Talk:England/Archive 2

Early History

Illuminated Books: Free Access Digital Library of Illuminated and Illustrated Books has The Birth of England (449-1066) by Estelle Ross (Illustrated by Evelyn Paul, George G. Harrap & Company of London, 1911) available in high resolution for online viewing/reading. Though written for school-aged children, it is interesting reading for any age.

Why no mention of the Bronze Age in the history section?

Nation

A user recently removed the term 'nation' from this page. I would argue that under the general understanding of 'nation' - as a social, cultural, lingusitic, ethnic grouping - this is reasonable use for England... thoughts? Robdurbar 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it. I felt it was odd to refer to a place (that is what we are referring to in this article) as a nation. In my opinion, the English people can be described as a nation, as that word applies to a group of people not a place - I felt is was inappropriately used, especially considering that there are no sources (or none that I have seen) calling England (the place) a nation. Latinus 17:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the logic; my only problem is that Scotland, Wales et. al. are all referred to as 'nations'; I think that the territory is tied up into the concept of 'nation'; perhaps 'one of the home nations' would be a compromise? Robdurbar 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

England is the most populated, most affluent and most powerful member of the UK conglomorate, not referring to it as a nation but still refering to scotland and wales as nations is an insult, to restate, England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland are all seperate nations that have chosen to act in commune with each other. furthermore based upon recent evidence (the creation of a scottish parliament and welsh assembly-both payed for with money from England) it shall soon be independant of them again, does that not make each constituent member of the uk a nation. further discussion, if there is a scottish parliament and welsh assembly should there be an English parliament, argument for, scottish and welsh mp's can vote on English issues but English Mp's cannot vote upon scottish issues, Athel

In my opinion, Scotland needs its own parliament because they have a separate legal system to England and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales is not really a parliament, as it cannot pass laws; it's more like an extended local authority. English MPs can and do vote on issues relating to Wales. This "unbalanced" situation probably could be resolved by an English Parliament, but that would require extending the powers of the Welsh Assembly or creating a parliament for England and Wales as one entity. Edwy ^(talk) 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the creation of an English parliament would resolve the issue, but far more preferable to me would be the dissolution of the welsh assembly and scottish parliament in favor of sustaining the British parliament at westminster, and if the welsh assembly cannot pass or reject laws then how come tuition fees in England are £3000 and in wales are less, i know as i have applied for university in both contries

Assuming there is an issue... I don't think that devolution would makes any difference. AFAIK the Parliament in Westminster can reverse any action by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and under no circumstances can either of them reject legislation. The Welsh Assembly does not legislate; it merely "replaced" the Secretary of State for Wales and his Department. In other words, it is a more expensive and time consuming device for issuing secondary legislation. It's only real purpose as far as I can see, is to foster a sense of national identity for the Welsh. I'm sure the Welsh Office could have seen to that... Edwy ^(talk) 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically English people have the nationality British, but I think England is clearly a nation in it's own right. It has a national football team for example, and a national identity, even if it is not as promoted as that of the Scots and Welsh.Jameskeates 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Manchester also has its own football team and a strong identity but it isn't a nation. Just playing devil's advocat :)Mammal4 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Manchester has 2 football teams (although City fans reckon United are in Trafford.) And neither are national football teams. But good point. How about independence for Manchester? And an immediate declaration of war with the scouses!Jameskeates 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

English literature - Douglas Adams?

He was a respected and talented individual without doubt, but does he really belong on a list that includes Dickens and Shakespeare? 84.66.95.58 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? He did come second in that best British book thingy. Robdurbar 09:51, 21 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. He was one of our finest modern comedy writers. Icundell 13:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare was a fine comedy writer also. --Mal 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

much better than j k rowling

Obtuse Angles

Anglia/Anglo

I thought that the linking of the terms Anglia and Anglo to the Angles had long been discredited. Julius Caesar knew England as Anglia in the first century BC { see de Bello Gallico}. Caesar was six centuries before the Germanic migrations to England. Pope Gregory the Great knew the English as Angli (Non Angli sed Angeli). It is much more likely that all migrants were dubbed Sassenachs (Saxons) and the term Anglo Saxons describes Saxons living in Anglia. Welsh and Gaelic (Irish and Scottish) and Cornish all have words meaning Saxon, but none have words for Angles (or Jutes). A modern equivalent would be Australo-Irish - the Irish living in Australia.Bebofpenge 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Caesar used the word Anglia? I don't believe it. Can you provide chapter and verse please? As for Pope Gregory, the English had already been settled in Britain for nearly two centuries by then, so there is no historical problem. TharkunColl 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gens Angelorum

Bede of Jarrow (AD 673-735) wrote of the 'Gens Angelorum'.

I don't think he can. See C. IVLI CAESARIS COMMENTARIORVM DE BELLO GALLICO. I did a search on all VIII librae for "Angli" with no hits found. Plenty for "Britannia" though! -- Arwel (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Settlers cf. Invaders, Bretons cf. Britannia

I agree with the above before the Anglo-Saxon invaders came to Britain, the British Isles were known as Brittania something which can be proved with the fact that there is a Celtic group called the Bretons or Breitzh in their language.

"Bretons" does not prove the British Isles "were known as Brittania something," because the Bretons live in Brittany, which is in France. "Breton" merely proves the Breton Celts got to Brittany (Breizh - no 't' - in the Breton language) from Britain. Otherwise, the British Isles were NOT know as "Brittania something." Rather, modern England (including Cornwall), Wales and southern Scotland (including Glasgow, and northward to Antoninus' Wall) were part of the imperial Roman province of Britannia (one 't'). To the north of Britannia was the land the Romans called 'Caledonia,' inhabited by the people the Romans called 'Picti.' The big green island to the west was called 'Hibernia' and its Celtic inhabitants were called 'Scotti' ("raiders") after their habit of raiding the coasts of Roman Britain.

207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

we have archaeological and documentary evidence that our ancestors, the Angles, Saxons and jute SETTELERS, NOT INVADERS, were all seperate groups - just go to a large inner city library and read around the subject!! this fact on its own adds credit to the argument that angles refered to themselves as angles, the name was not foisted on them, i think that the first person was confused with the creation of England-first called Angleand or land of the Angles. ceaser may have been referring to a Germanic tribe, as the Angles originated in germany and would have had contact with Romans. as to the welsh or scots having no name for angles or jutes, one germanic setteler will have looked the same as the other and will have spoken very similar languages and the saxons were by far the most numerous settlers. a good comparison would be what we believed of africa when we were invading it, the tribes are all clearly different but were all grouped under the same durogatory terms, and similarly they did not destinguish between europeans. Athel

Read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, preferably in the original Old English. When the Roman legions withdrew, the Britons (later called "Wealas" or "Welsh" by the Seaxonas, Englas, etc.) were left defenceless against attack by the Picts to the north (the Romans having stripped the Welsh of all their defences, training exercises, etc., during the 400+ years of Roman rule). Some of the British tribal kings contracted for assistance from Germanic tribes. Thus, the Angles (pronounced "AHNG-luss" in Old English) - or 'Englas' in the genitive case - came to Britain from what is today Schleswig-Holstein, along with some Jutes (whose homeland is unknown, except we know it was NOT Jutland), some Frisians (most of whom still live in Friesland and the Frisian Islands of the Netherlands), and a lot of Saxons (who modernly hail from Saxony).

