Talk:English nationalism

message: Added the following link
* Devolve England
* The Campaign for an English Parliament
* Mercian Regionalists
* English Constitutional Convention
* The English Democrats
* English Independence Party
* England First Party
Bretagne 44 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This sentiment is especially strong in regard to the attempt by Tony Blair's Labour government to balkanise England through regionalisation.
Balkanise is pejorative and judgemental, it should be changed.
Bretagne 44 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: England hasn't had a Parliament since the Act of Union 1707, rather than those of 1536 and 1543.  Between 1543 and 1707, England had a Parliament, but England also covered an area not within the romantic nationalist idea of England (i.e. Wales). Bastin8 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act of Union 

message: An anonymous user added a large chunk of text, supposedly coming from someone to do with the CEP. Altough clearly far from neutral, there may well be some useful stuff there. It is, however, 5 past 1 in the morning, and I can't be bothered checking it now. For the record then, I've dumped the text here; if anyone thinks they garner anything of substance from it, feel free. Robdurbar 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time, Cornwall is not a country, it is a Duchy. Check the Cornwall article if you like. You might have a nice flag but facts are facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.7.144 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Large text added on 3 March

message: Nationalists are people that claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis of the state and that each nation is entitled to its own state. It is a fundamental belief, and the axis around which the world's politics revolve. Those that claim it is not a fundamental belief are usually people who have their own political agenda, and who wish to see supra- or multi-national states formed from pre-existing nations. In time these multi-national states either become nations themselves, or fail, as we have witnessed in the cases of Yugoslavia, USSR and India, to name a few.
But the issue is more complex than that. "Nation" can mean one of two things; an ethnic nation, based on a common ethnicity, collective identity and culture; or a nation based on shared purpose, beliefs and common goals, usually founded on such principles as democracy and individualism. In most nations though, or at least for most people in most nations, nationalism is a mixture of both these forms.
Academics refer to nationalism based around these two alternative definitions of "nation" as "Ethic Nationalism" and "Civic Nationalism". In the West, especially in multicultural nations, it is the commonly held view that only civic nationalism is acceptable. The USA and France are often held up as examples of nations based on civic nationalism as both nations were founded on constitutions expressing common rights and privileges, and the principle of citizenship. Although, from an ethical standpoint, civic nationalism is preferable to ethnic nationalism (in multicultural states at least) the Los Angeles and Paris riots show that neither ideology is without its faults.
It could be said that Britain is an example of a state based on civic nationalism. After-all, we are a multi-ethnic and multi-national state, and, for all intents and purposes, a unitary nation with a shared purpose and equal constitutional rights for all. Or at least we were prior to 1998.
In 1998 Scotland became a nation apart, able to influence English and Welsh legislation, but spared from political interference from Wales, and, more importantly, from England and the English. Scottish nationalism was, and still is, a hybrid of civic and ethnic nationalism, but the path to independence - temporarily stalled by devolution - was driven mostly by ethnic nationalism and a deep-rooted pathological hatred of the English. The Scots define themselves not as what they are, but as what they are not; and what they are not is Sassenachs.
When Scotland ring-fenced its legislation to prevent English interference, and when UK politicians started speaking of Scotland as "a proud historic nation" (Tony Blair) and stating that "Scotland is a nation in its own right" (Nick Raynsford - Labour Regions spokesman) without making similar claims on behalf of England, any sense of a shared collective purpose, for me at least, disappeared. Since that time politicians - most notably Gordon Brown - have invested a great deal of energy in trying to redefine Britain in terms of ideals that unite us and a shared collective purpose.
