Talk:England/Archive 7

A compromise on above issue
How about...

"Cornish, which died out as a community language in the 18th century, is being revived,[43]|undefined[44]|undefined[45]|undefined[46]|undefined and is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[47]|undefined It is spoken by 0.1% of people in Cornwall,[48]|undefined and is taught to some degree in several primary and secondary schools."

Ive used several there to avoid repeating "some", but if theres a better word that could be used in the same sort of way that people would be more happy with im fine with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The main difference between that and my proposal (scroll up, 16:40, 22 September 2009) are the words "to some degree". My feeling is that anything is only ever taught "to some degree", so it's meaningless.  I'd rather lose those words, but if a meaningless three words help make a compromise, so be it.  Not so happy about "several", which downplays the number of schools.  But it is certainly much better than the current article wording.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes i copied / pasted that proposal from above, the 3 words solve my concerns with that sentence and i agree its a better sentence overall than the current wording in the article.
 * On "several", was the only alternative to some which i could think of that sounded ok, if "to some degree in some primary and secondary schools" isnt a problem im ok with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm prepared to run with this. A word of warning: I suspect sooner or later an editor is going to object to "to some degree" per WP:WEASEL, but in this particular case those words are deliberately chosen to draw attention to the fact that there is ambiguity as to what that degree is, so i support this formulation as a compromise. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BW, I don't understand your resistance to deleting "to some degree" (apart from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, of course, which shouldn't be a consideration). The references state that it is taught in some schools, with no qualification as to how (or how much) it is taught - "to some degree" appears to be WP:OR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "To some degree" was from one of the only sources i consider to be reliable one on this matter which you linked previously. so i dont think those 3 words are OR or unreasonable, it just points out when we say taught in some schools we do not mean to the same level a second language would be taught, ive not seen any evidence to suggest that is the case anyway. Those 3 words keep things balanced and prevents someone thinking its taught to the same level that Welsh would be taught in Wales for example. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My children are taught Welsh "to some degree", as we live here - that is a quite different matter to being at a Welsh language school. They are also taught history "to some degree", etc. etc.  The words still seem superfluous to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Cornish spoken by 0.1% of Cornishmen? (That is not a large number.)  No one speaks it from the cradle.  It is a learnt language, by which criterion you might say that 30% of people in Britain speak French!


 * It can be a beautiful language, by the way.


 * I have a problem with "is being revived"; what does it mean? Interest in the Cornish language is being revived, and it is being taught in some Cornish schools.  One can see Cornish words used on signs, boat names and house names and so forth, but it is an affectation in those circumstances.  "Revived" suggests that there is a movement to bring children up in the Cornish language. I do not believe that is the case.


 * Perhaps:

"The Cornish language was once spoken in Cornwall but died out in the 18th century. Interest in Cornish has revived and it is now protected under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is estimated that 0.1% of people in Cornwall understand Cornish to some extent and the Cornish language is taught to some degree in several primary and secondary schools in Cornwall."


 * Howard Alexander (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No to that wording. Too many weasel words, and the allegation that its use is an "affectation" is WP:OR. It is not just "interest" in Cornish that has revived, it is its use, both spoken and written. "I don't believe it" won't do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: BritishWatcher's version above now incorporated in the main article, before the para moves on to foreign languages / minority languages. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right-o. (I only meant to suggest a wording in the last para of my "Talk" contrib; the observation about affectations was just my commentary.  Somehow the indentations and paragraph breaks had fallen out, which does make it hard to read one from the other. (I have put them back just for the record, though if we can resolve a settled paragraph it makes no odds.) The suggested paragraph should be free of weasel words, bbut it should also mean something.  Ah well.


 * Kernow bys viken!


 * Howard Alexander (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood
In a slightly different vein to the above, I'm a little frustrated that we've had to use a photograph of a man wearing Robin Hood-type costume to illustrate Robin Hood. Don't we have something a little more befitting? Say, a medieval illumination? --Jza84 | Talk  11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at Commons - though I suppose we could use one of the 1912 illustrations there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could put an image of King Arthur there instead, theres several better commons images of him. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that he fought for the British against the Saxons, possibly not in the area that became England at all, it could be contentious! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I think Robin Hood is a "greater" (for want of a better word - more "English" perhaps?) figure in English folklore anyway. I just don't think we're doing the legend or the article justice with the photograph of the man in costume. --Jza84 | Talk  16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to swap it with one of the 1912 images, showing Robin and Guy shooting. Hope that's ok with everyone. YeshuaDavid  •  Talk  • 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks Yeshua. --Jza84 | Talk  22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thats better. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Welsh language in England
Does anyone know any reliable sources for when Welsh died out as a main language in western Shropshire? I have heard tell that Oswestry was thought a Welsh-speaking town until some time in the twentieth century. If there are still Welsh-speaking villages in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, I have not come across them.

In Monmouthshire Welsh never died out, but whether that is an English county or a Welsh one is open to hot debate!

Howard Alexander (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This states that "Even today you're often almost as likely to hear Welsh spoken in Oswestry town centre as English."; and this community website states: "The western part of the modern Oswestry Rural Parish has a distinctly Welsh character, with the Welsh language still being spoken in some parts." According to this 1878 ref (0805e), "Shropshire is an English county, but a small portion of the western extremity is Welsh, including the parishes of Selattyn, Llanyblodwel, and the township of Sychtyn, which have an area of 19 square miles and 2,469 inhabitants, of whom 900 speak Welsh." This area - and also areas further south like Clun and Bishop's Castle - were legally part of Marchia Wallie (The March of Wales) until the 16th century when they were incorporated into Shropshire.  Shrewsbury and Hereford were originally frontier garrisons for subduing the Welsh, of course.  Further south, the area SW of Hereford, Archenfield, "remained a predominantly Welsh speaking region until at least the 17th century, and the language was still spoken in the Kentchurch area as late as 1750."  Monmouthshire is undeniably a Welsh county - see this article for clarification of the historical confusion.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hot debate?", I'm pretty sure hardly anyone brings up which Country Monmouthshire is in anymore...--Azhar Badr (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

GAC: where are we up to?
At a cursory glance all the issues intially raised at the GAC for England have been resolved. Where are we upto for this article in terms of obtaining GA status? --Jza84 | Talk  13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn thats alot of ticks to all those problems yes. The anthem in the info box still neeeds sorting out though, it cant just list Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory as (de facto) anthems when in most cases the UK anthem is used which doesnt get mentioned at all. Not sure how that should be solved though, i think God Save the Queen belongs on all 4 country article infoboxes as a national anthem, but i know lots would hate that :) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * God Save the Queen is surely still a de facto anthem for England too anyway, regardles of its status for the UK - it's sung by England rugby and football. --Jza84 | Talk  13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be listed, its clearly used far more as an "English anthem" than Hope and glory / Jerusalem, perhaps a note is needed at the bottom of the infobox explaining it? I notice the Northern Ireland article just avoids mentioning anthems all together in the infobox, and they are in the same boat as they use GSTQ for football but different things for the Commonwealth games. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add it as I don't think it's contentious. --Jza84 | Talk  14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anyone able to find a source for "Two thirds of production is devoted to livestock, the other to arable crops."? I had a quick search but couldn't find anything that suited the statement exactly. Hayden120 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive found a good one about the UK from 2008, ive scanned through that but couldnt see figures on how Englands land is divided up when it comes to production. The defra site does have plenty of other info, will have to look through the different reports though.  same with that page, talks about the UK rather than England in any detail.  BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a chart for England land use which goes into alot of detail, but it only goes up to 2005. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the "Consolidation" sections to reflect recent improvements, but there's still a bit of work to be done in terms of achieving GA status - see that section for details. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to help the last couple of days, been a bit bogged down! Basically the main issue is just fattening out the late modern/contemporary history section, then it should be alright. I'll plough on and try and do something about it tonight. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was thinking that maybe we need something (an image?) of industrial England, 19th or 20th century. I had a think about it and, although was thinking of a millscape, wondered if we could (once the prose is expanded), use an image of one of England's UNESCO WHS? Like Saltaire or Derwent Valley Mills or even Royal Crescent? I'm thinking Saltaire mind. Thoughts?