The various Anglian and Saxon kingdoms were first confederated in 802 under the overlordship of King Egbert (read "AY-bert" in Old English) of Wessex. The most numerous people in the confederation were the Angles, so the country came to be known as "Engla Land" - later contracted to 'England.' But the capital of Engla Land was Winchester, the capital of Wessex. The language of Wessex was not "Englisc" (read "ENNG-lish") but "Seaxonisc" ("SAY-ahx-ohn-ish"). It was later that the two closely related languages merged into one, though traces of the original languages can still be seen in Modern English. For example: These are Saxon words - one, two, stomp, elder/eldest (in Old English, "ieldra" > elder, etc.); and these are their Anglian equivalents - a(n) (dialectally, in the North and in Scotland, "ane," "twa", etc.), stamp, older/oldest (original Anglian forms 'ealder' and 'alder' survive in words like "alderman" and names like "Aldermartin"; and, of course, in Scottish form as 'auld,' as in "Auld Lang Syne" - which translates to 'Inglis' as "Old Long Since"). All of the great works of Old English literature are in Saxon, not Anglian -- specifically, they are in the Late West Saxon dialect historically spoken in Winchester.

Prior to the Norman Conquest, diplomatic relations and the like were carried out at Winchester with the "Seaxonas" of Wessex, acting on behalf of all Engla Land - in Seaxonisc, not Englisc - so, of course, the Irish name for "England" would be "Sasana" (meaning "Saxons"), since Saxons were the people they actually dealt with. Then, in 1066, the Saxons lost their power and influence, in more ways than one, when the Normans conquered England -- and moved the capital eastward to London. All standard dialects of Modern English thus came to descend from a North London dialect of Anglian speech (specifically, a dialect spoken in the southeastern reaches of the old Anglian kingdom of Mercia), and the literary glory of Saxon language was relegated to the western lands, and essentially forgotten until the 20th century.

207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglia Romana

Anglia is presumably the Latin word for England, but this does not necessarily mean that the word actually existed in the time of the Romans. As Latin is still, in a sense, a living language, new entities must require new Latin words to be invented to describe them. Hence, when England came into existence the term Anglia must have been coined to describe it in Latin. Is this correct? Mcgibson 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The term has existed in Latin since at least the time of Tacitus (about AD 100), in the form Anglii (one of the Germanic tribes who lived along the North Sea or Baltic coast). TharkunColl 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglia cf. Angelia

The story is that early missionaries from Rome visited Britain and took a couple of adorable blond-haired blue-eyed Anglian boys back to Rome with them. They met the Pope, taking the boys with them. The Pope is supposed to have asked, "What race are these beautiful child?" The missionary answered, "Angles" (pronounced "AHNG-luss"). To which the Pope replied, "Yes, he *is* a little angel!" -- "angelus" in Latin (read "AHNG-uhl-ooss"). "We must take the faith to this 'Land of the Angels'!" the Pope reputedly said -- the Latin for "Land of Angels" being "Anglia."

This story re the confusion of Latin "Angelus" ("AHNG-uhl-ooss") with Old English "Angles" ("AHNG-luss") may be the ultimate source of the once-common belief, still occasionally heard --

• That, according to Americans, the British reverse the spellings of 'angle' and 'angel,' so that 'angle' is spelled 'angel' in England and 'angel' is spelled 'angle'; AND
  
• That, according to the British, Americans reverse the spellings of 'angle' and 'angel,' so that 'angle' is spelled 'angel' in America and 'angel' is spelled 'angle'.
  

Since Britons and Americans both think the other group inverts the spellings of 'angle' and 'angel' --when, in fact, both groups spell both words the same way; obviously, the facts of this story are completely untrue. But the story had to start from a kernal of truth *somewhere* in the sands of time, and the most likely origin to this mistaken belief about orthographic differences between American and British English probably lies in a corruption of the ancient story about the phonetic confusion between Latin "Angelus" and Old English "Angles." 207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

English Identity

There are several serious problems with this section which require urgent attention.

1. The sentence

   English nationalism is most often erroniously associated with British nationalism by the British government, most notably by the current Labour government, who see English nationalism as a major threat as they rely on the ability of Scottish and Welsh politicians to legislate for England.

   not only makes little sense, but is also in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, or—at the very least—the No Original Research policy.
2. As of 22.40 24-3-06 UTC, no (zero) references were provided for the following claim:

   Historians are now agreeing that these were not displaced or massacred; rather, they remained, often living alongside their Anglo-Saxon neighbours and eventually absorbing their culture and language over time.

   I have thus commented it out for the time being. Until (a) sufficient reference(s) have been provided it should remain absent from the page. The sentence prior to it also requires referencing, but at least doesn't telegraph its own potential for controversy.
3. Vanity edits have seemingly been made by a member or supporter of the English Democrat Party:
   • This sentence seems to exist only to mention and aggrandise the EDP:

     It is worth noting, however, that the British National Party are a British party whose racially-motivated political aims differ greatly to other nationalist parties such as the aforementioned English Democrats Party.

   • As does this one:

     The English Democrat Party claims that the government's plans for regionalization threaten a coherent English identity.

   • Also, the EDP is not a centrist party. The centrist parties in the UK are (New) Labour, the LIberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The EDP is to the right all three mainstream parties. From English Democrats Party and [1]:

     The party is opposed to Britain's membership of the European Union […] The party also wishes to decrease the number of new immigrants, and would re-evaluate the current asylum laws. […] Its health policy advocates a shift from care in the community for the mentally-ill back towards enforced institutionalisation.

     
     

Soobrickay 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the whole section (the second paragraph) is awfully POV and probably should be reduced to only a sentence or two. I am not qualified to do that though.... /85.194.44.18 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous spelling

I don't like this bit about "English Identity" at all. To give it paragraph space (even without the illiterate spelling) gives a truly false impression about what the vast majority of English people actually think. The English must be one of the only nations on earth who don't actually give a shit if they have any constitutional existence at all. Now that is something to be proud of! TharkunColl 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The section came about from my modification of a highly pov bit that appeared to have been written enitrely by someone with rather dodgy racist views. It has since been edited - such as the 'erroniously (sic) associated' sentence - away from its original content but there is the basis of a valid and decent point to be made in there. To be honest, people could have quite easily been bold and altered the bits that were clearly pov, as I've just done to try and remove the problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by robdurbar (talk • contribs) .

your belief that we should be proud of a dont give a shit attitude, is a sign of unpatriotic views and a shame. shut up!

Geography

I've removed the paragraph starting "Using the standard U.S. city limits definition of a city the top six are:" as it seems, to me at least, to be irrelevant and out-of-place in this article, being about a non-U.S. country. It also contained a link to what seemed to be an even more irrelevant cartoon show, though this may have been a mistake. I realise I might be disagreed with here, but I elected to "be bold" and make the edit. Fr 23:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Middle English = creole?