At the same time there has been an assault on English nationalism, with the Labour Party appealing to the Conservative Party to make devolution to Scotland work by not fanning the flames of English nationalism. Ostensibly Scottish nationalism is a civic nationalism, and Welsh nationalism too, otherwise the UK Government would have had trouble justifying it; and to their credit the SNP and Plaid Cymru are signed up to the European Free Alliance, a nationalist alliance that promotes civic, as opposed to ethnic, nationalism, and which supports all nations in their quest for self-determination. But the UK Government did not allow England the same right to self-determination as it offered Wales and Scotland in their 1997 referendums.
Last month Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, writing in anticipation of an English Ashes triumph in her Independent column, complained that "If the cricket is won, many more white Britons will give up on Britain and take refuge in England". The implication being that English nationalism is purely an ethnic nationalism based on skin colour (see The England Project).
Alibhai-Brown was followed by Vince Cable MP, in his Demos pamphlet on multiple identities, who compared English nationalists to Islamic fundamentalists and white supremacists by stating that "The threat to harmonious social relations in Britain comes from those who insist that multiple identity is not possible: white supremacists, English nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists".
It should be remembered that both Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Vince Cable are nationalists themselves: civic British nationalists.
Vince Cable went on to say "This is the opposition and they have to be confronted. An important element in that confrontation is the assertion of a sense of Britishness".
As someone that counts himself as an English nationalist - a civic nationalist - I was offended by these remarks and responded to Alibhai-Brown and Cable (see The Green Ribbon) in the same knee-jerk way that they no doubt made their remarks. Having had time to cool down and reflect I am still offended by their remarks, and see them as politically motivated, but I concede that they are at least partly correct.
Where they are correct is in the fact that, at the moment, English nationalism is mostly an ethnic nationalism. Immigrants that come to England are informed that they are now British, and they are. "British" is not an ethnicity, Britain is a political construct that incorporates the different nations and ethnicities, and in that sense it can be argued that Britain was multi-cultural before the waves of immigration that began with the Empire Windrush.
The problem for English nationalists like myself, is that for all our best intentions - arguing for an English parliament that represents all English people regardless of ethnicity - there is no civic nationalism in England, not for immigrants, not for anybody. We English have no collective political representation that allows for an expression of our collective political will, and many or most of our cultural and civic institutions have been appropriated for Britain. Scotland has a Scottish parliament to which all Scots, regardless of ethnicity, elect their Scottish representatives. The Scots also have a National Library of Scotland, a National Portrait Gallery and a National Gallery, and much else besides. Taken apart these things mean little, but taken together an immigrant to Scotland - and I lived there myself for five years - is left in little doubt as to what nation they are in. Minority ethnicities in Scotland are much more likely to prefix their ethnicity with "Scottish" than ethnic minorities in England are inclined to prefix their ethnicity with "English". In fact ethnic minorities in England almost always refer to themselves as "British-[insert ethnicity here]". It makes sense as that is how the Government defines them. This fact annoys me greatly, and I think it is divisive and damaging to race-relations in England, but that said I donï¿½t blame the immigrants I blame the political establishment and the race-relations industry.
Without any form of civic nationalism the English seem only to be able to express themselves through sporting tribalism and xenophobia. That is a sweeping statement, but it seems to be the widely held opinion of what Orwell referred to as English intellectuals, particularly those on the left. The Government's steadfast refusal to allow or build any form of English civic nationalism has created a situation where English pride is exhibited in moments of pure tribalism; St George's Day and sporting victories are the only times that England's flag can be waved without accusations of racism. This is wrong, the English flag should fly above the English National Library, the English National Museum, the English Portrait Gallery and, YES, the English Parliament and Executive. Only in that way can we build a civic nationalism for England in which all can take pride. The Government are culpable in making 'English' a synonym for 'Anglo-Saxon' and in being so they have played into the hands of what Vince Cable refers to as 'white supremacists', which - by the way Vince - is not a synonym for "English nationalist".