 * What kind of prose do you think is missing Yorkshirian? Anything I can help with? --Jza84 | Talk  23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

20th and 21st century England
This section is still a little thin. What kind of things are we missing? --Jza84 | Talk  15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno. It’s not exactly missing anything, it just needs expansion, add a tag? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh noes it doesn’t have a section. I'm Kawaii not smart... --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Well, the prose is far superior now, but, as much as I love Lord Nelson, I'm a little bit concerned that we end our bit on contemporary England with a portrait of him. Looking at the FAs of Germany, Bangladesh and Japan, they each manage to have something from 1950s onwards. Although this image looked befitting, it is not free-to-use. Comments? --Jza84 | Talk  17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm yes Nelson shouldnt really be there in that section it does need something from the 1950s onwards although i dont like that image. Hmmm an image about England in the past 50 years that would look good there.. lol i cant think of anything sadly. The only thing i can think of which would fit in would be an image of the city of London, as it mentions about transfering from manufacturing to services, but thats already got images in the econony section for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of London images - wouldn't oppose another, but it's worth considering. I was thinking something war-time, or perhaps the miners' strikes, or something to do with Euro '96. It's hard thinking of a contemporary, and specifically English event. --Jza84 | Talk  17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * -- or the Commonwealth Games. --Jza84 | Talk  17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Manchester Commonwealth games would be good, theres no decent images on its article though. Its very difficult to think of something in recent decades that would fit in the history section.. especially as we have sports images futher down the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it perhaps there could be a sentence or two in that section on how England has radically changed in the past 50 years becaues of immigration. Then there could be some image relating to multiculutralism or something, like the notting hill carnival. To be honest, i think that is the most defining thing for England over the past 50 years and yet it doesnt get mentioned. Without doubt it has had FAR more of an impact on England than the EU issues or devolution has. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's most true. I can get simple and reliable source material about this issue too (if I'm given a couple of hours that is) - it's not covered in the history section. I'm not sure we have covered the North-South divide in England too - an important socio-economic remnant of the Industrial Revolution. This image looks summative of England's modern population (and is of a high quality), though I know I run the risk of being slated for arbitary selection. I'm open to ideas. --Jza84 | Talk  19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or this one, but i agree some image of population change like that would be really good there. Id love to hear if theres something else that people think has been part of English history more in the past 50 years than immigration because i cant think of anything at all that comes close and its mainly about England rather than the United Kingdom as the overwhelming majority of immigration has been to England. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose something else missing from the article (from what i can see) is mass Privatization of everything which could be mentioned after talking about industry in history section or in the economy section. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a picture of Churchill instead of Nelson? He is probably the least polemical, major figure from England in recent history (though Thatcher is also major and oversaw the economic shift, shes probably too polemical). I don't think a random crowd of people just walking around really adds anything definative.- Yorkshirian (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From an Irish POV, I'd say Churchill would be far more polemical. Why not add an image of Elizabeth I to the article, seeing as she was one of England's greatest monarchs?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its mostly because Nelson doesn't "allign" as such to the text in the period he is depicted next to that we have to swap him. In England, Churchill isn't really too polemical politically, since he fought against Nazi Germany, but was a conservative. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. Elizabeth I needs to be alongside Henry VIII, IMO. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think it should only include one Tudors. Personally I'm fine with either Henry VIII or Elizabeth I been used, I just thought Henry might be slightly more recognisable to the casual reader (due to the "six wives" thing and creating the Church of England). Do you think Elizabeth is more important than Henry? Obviously securing the defeat of the Armada is a major event in history. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another good one to use, might be the famous 1966 image of the World Cup victory. When considering how much football is a part of the majority of English peoples lives (regardless of politics or anything else) and that event was the only time England has won it (on home soil at that), its probably a good candidate for being most definative "English moment" of recent times. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the concerns during the peer review was an image with no explanation in the nearby text. If we do use this image, you may wish to include a quick note on the 1966 World Cup in the Late Modern and contemporary section. Hayden120 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, I forgot about that. I've found a quite high quality image from flickr of a memorial decidated to soldiers who died in each World War. Does it look better? - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it as a subject - it ties in well.... but what about using the Armed Forces Memorial instead? (, ?) --Jza84 | Talk  10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work along side a couple of sentences of the fact the UKs been in so many wars since the end of ww2 but thats still more about the UK than England. I still think that immigration is without doubt the most important part of English history in the past 50 years, nothing else, not even wars have changed England the way immigration has. Whilst an image of lots of people might not be good enough for some people, there must be a free image of something that can show multicultural England. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just been bold and changed it to the Cenotaph at Whitehall. Revert if necessary, but I think it is most befitting. I'm still open to ideas mind. --Jza84 | Talk  11:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that image is ok and fits in with the WW2 text. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Final parts of GA checklist
The only thing left now is regarding some terminology but IMO, it seems to be pretty acurate and fairly balanced. For instance I don't think its too WP:PEACOCK to say Issac Newton and John Locke are "prominent" in their field or that Brunel as part of the Industrial Revolution "revolutionised" society. For instance on the Leonardo da Vinci article it says "he is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived" and thats a GA. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think this is a case for WP:IAR. I don't think we're misrepresenting source material with such statements, and are within any rationale interpretation of WP:NPOV. Even if contested, I'm sure source material could be found to this effect anyway. --Jza84 | Talk  23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --We've come a long way since the nomination! But there are a few other things we need/can tackle:
 * We still have some ALT text to sort out per this tool.
 * We need to disambiguate these links.
 * It would be good to tidy up the references. Some of the web refs are missing authors. I'd like us to use the harvnb tool too (I believe it's going to become part of the GA or FA criteria at some point down the line).
 * --Jza84 | Talk  14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, with the harvnb tool, why does the ref, for instance "Gallagher 2006, p. 14." show up as blue, but then when you try to click on it, nothing happens? It might just be my computer. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added "ref=harv" to each book, the links should work now. Hayden120 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As you previously suggested Jza84, we should work together to convert all the footnotes to 'harvnb'. I'll do footnotes 1–100 to get things started. Hayden120 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks much more tidy now. I think everything is done? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so! I want to thank you both for your efforts in making this so! Thank you Yorkshirian and Hayden120. I can't believe it's become such a well written article. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've sent a message to Nikki to come and see. Are we doing the UK one next? - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work everyone, it's finally a GA. What are the requirements to push it to FA status? I think we went beyond the call of duty for the GA criteria; surely we'd be close. Hayden120 (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; a great piece of work. In my experience the FA process is pretty grilling and brutal; even individual words can be scrutinized at times (!), and it's a certainty that all the references will be checked for reliability. For me, I'd be looking at "doubling up" some of the reference material - particularly where we've relied on web citations. Also, the major difference between a Good and a Featured article is "completeness". A Good Article has to be thorough, but a Featured Article comprehensive, brilliant and draw from a bredth of research.
 * It may be worth taking the article to FA for the feedback alone. Another option would be to get a few FA-regulars to have a look informally and give some tips. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  02:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also try putting it up for peer review as a possible prelude to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maypole Dancing
The Maypole dancing image was deleted. Shame - 'cos it was a nice illustration. Thoughts for a replacement? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the Morris dancing images instead..  BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

fact check
The Prehistory and antiquity section has the sentence: "As the seas rose, it was separated from Ireland 9,000 years ago and from Eurasia half a century later." The source is to long for me to locate the relevant statement, but it seems almost impossible that the resolution could reach half a century that far back -- should it be "half a millenium" instead? Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course that's just one part of the story. Here's another. It's talking about the separation from Europe taking place perhaps as early as 450,000 years ago or as little as 200,000 years ago. This is separate from the rising sealevels theme and explains why the English Channel is below sealevel in the first place. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the resolution thing, I actually think that it's quite plausible. It should be possible to calculate what rate sea-level was rising at as the ice melted. Then given the difference in depth between the Irish Sea and the English Channel, we should be able to tell approximately how long there was between the two areas being submerged. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We should bear in mind that the separation between Britain and Europe happened more than once. Long after the Channel had been formed - - a land bridge across the North Sea was re-created as "Doggerland" -,  - before later being submerged again.  It was not a single process - the seas came and went, possibly many times, the result of glaciation, isostatic adjustment and so forth.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a fascinating topic. Thanks for the link to our Doggerland article. I didn't know we had one. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Great North Road 'destination' query
As far as I'm aware, the Gt North rd goes to Edinburgh, not Newcastle. This is indicated:

(c.f. http://www.thegreatnorthroad.co.uk/bookcontents.htm)

What's with the four tildes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.44.25 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The four tildes will make the Wikipedia server sign your comment for you, so that readers can see who wrote what. As far the Great North Road is concerned, it's not really an either/or thing. The road goes to both places: from London to Newcastle, then on to Edinburgh. Arguably it goes on to Inverness, if you count the A9. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 05:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Acting
Not one mention of it, and the leading role of England in the development of the performing arts in that field. Shakespeare is mentioned only for his contribution to literature, which is very misleading, a sentence or two should be added about the development of acting in England, which influenced theatrical traditions throughout the world. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful there. Yes, Shakespeare was great, but acting in England went downhill after him. In fact it had well and truly lost its way by the early nineteenth century. It was really only during the latter half of the nineteenth century that the efforts of dramatists/directors such as Gilbert, Shaw and Wilde and drama critics such as Clement Scott and William Archer started to raise it up from the dreadful abyss of melodrama that it had fallen into. And that resurrection was partly achieved by looking to foreign models such as Ibsen. So agreed, late nineteenth century English developments were very influential in the rest of the Empire but not necessarily in the rest of the world. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 06:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the great actresses Fanny Kemble and Sarah Siddons, and Charles Kemble?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Charlie Chaplin? I suppose we just need to satisfy WP:V. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  10:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that there were individual greats. But that is independent of the general state of acting and JudgeSurreal wasn't talking about individuals, he was talking about "the development of acting in England" which is a rather different thing. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"
An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Formula 1
Why is there the tiniest reference to Formula 1 in the article. The curent world champion, Jenson Button, is English, and statistically, England is the most successful country for Formula One (followed by Great Britain, and Bernie Ecclestone himself is English. It certainly needs a mention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.85.115 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Education" section needs % of Brits w college degrees
Actually, all of the European sections need this. The US page says it (apparently 27% of Americans have college degrees) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clguy1234 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Testing the water
A discussion is taking place over the lede of Northern Ireland with some editors objecting to the current wording which is consistent over Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. One possible change which appears acceptable to some of the objectors is to replace "X is a country which is a part of the UK" to "X is one of the four countries of the UK". My purpose here is to test the water and ask what would be the reaction to such a change if it was made consistently on all four articles. -- Snowded TALK  05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, those who "objecting to the current wording", "object" it in relation to Northern Ireland only (and want a more nuanced and topic-appropriate approach in relation to that article). A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles. That is not necessary in the opinion of those who "object" to it on the Northern Ireland article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ in the infobox
IMHO, GSTQ should be excluded from the infobox, as England isn't independant. Plus, GSTQ is excluded from Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image of English Royal Standard
Hi,