Whilst browsing, I found this statement in the history section of this article: "While Old English continued to be spoken by common folk, Norman feudal lords significantly influenced the language with French words and customs being adopted over the succeeding centuries evolving to a Germano‐Romance creole now known as Middle English widely spoken in Chaucer's time."

Later, in the language section, it says, "But Middle English, as it had by now become, showed many signs of French influence, both in vocabulary and spelling."

Well, what is it? A creole, or simply "showing many signs of French influence"?

If no one else objects, I should like to remove the claim that Middle English is a creole. Adso de Fimnu 22:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Creole: of or relating to a language that arises from contact between two other languages and has features of both.

I object. Middle English shows the signs of a creole. For example, its grammar is much simplified compared to Old English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh. Not this again. Not all languages with less complicated morphology than their parent language are creoles. Are Spanish, Portuguese, French, Romanian and Italian all creoles? Are Latin, Modern Greek, Farsi, Dutch, Modern German, Afrikaans, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Russian, Czech, Polish, Bulgarian, Modern Arabic, Hindi and Modern Irish all creoles? The definition given above is wholly inadequate from a linguistic point of view. An example of a creole would be something like Tok Pisin. This is a genuine creole that started out the way genuine creoles start, as a pidgin, with an extremely limited lexicon and morphology that is later expanded. The weight of counter-evidence for Middle English being a creole (morphological complexity, including many irregularities inherited from Old English, an extensive vocabulary, etc.) is quite considerable. Linguistically the idea does not stack up. Slac speak up! 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

in addition Norman userpers did not speak french they spoke an amalgamation of a Viking language and french. it shows much more evidence of latin influence. athel

Regarding the simplification of grammar as evidence supporting the status of English as a creole: Many linguists believe English lost its inflexion and began to emphasize word order to increase intelligibility between English and Old Norse. Perhaps English is an Anglo-Norse creole? Several hundred (thousand?) Norse words exist in English as well. -CH

Since Old English and Old Norse were both derived from Proto-Germanic and were fairly closely related, that would be like saying Spanish is a Castilian-French creole. As for Middle English, I partially agree with Slac, in that English did not develop the same way as other creoles. Also, I would point out that the loss of case-endings and inflections was a gradual process, beginning in Old English. Indeed, the closer one gets to the Norman invasion of 1066, the less free word order becomes. However, due to the extreme impact Norman had on the language of the common people, including the way the two languages combined, so to speak, lends itself to the view that it could have been a creole. CH, you can sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Supadawg - [[User_talk:Supadawg|Talk]] 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

J.K Rowling

Mentioned amoung genuine Literary giants? <-comments removed->, does not deserve to be mentioned with such greats. Jayteecork 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, she isn't in the same class, SqueakBox 13:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because she writes children's books? Literary abilities aside, her impact and sales fiugures deserve nomiantion (even if Phillip Pullman is much better) Robdurbar 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

she Rules And Rocks and is the best writers !!!were told we liked her. in conjunction with this her wriring style and use of vocabulary is poor! evidence, a distinct lacking of multisillabled words from her "works". the plot is poor, i would expect my 14 year old brother to be able to write a book of that quality. her "works" should be mentioned upon one list, recycling waste paper. her sales are merely reflection of a multinational audience. agreed Philip Pullman is amazing,#

I think J.K Rowling does deserve a mention, even if she is not mentioned in the list of literary giants ro whatever. She is the richest person in the UK for a start. Also, since she is more famous than some other English writers (even if she is not as good). Everyone in the country knows who she is. Not to mention, he wikipedia article is far bigger than this one :) I think she deserves some sort of mention, somewhere in the article.

English literature - J.K. Rowling?

There seems to be a consensus against her inclusion in the literature section so I've removed her. A decent childrens' author she may be, but nobody who has read Wuthering Heights or Brighton Rock can consider her work comparable. Banksmeister general 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of that list anyway? It is woefully incomplete and looks like it's been compiled by people who don't read very much. Why not just link to the list of English authors? Roger Mann

Completely ridiculous, this kind of self righteous ignorant view appauls me. Just because she is popular does not make it a book book! Surely an author is judged by the emotions he or she can drive through others? Anyway, wouldnt you argue that this is clearly all POV and going solely on statistics and hard facts she would be worth of note?

No, there is such a thing as a consensus of critical opinion, and it doesn't include Rowling among the all-time great authors. Of course we could mention her in the context of popular English writers who are widely-read internationally. (Except, isn't she Scottish?) Barnabypage 11:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You put the point across better than the previous poster but still, the paragraph begins "England has produced many famous authors" granted it ends with "who are all often considered among the greatest writers of their time" however, i still feel she either falls within this bracket or a section of modern writers. I do however feel this should be extended to include other popular authors of the current age, incl Pullman and Pratchett but i will leave it there. As for JK Rowlings origins, she was born in Gloucestershire but lives in Scotland

Thanks for the clarification of Rowling's origins (I should have looked it up in a certain well-known online encyclopedia!). I've edited the section in a way which I think meets both our concerns. Barnabypage 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me!

Culture

I've turned this into a semi decent section (rather than simply a list). Feel free to hack my feeble attempts and argue over whether Mrs Rowling should be included (although the list is now just authors considered 'greatest of their time' so I don't think she qualifies). Poets and another paragraph about other aspect of our culture need adding as well. josh (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen Clature

Under the Nomen Clature section the Irish Gaelic term for England is listed as "Sasann". That's not correct; it should be "Sasana." Sasann is either an obsolete term or just simply wrong. http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/ Frankly, I suspect that many of the other foreign terms are also misspelled. 5-11-2006

You seem to be right about the inaccuracies in this section. I happened to notice a problem with the Japanese translation while I was reading this article and did a minor edit on it to correct it. It's already been removed, probably because I neglected to mention it on this talk page. Frankly, I can't quite see why this page needs a long list of foreign words for England but I figure it must've been somebody's pet little project so I've left it alone apart from the edit. If this section is going to stay, however, somebody had better check for inaccuracies. That'll have to be a group effort since I doubt anyone can actually speak all these different languages. As for myself, I can speak a little Chinese and Japanese so I can tell you that the Chinese translation is correct and the Japanese is wrong. The Japanese says Eikoku 英国 which means UK. If you copy and paste those characters into the search bar on the Japanese Wikipedia it will get you to the UK page. For anybody who can't read Japanese you can tell because the first picture is a nice big Union Flag. What I tried editing it to is Ingurando イングランド which means England. You can check this by going to the other languages bar on this article and clicking on Japanese (it looks like this: 日本語). It will take you to the corresponding Japanese article for this page which is titled Ingurando イングランド. With all this evidence I don't really see why you need a dictionary to prove it but a quick Google search will prove the point if anybody is under the assumption that our native Japanese contributors could have somehow got it wrong on the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm stretching my rights as a nameless contributor but may I suggest that Wikipedia would benefit greatly if people restricted there contributions to areas that they are 100% certain of. This is meant to be an encyclopedia after all...

