it at all. The current sentence in the article does not mention anything about primary schools, i do not see why the replacement needs it? My problem is to what degree its "taught" in schools, all the sources so far do not explain this, there for to avoid it being dubious it needs to be put into context or not mentioned. I think we could have a more productive second sentence than this issue of primary schools which will always come across as misleading unless we go into alot of detail, which probably isnt justified for an article on England.   BritishWatcher (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can hang with the alteration Jza proposed above. Also there is a difference between looking to uphold a NPOV and promoting a fringe topic as if it were on the same level as mainstream (which Ghmyrtle seems to, re, cultural Marxism). 200 fluent second language speakers of an artificial construct and the article is dealing with a country of 51 million people? When probably hundreds of languages have more speakers here? Perspective. Nothing is able to usurp or negate this central point. Also, lets say for instance, that a single issue activist like Kernoweger's "feelings are hurt" because an academic book on Celtic Languages mentions the fact that it is reconstruction, taking from Welsh and Breton. That is none of our concern, since we are here to make reliable, academically referenced articles and not act as a Carebear Club. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, i think the current wording with the proposed change to "the county" bit is more reliable. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with "the county of Cornwall". Yorkshirian, there's no need to speak of other editors like that. All Kernoweger appeared to be indicating was that s/he had some doubts and would check other sources. Unless s/he finds them, I imagine the word will stand. I don't see what is gained by insulting someone when they've done nothing to prompt it. And I also think it is misleading other editors reading the thread to persist with calling Cornish "an artificial construct". That is not what the sources say: it is a known indigenous language the contemporary speaking of which is being reconstructed primarily from extant Cornish sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a need to speak curtly and in a matter of a fact manner, because we're an encylopedia, not a pressure group for activists and fanatics to promote their single purpose agendas. Perspective is important for us to consider what a NPOV is. NPOV doesn't mean ultra-relativism & undue weight to promoting obscurantism/tokenism. Remember the topic of the article is England, a country made up of 51 million people, not 200. Cornish as it was originally spoken was not an artifical construct, but the modern Welsh/Breton version is because people sat around in armchairs patching it together like a ragdoll & other people sat around in armchairs manifacturing alternative version, squabbled with each other over "which version" is better. Not organic at all. Hobbyism. Anyway my comments on its artificial nature is just on the talk, I'm not proposing the word "artifical" be in the article itself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is utterly false. You are implying that the modern language uses solely Breton and Welsh, which is untrue. When words from Cornish sources are not available in the texts (usually for modern needs like 'digital' and 'computer'), we look to Breton and Welsh to see how they form the new words, then agree on a Cornish version of it. If the language never died then exactly the same thing would be happening. Oh and it's 600 fluent speakers (stop using 20 year old references), and "hobbies" don't generally receive public funds. --Kernoweger (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let Yorkshiian provoke you Kernoweger, he thinks everything is a left wing conspiracy (including his/her belief that a bunch of right wing football thugs are good Christians going about protecting their country from islamic terrorism). Treat him as one of those lovable English eccentrics in the tradition of Chesterton and its easier to manage.   Overall its not clear to me what proposal we are currently debating?  Anyone got a clue?  The proposal by hamilton stone looked good to me --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * who is "we" by the way, who made a certain group the authority on this language? lmao @ "and "hobbies" don't generally receive public funds", im sorry but we waste 100s of millions of pounds on peoples hobbies, disgraceful and depressing but true.