"English" cannot any longer be permitted to be solely an ethnic description, it must embody more than that. The absurdity of Tebbit's cricket test is plain for all to see:
A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?
Immigrants to England cannot be informed they are British and then implored to support the English cricket team. Why should they when they are British not English? Why should they take any note of England's history or achievements prior to the Act of Union when Britain and their adopted "Britishness" came into being? The sense of Englishness is growing, it has been well documented, and a divide is opening up in England between that part of society that define themselves as English and those that don't. It is noticeable that those that don't are overwhelmingly from non-white sections of the population, although it is also noticeable, and encouraging, that some blacks do refer to themselves as English. I think that this black-led revelation has come about through inclusion in English sport; it certainly hasnï¿½t come about thanks to the race-relations industry or Government; both of whom constantly seek to define them as Black-British, and whose very policies exclude them from Englishness.
The 'Death of Britain' has also been widely documented - Hitchens, 1999; Heffer, 1999; Redwood, 1999; Marr, 2000; Nairn, 2000 - but it doesn't have to be that way. We can all be British citizens with equal political and constitutional rights within Britain, and with a democratic say in the way our own nations are run; that is the only way that it can work, the British onion cannot be put back together; Welsh, Scottish and English nationalism are all out of their own halves and running towards the opposition's unguarded goal. The only guard against a certain goal is in creating an inclusive civic nationalism not just for Britain, but for England, Scotland and Wales. And that's the task that faces British nationalists like Vince Cable and Alibhai-Brown if they want a civic and civil Britain. Trying to keep the English from asserting their Englishness all the while talking down English nationalism as if it were any less valid or worthy than Scottish, Welsh or British nationalism is simply no longer an option.
The freedoms bequeathed by England to the United Kingdom, guaranteed by law, represented an exceptional method of social integration, 'the most civilized and the most effective method ever invented by mankind' (1948: 476; 489-90). This method of social integration translated a specific aspect of the English political tradition - parliamentary sovereignty - into a British one in order to secure the unity of the United Kingdom (Crick 1991). This made the development of a specifically English nationalism not only counter-productive but also irrelevant (Crick 1995). This has been usually interpreted as an expression of English arrogance. The opposite reading can also be made and it is possible to interpret it as an expression of English modesty, for what is often ignored is the attraction of English civilisation as a method of social integration. In the mid-nineteenth century even one of the stalwarts of the proud Edinburgh Review was prepared to declare that 'the nearer we (the Scots) can propose to make ourselves to England the better' (cited in Massie 2002: 13). Moreover, its method of social integration was also here a method of multi-national integration. England, while remaining England, 'a concrete reference' for poets, in a real sense also became Britain, as its economy drew in the Irish, Scots and Welsh. As an 'absorptive patria', there was no need to base Englishness on blood or soil or even a flag and 'flying the Cross of St George was a protest or a foible, usually Socialist or Anglican' (Grainger 1986: 53-5). The good fortune of this social and national integration relied in large measure upon the relatively stable identity that England gave to England/Britain (Stapleton 1999). The United Kingdom was a nationality not a nation, one that had taught 'its citizens at one and the same time to glory both in the name of Scotsmen or Welshmen or Englishmen and in the name of Britons.' (Barker 1928: 17). --- Arthur Aughey
We need to glory again in the name of Scotsmen or Welshmen or Englishmen and in the name of Britons, but in a multi-racial society we can only do this through fostering a sense of civic nationalism and pride in our collective and separate identities.
Text removed from aritcle by - Robdurbar 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time, Cornwall is not a country, it is a Duchy. Check the Cornwall article if you like. You might have a nice flag but facts are facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.7.144 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text Removed From Article