Non-Indigenous/Non-White

It would certainly be more accurate to say "non-indigenous" than "non-white" if the tenth of the population referred to did include non-indigenous whites. However, I don't think it does, and it almost certainly does include indigenous blacks. See Demographics of England from the 2001 United Kingdom census (ethnicity). If you have a better citation I'll, happily withdraw, but for now I'm putting it back to white. Mucky Duck 08:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have a different view of the word indigenous to me or what I would think as the dominate view. If a black person is indigenous to Britain that means that they have British blood and would classify their ethnic group as British or half British and half Nigerian, for example. If they are full-blooded black and born in Britain, they might be British but not indigenous. If a person is half or has British blood, but not white skin, they still are indigenous because they have that element of their heritage which goes back to the first people of Britain. Thus, saying non-white is unfair as it supports that if you have black skin you haven't got that historical/native link to Britain, or if you are white then you have, when many white people have no historical link to Britain (or more correctly the British isles) at all, such as Germans, French, Poles, Russians, etc. That's why skin colour, whereas it betrays elements of ones ethnicity, isn't an accurate indicator of that person's identity. That's why I think non-indigenous is far more accurate. It is also far more in line with the view of other native/indigenous peoples and how they are described these days. It would be good to see some more discussion on this I think. Enzedbrit 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect your views on "fairness" but none of this is relevant - the tenth of the population that we are talking about is the non-white section, not the non-indigenous section. In particular it does not include non-indigenous whites. Indigenousness is something quite different (and vastly more difficult to measure though if you have a source then why not include it).

I don't think you mean accurate or if you do you have a different view of the word accurate to me ;-). See Demographics of England from the 2001 United Kingdom census (ethnicity). Mucky Duck 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole argument is irrelvent. The stats are based on the census which asked people what they classified themselves as. This wording should be followed exacty overwise its original research. josh (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some people are getting the modern usage of the word "British", as a nationality, confused with the term "indigenous". There is another term "aboriginal", which is different again.

So therefore, for example, one could claim that anyone born in the UK to a British parent, is both British and indigenous. Anyone who immigrated to and settled in the UK, but wasn't born there, can only be considered British if they have been adopted as such by the country. Someone who was born in the UK to ancestors who originated in, for example, Russia, could be said to be British and indigenous, but not necessarily aboriginal. Aboriginal people can be considered British both by nationality and ancestry. On top of this, people from the Republic of Ireland could also be described as British aboriginals, but not British by nationality. --Mal 17:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

people from the Republic of Ireland could also be described as British aboriginals Only those whose ancestry is from GB; to consider Irish people as British aboriginals is nonsense.

Spelling in Farsi

The spelling of "England" in the Farsi script appears backwards in Firefox. Can somebody please fix it?

From a position of ignorance and taking that instruction purely literaly, is this right? - ﺍﻨﮝﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ Mucky Duck 09:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

"Many people often refer to the United Kingdom as England, either on purpose (for various reasons) or out of ignorance."

I haven't removed it, but that's not a very nice way to introduce this article about your country. Certainly there are many people who may be confused by the constitutional setup of the UK and we Scots are not particularly fond of being lumped together with England :-) but is this sentence strictly necessary in the introductory paragraph using such forceful language - in fact is it necessary to be alluded to at all? I thought Wikipedia was here to educate people, not make them feel ignorant because they don't fully understand something? Globaltraveller 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I too thought this needed replacing so did so, expanding on it with possible reasons and references. Dainamo 12:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all this is needed. We have a British Isles (terminology) page so we don't have to fill the articles we these lengthy paragraphs discussing vague missues. I'd rathter remove it myself... Robdurbar 12:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was (perhaps I've not made it that well) is that it was not necessary to have that sentence at all - let alone any kind of justification that people confuse England/UK. I really think it is just clogging the introductory paragraph with semantics - that really are irrelevant, and not very interesting either. Globaltraveller 20:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

English identity

I am inclined to delete this entire section. It has little value and is almost entirely POV. Either it should be rewritten neutrally to explain patriotism in England today (with suitable sources) or else removed. The North South Divide section is perhaps relavent but I am unsure about what to do with it. Any suggestions? Michaelrccurtis 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed. Needless to say it didn't use to be like that. Unfortunately this page gets vanadlised so often that this sort of thing can get missed. I'm gonna trawl through the history to see when the change was made. --Robdurbar 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure when it happened; but I've gone right back to the version as of April 20th; I would describe the current version as neutral and 'semi-sourced'. --Robdurbar 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This version is much better, I'll try to find some citations for some of the material which currently lacks references. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 07:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are the English Democrats lumped in with the BNP as a 'far-right organization' ? Musungu jim 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of place names?

"Many of the place names in England and, to a lesser extent, Scotland are derived from Celtic British names, including London, Dumbarton (Dun Briton ie fortress of the Britons), York, Dorchester, Dover, and Colchester."

Now, I don't know much on the subject, but I have always been taught that all of the place names mentioned here do in fact come from Latin, rather than Celtic. Dorchester from the Roman name Durnovaria, Colchester from the Roman name Camulodunum, London from the Roman name Londinium, and so on. Ok, so they were batardised by the Anglo-Saxon tongue, but still have their origins in Latin. Plus, all of these cities mentioned were Roman settlements. An exception to this might be York, which was called Eboracum by the Romans. -- (anon reader who didn't sign)

Yeah, that does seem strange; and EbORACum could quite easily become YORK too. --Robdurbar 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not so strange. What you were taught is true but not the whole story. The whole story is that the placenames had Celtic British origins, which were latinised by the Romans, then were anglicised by the English. So there is no conflict between what you were taught and what it says in the article once you know how it all fits together. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a super claim; but where's the source????? --Robdurbar 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The modern name of York actually originates from the Viking name for the city. The orginal Roman name for the city was "Eboracum" which was anglicised to "Eoforwic" by the Saxons. After the Vikings captured the city in the 9th Century it was renamed "Jorvik". The point being that many place names in England, especially in the North actually come from Scandinavian sources and are not just anglicised Latin names. --Christopherson78 22:55, 21st August 2006

Population

I put a {{fact}} tag ("citation needed") beside the population figure of 60 million, as I believe this refers to the UK population as a whole, and not that of England. Either that, or England's population went up by 10m in two years (if the 2004 figure is correct). Fourohfour 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it is the World Factbook's estimate of the UK's population (itself quite inaccurate), and I have removed it. Some cites need adding for the proper remaining figures - I might get round to it later - the sources can be found at the United Kingdom article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This means that English identity is - for better or worse - often closely associated with English nationalism and often with British Nationalism. Some English nationalists claim that the 'original culture' of England is comprised of legacies of Brythonic tribes of Celts and Anglo-Saxons appearing in waves of gradual migration. It also seen as being influenced by the Scandinavian legends such as Beowulf and the Norman Conquest. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a common early location for English identity.