 * Going back to the issue of the 50 primary schools for a second, if there are just 600 fluent speakers out of 500,000 people in Cornwall, are we saying that about 10% of those fluent speakers work in schools? and how many children do we think are actually being taught in schools to speak fluent cornish, if theres 50 primary schools teaching it fully then we are looking at them producing 1000s of speakers every year but we all know this is not the case. Its for this reason i strongly oppose the idea we even hint that its being taught in 50 schools.. because it just simply isnt!, as i said before never trust the Independent, anything to undermine England or Britain they will print. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "We" is the certain group that has been made an authority on the language. The article in the Independent says nothing about how often the classes are, how many teachers there are, or how many students there are. It just says the language is taught in fifty primary schools, which is accurate. --Kernoweger (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see thankyou, i will read up more on that organisation later. You are right the article does not define what "taught" means, it doesnt state how many students learn it, how often and to what degree. But this is exactly my point. Saying its taught in 50 primary schools is not "accurate", its grossly misleading and i found it very disturbing, that kept me up till 3am this morning. As i have said before, i will strongly oppose such a misleading claim being added to this article. We should stick with the current wording or at the very least drop the sentence on primary schools in the proposed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Government policy on the Cornish language is summarised here - - and the Cornish language strategy is here -. This document - sets out the history of Cornish language teaching but seems very out of date - it refers to the numbers of schools teaching the language in 1999/2000. If the "Independent" provides more recent information, I've no objection to it being used. The latest proposed wording by Hamiltonstone looks like a basis for a compromise, except that I can't find a reliable reference for the idea that the modern language is a "reconstruction" - certainly not in the sources I've just mentioned. I would prefer: Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived,   and is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in some primary and secondary schools. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As i have said before, i strongly oppose including that misleading claim about teaching in primary schools on this article. The current wording on the article is better and should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to support the statement, though. Clearly the Independant did not mean that Cornish is being taught on an equal footing with English by fifty schools - I would guess it's being taught at the level of "Hey kids, here's a few words in this old language", and I would imagine our readers would assume the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This - the official Govt agency - states that it "is currently taught to some degree in five secondary schools and an increasing number of primaries. In addition, quite a number of schools use some Cornish in the daily routine, whether it is taking the register or simply saying good morning!" So, the wording in my draft is wholly supported by the ref, is not misleading - and, in "some" schools, is not just "taught at the level of "Hey kids, here's a few words in this old language"".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking the register requires kids to know one word ("present"), and saying "Good morning" requires two. The schools mentioned clearly have quite a bit of learning to do before they reach the level of "Hey kids, here's a few words in this old language". DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "would imagine our readers would assume the same." Im sorry i dont think we should leave room for people to "imagine" things. Whilst we all know Cornish is not taught properly in those schools, someone from the other side of the world may not. Theres already some serious problems with issues on Cornwall, lets not add something else that can confuse people. To just say its "taught" in some schools is dubious, and im sorry but i can do nothing but strongly oppose it and insist on tags if its added. So if we have to include a mention of the primary school issue lets explain that, dont simply state "its taught in some schools", which is misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm very reluctant to be swayed by unsupported opinions and prejudices, would there be any greater support if the entire second sentence was removed: Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived,   and is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall, and is taught in some primary and secondary schools. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the bit about the number of speakers is vital information and shouldnt be removed, it could be put inbetween the remaining sentence, if that was done then i would support changing the current text in the article. Although i still think the current wording there is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don;t think you should be swayed Ghmyrtle, the citation support is there for your full statement, there is not need to compromise to support opinion and "I don;t like it". Maybe go for third party review?  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  19:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is that neither of the points in the second sentence are sufficiently important to require a mention in this article; but, if one stays, they should both stay, for balance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no no no, i think the fact 0.1% of the people in Cornwall speak the language is a vital bit of information that can not be left out. Thats far more important than a very misleading sentence on people being taught cornish in schools which sounds as though its like Welsh being taught in Wales. Im happy to get some neutral eyes here, i hope they would understand its vital to put things into context and not confuse people. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should also not forget its only being discuss right now because a few people dont like the current wording on the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand the thrice repeated no. A language is being revived (surely a cause for celebration).  The phrase clearly states its a revival so there there can be no confusion with the situation in Wales or Ireland (or Scotland for that matter) where native languages were not wiped out.  Ironically in Cornwell it was by neglect while there were active attempts by government to eliminate native languages round about the turn of the last century (not just in the celtic countries, but in Australia and Canada).  Whatever the politics of this it is a simple fact that a language is being revived and it is being taught in schools.  Whatever is the issue here?  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is to say its taught in some schools will mislead people. To just say its taught, when in some cases we are talking about some kids being given a few words to say or sing, or to do the morning register with hardly seems accurate. We know the reality but people from other countries can not be expected to know about this, especially when we overplay separatist issues in the Cornwall article. To someone on the outside reading the article on Wales and on Cornwall, people would presume Cornwall is more likely to become independent.
