This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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?
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)
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
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
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)
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)
much better than j k rowling
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)
Bede of Jarrow (AD 673-735) wrote of the 'Gens Angelorum'.
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.
207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
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 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 --
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)
There are several serious problems with this section which require urgent attention.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
The English Democrat Party claims that the government's plans for regionalization threaten a coherent English identity.
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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?
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
That looks good to me!
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)
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...
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
That's a super claim; but where's the source????? -- Robdurbar 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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... jme 66.72.215.225 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
can anybody answer me this? -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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green? Evertype 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cornwall#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England Blaid 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not this again. Cornwall is a county in England. john k 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
Well you may as well put it in - a sentence or two - feel free to be bold. -- Robdurbar 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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!
"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)
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:
Good luck, Gwernol 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
[6] Amoruso 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Should there not be some mention of this under Sport? Deeds-123 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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?
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)
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
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
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)
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)
much better than j k rowling
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)
Bede of Jarrow (AD 673-735) wrote of the 'Gens Angelorum'.
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.
207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
207.200.116.5 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
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 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 --
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)
There are several serious problems with this section which require urgent attention.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
The English Democrat Party claims that the government's plans for regionalization threaten a coherent English identity.
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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?
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
That looks good to me!
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)
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...
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
That's a super claim; but where's the source????? -- Robdurbar 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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... jme 66.72.215.225 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
can anybody answer me this? -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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green? Evertype 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cornwall#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England Blaid 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not this again. Cornwall is a county in England. john k 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
Well you may as well put it in - a sentence or two - feel free to be bold. -- Robdurbar 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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!
"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)
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:
Good luck, Gwernol 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
[6] Amoruso 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Should there not be some mention of this under Sport? Deeds-123 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)