Could someone change the image for the English Royal Standard that's being used? The version that's currently on the page looks as though it's been taken from a shield and has something very strange going on with the angle of the bottom lion's leg!!! It looks a little bit amateur for the England page (no offense intended!). May I suggest this image as a replacement, which I thinks looks a lot better and indeed like that used by the government & royal family within the royal standard of the UK:



Otherwise liking all your work on this page btw! Brunanburh (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunanburh (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I like the one above better than the one in the Infobox. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I've now altered the above image by trimming off the sides and adding to the top and bottom so that it is now a 3:5 ratio to match the dimensions of the St George's Cross image:



Hope this helps! Brunanburh (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So I've now uploaded a new high-quality image at 3:5 ratio which I've set as the picture on the 'Royal Standard of England' page; follow this link for the image:

Please can someone who has editing access change the Royal Standard of England picture in the infobox to this one or let me know what you think. (Sorry for cluttering up the page with different versions but this should be the final one!) - Thanks! Brunanburh (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry VIII
Can someone who can edit this page change the caption of the image of Henry VIII under the "Modern era" section is incorrect - he was the Supreme Head, not Supreme Governor, of the Church of England. The terminology "Supreme Governor" was introduced for Elizabeth I. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. You were right, sorry no one got around to it sooner.--Misortie (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A few suggestions
Hi, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia so please bear with me.

I have a few observations/suggestions on the article I thought might be worth considering:


 * The double decker bus pictured is of an old Routemaster bus no longer in public transport service so is it appropriate to be included? (I know it is seen as an icon of London so that would be the reason to keep it)
 * Healthcare is described in the "Infrastructure" section, does this really come under the definition of infrastructure, or should it have it own section (I understand reluctance to create new sections for the sake of it)
 * In the cuisine section should "pork" be added to the meat joints which can be roasted as part of a Sunday roast, and "roast potatoes" are missing from the constituents of a Sunday roast.
 * In the "Performing Arts" section should mention be made of West End theatres, musicals and (as much as I'm not a fan) Andrew Lloyd Webber?
 * Should England's film making history and famous actors and studios be mentioned (such as Michael Caine and Pinewood)? Handlezone (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth looking at WP:BRD, if you think a change should be made, make it. I agree with your last three, think the first is iconic, not sure about the second.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't make the edits myself at the moment because I only created my account yesterday and it is currently unconfirmed and the article is semi-protected. Handlezone (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you could write a draft of your proposed changes here, one of us can put it into the article for you. Also, the definition of 'infrastructure' can vary to cover many different things, including healthcare and education—I think that part of the article is fine. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this articall shows the real side of England. Not just what the yanks think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghenrimck (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well go for it, if you can provide the sources to back up your assertions as to the real side of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Curling
Curling is not a sport introduced by England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.194.110 (talk • contribs)


 * Indeed. Removed. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmhmmm...
"The mainland of England consists of the central and southern part of the island of Great Britain in the North Atlantic, but England also includes over 100 smaller islands such as the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight." -The "but" bit doesn't seem right, any better wording?--Yuka Chan (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe:- "Most of England comprises the central and southern part of the island of Great Britain in the North Atlantic. The country also includes over 100 smaller islands such as the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oki.--Yuka Chan (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah does look better.--Misortie (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

English people
At the demography section, there is no mentioning of the Picts (aldough I assume that these made up most (if not all) of the "Gaelic" population. I also think that it is worthwhile to mention the Aboriginal English (eg the english population before the Roman invasion). Please update the article accordingly. 87.64.63.183 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would it be in the "Demography" section? It's explained under "Prehistory and antiquity".  The "Picts", so far as anyone knows, had nothing at all to do with the area which became known as "England" in the 9th century or so.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please find some sourced material and update the article if appropriate rather than issuing instructions -- Snowded TALK  10:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...If only they would...--Caesar Augusta (Hail Caesar!) (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe nobody has published this discovery before! Sorry, couldn't resist.... --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is England a Country?
When our Prime Minister John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty back in 1992 under a little read section on regional funding, England was abolished and replaced with nine Euro regions. (Look up English regions on You Tube) England can no longer be found on any official EU map. Remember the 2000 census where the catagory for 'English' was removed. Try putting English on your passport application and it'll be returned as UK citizen. Listen to Gordon Brown's old Budget speeches and his constant reference to the 'Nations and Regions of the UK'. Read the latest Encyclopedia Brittanica where England is stated to no longer exist. Next time your putting software on your system and it asks you to state a language, it may allow you to put English but when asking for your home country it will have no 'English' option. There's no such place as England.FRANKIE THE BULLET (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The questioner has also raised this at Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no "England" before the regions, it was all split up into UK counties. England still exists, it has a definable area, a people, a flag, is a legal entity etc etc. All this "the regions are splitting up our dear beloved England" is just a load of hullabaloo about nothing. --Joowwww (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell is the OP talking about? And no CAPS please.--Misortie (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is England a country?". According to what I've been told at the article England, yes it's a country (though not an independant country). GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And for more background information, a lot of archived discussions, and other places this has been discussed - There is a template at the top of this talk page that refers you to all relevant information and past frequently repeated discussions on this topic. Study these first please before continuing here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the chart of refferences. 110.32.153.208 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

England is not a country but infact a territory which belongs to the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerxiii (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol 大輔 泉 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One learns something new everyday at Wikipedia. Thank you Jesus, thank you, Lord.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lord. England is not a country. No amount of "discussion" on wikipedia will make "England" a country. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the country and I don't even see England mentioned in the title! No doubt some wiki editor will try to assert that the UK is a "sovereign state". Oh please Lord, delivery us from this wiki-keyboard-consensus-evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.16.149 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.158.40 (talk)
 * Nothing to do with consensus. Reliable sources identifying England as a country have been provided. No source that makes a counterclaim.
 * Of course the word "country" has the connotation of independent state, but that is the problem with linguistics and most other social sciences, there is no single Truth (capitalisation intended), there are only context embedded truths (lower case intentional). Anyone who says there are Truths in this kind of debate does not know what (s)he is talking. So there is no Truth that the UK is no country, there is a truth that it is labelled country within the UK, there is also a truth that is not a country in the most common use of the word, that of an independent state. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DNFTT, also, the IP is a socker. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To the IP who insists that there is no England: if there was no such country as England, then just what was Shakespeare referring to when he wrote This scepter'd isle...this seat of Mars... this England? Hm hm? England is a country. Accept it and get over it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for falling for a troll, btw, also to Jeanne Boleyn, in social science and arts there is no single Truth ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a Single Truth to me, . -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are countries within a country. The UK is a special case that doesn't fit the same mould as other countries. Nuff said. --Joowwww (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'''This question has been raised so often that there is an FAQ about it, with references given above. Both consensus and many reliable sources have asserted that England is a country. Nothing to see here. If you want to know the facts, please follow the links above. ''' DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You got there before me. As DJ Clayworth says, there's nothing to see here. Jack forbes (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The question has been "raised so often" for the simple fact that England is NOT a country, however the 'English and proud' majority are unable to accept that England no longer exists. Let me quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has secured the perpetuation of its name, England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit". Further more no country in the world recognises England as a country - fact. A UK government website does not constitute a "reliable source" and, of course, they have a vested interest to keep the 'English & proud' happy. All this talk of "the UK is a special case" - oh please. We even have people quoting Shakespeare - dear lord. What year are some of you people living in? Pre 1707? As they say, the truth hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.158.40 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Has this ranting IP ever bothered to read Shakespeare? Hmn? I rather thought not. Thomas Hardy, Dickens, the Brontes? Probably not. It would behove you to wise up and educate yourself before taking the piss out of others who read things more challenging than the tabloids.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's all troll together! "England no longer officially exists as a governmental or political unit" - true!  Relevance - zero!!  "..No country in the world recognises England as a country" - if by "country" you mean "sovereign state" - true!  Relevance - zero!!  The point, dear IP troll, is that your definition of the word "country"  is not the same as the one by which people in the UK and England understand the word "country".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle has it exactly right. Please don't raise questions that have already been answered without reading the extensive discussion that has already taken place - otherwise you are just wasting people's time. "governmental or political unit" is not the same as "country". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming from the IP that thinks Cornwall is a country, this is very amusing. Also, I don't see him spreading the same POV pushing agenda on the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales articles? Surprise surprise!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank, please don't give him any ideas. It wouldn't change anything but it would be annoying to see that very old chestnut brought up again. Best thing to do is not reply. Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mountains and uplands
They're not the same. The version I'm trying, which is being reverted using the BRD excuse, is accurate. Comments please? The Roman Candle (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the issue that it is not clear that it is accurate to talk about mountains rather than hills, the other question is whether, even if true, fluffing out the article, especially the lead which should be a short summary, with these kinds of details is necessary. Arnoutf (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This part of the lead used Britain 2001: The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom as a guide. It mentions the lowlands, it mentions the uplands. Mountains are not mentioned; England barely has any mountainous regions. (I can dig the exact quote out if required).


