Misplaced Pages

Talk:England: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:41, 12 August 2008 editButters x (talk | contribs)91 edits →Close discussion on England as country← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:59, 7 January 2025 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,649 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|noarchives=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{British English}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=00:58, 25 April 2006 |action1date=00:58, 25 April 2006
Line 13: Line 15:
|action2oldid=191035057 |action2oldid=191035057


|action3=GAN
|currentstatus=FFAC
|action3date=15:23, 22 March 2009
}}
|action3link=Talk:England/GA1
{{WikiProjectBanners
|action3result=listed
|1={{WPCountries|class=B|importance=top}}
|action3oldid=278939767
|2={{WPE|class=b|importance=top}}
|3={{WPUKgeo|class=B|importance=top|infobox=Yes|photo=
|todo=*Massively up the level of references (ideally with reliable ])
**Check article for point of view statements, redundancies and innaccuracies.
**Some statements have been tagged with {{Fact|date=April 2007}}, these need citations as a matter of priority.
*Look at other successful country articles for ideas and standard to aim towards (e.g. ], ], ])
*Up the level of information (i.e. This article should be a, if not the definitive source about England on the net).
*Improve picture quality and quantity.
*Convert all section-stubs into full encyclopedic sections.
*Many of the daughter England articles need work; please consider contributing to these also.}}
|4={{WikiProject UK|class=B|importance=top}}
}}
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography|small=yes}}
{{WP1.0|WPCD=yes|class=b|importance=top|small=yes}}
{{portal}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="font-size:smaller; width:30em; float:right; background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:0 0 1em 1em; padding:1 1em; border:1px solid #aaa;">


|action4=GAR
]
|action4date=20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
'''Note to editors''': The page ] was created in ] (en-GB).<br>Please refer to:
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/England/1
*],
|action4result=delisted
*] and
|action4oldid=295999565
*] for information on editing.</div>


|action5=PR
== It is not a Country because it doesn't have a Government; that discussion had not been finished. ==
|action5date=10:20, 4 August 2009
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/England/archive1
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=305982433


|action6=GAN
It is not a country because it doesn't have a government
|action6date=18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
|action6link=Talk:England/GA2
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=320440513


|topic=Places
England does not have a government. According to wikipedia's article on country it must have a government to be a country. 220.253.40.31 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


|action7 = GAR
:The 1st citation in this article even says it doesn't have a government. 220.253.40.31 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
|action7date = 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::It's a constituent country of the UK. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/England/2
|action7result = delisted
|action7oldid = 1246705082
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject English Language|importance=Top}}
}}
{{copied|to=Outline of England|from=England|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Outline_of_England&diff=prev&oldid=302471237}}
{{Talk:England/Country}}


{{Annual report|] and ]}}
:It still contradicts the article on country. 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Archive box

|1= ]
::In collins world atlas its borders are marked as an adminastrative divsion. It isn't included in the list of countries in Europe section eather.220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
|auto= short

|index= /Archive index
:I suggest you re-read the country article in full. Especially this bit, "the countries constituting the United Kingdom are sometimes called the home nations." The article you are trying to use to back up your point then, actually calls England a country.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
|search= yes

|bot= Lowercase sigmabot III
That article contradicts itself and this article. 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
|age= 90

}}
We need to add one of the thing which says "This article appears to contradict another article". 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:England/Archive index
:No we don't. What is contradicting exactly? England is a constituent country and complies with that definition as set out by the UK government. Looking up the definition of 'country' will be different to 'constituent country'. Your arguement makes about as much sense as saying that 'Horse-Chestnut' is not a tree, because the article on Horse contradicts it. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
|mask=Talk:England/Archive <#>
::We do have a government. --ジェイ ✉@Wikpedia／✍ 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}
:Indeed we do not, especially not just to appease one anonymous IP user whose sole contribution to wikipedia under that IP has been this thread and nothing else. However, regardless of that, England is actually described as being a Constituent countryConstituent country of the UK, which is perfectly legitimate and accurate.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Metadata: see ] -->

{{User:MiszaBot/config
The article on Constituent country says to be a Constituent country it has to be a country. 220.238.170.92 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}

|maxarchivesize = 250K
"England does not have a government." - You are confusing it with a state - the UK is a state, England is a country. --pléigh 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
|counter = 9

|minthreadsleft = 3
:Simillarly, (to 220...) we don't use Misplaced Pages to verify Misplaced Pages. A source making it explicit that England is not a country (constituent or otherwise) would help back up your claim. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:England/Archive %(counter)d
My reference is collins world atlas. It says the UK is a country too. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
}}