What is suppose to be peculiar about this belief? Of course England was colonized by celts, then Anglo-Saxons...Further, I can assure one and all that the Norman Conquest is not a "Scandanavian legend", this really needs to be cleaned up... jme66.72.215.225 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

why do most of the most influential and best selling bands of all time come from England?

can anybody answer me this? -Dragong4

They don't - you just haven't heard about the non-English ones because they don't get covered in the English media. This is a condition known as rational ignorance, whereby the gentle member of the public naively believes that the world view presented to them by the media is a complete picture. You have spotted a continuity error with their picture. Well done :) --feline1 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not entirely true. The quesiton is about 'best-selling', not just influence (for which your describtion is slighlty better, if highly offensive to the poster); the reason for this is that English bands have had the advantage of speaking English and sharing a realtively large amount of their culture directly with the USA, the world's biggest market. --Robdurbar 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure that the sales satistics would even bear the "best selling" premise out anyways! Anyways goodness knows who they're a rockin' and a rollin' to in Iran, Malawi and Chile these days. We probably won't see them on Top of the Pops any time soon...--feline1 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ;-)

You won't be seeing ANYTHING on top of the pops soon... it's been canceled. --Robdurbar 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you that *was* the hilarious subtext ;-) --feline1 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to regular editors regarding Dragong4

IP troll 67.189.99.161 is the anon sock for User:Dragong4 who is currently blocked from Wikipedia for 6 months for vandalism, personal attacks and constant disruption. The admins are very aware of his actions. Don't feed the trolls. Besides this article the same user also frequents: The Beatles, Abba and Martin Luther King Jr.(+plus a few others). If any new users show up with the same annoying habits as the one who started the "English bands are best" thread, best to just alert and admin. 216.21.150.44 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed something about the bands.......

Okay first off, you cant just say "they were popular during their time!" Okay? The fact of the matter is that those bands were, and still are the most influential and best selling bands of all time, and that's a fact. -Dragong4

Major Conurbations - Liverpool

Correct my if I'm wrong, but doesn't Liverpool have a population of around 450 - 500 thousand? This article places it as being in excess of 800,000. Besides, if we are talking about conurbations, then shouldn't it be "Merseyside" (in which the population will be around 1 million or more). So, where does 800,000 come from? Also, I don't really like the Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear being used as a conurbation. It's a county made up of two conurbations, Tyneside and Wearside. Tyne and Wear isn't a conurbation as the two urban areas haven't really fully built into one another, and are therefore are still distinguishable. Although this probably will not be the case for much longer. hedpeguyuk 28 June 2006, 14:38 (UTC)

English Identity - Spitfire?

Surely a Spitfire is very much a British Identity? Considering that the aircraft was built by an Englishman and the name 'Spitfire' was thought up by a Scotsman! I believe it to be British.

Sport

Why is there no sport section, when sport is so central and important to the people of England, just about every person follows england in one sport or another. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a stub section of this, it needs expansion --Robdurbar 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling ize or ise

First of all, I've just made some revisions to the article. Somebody seems to take delight in changing British to English throughout the article when this is blatantly wrong (English empire, English National Party, English Isles). It's happening with music and band articles - changing nationalities to English even when some members are Scottish etc. It's getting rather tiring. I could not go through the whole article, so if someone could check it out that would be sweet. Now that my rant is over, I would just like to ask which form of spelling should be used in the article -ise or -ize (e.g. criticize/organise..) I know the -ize ending isn't necessarily an Americanism (I think it comes from the original Greek influences. But the more "Frenchified" -ise is the more popular of the two in England today. I would have thought therefore that the second variation should be preferred. Would anyone agree or don't you think it matters. hedpeguyuk 4 July 2006 21:20 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary lists -ize as the main version, but in practise -ise is by far the most frequent form used. Personally, I never use -ize. -- Arwel (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. As -ise was the form originally used in the article I've changed de-radicalized. hedpeguyuk 21:40 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to utilise both as I don't realize what I'm doing ;) ... I changed the English Empire bit before, but didn't notice all the other edits that had been made. --Robdurbar 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

England to refer to whole of Great Britain or UK

Current statement: "England" is sometimes used incorrectly as a synonym for Great Britain or the United Kingdom, usually arising from innocent confusion over local geopolitical terminology.

While this is, I suppose, true, let me note that I study 19th century European diplomacy. Usually when French or Austrian or whatever diplomats and foreign ministers refer to the UK, they say "Angleterre." Is this because of innocent confusion over local geopolitical terminology? Or is it because for a long time, "England" was seen as an acceptable synonym for Great Britain or the United Kingdom? It obviously always also had its specific meaning of only referring to England proper. But it seems hard to say that it was always incorrect to use "England" to refer to the whole deal. This was once considered to be a perfectly acceptable shorthand. It no longer is, but that doesn't mean that all such usage was incorrect. (I'd suggest that it formerly functioned as a synecdoche, in the same way that "Naples" was sometimes used for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, or "Piedmont" for the Kingdom of Sardinia.) I'd suggest something along the lines of, "England was once commonly used as a synonym for Great Britain or the United Kingdom, but this usage is now considered incorrect," although I'm open to suggestions. john k 09:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This comes down to the impossible question that is holding up many on the British Isles page - we cannot say whether someone is using a term through ignorance or deliberatly. We cannot judge motivations from people's actions. To be honest, I fail to see how we can tell whether people in the C19th used 'England' for the UK knowing the full terminology or not.

This is why, in these situations, I prefer the word 'inaccurate' to 'incorrect'. I do not think these need be synonyms; inaccurate just means 'unspecific' or 'not on the mark', whereas incorrect is definately 'wrong'. --Robdurbar 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Of course you can sometimes say that a person is using a term deliberately. I'm sure that in the 19th century one can find numerous examples of Scottish and Welsh people referring to the whole country as "England." Do you think that Lloyd George, for instance, never used this formulation? I'm going to add that nobody ever says that the "Piedmont" case is wrong, and that "Kingdom of Sardinia" should always be used, because Piedmont was only one part of the Kingdom of Sardinia, even though that is perfectly true. This is because the Kingdom of Sardinia no longer exists, and there's no particular annoying nationalistic constituency constantly whining about how oppressive normal linguistic usage is, because nobody cares anymore. If a usage is very common, we can't simply say that it is "incorrect" (and I think "inaccurate" is only mildly better). Everyone in the 19th century (and into the 20th) called the UK "England" as a shorthand. While this of course reflected English dominance within the UK, it is nevertheless true. (One might add that Wales was effectively part of England from 1542 (or at least 1746) to 1967, that the Irish most certainly did not consider the government in Westminster as representing them, and that a whole lot of Scots viewed the Act of Union of 1707 as essentially an annexation of Scotland by England). One could just as easily say that usage of "United Kingdom" represents a kowtowing to the English propaganda idea that the UK was not simply an imperial extension of England, or whatever. It is a fact that "England" was very commonly used to refer to the whole UK until the 20th century. It is also a fact that the official name was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," and that "England" also referred to one specific part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It would be incorrect to be in Edinburgh and to say you are in England, I think. But the simple volume of usage which talks about the "English government," or the "English parliament," or the "English ambassador," or whatever, makes it the height of linguistic prescriptivism to find such usage to be incorrect. It's certainly not used anymore, and it is now considered incorrect. But nobody considered it incorrect at the time. If one can find any examples of people being corrected in the 19th century for referring to the "English ambassador," I'd be happy to renounce my claim, but how can a usage be incorrect when everybody uses it and nobody (seemingly) objects to it? john k 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there. Histroy seems to be your field of expertise; I don't think that you indicated in your first message how prevelant the use of England instead of UK was. If it really was as prevelant as you suggest, then your changes are probably valid.

