Talk:England/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

text: Manchester also has its own football team and a strong identity but it isn't a nation.  Just playing devil's advocat :)Mammal4 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Manchester has 2 football teams (although City fans reckon United are in Trafford.) And neither are national football teams. But good point. How about independence for Manchester? And an immediate declaration of war with the scouses!Jameskeates 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation

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

message: Bede of Jarrow (AD 673-735) wrote of the 'Gens Angelorum'.
:I don't think he can. See C. IVLI CAESARIS COMMENTARIORVM DE BELLO GALLICO. I did a search on all VIII librae for "Angli" with no hits found. Plenty for "Britannia" though! -- Arwel (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gens Angelorum

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

message: 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 --</br>
*That, according to Americans, the British reverse the spellings of 'angle' and 'angel,' so that 'angle' is spelled 'angel' in England and 'angel' is spelled 'angle'; AND</br>
*That, according to the British, Americans reverse the spellings of 'angle' and 'angel,' so that 'angle' is spelled 'angel' in America and 'angel' is spelled 'angle'.</br>
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)
thread_title: Anglia cf. Angelia

message: 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)
thread_title: Geography

message: 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)
replies: text: Creole: of or relating to a language that arises from contact between two other languages and has features of both. 
I object. Middle English shows the signs of a creole. For example, its grammar is much simplified compared to Old English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling in Farsi

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It is indeed. Needless to say it didn't use to be like that. Unfortunately this page gets vanadlised so often that this sort of thing can get missed. I'm gonna trawl through the history to see when the change was made. --Robdurbar 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm not sure when it happened; but I've gone right back to the version as of April 20th; I would describe the current version as neutral and 'semi-sourced'. --Robdurbar 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English identity

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

message: This means that English identity is - for better or worse - often closely associated with English nationalism and often with British Nationalism. Some English nationalists claim that the 'original culture' of England is comprised of legacies of Brythonic tribes of Celts and Anglo-Saxons appearing in waves of gradual migration. It also seen as being influenced by the Scandinavian legends such as Beowulf and the Norman Conquest. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a common early location for English identity.
What is suppose to be peculiar about this belief? Of course England was colonized by celts, then Anglo-Saxons...Further, I can assure one and all that the Norman Conquest is not a "Scandanavian legend", this really needs to be cleaned up... jme66.72.215.225 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: can anybody answer me this? -Dragong4
:They don't - you just haven't heard about the non-English ones because they don't get covered in the English media. This is a condition known as rational ignorance, whereby the gentle member of the public naively believes that the world view presented to them by the media is a complete picture. You have spotted a continuity error with their picture. Well done :) --feline1 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's not entirely true. The quesiton is about 'best-selling', not just influence (for which your describtion is slighlty better, if highly offensive to the poster); the reason for this is that English bands have had the advantage of speaking English and sharing a realtively large amount of their culture directly with the USA, the world's biggest market. --Robdurbar 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: You won't be seeing ANYTHING on top of the pops soon... it's been canceled. --Robdurbar 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thank you that *was* the hilarious subtext ;-) --feline1 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why do most of the most influential and best selling bands of all time come from England? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Note to regular editors regarding [[User:Dragong4|Dragong4]]

message: 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 TECI 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a stub section of this, it needs expansion --Robdurbar 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: First of all, I've just made some revisions to the article. Somebody seems to take delight in changing British to English throughout the article when this is blatantly wrong (English empire, English National Party, English Isles). It's happening with music and band articles - changing nationalities to English even when some members are Scottish etc. It's getting rather tiring. I could not go through the whole article, so if someone could check it out that would be sweet. Now that my rant is over, I would just like to ask which form of spelling should be used in the article -ise or -ize (e.g. criticize/organise..) I know the -ize ending isn't necessarily an Americanism (I think it comes from the original Greek influences. But the more "Frenchified" -ise is the more popular of the two in England today. I would have thought therefore that the second variation should be preferred. Would anyone agree or don't you think it matters. hedpeguyuk 4 July 2006 21:20 (UTC)
:The Oxford English Dictionary lists -ize as the main version, but in practise -ise is by far the most frequent form used. Personally, I never use -ize. -- Arwel (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to utilise both as I don't realize what I'm doing ;) ... I changed the English Empire bit before, but didn't notice all the other edits that had been made. --Robdurbar 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling ize or ise

message: This is for our friend who removed the slang terms for English because he was offended at them. They are in common usage in the media today...
*The Sunday Times, March 12, 2006, Self-rule for Sassenachs is a dead duck 
*Channel 4 News, 21-Nov-2003 Aussies reduced to pommy-bashing  (note Prince Charles also uses this term).
*For Limey, see The Limey
It was making a gratuitous point to then put offensive terms into the African American article. 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)
replies: text: There are lots of songs and films that refer to black people as niggers. The references tend to be more acceptable if made by black people. Kernow 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive nomenclature