message: Added the following:
It is interesting to note that most English nationalist groups and parties are on the right or extreme right of the political spectrum often being "euro sceptic" at the same time. This contrasts with the "Celtic" nationalist movements in the UK which tend towards a centre left pro-European stance.
A point worth noting as it does contrast with the other regional nationalist movements.
I have also replaced the links to some english nationalist groups that were removed without explination.Bretagne 44 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a link farm and this is not a page for every single English independence group; I've removed those that don't have their own domain etc. and are just opinion pages. A point worth noting, perhaps, though completely unverified and pure opinion? --Robdurbar 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Right wing

message: Added the link below, replacing an older broken link.Bretagne 44 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The English Heritage Alliance 

message: Where do I begin...?
English nationalism is the name given to a nationalist political movement in England that demands self-government for England, via a devolved English Parliament.  Some English nationalists go further, and seek the re-establishment of an independent sovereign state of England, via the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Well there isn't really a single formal movement. "English nationalism" can incorporate many things - as well as the campaigns for a devolved Parliament and/or independence, the term is also used for those seeking adjustments to the way MPs can vote at Westminster, plus culturally for the growth in the sense of Englishness - are demands for St George's Day to be a public holiday, or even just celebrated on a par with St Patrick's Day, "English nationalism"? What about "the rebirth of England" that's been noticed, particularly the more widespread flying of the flag of St George, when in the past the Union Jack would have sufficed? Or even just the growth of feelings of "Englishness" as something distinct from sloppily named Britishness?
The English nationalist movement has its roots in a perception amongst many people in England that they are English, rather than (or merely before) being British.
This is mixing up the concepts of ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. Much of the political demands seem to be driven by civic events and the English Democrats have run candidates born outside England, rejecting the ethnic nationalist viewpoint.
It is interesting to note that most English nationalist groups and parties are on the right of the political spectrum often being "euro-sceptic" at the same time; this contrasts with the "Celtic" nationalist movements in the UK which tend towards a centre-left, pro-European stance.
Not so interesting to the extent that English nationalism has been fueled by a backlash against a perceived "Scottish" Labour Party. Scottish Nationalism was originally found on both the right and left, but the SNP went down a left-wing route when the Conservatives were in power across the UK, though still has right-wing pro independence support. Although there are exceptions, mainstream left-wingers have less grievances with the Labour government.
The apparent aversion to the European Union by English nationalist groups stems from their belief that England is being subdivided into regions at the behest of the European Union.
Which is a strange assumption to make because Euroscepticism in the UK predates formal regionalisation and if anything should encourage Unionism against the UK being sub-divided, not a desire the cut things up differently. (Euroscepticism can also be found in Scotland see Scottish Executive: Attitudes Towards the European Union and the Challenges in Communicating 'Europe': Building a Bridge Between Europe and its Citizens - Evidence Review Paper Two, especially "It is often believed that within the UK, Scotland is one of the most pro-European areas. The evidence within this review suggests that on the whole this is not the case, with people in Scotland reporting broadly similar Eurosceptic views as people in Britain as a whole.") Euroscepticism is a complex subject but stems largely from a belief that Europe is not the UK/England's natural sphere of interest. Culturally it has as much to do with influences from the US, Australia and the like all pulling on attention.
There's little about the effect of sport when this is one of the times England roars (or whimpers) as England. Because the Home Nations play as separate teams, sport is often divisive and prone to encouraging an outbreak of English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish or Northern Irish (depending on the sport) sentiments. (One particular issue is with regards to which team is supported in a tournament by fans whose own team doesn't qualify. Since in football it's usually England qualifying and Scotland not, this tends to provoke English anger when Scots support a different team, or just whoever's playing England, but the English have not recently had the chance to demonstrate who they will support in the reverse scenario.) Scottish nationalist politician Jim Sillars once dubbed the Scots "90 minute patriots" because of the way enthusiasm for Scottish football didn't translate into support for Scottish nationalism and the same may be true for England, although it's yet to be fully tested.
As for the "what is the extent of England" question, Cornwall doesn't often feature one way or another in English nationalist demands, but Monmouthshire is still claimed by some English nationalists (the English Democrats stood in the relevant seats in the last Welsh Assembly election, calling for a referendum on its status). I'm not at all sure where Berwick-upon-Tweed fits in, although nationalists seem rather more vocal about "reclaiming" territory than voluntarily initiating the return of territory.
I'd have a go at redoing this article but frankly it needs a huge overhaul not a tinker. Maybe start by moving this to something more specifically dedicated to the calls for English devolution, and have a new article on the wider issue of English nationalism, both politically and culturally? Timrollpickering 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: :Image:Cep logo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cep logo.GIF

message: He ran in the last election for the English republican party.  He lost, so it doesn't need much addition to this article, but is that incident worth writing about?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteoriK (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gary Bushell

message: Give England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland independence, everyone wants it, so why arent we getting it? I could understand why Scotland and wales would want to stay in the Uk, because they wouldnt have enough money to become independent. But England would become much richer and much better of as an independent state.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by commenter: Ireland got their independence, look how successful they became!! 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  England should have indepence, end of! 

message: It is noteworthy in the context of this article that whilst Scotland and Wales have their own National Anthems, England does not, and currently uses the British one. This sort of thing adds to the perception in some uninformed circles that England and Britain are the same. Millbanks (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of the "English anthem" is quite interesting. While the English national football team uses God Save the Queen, England at the Commonwealth Games uses Land of Hope and Glory. Aridd (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: National Anthems, etc

message: This article desperately needs a historical perspective. Surely nationalism played a central role in the invention of Englishness (in the medieval period?)? And its (re?)invention under the Tudors from the 1530s? This article gives the unmistakable impression that English nationalism is a recent phenomenon. I'd really like to know how English nationalism and the invention of Englishness have been related to each other since the medieval period. Who was the first person to die for England, for a nationalist idea? And so forth. The modern stuff should properly be but a footnote in this huge history. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have made a start by adding some examples of historical English nationalism.--Johnbull (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Did English nationalism exist before 1994?