However, I still don't think we can know whether people were doing this 'deliberatly' or not, and whether this caused offence at the time. Remember, people were using 'coloured' to describe black people well into the 1990s, without realising that it casued offence; and I still know some people who use 'half-caste', simply through habit and through not knowing what they are saying.

So I don't think we can say it is 'now' considered incorrect, and certainly that 'nobody considered it incorrect at the time'. However, it IS worth noting if it was used more commonly in the past, I agree. So how about 'England was once more commonly used as a synonym for Great Britain or the United Kingdom, but this inaccurate useage is now generally considred unacceptable'. --Robdurbar 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be okay. "Usage" is the proper spelling, though, I think. john k 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, along these lines, see Talk:Koh-i-Noor. It would appear (although I feel it's unconfirmed, as the source is a website about the Koh-i-Noor diamond, rather than the actual text of the treaty, that Victoria was referred to as "the Queen of England" in formal treaties. How about that? john k 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Offensive nomenclature

This is for our friend who removed[2] the slang terms for English because he was offended at them. They are in common usage in the media today...

• The Sunday Times, March 12, 2006, Self-rule for Sassenachs is a dead duck [3]
• Channel 4 News, 21-Nov-2003 Aussies reduced to pommy-bashing [4] (note Prince Charles also uses this term).
• For Limey, see The Limey

It was making a gratuitous point to then put offensive terms into the African American article[5]. I don't think you will find any of those terms used in the media - for example, you won't find a film about a black person called the nigger. Just though I'd mention that, and take the opportunity to provide the references. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of songs and films that refer to black people as niggers. The references tend to be more acceptable if made by black people. Kernow 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Duchy of Cornwall is not really in England

Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green? Evertype 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? According to all other encyclopedias, Cornwall is part (a county) of England. The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate compsed of land all over the UK (not just in England). It has nothing to do with the county in th southwest except a common name. --Tēlex 13:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is disputed for good reason. Evertype 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's a pretty marginal movement. Nevertheless, if all other encyclopedias can get away with it presenting Cornwall as an English county, at least we know that by not changing anything, Wikipedia will remain within the mainstream (per WP:NPOV#Undue weight). --Tēlex 13:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The legal status of Cornwall is a county of England. For that to change it would have to be challenged in the High Courts, which unlikely to happen. josh (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You never know ;-) it may happen. It would be interesting. As long as this movement doesn't reach the same level as aggressive Caucasus-style separatism. --Tēlex 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be and it could happen ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cornwall#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England Blaid 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You want a map of the UK with England in green, except for speckles of land owned by the Duchy? A lot of the parcels of land are very small, and would be hard to pick out accurately. What on earth makes you think that being owned by Charles makes those pieces of land notable enough to be highlighted? Joe D (t) 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not this again. Cornwall is a county in England. john k 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall is a county in England, agreed. The Duchy is irelevant as far as county designation is concerned. Who cares, it's just parcels of land owned by the Prince of Wales. It's of little consequence unless it's an article about the Duchy or the Prince of Wales.... 2cents Cєlαя∂σяє^Talk 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be no maps showing "England" in a separate colour to the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at all, unless it is in a historical context. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Earliest human activity

"The earliest record of human activity in England dates back to over 500,000 years ago" - According to the human article, the definition of when our ancestors first became human was between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago. According to the Prehistoric Britain article the first Homo in Britain was 700,000 years ago. Kernow 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if anyone could have known about that. --Philip1992 18:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Philip1992

What I am saying is that these dates conflict. The first humans could not have been in England 500,000 years ago because they hadn't evolved yet. If this refers to the first Homo (i.e. humanoid human ancestors) then it should be 700,000 years ago. Kernow 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes made to Culture section

Hey guys. I'm trying to add that the English are skilled and brave fighters because they stood up against the Nazis. And then someone deleted it. Why? Did they not kick ass in WWII? I believe they did.

The Kingdom of England couldn't have fought in WWII because it would have been several centuries too late: you're getting confused with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has its own article. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Association football and FIFA World Cup

I have attempted to disambiguate football to association football and World Cup to FIFA World Cup on several occasions now, only to be reverted. Within a section called Sport which includes reference to rugby football and the Rugby World Cup this is totally inappropriate. In certain parts of England disambiguation is necessary, which is why some football clubs are AFC's, not just FC's (see Hull City AFC). Furthermore an FC can actually be a rugby club (see Hull FC). I'm not suggesting for one minute we say "soccer": but when discussed alongside other forms of football, as it is here, it should be introduced "association football" and the links to FIFA World Cup and 1966 FIFA World Cup shoul be left unpiped. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rugby is never refered to simply as football. The use of AFC for a football club and FC for a rugby club is extremly rare. Also the World Cup always means the one organised by FIFA. They have only been tagging their name on it for the past decade but the name "World Cup" is trademarked by FIFA for use in reference to their tournement only. josh (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Watch a rugby league match on telly or listen to radio commentary and you'll hear rugby referred to as football a plenty, and you'll hear the ball being called a football (whereas in football commentary they would would say "ball", making "football" sound quite odd at first). Fair point about FIFA copyrighting the name: but this same section does talk about the 2003 Rugby World Cup and so disambiguation would be better, in at least the first mention of the FIFA World Cup. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in a rugby context such as commentary about rugby, rugby will referered to as football. The question is : does this happen outside of a rugby context? Morwen - Talk 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a Wikipedia context football is a disambiguation page, suggesting disambiguation is necessary. Also, the audience of this article may well be Americans, who would assume "football" to be something else entirely. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's manual of style notes that national variations of English can (And almost 'ought to be') used in articles on these nations e.g. use 'British/Irish English' on British/Irish pages, Ozzie English on Ozzie articles etc. Especially as all the spellings here are in 'British' English, I think keeping 'football' as it is retains consistency. As for the other two... I really think neither is important. Although Rubgy - particulalry League - is often reffered to as 'football' by its followers and in a discussion of the sport, I agree that this occurs rarely outside of context (and I'm from a rugby league area too) --Robdurbar 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded so that association football appears beside rugby football, making the disambiguation appear more natural. I've also altered the bit about the World Cup so that it links to the World Cup first, then to the 1966 competition, which I believe scans better than before (I have piped the links so that it doesn't say "FIFA World Cup"). Hopefully this version wil be satisfactory for everyone: all further mentions of football, football clubs, etc just say "football". Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

major rivers

i think we should include the river medway as a major river. after all it has the largest drainage basin of any river in southern england.