 * However, are mountains not uplands? It like saying "The Netherlands have lowlands and flatlands at sea-level", or "The UK is made up of countries... and Wales". It's grammatically redundant, and I don't see the need to expand the lead (which passed GAC) as at all helpful. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mountains are uplands, but uplands are not necessarily mountains. A mountain, according to the commonly used definition in the UK, rises to 2000 feet or more. In the north of England we have uplands and mountains. The Lake District is a mountainous region, as is the Northern Pennines. I'll need to check the situation in the south, but generally one would say there are mountainous regions and other uplands in the north, and uplands in the south. The paragraph containing these words has no references whatsoever, so the fact that the information here came from whatever source is mentioned, is totally irrelevant. There are many citable sources that will confirm the presecence of mountains in northern England. As for fluffing out the article, what, with a single extra word, and a word which introduces a further degree of accuracy? What achieved GAC, the lead or the article in total? In either case, you seem to be saying that the article is now frozen as a result of the achievement. I wonder, is there some deeper reason for rejecting this obvious, minor, enhancement? I note the original supporter of it is a new editor, who seems to have been targetted by numerous more experienced editors and had virtually all of his edits overturned. I can't help thinking that some editors have a strong sense of ownership for certain articles, and almost as a matter of course reject all changes, especially from these upstart new editors (of which I'm one myself, as it happens, based on my number of edits). Finally, the change being suggested would seem to be outside WP:BRD - it's just not a bold change. It's something that all but the most pedantic, doctrinaire of editors would not be too concerned about. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Presently I oppose this addition. There will need to be a consensus to add this surplus wording until its restoration. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for the addition of mountains here. However, the phrase currently being used isn't that great. To start with, it talks about the North and South Downs being upland areas in the lead, whereas the body talks about them being in the English Lowlands. Secondly, the text feels a bit clunky (though I realise it is difficult when there is little time to say anything). Third, uplands and lowlands isn't very precise language, and probably means different things to different people. I've tried to think of better ways to express the nature of the English landscape succinctly but it is very difficult to do. There's barely enough room for this in the body of the text, let alone in the lead! Any ideas for how to improve it? Quantpole (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the sentence Lowlands are common for English terrain sounds clumsy. It could be replaced with, for example, England's terrain is mainly comprised of Lowlands and so on. What do others think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter was originally discussed here, which passed through discussions (pending tweaks), and as a disclaimer I originally proposed we have something like it for the lead. Here's the quote that was originally used to construct the sentence (but I concede that isn't/wasn't very clear):


 * Open to suggestions on the basis of WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LEAD etc. The sentence did survive the overhaul of the article in late-2009 too. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dislike the current phrase Lowlands are common for English terrain, and I dislike the inclusion of the word "mountains". Locally, the hills in northern England (at least in the Lake District) may be called mountains, but in the context of an international readership - which is what WP deals with - it would be misleading to use the word "mountain" in this article.  But I also agree that "upland" does not give any connotation of steep slopes.  So, personally, I'd favour inclusion of a word like "hills" or "hilly".  How about:  "England is predominantly a lowland country, although there are hilly upland regions especially in the north, including the Lake District and the Pennines."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite like the phrase in this: "Much of Southern and Central England is characterised by gently rolling countryside while Northern England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have rugged upland terrain..." It's still not perfect I know (e.g. doesn't say anything about the south-west) but I like the "gently rolling countryside" as that is almost the archetypal English landscape. Quantpole (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally like gently, rolling countryside, but will some purist editors complain that they're peacock words?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK Yearbook 2005 (an ONS publication) describes England as comprising "mostly low hills and plains, forming meadowlands and pastures."--Pondle (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is a bit romantic, and make one liable to break out into a rendition of Jerusalem! But, I do not think it is any more inaccurate than saying "lowlands", and I personally think it is a better description. Quantpole (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Low hills and plains, meadowlands and pastures; yes, they do sound romantic, yet that's a perfect description of the English countryside!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think this is good stuff. Pooling this together, can we agree to something like: --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good Jza, just a couple of ideas: I suggest using 'terrain' because it's a more commonly understand word. I also suggest that the first sentence is broken up, it is rather long. Perhaps this would be better:
 * Hayden120 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. Unless there's opposition or a request for more input, I plan to make these changes in the next 24 hours. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it too. Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, actioned per this diff. Hopefully that hits the spot... --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Major conurbations-Sheffield?
Hello.

In the Major conurbations section it mentions some large cities and Bradford. I think this should be repleaced by Sheffield. The reason for this is not biased but due to the fact that Sheffield is one of the core cities and whereas Bradford is not.

Thank you

Nathan Croucher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathancroucher (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The doctor's (frank coffey)nationality is Irish so the flag should be changed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.75.45 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

UK formation date
I would like some input at List of sovereign states by formation date where there is a disagreement over the UK formation date. It appears there are a couple of editors who believe the date should be 1689 and not 1707. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think 1689 is just teh date of The Bill Of Rights. The U.K. was formed in1707 by The Act Of Union. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Baitul Futuh and Spectator
Recently User:Peaceworld111 has added an image of the Baital Futuh mosque with the caption: "Baitul Futuh Mosque in London. Voted top 50 buildings in the world by Spectator magazine"

While this is obviously true (i.e. the Spectator listing it), I have the strong suspicion that the Spectator poll is in this context not a sufficient authority to make this fact notable. I.e. I think this is placing a lot of undue attention to a proposition which (while true) may not have any relevance beyond the actual Spectator poll. I.e. the Spectator poll is probably not a reliable source to make claims to what buildings are most important. The spectator is a rather small English magazine (circulation about 77000); and not known for being an expert architecture journal (although it aims at culture)

In my view this is undue as listing the Mosque among the 50 top building seems a highly unlikely honour for a recent (2003) rather cheap (5.5 million pounds) building as to be a top building it has to compete on this top 50 list with buildings like Hagia Sophia, pyramids, Notre Dame de Paris, Great Wall of China, Taj Mahal, Alhambra, and in the UK with structures like Stonehenge, Tower of London, Canterbury Cathedral etc. etc.

To accept the secondary quote to the Spectator by the city council of Morden; as relevant outside the immediate context of the specific Spectator poll. We need to establish validity and reliability of the election, therefore we have to deal with: Without information, or at least a source that provides such information, I cannot judge the reliability of the source, and as this cannot but conclude that any generalisations from this claim are putting undue attention to an unreliable fact. Arnoutf (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference itself does not link to the article in the journal, hence no idea can be gotten to the context of the election
 * The following (methodological) context is essential to establish reliability and authority of the poll
 * Who participated (public, experts, architects / English only, readers of the journal, citizens of London, international) - This to establish to what extend the election has been biased. E.g. if the election was held in the UK only, it stands to reason this does not present a global points of view, but one biased to favour English structures
 * How many people participated, what was the minimum amount of votes needed to enter the top 50 list. If too few people participated a few votes could swing the favour for the lower end of the scale. (Even if a 1000 or more participated, if 800 voted for number 1, 150 for number 2, inclusion of number 3-50 depended on a single vote!)
 * How was it conducted (internet, survey, interview). Internet polls are known to be "highjacked" by supporter groups and should therefore in general not be considered reliable
 * Was the naming of a top building free, or was there a preset list of "nominees". A list of nominations could again introduce bias, so if there was a limited list of nominations, who compiled the nomination list, on what authority.
 * After detailed check of additional references by Peaceworld111, I have become even more worried. Half the references quote the Spectator, while the other half quote The Independent top 50 modern buildings of the world (much more modest claim leaving out my examples above, but still). The disagreement in the sources sheds serious doubt on all of them. This makes it even more essential to include the reference to the original article presenting the list of 50 buildings, either in Spectator or Independent. Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add, the last reference, stated top 50 'modern' buildings, rather than 'top 50 buildings' cancelling out old structures such as pyramids or Canterbury Cathedral. Also I doubt that structures like 'Great wall of china' can be counted as 'buildings'. Also I think that by the word 'independent' magazine, they mean 'not associated with'Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read it it refers to The Independent note capitalisation which would be rather weird if it is no name. The Independent is a perfectly fine journal; arguably much better than the Spectator. "Great wall of China" is built, but I get your meaning (would go for Stonehenge too). The list of examples was merely to show that from the top of my mind I could come up with many more influential structures (tend to be older though). We still need to solve this sourcing mess. Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It gets even more confused - there is another page on Wikipedia (List_of_Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community_buildings_and_structures) citing it to a publication called The Informer. I can't track this publication down, although there are several of that name. The Independent does seem to have done "50 best buildings" surveys in its supplement The Information, which I suppose could be confused with The Informer - see http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-50-best-the-best-buildings-of-the-nineties-1175777.html for a 1998 list - but I can't find Baitul Futuh on it.
 * I'm removing it again - it's a big claim to make unsourced, and we don't even know what the claim really is! (Fifty best ever in the world? Best recent in England? Or what?)
 * I'll also bring up that unless the list proves to be one of the fifty best buildings ever from a reliable source, it may confer WP:UNDUE weight on this building. For instance, if it is a list of the 50 best buildings in Europe in the last two decades (for example), it would be hardly surprising if several of them were in England, and not worth mentioning in an article on every aspect of the country as a whole. Barnabypage (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthem
I think the following is wrong as it isn't correct and insults the British people:

"Anthem: None (de jure)" - Britain's anthem is God Save The Queen.

"God Save the Queen, Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory (de facto)" - "de facto" is so ignorant. By who's authority? England has no anthems - full stop. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By authority of the various national sporting bodies; The FA, and Commonwealth Games England for example. All three are sung as national anthems at national sporting events. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That has no relevence to my point. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Britain's anthem is God Save The Queen. But this is the article for England, so the de jure part is correct. And why is the use of those three songs as national anthems irrelevant to your point about what songs are, in practice, used as national anthems? Hadrian89 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If those anthems are used at official sporting occasions then it is certainly worth saying. 'de facto' pretty much means 'by no particular authority'. I think what we have describes the situation well. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

REPLY TO Hadrian89: "so the de jure part is correct" yes I wrote that in haste. But even to consider that England has an anthem is POV. It may be *partly* a generational thing. Many young British people are strongly in favour of breaking up their country and so 'wishfull-think' of establishing an anthem for England. i.e. their attitude is POV as far as the wikipedia is concerned. The final paragraph I wrote above is corrrect. 'de facto' is nonsense. All such people are really saying is: "I'd *like* such-and-such to be an anthem for England", but that has nothing to do with the reality. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

REPLY TO: DJ Clayworth: What people like the FA do is irrelevent. They don't decide on constitutional matters for Britain. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Anthem: None (de jure) God Save the Queen, Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory (de facto)" is embarrassing and unencyclopedic. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of the anthem is not "I'd like it to be be". Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory etc. are in fact sung as the official anthems at English sporting occasions. Not "we'd like them to be" but that is what actually happens. Now you may dislike that fact, or wish it didn't happen, but that (as you put it) would be wishful thinking. Wikipedia of course does not take sides on the matter. You are of course right in saying that the FA don't decide constitutional matters, and that's why they are "de facto" rather than 'de jure" anthems. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

England doesn't have an anthem or anthems of any kind. 'de facto' or not. The claim that it does is not only totally POV and therefore against one of the wikipedia's main rules - it's delusional. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

England is part of the UK and therefore hardly anything is "de jure". If we only had the de jure facts on Wiki then the UK would have no anthem, flag, capital etc. The same is for the constituent countries of the UK. If we are only going to put the de jure things for England then there'd be not anthem, flag or capital. The anthems listed are used in place of an official national anthem of England and so are therefore "de facto" anthems; that's the meaning of "de facto". It is far more informative for the reader that the list of "used" athems is there than it stating "None". Scroggie (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

REPLY TO scroggie: "England is part of the UK and therefore hardly anything is "de jure". If we only had the de jure facts on Wiki then the UK would have no anthem, flag, capital etc." - People say this on wikipedia but it's not true. Britain's the same as any other country. If what you say was true the gov.t and other authorities would be stealing everytime they did anything officially related with taxpayers' money. This idea, that Britain doesn't really exist - that the British, except for the Scotch, are, unlike every other country except Israel, slaves with no rights, is caused by anti-British racism, which is very prevalent in the world. Also on an English site it would be better if people wrote 'by law' if that's what they mean. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"The same is for the constituent countries of the UK." - I don't know what you mean. Nothing is by law in England etc.? Then how come these places have laws? Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"If we are only going to put the de jure things for England then there'd be not anthem, flag or capital." - That's my point. There is no anthem for England - of any kind - no matter what some teenagers want. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"The anthems listed are used in place of an official national anthem of England " - what anthem? There's no need of an anthem. England has no anthem. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"and so are therefore "de facto" anthems;" - people on here used to insist "we are the champions" by Queen was an "un-official de facto etc. etc. anthem" And Greensleeves, a great long list - i.e. a personal, wishful thinking matter - but not a reality. An anthem for England by who's authority? By who's wish? England has no anthem, the idea is all nonsense, because wikipd was founded by teen lads and has always been dominated by such people. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"that's the meaning of "de facto". It is far more informative for the reader that the list of "used" athems is there than it stating "None"." The box shouldn't be there for England. Just as it isn't for Texas. England is just an area of the U.K. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Remind me, what do they sing at the start of Rugby and Football matches when the English Team play? -- Snowded  TALK  08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Penny, actually Texas does have an anthem: Yellow Rose of Texas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative aspects
I did not read the whole article, but wonder is there anything negative to say about England? Alakasam  01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes lots. A vast amount could rightly be added about the destuction of Britain into its present corrupt shambles - along the lines of Peter Hitchens' writings. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennypennypennypenny (talk • contribs)


 * This is constructive, I'm takling about improve article. Alakasam  01:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles work best when we don't think about positive and negative things, but simply about factual things. Happily this article is mostly factual, with little that is either positive or negative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

cemeted
please change "cemeted" to "cemented"
 *  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

'''I really would like to understand the constitutional of this country United Kingdom. When u said, this country is Monarchy, suppose to The Queen or King is the Boss, Way this is not happen in this "Country"? Or maybe the country need to say to the world what is very clean to everyone?''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.130.66 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal standard
Hello page,

I'm a little uncomfortable with this change. Although I proposed we only use the flag of England, I am conscious that this change is bold enough to warrant a discussion.

Should the Royal standard be restored, or not? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have undone this; it should be present. Pretty much every other country on Wikipedia has their heraldic representation present at the top of the page next to the national flag (compare with Scotland, France, Germany, Spain etc. etc. etc.). If you're going to argue it doesn't have official status then we shouldn't show the English flag (St George's cross) either since this (unfortunately) has no official status within the modern UK.


 * It's a very important symbol of England, both historically (since circa 1198) and up until the present day. Just look at a UK passport or the exterior/interior of any UK court/prison/government building; the 3 lions in the UK Royal Standard continues to represent England to the present day, just as the now unofficial (presumably previously official) St George's cross represents England within the British Union Jack/flag.


 * Remember many aspects of British, but especially English, nationality do not have official status and are not written into law, but are simply de facto, e.g. British flag, common language etc. Therefore a Wiki page excluding all these items would be very bare indeed, and not representative and informative of what is established and in common use. Brunanburh (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Borders
Is it necessary to say it is bordered by the Celtic Sea? I for one have never even heard of it, wouldn't it be better to say the Atlantic? 92.27.203.153 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia. It is possible that readers may not be aware of every term or place within it. A good way to find information is to click on the links provided. These bring up article pages on those subjects, such as Celtic Sea. A Google search will bring results, or a more low tech method is to look at an atlas. Daicaregos (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
RE "How and why a term derived from the name of a tribe which was less significant than others, such as the Saxons, came to be used for the entire country and its people is not known, but it seems this is related to the custom of calling the Germanic people in Britain Angli Saxones or English Saxons.[18] " - I don't know. But it may be helpful to point out that it's been said that English is called English - despite the fact that Angles and Saxons spoke the same language - because Bede was such an important figure and he was an Angle. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source (see: WP:RS) where it has been said? Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no. I was a library book I was thinking of - about the history of the English language - I can't remember the title. If I find it again I'll post the title and author. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the name came into being during the period of Northumbrian rule (thus, Anglic). Before that, the language was called Þēodisc, which is the same word as Deutsch, Deitsch, Dutch, Düütsch, Þýsk, Teutonic and all those others, which simply mean "native/of our tribe/ours". (this being verified that the Romans said that we called our speech "theodice")
 * And as far as where "Ang/Eng" comes from, I honestly dont know why anyone has never mentioned the fact that the Ingvaeones came from that same area, and anyone who doesnt see the Ang/Æng/Ing connection there is blind. But, alas, no original research... —<b style="font-size:medium; color:#000000;">ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ</b> ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ ) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * See Ingaevones. That article gives refs for a possible etymological relationship between the words.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Normans
most "Normans" weren't Normans, being from various areas of France or Belgium. True Normans were at best a plurality in William 1's army. Article seems to imply William's army was primarily or completely Norman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.33.196 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2010
 * There is certainly some truth to this - Norman conquest of England states "William assembled a large invasion fleet and an army gathered not only from Normandy but from all over France, including large contingents from Brittany and Flanders." But, in England, the term "Normans" is generally used as shorthand for all those who came over in support of William.  Can you suggest any specific improvements to the wording in the article?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of any alternative name for Norman Conquest seeing as it's a historic term and William, who led the army, was Norman, not to mention his foreign mercenaries were picked up in Rouen and the force embarked from Normandy. Including the Bretons, who formed 1/3 of the invading force, I'd have to say it was primarily a French operation; however, we cannot call it the French Conquest as the armies of the King of France were not involved. Normandy and Brittany were duchies, and as such, vassals of the French king.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet TLD
On the Internet TLD, i would think the regular text superscript "4" might be meant to be a Citation Mark?