::Not all countries have governments, the government of the UK is "owned" by England. --ジェイ 接触 貢献 ゲストブック 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Firstly, you cant "own" a government. secondly,countries have to have governments according to wikipedia. thirdly, read collins world

atlas. To sony-youth the UK fits the definition of country. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::Jaytur1: I can't fathom what you're talking about. To say England was "owned" by the UK might make some sense, but saying the UK is owned by England, if it has any meaning at all, shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You might as well say the USA is owned by Vermont. Marnanel (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive got a new refference: Encyclopedia Britanica. And England isnt included in wikipedia's list of countries in Europe. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:1) Perhaps you could tell us what Britannica says that is relevant to the matter. Are you looking at its entry on "country", or on "England", or what? I don't have access to paper Britannica here, but the online edition calls both England and Scotland "countries" several times on their respective pages (as well as "units" and "parts" of the UK). Ultimately, though, what the British government calls them is more important than what encyclopedias call them (encyclopedias are tertiary sources, after all).

:2) You can't cite Misplaced Pages as an authority to decide what Misplaced Pages should say. There are clear errors on List of countries in Europe (it even says that the UK is known in the short form as England). Furthermore, that page doesn't make any attempt to define "country", which is what is at question here. Marnanel (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Britannica says on its England page that England is no longer anything politicle. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:Here is what I'm talking about. Please bear in mind that the question we are attempting to settle is whether the word "country" may validly be used for modern England. Whether it's "anything political" is beside the point.

It is fairly irrelevant what Britannica says, since it's a tertiary source. Encyclopedias should not base their research on other encyclopedias, and Misplaced Pages is no exception. However, since you attempted to cite Britannia, let's have a look. From the online edition:

:* even the farthest points in the country are no more than a day's journey by road or rail from London.

:* England is known as a wet country, and this is certainly true in the northwest and southwest.

:* Cultivated gardens account for much of the varied vegetation of the country.

More importantly, however, I can cite a large number of primary sources which say explicitly that England is a country. For example, here are three British government websites:

:* The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp

:* In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/glossary/c.asp

:* The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41131&L1=41127&L2=41131&L3=41011&d=4

Now please drop it. Marnanel (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. Britannica is contradicting itself. Now as for not using other encyclopedias as souses wikipedia's souse for using the UK as a country is Britannica. But back to the point. Phillip's great world atlas shows the worlds countries stisticts and england is NOT included in the list. Also the most realiable page in Britannica for seeing if england is a country would be the page on England. Also, the British government doesn't have a nuteral point of view. The Palestinians may think Palestine is a country but it doesn't mean it is. Also, if you stopped and thought about it rather than being misguided by souses that have been misguided by other souses you will find that england has a smiler meaning to the great plains. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:Your argument is incoherent. First you believe Britannica is a good source, then you don't. The page on England does say it's a country, as I said. Philip's Atlas is clearly listing sovereign states, and nobody has said England is a sovereign state. But anything I can say to you you'll ignore, and if you won't accept that what the government of a country calls the parts of the country is a valid name for them, there are no sources I can show you that you'd believe, so I don't think there's any point continuing this conversation. Marnanel (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying Britannica is a bad souse, I'm saying that where you 1st herd that England is a country is (unless it was Britannica, which i doubt).Phillip's great world atlas says COUNTRY statistics not soverain state statistics. Now, to the definition of country. you must be suggesting that things without governments can be countries. So what are you defining country on? Culture? in that case you can call a house with unusual customs a country. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On what basis can it be said that a country has to have its own distinct government? john k (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IP 220.253.40.31, finding references that do not include England in lists is not proof that England is not a country. If the UK government website says that England, Wales etc are countries, then they are countries. I think you are confusing country with something that has to be independent, which is a very narrow definition of what might a country be. The word country itself does not imply anything about the government of itself; it is just another name for an area of land, similar (but not the same as) states, nations, lands, and so on. Is Basque Country not a country? Is Vermont not a state? Is Holland not a land? What about the countryside - I suppose you can't live 'in the country' now because rural areas don't have their own government? Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.40.155 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's article on contry says that to be a country it must have a government. Now as for it calling itself a country, that's like saying that if you call yourself a country, you are a country. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages's article on country states that a country is most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government, which I guess it is. "Most commonly" makes it clear that this is not always the case. The same article gives an example where this is not the case, namely the United Kingdom, noting that "the countries constituting the United Kingdom are sometimes called the home nations". There is no contradiction between that article and this one.Hobson (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What else does it mean then? And there is still the contradiction between this article and the list of countries in Europe. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think I'm the best person to define the word country. I'm just pointing out that the Misplaced Pages articles currently do not contradict each other. The List of countries in Europe article states "The United Kingdom is comprised of the constituent countries England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."Hobson (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case that article contradicts itself. 122.105.222.138 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think we've been through alot of the core debates here, yet there seems very little desire or scope to facilitate your (122.105...) suggestions. It isn't constructive to keep repeating the same points over and over. Infact it is strongly discouraged on our guideline at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I think it might be time to look at other options or points. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. back to square 1. Acording to the country article "a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory," if it not that then it has to be a nation. if that's the case, what makes you think that EVERYONE in england shares the same identity? Especialy all those people who have invaded it and lived there throghout history.122.105.218.141 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't get an English passport. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:Don't you get it? England is a Constituent Country, as defined by the UK Government, so harping on about it not being a country is pointless, it's a different thing. One thinks you have an agenda here. As for your above, you can't get a Welsh or Scottish passport either - but they're countries and have their own governments and assemblies. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it? Constituent Countrys are all countrys acording to wikipedia's artice on them. Wales and Socotland don't fit the definition of country. Navarda has its own government but it isn't a country. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