 * Ofcourse this is just a proposed change by someone, others seem ok with the current wording in the article already, im unclear why that needs to be changed and why all of a sudden out of nowhere we must now mention this primary school issue which is clearly problematic unless explained in ALOT more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and im not sure why i said "no no no" lol, although i do feel that bit about the numbers who speak the language is vital to put things into proportion. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dropping of the referenced BBC point "has been described as extinct by the UN" isn't really on. Also the very ambigious, with no context wording of "is being revived" seems a bit crystal bally, ie, it doesn't mention the small scale. I took the "Welsh and Breton" out of the above (even though it seems to have around 3 supporters), as a compromise to see if it will save Plaid tears;

Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century and has been described as extinct by the United Nations, has seen a small revival, where 0.1% of people in Cornwall have learned a modern synretic reconstruction. It is supported by the government under the ECRML. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Move on - and include other languages
This discussion is becoming ridiculous. I am a pair of neutral eyes - i was uninvolved in this discussion until views were sought on the talk page. I live on the other side of the planet. I've never even been to Cornwall and no, thanks for asking, I don't have Cornish ancestors. Points are being raised here that have nothing to do with this discussion. There's stuff about separatism. What on earth has that to do with this article? Stuff about what is happening in other articles. Irrelevant. A passing comment that the revivial of a language is "surely a cause for celebration" - well, that's your view. It again is not relevant. Sound editing of this article will pay no regard to editors' personal politics, whereas some editors appear almost incapable of making a contribution here without insulting or provoking others. "saving plaid tears"? Give me a break! It's two sentences in a single wikipedia article. Britishwatcher, your position appears illogical and ignores reliable sources. I do not believe it is an objection that should be allowed to stand. If you want to include the numbers of schools, fine, but the evidence of it being officially sanctioned and taught as a course (I provided that link, which some editors appear to be ignoring) is clear. It might have been Yorkshirian who commented how other languages are more widely spoken than Cornish. I think it would be an essential addition to the language section to have a couple of sentences about other languages spoken in the UK. I don't think it should pass GA without it in fact. With significant immigrant communities it is likely that there are second (even first) languages of statistical note. Perhaps if we add that it will help put Cornish in perspective? In any case, as (I believe?) England's only Indigenous language other than English, it appears appropriate to have a couple of sentences re Cornish. The facts that appear to be worthy of inclusion are: Facts which could be included but which I think are less important: Facts which should not be included: Can we try and move on to a couple of sentences about other languages spoken in England? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The language died out.
 * It is being revived - the use of the term "reconstructed" appears appropriate; implying this involves Welsh and/or Breton is not a balanced reflection of the sources, while suggesting it is artificial or syncretic is inaccurate based on the sources I have read.
 * It is spoken by a very small number of people (inclusion of the "0.1% of people in Cornwall" appears consistent with sources)
 * It is being taught in some primary and high schools (If people want to use numbers, that would be okay: the numbers 50 and 3 used, respectively, based on sources; it would also be acceptable to say "some primary and three secondary". There is however no grounds, based on reliable sources, for disputing the 50 figure. No reliable source has contradicted this explicitly or implicitly. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)
 * The language is supported / protected / whatever the exact word is under the ECRM.
 * The language is reported as extinct by the UN. The reasoning for not including this is as follows. If this were the article on Cornwall, or on languages in the UK, it would be worthy of covering. However we need brevity here. The facts indicate that the language is not extinct, in the common meaning of the word "extinct" to a lay reader. It is being spoken and being taught, however few people are involved. The everyday meaning of extinct for readers means there is no one speaking the language. When there are only ten individuals from an endangered species left, no one ever uses the word extinct to describe them. This is how a lay reader understands the term. In this brief article mention, the inclusion of this term will confuse the reader.