message: Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green? Evertype 12:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? According to all other encyclopedias, Cornwall is part (a county) of England. The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate compsed of land all over the UK (not just in England). It has nothing to do with the county in th southwest except a common name. --Tēlex 13:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is disputed for good reason. Evertype 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it's a pretty marginal movement. Nevertheless, if all other encyclopedias can get away with it presenting Cornwall as an English county, at least we know that by not changing anything, Wikipedia will remain within the mainstream (per WP:NPOV#Undue weight). --Tēlex 13:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The legal status of Cornwall is a county of England. For that to change it would have to be challenged in the High Courts, which unlikely to happen. josh (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You never know ;-) it may happen. It would be interesting. As long as this movement doesn't reach the same level as aggressive Caucasus-style separatism. --Tēlex 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it should be and it could happen ;-) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cornwall#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England
Blaid 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Cornwall is a county in England, agreed.  The Duchy is irelevant as far as county designation is concerned.  Who cares, it's just parcels of land owned by the Prince of Wales.  It's of little consequence unless it's an article about the Duchy or the Prince of Wales....  2cents Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no maps showing "England" in a separate colour to the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at all, unless it is in a historical context.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Duchy of Cornwall is not really in England 

message: "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)
thread_title: Earliest human activity

message: Hey guys.  I'm trying to add that the English are skilled and brave fighters because they stood up against the Nazis.  And then someone deleted it.  Why?  Did they not kick ass in WWII?  I believe they did.
:The Kingdom of England couldn't have fought in WWII because it would have been several centuries too late: you're getting confused with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has its own article.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made to Culture section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Rugby is never refered to simply as football. The use of AFC for a football club and FC for a rugby club is extremly rare. Also the World Cup always means the one organised by FIFA. They have only been tagging their name on it for the past decade but the name "World Cup" is trademarked by FIFA for use in reference to their tournement only. josh (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch a rugby league match on telly or listen to radio commentary and you'll hear rugby referred to as football a plenty, and you'll hear the ball being called a football (whereas in football commentary they would would say "ball", making "football" sound quite odd at first).  Fair point about FIFA copyrighting the name: but this same section does talk about the 2003 Rugby World Cup and so disambiguation would be better, in at least the first mention of the FIFA World Cup.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in a rugby context such as commentary about rugby, rugby will referered to as football.  The question is : does this happen outside of a rugby context?  Morwen - Talk 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a Wikipedia context football is a disambiguation page, suggesting disambiguation is necessary.  Also, the audience of this article may well be Americans, who would assume "football" to be something else entirely.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's manual of style notes that national variations of English can (And almost 'ought to be') used in articles on these nations e.g. use 'British/Irish English' on British/Irish pages, Ozzie English on Ozzie articles etc. Especially as all the spellings here are in 'British' English, I think keeping 'football' as it is retains consistency. As for the other two... I really think neither is important. Although Rubgy - particulalry League - is often reffered to as 'football' by its followers and in a discussion of the sport, I agree that this occurs rarely outside of context (and I'm from a rugby league area too) --Robdurbar 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded so that association football appears beside rugby football, making the disambiguation appear more natural.  I've also altered the bit about the World Cup so that it links to the World Cup first, then to the 1966 competition, which I believe scans better than before (I have piped the links so that it doesn't say "FIFA World Cup").  Hopefully this version wil be satisfactory for everyone: all further mentions of football, football clubs, etc just say "football".  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association football and FIFA World Cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 60 million is the United Kingdom, not England, which has a population of 50 million. David 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha.  Thanks. IanUK 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
replies: text: Link added under "See also". Barnabypage 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where the History of England section?

message: "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)
thread_title: Conradiction in Languages section

message: 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:
#Reach agreement over the list here on the talk page and then add the list back to the page
#Leave the list out of the section completely
#Continue the edit war, in which case I'll remove it again and protect the page
Good luck, Gwernol 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over football clubs 

message: The article has improved a little over the weekend, and I totally agree with the previous comments...
Anyone want to be bold and suggest here how and where we can make our next improvements? I'd suggest the following:
*All sections below the lead need reading and re-wording to better the flow of text.
*Vastly overhall the "Brief History of England" section and re-title to "History"
*Increase the volume of text in the culture section, perhaps adding a section on "innovation" and "Engineering".
*Include mentions of the economics of England including a note on the Bank of England.
*Include more on the church reformation and its impact.
*Include more on the historic politics and monarchy of England.
*Include more images.
*Carefully check and reword some statements in the both the "English identity" and "Sport" sections, as many statements are too emotive and use weasel words.
*Improve the "English language" section:- include more academic/verifiable facts about it's origins and impact upon the wider word.
*Vastly improve and increase the amount of referencing(!) and challenge/remove questionable/biased statements.
Of course these are my own opinions so if anyone objects to any of these please feel free to do so. However, I'd encourage other editors to add anything else here which they feel can improve the article. These are challenging and time-consuming proposals, but I would undoubtedly make this article the most comprehensive and leading internet page on England. 86.133.72.79 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Nomenclature section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awkward design under "Nomenclature" 

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

message: Amoruso 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please See development on MA issue

message: Should there not be some mention of this under Sport? Deeds-123 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: London 2012

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: simply 'stopped being used' might be better phrasing, perhaps? --Robdurbar 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply phased out of use? 86.132.211.71 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Dragon 

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