message: This is a very biased article due to it's title and it's relationaship to other similar articles. Scottish Independence is the name of the Scottish Independence article so why should the English and Welsh (Which I am also tagging) articles be labeled with "Nationalism" rather than "Indepence" which would cover a broader spectrum of political viewpoints. It seems the title was used to express the negative association with "Nationalism" and thus trying to degarde the idea that England (and Wales...etc...) should have political representation as distinct nations. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the articles should have uniform titles, but what is the negative association with "Nationalism"? SomeRandomAssKlown (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This is biased

message: I have asked the BBC, why they have 'regions' that include BBC Scotland, BBC Wales, BBC Northern Ireland.  There is no BBC England.  The BBC told me it's due to the fact that England is so much larger. But,it seems to me the BBC have 'Regionlised' England along the same lines as the EU wanted too do.  Considering England has the larger population, then why is it ignored by the BBC?  (For example BBC news readers wearing a Thistle on St Andrew's day, a Daffodil on St David's day, and no symbol at all on St George's day).  On the same subject the BBC broadcast a programme entitled 'The History of Scotland'.  They told me that there are no plans to broadcast a similar programme about England.80.195.38.188 (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not the place to have a rant about the BBC, get over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was the excellent A History of Britain of course though! --Jza84 |  Talk   12:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BBC and England. 

message: There is a dispute at Anglophobia, your input would be appreciated. BillMasen (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anglophobia]] 

message: It's pitiful that the Teutonists continue to appropriate Englishness for themselves and broker no disagreement.  What of national characteristics dating from antiquity?  All of England's traditions in that, are wiped by Victorian cultural revisionism.  It is a fact that King Arthur was the greatest English hero, for centuries preceding the Welsh Tudors, but the usual suspects like to muck that up for their own purposes.  The English descend primarily from the most Roman parts of Britain, in contrast to the Welsh, who were those people from the hinterland and less part of the Continental nexus.  Just look at the provincial maps of Roman Britain and you'll see the borders between England and Wales in their infancy.  Even preceding the Roman infrastructure, Belgae and Parisii of Gaul were obviously different from the "native" Britons, but the folk and archaelogical history attests to previous Greek and even Phoenician elements in those areas closest to France.  Most of this article suffers via anti-Norman polemics, rather than objective research into the holistic nature of Englishness, which is not encapsulated within a very small space and time continuum by which all Englishness is measured!  The very name "English" has less to do with the Angles and even less to do with the Saxons, but the dedication of the people to Catholic Christianity, by which they were blessed by the Pope for being like "Angels".  This is obviously a prejudice the English would hope to keep, for the Welsh insult of "Saxon" does nothing good for PR, as the Scots or Picts and Saxons were the same intervening foreigners then in Vortigern's time, as they were in the Stuart and Hanoverian period.  Propaganda exposed.  Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English are teutonic 

message: I think the image used should be replaced with one similiar to this (but of higher quality) or altered as to show cornwall within England as some cornish nationalists dont conisder it a 'true' part of England.
I dont think this image should be used but I use it here to demonstrate what i would like the image used on this page to look like.
 Eopsid (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace image with this one

message: An expert on nationalism should read and correct this article. It seems most of the article is about pre-19th century history. Considering the fact that nationalism (any nationalism, not just English) didn't exist before the 19th century, that is certainly quite strange.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalism is a whole lot older than that; even if one limits Nationalism to the concept of a State only containing one distinct People. The modern concept of Nation states is obviously primarily an idea of the 19th century, but that does not equal Nationalism in all its forms as being from the 19th century. Dylansmrjones (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism is a modern phenomenon 

message: The following snip does not seem to be supported by the quoted source: there is an inherent incompatibility between many forms of English nationalism and Cornish nationalism, since Cornwall is seen by some English nationalists as being an integral part of England. While the section 5 of the constitution for the English Democrats does mention Cornwall as a part of South West England (alongside Devon, Somerset, Dorset Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Isle of Scilly, Gibraltar (also including Bristol, Avon)) it is only in relation to the election of members to ED's National Council. And not necessarily a political statement of what ED defines as England. OTOH, they do mention Monmouthshire as part of England, but then again, the status of Monmouthshire is a part of their political Manifesto, while there is nothing on Cornwall in their Manifesto. So we cannot based on the source safely conclude that ED considers Cornwall to be an integral part of England, and that they are opposed to Cornish independence. I think we need a better source. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution of English Democrats (not EDP), English nationalists and view on Cornwall 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]