 * I agree with most of these points, and don't disagree about the other points sufficiently strongly to continue to argue about it here. (But care does need to be taken not to confuse England with the UK. And if others continue to dispute details, so shall I.)  Information on the use of languages other than English in England is not collected in official statistics, although a question is proposed to be asked in the 2011 Census.  Reliable sources suggest that the most frequently spoken other languages in England include Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, French, Gujerati, Polish, Punjabi, Somali, Tamil and Urdu.  In the UK (n.b. not England), "About one in 10 children speak a language other than English at home." How about adding (with the refs indicated):"The most frequently spoken minority languages in England include Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, French, Gujerati, Polish, Punjabi, Somali, Tamil and Urdu." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had added some stuff slightly more specific - figures that ranked the languages amongst school pupils. But I would be happy to see a sentence along the lines of Ghmytrtle's added, together with the four refs provided (though one or two of them are a bit cryptic when you click through). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the languages taught in schools in second languages (French, Spanish, etc.) are a different issue to those learned at home as first languages by ethnic minorities, which is what my suggestion above addresses. The refs I put in are to pre-empt those editors seeking more info - they may not necessarily be the best refs to be included in the article, but I'm happy to go with your judgement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Re Cornish, there is a relevant (but possibly out of date - 2002) UNESCO comment here - "Sometimes languages that have actually died out have been "raised from the dead," such as Cornish, in England, which became extinct in 1777 but has been revived in recent years, with nearly 1,000 people now speaking it as a second language." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact it was declared extinct is an important fact, however i would rather mention of that left out if the issue of the primary schools is dropped too. This is not just about me not liking it, i simply dont want people misled into thinking Cornish is properly "taught" in some primary schools, when no real evidence of this has been presented at all. We have just examples of some using Cornish for doing the morning register, sure it may fit in the definition of "taught", but that is just not accurate enough on this matter.

So as i said before, if the schools are to be mentioned, we should go into far more detail about what takes place. Some of the sources used to justify this primary school claim (which lets not forget started out with a single independent article, claiming 50 primary schools which we have seen no secondary sources backing up) offer disclaimers like "taught to some degree", yet the proposed wording above diddnt include the disclaimer or a better explanation going into detail.

Anyway the numbers of speakers or the % must be included as its vital information, id rather the primary school issue dropped but if it is to remain it should explain the situation better so it doesnt confuse people. I have no problems with further information being added about other languages, aslong as sources are correctly for England rather than the UK as Ghmyrtle mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be preposterous to go into detail in this article - which lest we forget is the main article on England, not an article about Cornwall or the Cornish language - as to the nature of the teaching of Cornish in schools. The ref states that it "is currently taught to some degree in five secondary schools and an increasing number of primaries. In addition, quite a number of schools use some Cornish in the daily routine, whether it is taking the register or simply saying good morning!"  Please note the in addition - it is used in "quite a number" of schools in daily assemblies and so forth, beyond which it is taught in "five secondary schools and an increasing number of primaries".  The idea, BW, that you should seek to exert some sort of personal veto on what referenced info is included, and what is excluded, based on your own personal political opinions, is becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate.  The most appropriate solution for this article, in my view, would be to exclude unnecessary mentions of both the 0.1% speakers and its teaching in schools.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the number of people that speak the language is vital, im not trying to veto anything.. all im saying is if the Primary school matter is to be mentioned it should go into more alot detail so people dont get the wrong end of the stick. That is why i came into this conversation with very strong feelings, because when i read about it being "taught in 50 primary schools" it sounded to me as though it meant its taught in 50 schools the way Welsh is taught in Welsh schools and we all know this is not the case.
 * I agree we cant go into huge detail here on the England article about this matter, thats why the schools issue should be left out to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)