Population

In the statistics section down the right hand side, the population is claimed as being 49million in 2001. It was reported this week that the population has reached 60million. Could the population really have risen by 11million in 5 years? I think the 49million claim needs to be checked. IanUK 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

60 million is the United Kingdom, not England, which has a population of 50 million. David 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha. Thanks. IanUK 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Where the History of England section?

I am surprised to find no article section, nor any link to a separate article, on the "History of England". All I can find is the ' Brief history of the term "England" ' section. I would expect a country like England to have a rather rich history article in WP, and a link to that article from the main country page. What's up? N2e 18:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link added under "See also". Barnabypage 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

White Dragon Flag of the English

I've recently discovered this. http://whitedragonflagofengland.com/

It's a flag, with some historical evidence(so new/old, depending on which way you look at it) - it appears to have been researched and I have contacted the researcher for further information on the validity of what the website says. He's adamant this dragon appears in multiple places in the Bayeux Tapestry. Notably(quote):

"1. Scene featuring the Palace at Rouen- four legged dragon at bottom.

2. Scene where the Bastard knights Harold. Four legged Dragon at bottom.

3. Scene where Harold alledgedly takes an oath. Four legged white dragon at top.

4. Scene where Harold returns to England. Four legged dragon at top.

Almost too many to quote. We must avoid pedantry. Communications during the period of the 4/5/6/7/8 /centuries was so poor that the English in the North of the country could hardly be aware of what was happening in the South. A two legged dragon (wyvern) is still a dragon. This could have been an emblem in Wessex but not in Deira (Northumberland)."

I also asked about the colour of the flag:

"Avoid pedantry regarding colour. The red (Pantone) we use today would not have been the red of yesterday which would have been more akin to a maroon or cherry red because of the fruit dyes in common use. Similarly, gold or beige would have been the white of the age, simply because of the lack of a suitable bleaching agent."

I have questioned the myth of the Red/White dragons in connection with Geoffrey of Monmouths 'Prophecies of Merlin' - who seems to advocate the red and white here, but this is circa 1100 - 1155. However, the researcher seems adamant that the dragon flag was used in multiple battles with the Welsh.

This of course could be seen as a variant of the Wessex flag - The Golden Wyvern on a Red background - but that flag only makes claims to be a flag of Wessex and used by those regionalists, whilst this flag is a generic 'Anglo-Saxon' flag of the English.

It's not a widespread flag(it is fairly new - English Nationalists are beginning to recognise it) - but is a fairly factual flag and I wonder whether it ought to be included on one of the England/English pages?

I think we would need a more independent and reputable source to be disucssing it. Robdurbar 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Difficult, as only one 'organisation' has researched it and brought it out. I thought it maybe should get a mention(and I mean 'mention') under 'Symbols' or something- either in English People or England. It is factual, you can clearly see a dragon flag next to Harold on his death on the Bayeux Tapestry. The dragon flag is referenced is the following:

References:

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury (suspect), Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Stenton Anglo Saxon England, Barlow The Godwins, Even Bernard Cornwell makes mention of the Dragon flag in his 'Saxon Stories' novels, which of course, he bases in fact. White43 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The white dragon as a symbol of the English certainly occurs in Welsh folklore - Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc. The question is, is this derived from a symbol actually used by the English themselves? It would be supremely ironic to adopt a symbol invented for the English by the Welsh! As it happens, on some old maps a white dragon is used as a symbol of Mercia, which was obviously the kingdom with which the Welsh had most contact, and they might have mistakenly assumed that it was a symbol used by all the English, and not just the Mercians. Wessex, as has already been noted, used a gold wyvern, which - heraldically speaking - is completely distinct from a white dragon. Those four legged dragons on the tapestry near Harold are interesting, but the question is this - in 1064, Harold was still only earl of Wessex, not king of England. Perhaps it was just his personal banner, or the banner of the Godwin family. Basically, we simply don't know. TharkunColl 11:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the researcher involved in this discussion as he obviously knows more about it than me - but on the origin of the White flag -

"Even before the Romans had left Britain, the Saxons continued to raid the shores of the east of Britain and the standard of the Saxons was the White Dragon.

The Saxons came by their dragon symbol by a different route, the Saxons after all had always been the enemy of Rome and though from time to time had been defeated by Rome, had never been conquered by Rome.

The effect over many years of this close contact between Rome and the German tribes was the adoption by the Saxons of the symbols of Rome in this case it was the White Dragon that arrived on the shores of Britain with the invading Saxon armies.

In this way the White Dragon of the Saxons gradually pushed back the Red Dragon of the Celts.

Celtic legend is full of tales of battles between Red and White Dragons. These tales are the end result of what in all probability were real battles such as the battle of Burford in the 9th century when the Red Dragon of the Celts fought the White Dragon of the Saxons.

On the colours of the flag - comments are already put in place above, but I'll put them here:

"Avoid pedantry regarding colour. The red (Pantone) we use today would not have been the red of yesterday which would have been more akin to a maroon or cherry red because of the fruit dyes in common use. Similarly, gold or beige would have been the white of the age, simply because of the lack of a suitable bleaching agent."

This would explain differences in say Golden in Wessex and White elsewhere. Also note that at the time, Dragons of two and four legs were most common and may have been used equally. The term 'Wyvern' as I understand it was a French invention much later on.

There is also this : "A known historical reference to the White Dragon Flag is at a ceremony at Westminster Abbey where it was noted that the Dragon of the English was displayed with other standards. It must be remembered that over the years the shape of the dragon as well as the dragon flag has continually changed, even the Red Dragon of Wales has seen much change over the last century. Going further back to 1066 and Hastings the dragon at that time, was in all probability, more like a windsock than a flag."

I hope this is useful. At this stage, as before - I'd be suggesting this symbol gets at least a mention of the 'Symbols' section. Dragons, it seems were used by the Anglo-Saxons.White43 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you may as well put it in - a sentence or two - feel free to be bold. --Robdurbar 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's removed this? Anglo-Saxons fought under dragon flags....? I wasn't pandering to English Nationalism or anything.....?White43 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

English Identity

The English frequently include their neighbours in the general term "British" while the Scots and Welsh tend to be more forward about referring to themselves by one of those more specific terms. This reflects a more subtle form of patriotism in England

This paragraph is very innacurate. Anyone who believes that the English are "subtly" patriotic is misinformed. And most English people refer to themselves as "English", not "British". That entire paragraph needs to be removed.

I think that the above paragraph may be correct in some tenses. I dont beleive it is fair for Scots and Welsh people not to class themselves as British. We should encourage more people like yourself to ncall themselves English!

Conradiction in Languages section

"The law does not recognise any language as being official, ...

... BSL is an official language of the UK [citation needed]" Ahem. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42 2 September 2006 (GMT).