New-Imperial-England (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC).


 * It is meant to point to the footnote at the bottom of the infobox (I have corrected the numbering), but it appears not many people see these footnotes. I'm thinking they might be better off in the 'notes' section, but I'm not sure if the citations will fit in the infobox properly. Hayden120 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it seems to work fine. Hayden120 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica's description of England
Why does Encyclopedia Britannica list England as a "constituent unit of the United Kingdom" and Wikipedia does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.201.40 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See note at the start of this page. Wikipedia makes it clear that England is part of the UK.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Link rot
It appears some of the references are either starting to die or redirect to different places. For example, what is currently footnote 10 ("England – Culture (login required)". britainusa.com. http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41105&L1=41105&L2=41105&D=0. Retrieved 2009-02-01.) redirects to "How to Apply for a UK Visa in the USA". I am unable to find the original source of what is written here. I have corrected a few other references lately, and there might be more that need help; it might be worthwhile to click through the references and fix/replace anything you can see. Hayden120 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

England is not a country
The U.K. includes England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not countries but the United Kingdom is.... and don't give me the "sovereign state" wiki-bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.46.60 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh..... Well the fact is that the word 'country' does not exclusively mean sovereign state in the English language; an undeniable fact as I'm sure you already know:
 * - Merriam Webster English dictionary (USA) - see 2b:
 * - Collins English dictionary (UK):
 * However, feel free to invent your own language where England isn't a country, but clearly in the English language it is, as are Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland. This really is flogging a dead horse; please see the section at the top of this page. Brunanburh (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think '90.216.46.60' is right. The use of 'country' for Scotland etc. seems to be just a traditional, courtesy term. When people say: "all over the country" or "I'm leaving the country next week" they mean the U.K. And when they say "the nation" they mean The British. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do other editors the courtesy of reading the information box at the top of this page which links you to multiple previous discussions on this subject and also tables of evidence. -- Snowded  TALK  18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy is correct to an extent, but realistically the article is agreeing with you just in a different, nevertheless misleading, context. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent countries of the United Kingdom, which is a 'sovereign state', but typically referred to as a country. The problem is that the first four are often also called 'countries' for short, leading many to believe they are all independent in their own right. Both this article and the United Kingdom one should make it much clearer that this is the case. TheStig  t · c  06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not called countries for short. They are called countries because they are countries. Country is not synonymous with sovereign state. The article country makes this clear. Alternatively, look at a dictionary - links to two of them are given in this section. I repeat other editors' requests: please see the section at the top of this page. Daicaregos (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Recognised regional languages
I believe welsh is spoken in the welsh marshes (as it says here), so shouldn't it be included in the recognised regional languages section of the infobox? 82.1.157.16 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Welsh is only an official language in Wales: "The Welsh Language Act 1993 establishes in law the equality of the Welsh and English languages in Wales. It places an obligation on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales." FROM:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012519 Also of interest:http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/welshlanguage/Pages/WelshandtheLaw.aspx


 * I think 'recognised regional languages' is a political thing and the article should at least say "according to the E.U." or something to recognise the political nature of the business. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The mention of Welsh language speakers in the Oswestry area of Shropshire was not supported by the reference, so I've deleted it from the Welsh language article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

History
At the end of the "History" section it says: "Devolution has stimulated a greater emphasis on a more English-specific identity and patriotism." I think this should say "a greater emphasis among (or by) some people" as most English people are not particularly excercised by this issue. The article statement could be interpreted as saying that such an interest is a general thing rather than just the interest of a minority. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

National symbols
"However, the following are often considered unofficial English national anthems: " It's difficult to define by who, they are considered so. I don't know, or have ever known, anyone who would agree or believe there is such a thing as an "unofficial English national anthems". Maybe tunes/songs associated with England, but that's a different thing. "Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory (used for England during the 2002 Commonwealth Games),[268] and I Vow to Thee, My Country." These are all associated written to celebrate Britain, not England. (The 2002 Commonwealth Games made a big mistake. What could be more British than Land of Hope and Glory?)

"England's National Day is St George's Day, as Saint George is the patron saint of England, it is held annually on 23 April." I think it's a saints day, just St. George's Day. England doesn't have a national day (~it's not a nation). Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding symbols - absolutely (though I've always thought Jerusalem was English? Land of Hope and Glory - British, definitely.
 * Regarding St George's Day - nope, it is England's national day. If you think about it, St George is a Catholic Saint, and England has an established church that isn't the Catholic Church ;-)
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 15:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jerusalem - by way of the original poem - looks more English than British. <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, should have read your original comment more carefully - I now realise you did mention England's nation status or lack thereof. I'm not convinced you're correct about this, but I have no references to hand to prove/disprove - anyone else care to comment? <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Learn the meaning of the term "nation". --Joowwww (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Land of Hope and Glory definitely British? Perhaps it was written as British but I can't say it's ever had any resonance in Scotland, certainly not in my lifetime. Jack forbes (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the Union Jack/Union Flag is definitely British, and has no resonance in Scotland ;-) In this case, "British" means "wider than English". I certainly don't consider Land of Hope and Glory a "Scottish" song (and it's not even a nice song, like, say, Jerusalem). <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For many British does mean English. Perhaps this is the case here. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My pet hate is "English == British", rather than "British == English". I went back home (to NZ) with my partner (Scottish), and the number of people who asked her if she was "English", and then seemed surprised when we corrected then - "but Scotland's part of England"! <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't surprise me. I've had the same comments from some Australians. Too many people getting their education from the theme tune to Dad's Army I'm afraid. Jack forbes (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium
The Wembley Stadium image claims it is "the most expensive stadium ever built" at a cost of £798 million BP. (roughly $1.21 billion U.S. dollars) The new Yankee Stadium had a construction cost of $1.5 billion USD and an overall cost of $2.3 billion USD. Also Cowboys Stadium had a cost of $1.3 billion USD. Not sure if the quote of Wembley stadium is accurate. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of phrase "British Isles" in English Wikipedia - straw poll
There has been a discussion for some time at British_Isles_Terminology_task_force on the use of the phrase "British Isles".

A straw poll has now been called on the outcome of this project, please make your views known. The proposal being polled is shown below. Please vote here.

The straw poll is issued against a background of a number of editors systematically deleting all usage of "British Isles" throughout the site. The manual of style proposal attempts to set some rules to mediate this process.


 * The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
 * Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
 * Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
 * Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
 * Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
 * Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

WHERE TO VOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 06:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution
I am not a history major, but I have not found any mention of the American Revolution, or whatever the title is in England, in any of the articles on English history. I am curious if it was not considered important enough to be included from England's viewpoint, or if it was forgotten when writing these articles. I just thought that the article might benefit if someone qualified decided it was worth writing a brief note on the subject in the overall outline of England's history. As I said I am not a history major so I do not want to change anything in any article as I am not well informed.

As you can probably guess I am an American student, but I am not exposed to other cultures in depth aside from my own research, so please do not mistake my ignorance for arrogance.

I apologize if this violates the rules of the Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines, I did not intend to and may have misinterpreted the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.63.155 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The War of Independence / American Revolution was fought against the Kingdom of Great Britain, which was later superseded by the United Kingdom. England was/is only one of the nations constituting Great Britain/UK. Therefore detailing this war on the 'England' page would be akin to suggesting the Massachusetts page have a section on the Vietnam war. Contrary to American popular belief, the War of Independence war was NOT fought against 'England', which hasn't existed as an independent sovereign state since at least 1707. This page concerns England, which is only one constituent nation of the UK. Indeed I notice you didn't post a similar request on the Scotland or Wales pages; why is this? Both Scotland & Wales were also part of the sovereign state of Great Britain during the War of Independence, but for some reason the war is always associated with just England in the US; strange (!?).