I noticed that too. Of course it is possible that the contradiction lies with the british government. Languages in the United_Kingdom says there is no official language. Thehalfone 13:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over football clubs

I've removed the list of football clubs from the Sports section, since its been a continual edit war for the last few days. Three options are available:

1. Reach agreement over the list here on the talk page and then add the list back to the page
2. Leave the list out of the section completely
3. Continue the edit war, in which case I'll remove it again and protect the page

Good luck, Gwernol 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening Section

I think the opening section of this article is a little breif. It is concerned far too much with geography including nothing on history, language, culture, acheievements etc.

I think the opening section would benefit from a little expansion, bringing it inline with better leads as found in Scotland, United States and even the Bangladesh article. Thoughts? 86.133.72.79 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it is a fairly poor article, so go for it... --Robdurbar 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just read through it and it's not just poor; it's terrible! I've seen better articles at a local level such as Shaw and Crompton!!

The article is wordy, poorly referrenced and poorly formatted. I think a push from the editing community who edit this article closely would help an awful lot! 86.133.72.79 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

-I've made some changes in the last hour or so, including some expansion to the lead section. However this article needs months and months of work. I'm disappointed with the English wikipedians out there!!! Hope the changes are well received. 86.133.72.79 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've personally got my eye on getting out a few books when I get back to uni and giving it a big overhaul too. --Robdurbar 11:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised given how patriotic some are and the opportunity to really let England shine on Wikipedia (especially given its history and prominance) that England is not up to scratch! Scotland and Wales are far superior articles! I'm made further "improvements" over the last few hours and there seems little objection:- however I'd certainly welcome any input - particuluarly on referencing some of the statements. The changes I've made are largely cosmetic ones, and I've improved links to other main articles and included well known and verifable assertions. Thanks again, 86.133.72.79 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the whole thing needs a big referencing - this was done with United Kingdom about two/three months ago, when a few editors got togther and, over the period of a couple of weeks, got the whole thing referenced. So if we can work at that at a section at a time...

As for the changes - well I think the history could be slightly bigger, but its getting there. Robdurbar 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the article

The article has improved a little over the weekend, and I totally agree with the previous comments...

Anyone want to be bold and suggest here how and where we can make our next improvements? I'd suggest the following:

• All sections below the lead need reading and re-wording to better the flow of text.
• Vastly overhall the "Brief History of England" section and re-title to "History"
• Increase the volume of text in the culture section, perhaps adding a section on "innovation" and "Engineering".
• Include mentions of the economics of England including a note on the Bank of England.
• Include more on the church reformation and its impact.
• Include more on the historic politics and monarchy of England.
• Include more images.
• Carefully check and reword some statements in the both the "English identity" and "Sport" sections, as many statements are too emotive and use weasel words.
• Improve the "English language" section:- include more academic/verifiable facts about it's origins and impact upon the wider word.
• Vastly improve and increase the amount of referencing(!) and challenge/remove questionable/biased statements.

Of course these are my own opinions so if anyone objects to any of these please feel free to do so. However, I'd encourage other editors to add anything else here which they feel can improve the article. These are challenging and time-consuming proposals, but I would undoubtedly make this article the most comprehensive and leading internet page on England. 86.133.72.79 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub on Anglo-Saxon England

Does anyone know why we have the stub marker on History - Anglo-Saxon England? Seems not less clear and concise than the other mini sections of history on this page...? MarkThomas 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we even need all those section headers? We have an unlimited space on other articles in which to elaborate on history, and the article already uses summary style, so we don't need to go overboard on the history section here. Having a new section title every 1-2 paragraphs is rather ugly. Shouldn't we either try to consolodate some sections or remove the sub-headers alltogether? The section isn't so long that it has to be sub-divided. Joe D (t) 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The headers are there to break up the history section into managable subsections. They look unsightly at the moment, but they are just stubs (as indicated by the headers), which require a (much needed) collaborative elaboration. The history section would be rather bulky and longwinded if we didn't break it down this way (see History of England as an expanded example of sections at work). Also, once the article was ready for nomination for Wikipedia:Good articles, we'd only be required to break down the history section as such anyway.

The Anglo-Saxon stubbing however, is probably poorly thought out and excessive. 86.133.72.79 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

Can we please delete the long list of foreign-language names? It's incomplete, and practically redundant given that we link to a fuller list (wikt:England) directly afterwards! The summary of the patterns (i.e. -NGL- stems for most languages, and S-S(-)N for Celtic languages) is enough for here. Aquilina 22:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Awkward design under "Nomenclature"

Where it says:

The majority of European languages use The Celtic names are quite different

The first time I read this, I went straight across, not realizing it was not a sentence, until reading it two more times. Thanks.69.6.162.160 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Rose

I'm unimpressed with the current picture of a rose in the England article. I think it is a little patronising showing a photograph of (a somewhat impossibly red) rose under the title rose. It also somewhat overbearing, and doesn't enlighten readers or add anything special to the article. I would suggest that we use the Tudor rose image in it's place as this is the graphic emblem as used on English National crests (and the Royal coat of arms of the UK) and is also county neutral. Thoughts? 86.133.72.79 14:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--I've since found a source elaborating that a Rose of England should be a Tudor or half-red-half-white rose on technicallity. Thanks, however. 86.133.72.79 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please See development on MA issue

[6] Amoruso 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

London 2012

Should there not be some mention of this under Sport? Deeds-123 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The dab header

The disambiguation header is there to redirect viewers who have ended up at the wrong page. Somebody is not going to type in "England" (or follow a link) expecting to get to an article about Britain the British Isles. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

"For an explanation of terms such as English, Great Britain, British, United Kingdom and England, see British Isles (terminology). For other uses, see England (disambiguation)" makes perfect sense on Britain, British Isles and a number of other articles but it is inappropriate here. It should be replaced with the simpler "This article is about the country. For other uses, see England (disambiguation)".

Thanks/wangi 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: England is often used erronously to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the British Isles. The current dab header is there for these very people, who are expecting to find information about the international state, not a regional sub-entity of it. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yorkshire Phoenix - there needs to be a strong explaination at the top of the page as to the differences as many non-brits use England and Britain interchangably. Whilst this was common practice and acceptable a hundred years ago, these days it is not. Mammal4 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

White Dragon

Whilst this is useful, the sentence here: "The White Dragon Flag is not used in any official capacity and was phased out of popular use."

Seems a bit ambiguous. It isn't used in any official capacity, but as for being phased out of popular use - ? Evidence? Citation? It's more than likely it was killed off by the Normans - who later introduced the St Georges flag. Not much is known on this flag, it's better not to state that.White43 17:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

simply 'stopped being used' might be better phrasing, perhaps? --Robdurbar 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How about simply phased out of use? 86.132.211.71 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Transport

I'm thinking due to the emptiness of the Transport Section of England we redirect or merge the section or part of it to Transport in the UK Page.

Thoughts? Chaz247 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to have the section as 1/2 paragraphs, delineating the main points, directing to Transport in the UK as the main article. --Robdurbar 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You should carry out both theory writing together of PPP and the nominal

Only GDP (PPP) appears in the basic data of each country. However,the argument is divided about the credibility of PPP. Should not GDP (nominal) be written together, either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.146.222.142 (talk • contribs)