 * As an Englishman living in Los Angeles I realise that the terms England/Great Britain/UK are often used interchangeably on this side of the Atlantic (I was constantly banging my head against a wall during the World Cup, with the England team constantly referred to as 'British' in the media), but really these terms are no more interchangeable than North America/United States/Texas. Hope this helps! Brunanburh (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles reverting
The perfectly reasonable modifcation by user:Triton Rocker has been reverted. I suggest something along the lines of ''England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. It is the biggest country in the British Isles...''. That should keep everyone happy. LevenBoy (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest country in the British Isles is the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A subtle play on the two meanings of "country" and "country" there, I see. Mildly amusing but not very constructive.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but then the fight over usage/non-usage of British Isles is also not very constructive. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The current wording is a long standing consensus and I see no reason to change it. -- Snowded  TALK  22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

'Governance'
the map for the regions of england looks terrible on my 1024x600 resolution (on chrome). if other people have it this tiny (so much overlap on the text) it should probably be centred or increased in size? just a suggestion. 68.150.204.69 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also says the Tories won an abosolute majority in the 2010 elections, I was sure that never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.184.75 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

England and United Kingdom
Shouldn't mention be made of the fact that in many languages and for many people worldwide England is used as a synonym for the United Kingdom and/or Great Britain? It may be technically incorrect, but I imagine most people would use England to refer to the United Kingdom as a whole. In Ireland for example England very commonly means Great Britain and I know that in Italian, French and many other languages, one talks of the "English government" or the "prime minster of England" etc. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a major misusage and misunderstanding of the term worldwide, and I'd add the United States and Spanish speaking countries to your examples. A section on this might well be useful if it's along the lines of 'The term England is often used incorrectly to mean the United Kingdom....' etc. However I'd be against any suggestion that 'England' is an appropriate synonym for the UK or Great Britain in any context, given that almost all major languages have separate terms for 'England', the 'UK' and the island of 'Great Britain' (even if in some cases these all derive from the word 'England', as in Mandarin Chinese). Such usage of 'England' (or its translations) is therefore very much incorrect regardless of whether this be due to established common usage, ignorance or indeed laziness (in the case of incorrect usage within the UK itself). Brunanburh (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not worth a separate section. That would devote far too much time, energy, and attention to a trivial matter and may give the appearance to the reader that it's important. As the article already makes it clear that England is part of the United Kingdom, I don't see the need to beat the reader over the head with the point. If someone turns up at this article expecting it to be about the UK they don't have to read farther than the first sentence to realise they're not getting the full picture. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worthwhile to have a look at the Netherlands and Holland articles, which have similar issues. In the Netherlands article we solved this in the lede with this line
 * "The Netherlands in its entirety is often referred to as Holland, although North and South Holland are actually only two of its twelve provinces (see terminology of "the Netherlands"). "
 * In the Holland article we spend some more space on the issue. Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

86.148.32.45 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for an edit - the point is already made under Governance - "There has not been a Government of England since 1707, when the Acts of Union 1707, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, joined England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no need for change and if there is it will require more debate to get the wording right so removing the edit request template. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

'Upgrade' two photos
Hi guys,

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


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

Reason being for their overall quality. These images should be of a much higher quality if implemented. The only remaining image to replace (at least for some time in terms of its low quality) would be File:Sunset at Heathrow on Christmas.jpg. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes, just think that File:Sunset at Heathrow on Christmas.jpg needs upgrading at some point in the near future. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?
I don't understand the following from the History section:
 * "According to John T. Koch and others, England in the Late Bronze Age was part of a maritime trading-networked culture called the Atlantic Bronze Age that included all of Britain and also Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal where Celtic languages developed with the Tartessian language the first written Celtic language so far discovered. "

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

Yours, confused, --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


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

I am unclear on the meaning of the following from the Population section,
 * "The European population totals at 89.90%, including Germans and Poles." Thanks Mrchris (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society and Industrial Revolution
I think "England's Royal Society" is a misattribution and should be removed. It was the Royal Society of London. It soon became a very much British rather than England only affair. Likewise the Industrial Revolution. James Watt was a Scot. You could hardly exclude his input. The topic page right lists it as a British phenomenon. Any objections based on sound references? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This whole England/Britain overlap is a problem that crops up all over the place, and there is no simple answer, since for a long time until very recently there wasn't officially such a thing as England, other than in the sense of "that part of the UK that isn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". Even "English law" is actually "England and Wales law". It is possible to discuss England as a geographical entity, up to a point, but not as a legal entity in its own right. I think some parts of this article belong in the UK/Britain article, if they are not there already. -- Alarics (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You say it was named the 'Royal Society of London'; is London not in England? In addition the Royal Society was formed in 1660 within what was then known as the Kingdom of England, and predates the formation of Great Britain (and the UK). Either way I have no problem with it being mentioned on the England, Great Britain (historical) and UK pages; why not? Again I fail to see why we need to strip everything with a broader British relevance from the England page (such as the industrial revolution). Surely these subjects belong on both pages. Brunanburh (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is proved by the existence of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I suspect one of the main uses, by readers, of the GDP figures is to compare one country to another - so showing them all in the same currency is essential. No reason, however, why they can't also be in local currency. Having said that, we shouldn't be making changes to England alone, so you need to take your suggestion to Template_talk:Infobox_country. Barnabypage (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

History of England Error
I guess I cannot edit this article, but if I could, I would correct this article's count of the deaths of the English soldiers in the trenches from "thousands," to "millions." This error is painfully insensitive to those soldiers' memories, and needs correcting FAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference used is wrong, I think it should be this one (this ref is for "100 years ago"; the ref used is for "150 years ago"). However, the "100 years ago" ref says "The English lost a million lives in this war..." so "millions" wouldn't be quite right. I'd suggest (a) updating the ref, and (b) changing the current prose to "a million English soldiers died in trenches fighting for the United Kingdom". Thoughts? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source used is not exactly the most reliable. The revised one (I am sure TFOW is right, that is the one that should have been referenced) says a million for England, from memory, 900,000 for Britain is the usual estimate, so the figure would be lower for England alone. Perhaps a better source and "hundreds of thousands" might be the best way of putting it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 900,000 is the number for the entire British Empire. I've done a lot of searching and the best figure I can find is 550,000 military losses for "England and Wales". England alone would be about 500,000, but finding a WP:RS for that is proving very difficult. Rettens2 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Although these figures are correct for the entire war (or seem to be so), most of the soldiers did not die "in the trenches", but in futile attacks against nearly impregnable lines of fortifications with massive artillery concentrations behind them. These brave men saw their comrades mown down like grass by machine guns, yet they pressed foreward to the attack and eventually won the war. Deaths in trenches were very high due to disease(17,000,000est. flu victems of all nationalities alone), so it probably should read millions.

Can not find where to put this in so i'l have to make it fit here as it is also an error regarding England and the Norman conquest. The error occurs where the writter has said "The Normans themselves originated from Scandinavia and had settled in Normandy a few centuries earlier", a few centuries earlier is a very high estimate of what is in fact 139 years by the time of 1066. There are records of Scandinavian speakers in Normandy up to the 1st crusade. People wrongly think that when the Normans arrived in Normandy they stopped being Vikings and became French, this would be laughable to a Norman of the time as they considered the French weak (due to how they recieved the land of Normandy in the first place).English n proud (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed with source. The usual date given is 911 AD although viking attacks had occurred earlier than that. So for this article I think best to just say late 9th/early 10th century. Rettens2 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I would call into contention the notion of calling England a country at all (incidentally the same goes for Scotland, Wales and N.I.), at the beginning of the article. It does not exists as a political entity at all. It is only a country in the cultural memory, and then only of some. For most English people Britishness subsumes the English identity. So who is defining 'country'? Wikipedia lists the Basque country (!) not as a country but as a region or cultural region. Perhaps England should assume the same moniker. The Basque Country in contrast with England, DOES exist as a political entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree about Scotland, which has continued throughout to have separate legal and education systems with their own administrations in Edinburgh. The case for Wales is very much weaker, and for England zero. All these problems arise, in my view, from the UK now being an asymmetrical quasi-federation the consequences of which the politicians have never properly thought through. It has forced people in just the last few years to start thinking and writing about the UK as if it were a state consisting of four "nations" of notionally equal status, which historically is nonsense. That is why the WP article about "England" has taken its present highly unsatisfactory form. -- Alarics (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I tend to agree but you are rather backing up the fallacy by your statement. Scotland cannot be a country if Wales and England are not. There must be some absolute definition of country here. Analogy of nation-state is about the best one can do I think. On the subject of Scotland one cannot claim it is a country on the basis of having a judiciary and education system. The same is true of many territories around the world, perhaps including the States of the USA, none of which (except maybe Texas) make any claim to being a country. The current situation is indeed a mess as you point out, but with an eye on the broad EU agenda, it explains why culturally these days we are given to believe there are 4 countries out there called England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Presumably the days of the United Kingdom are numbered. Similarly, look at Wikipedia articles about British people. 9 times out of 10 they are listed as being English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, none of which are actual nationalities that actually exist in any legal, political or provable sense. It's completely erroneous but completely accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course England exists as a political entity. It is the part of the United Kingdom of which Scots, N Irish & Welsh laws do not apply, and which UK law ALWAYS applies. The history of the UK is complicated and Scots law covers MUCH more than merely judicary and educational systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no English political entity because there is no English Government. Preceding an assertion with the phrase "of course" doesn't make it so. -- Alarics (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Human settlement
I see there is a citation being asked for the assertion that people settled in England 35,000 years ago. This is at the beginning of the second paragraph. Having looked to find a source for this I came across this from the Natural History Museum. where they say "Human ancestors have tried and failed to live in Britain (England). It was only 12 thousand years ago that they were succesful". Should this information replace the present sentence or is there indeed a source that will back up the 35,000 year assertion. I don't see any edit button on the article which tells me I have not had the prerequisite number of edits to change anything. Thanks. Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Like a lot of things, this is actually a very complicated subject and it depends on what "settlement" means. The earliest recorded presence of Homo Sapiens in England keeps being pushed further and further back in time. See Current Archaeology, September 2010, page 8-9 for the latest story. Happisburgh hunter-gatherers lived at Pakefield, Suffolk around 780,000 years ago. It is known they built shelters, although these have not so far been found in the UK. (They have in Doggerland which is now under the North Sea). Many subsequent brief periods of "settlement" may have followed from time to time during glacial-minimum intervals. Any "structures" would have been the sort of temporary shelter favoured by hunter-gatherers. It is unlikely that the one you mention above from 12,000 years ago would qualify as a permanent "settlement". This most likely took place during the transition from mesolithic hunter-gatherers to neolithic farming communities. This transition took place in England around 4,000 BC. We could look at evidence like the Sweet Track in Somerset as pointing to permanent settlement; that dates with accuracy to around 3,800 BC. The oldest known proper village in the UK is Skara Brae in the Orkneys (starting around 3100 BC) and now, recently discovered in England, the village at Stonehenge uncovered by Mike Parker Pearson and his team in the Stonehenge Riverside Project at Durrington Walls, dated to around 2,600 BC. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Complicated indeed. Do we use a village as evidence of settlement, or take your example above, does the building of temporary shelters imply that it's not a permanent settlement, as in to permanently settle in England? More importantly, what do the authors of any sources found say on it. I have an inkling there will be different views by different people. I wonder though if the wording now there should remain, especially as there is no citation for it. I shall leave that for others to decide. Thanks. Fred DeSoya (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right to raise this - I've thought about the phrasing of that sentence before and considered changing it. It isn't really accurate to say "settled for 35,000 years" as there is no solid evidence for permanent settlement. In fact, the only reliable research evidence so far available is for just over 5,000 years of continuous permanent settlement, although most academics think it must be considerably longer - just that we haven't got the firm evidence. We can try and think of a better way to phrase it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that perhaps the most important point for that paragraph is not whether or when they "settled", which is a moot point depending on definitions, but the point at which they were first known to be here at all - whether or not they were transient or nomadic. That is, the sentence should be reworded along the lines of: "The first human presence in the area now called England has been dated at about 780,000 years ago, but permanent settlements are only known to have been established within the last 6,000 years.  The country takes its name from....." etc. I'm sure others could come up with a better wording, but in principle is that a way forward?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As there is no certainty as to what 'settled' actually refers to in the present sentence and there appears`to be no source to back up the date anyway I would go along with that. I believe your suggestion is well thought out as it differentiates between the first presence of humans in England and the first known permanent settlements. I would happily agree to go along with your wording, or wording to that effect. Only one thing though, are we quite sure of this date of 780,000 years ago for human presence? Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We should go with whatever the best refs say - if Jamesinderbyshire can provide a good ref for that date we can go with that, but we need to ensure that whatever is said in the intro matches the text of the main article (which is where the citation should go). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have browsed around and discovered a source which tells of the discovery of evidence that Homo antecessor was in fact in England as far back as 840,000 to 950,000 years ago. I have still to look at the main text that relates to this and will do so now. Thanks. Fred DeSoya (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the source above was deemed to be acceptable I believe that a small part of the main text under history would have to be changed. Fred DeSoya (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the Happisburgh data I mentioned in passing above Fred. I think the dates have been revised by the scientists a little bit since that story was released in July - the September story in Current Arch. put it at 780,000 years ago as the oldest. I would prefer we use the Archaeology journal source if possible for accuracy reasons; newspapers don't always update their science stories. We should also note that Homo antecessor, whilst a "human variety" is not, strictly speaking, homo sapiens - there is still dispute about when the first modern humans made it to these islands - some scientists think about 100,000 years ago. I will do a bit more digging and find a good source on the latter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree James, the Archaeology journal would obviously be a superior source. Fred DeSoya (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking of the wording that could be used to include the appearance of Homo antecessor in England may I suggest something along the lines of."The earliest known evidence of human presence in the area now known as England was that of Homo antecessor, dating to approximately 780,000 years ago. Modern humans, Homo sapien, are known to have inhabited the area about 100,000 years ago, though permanent settlements were only established within the last 6,000 years." As James points out, there needs to be a good source for the 100,000 year figure. Any thoughts? Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Checking on sources for the first appearance of modern humans in England I came up with this . It gives the first appearance as the Upper Palaeolithic period which is between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago. Not very precise I'm afraid. I found a couple of other sources that give a date of around 6,000 years ago. I'm a little surprised that scientists are not more in tune with the dating. Fred DeSoya (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs rewording I think to make it clear that they have found stone tools dating from 780,000 years ago but no human bones (so no hard proof of H. antecessor). And also should mention that Happisburgh and Pakefield are separate sites.Rettens2 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right there. Pointing out that only stone tools were found is probably a must. When you say no hard proof I'm not sure that wording would be too accurate. As far as I'm aware the scientists/Archaeologists involved would have been pretty convinced with the evidence they found if they went on to publish it. Fred DeSoya (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not certain. Definitely not as certain as the current wording suggests:
 * "No hominid fossils have turned up at Happisburgh. Toolmakers at the ancient site may have been related to 800,000- to 1.2-million-year-old Atapuerca hominids in Spain, Stringer says. Discoverers of those fossils assigned them to a species called Homo antecessor, which they consider a precursor of European Neandertals and modern humans. Homo erectus and small-bodied Homo floresiensis (SN: 5/8/10, p. 14) also existed at that time, but lived too far away in Asia and Indonesia to have reached Happisburgh, Stringer contends. Although H. antecessor seems a good bet to have made the Happisburgh tools, the site has yet to yield evidence of controlled fire use, hunting or regular campsites, comments Dennell. “Were they tourists, migrants or colonists?” he asks. “We don’t know.”"


 * "There are no early human remains, but the researchers speculate that the most likely species was Homo antecessor, more commonly - and possibly appropriately - known as "Pioneer Man"."
 * The wording should be something similar to these sources. Rettens2 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to you changing the wording to reflect the sources. Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed
I have been attempting to find sources for those parts of the text that have 'citation needed' appended to them. I don't have a great deal of time to search but am very slowly trying to get through them. I would like to know what the procedure is for those parts of the text where sources cannot be found. Fred DeSoya (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the history section came from historyofengland.net, which unfortunately is not a reliable or accurate source (This was the source of most of the errors that have been discussed here recently). I removed it and corrected some of the errors introduced, but some parts still need a rewrite. So that's why there are tags everywhere at the moment. But to answer the question, as per WP:BOP, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Rettens2 (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Retten. I've had a read of the link you provided and now have a good idea of what should happen. It would be nice if the England article were to have no tags anywhere in the article. Hopefully in time that can happen. Thanks again. Fred DeSoya (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass murder
The English have killed more foreign individuals than any other people on planet Earth during history. Mostly, they killed civilians in large numbers and not even soldiers. Why is this topic not even mentioned in this article?--93.244.101.1 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reliable evidence for your assertion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * He actually states The English - English being more an ethnicity today than a nationality. The use of ethnicity in such things being vague to the enth degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.10.204 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Official Status of Welsh
Please see Talk:United_Kingdom where an informal vote is taking place on displaying the Welsh translation of "United Kingdom" at the top of the United Kingdom infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Set the melody
"Sa Pjesmom u Boj" Pjesma jeci, sva se zemlja trese, SS-vojska stupa roj u roj, SS-vojska sveti barjak vije. SS-vojska sve za narod svoj. Daj mi ruku ti, draga Ivana, oj s Bogom sad, oj s Bogom sad, oj s Bogom sad idem branit, idem branit, idem branit mili, rodni kraj, rodni kraj. U boj smjelo vi SS-junaci pokazite domovini put! Podjite putem slavnih pradjedova dok ne padne tiran klet i ljut. Ljubav nasa nek u srdcu plamti, i sa pjesmom podjimo u boj. Za slobodu mile domovine svaki rado datce zivot svoj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.23.99 (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above are apparently the words of this wartime SS song, in Croatian. What is the question?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * At a guess, "Set the Melody" is probably a preremptory request to give the originator the tune usually used with these words. But I'm only guessing. Britmax (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. If so, the music is apparently the same as this, Denn wir fahren gegen Engelland (Then we sail against England), composed by Herms Niel (1888-1954), on whom there is more information (in German) here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)