England doesn't have a seat at the UN. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:But it is represented separately from Wales, Scotland and NI at the Commonwealth Games. If it were not a country but merely an area of land that's part of a larger country, that would make no sense. True, when it comes to the Olympics, the UK as a whole is represented, not the constituent parts. But remember when the USSR first broke up and the new separate countries decided to field a united team known as the Commonwealth of Independent States? Nobody thought this meant that those new independent states were not separate "countries". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason they have different teams in the games is because the divisions of the UK like to think of themselves as countries, even though they're not. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:This whole argument is pointless me and only me should decide what is a country and what isn't so next time you want to know if it is a country and what is a giant bloke of land you know who to call and as for hovercrafts they are not countries and helicopters are not either good night folks.
::ps: hey Nik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.152.177 (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:It isn't a real country in the sence that Germany is a country or Belgium is a country, which is pretty clear and hasn't been since the Acts of Union 1707. But you won't win an argument on the matter, the "English" "national"ists (unwilling to accept that they're British) won't allow it. And so on all Misplaced Pages pages, British cities do not have, for example Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.. but Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

::Perhaps if the "English" want to be angry about it they should study the history of the English Civil War and consider, "would England instead still be a real country today, had Oliver Cromwell never been born". I suppose until then, Parliament will have to make do with disbanding the historic counties, causing more confusion on topics relating to this area, its identity and culture. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond? If not is it OK for me to change constituent country to main division if no one responds by April? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

:No, it's not okay. Constituent country is the most often used term. TharkunColl (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

::Actually, if you check how many sources you come across that call England a 'country' compared to the number that describe it as a 'constituent country', I think you'll find that 'constituent country is not used very often - apart from in Misplaced Pages where it seems to crop up all over the place! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The most common term used is wrong for reasons I have said above. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:I'm afraid it is a weak argument to simply dismiss the evidence of the most common term used because it disagrees with your definitions. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not my definitions they're wikipedia's. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

:The argument put forward by user 122.105.217.71 has been repeated on the talk pages of the other constituent countries of the UK. Argue the case against, with cites, on the talk page for Constituent Countries and if successful there, delete the link here Alastairward (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But its a bigger consern with those pages than with the constiuent country page. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Misplaced Pages is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

UK law is simply wrong as they do not fit the definition. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:I suspect, as in so many things, the UK law pre-dated the definition. There's a clue there! Kbthompson (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone supply a reference that: a)The law says that they are countries and b) that the law was passed before the definition. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the CIA's World Factbook lists "United Kingdom" and NOT "England." It DOES list Jersey, and the Isle of Man and other small states and dependencies. It's also correct that England has no independent government, passport or embassies. It fails the definition of "nation" in every category. Constituent Country, as the article uses at present, is probably the correct term, because England does not meet the criteria for nation or country of itself. I've been looking at this debate for weeks, and the OP is correct.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

:Most of what the Westminster parlianent does concerns England. England is indeed a nation and a country. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of what the Indian government does concerns warm arias. I doubt you think they're a country.122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:: this matter was extensively discussed on the Wales page and is now resolved. If you look there you will find UK Government sources that list England as a constituent country together with other material. I think I prefer the UK Government to the CIA's world fact book in respect of the constitutional arrangements within the UK --] (]) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The UK's government is not 3rd party. Its point of view is not neutral; it probably says England is a country just to stay/become popular. And there are the two atlases I cited. ] (]) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was 'resolved' with the discovery that the opposition were trolls. ] (]) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.citymayors.com/features/capitals.html has a list of countries and their capitals, and England is not included in the list their ether. ] (]) 06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

:It seems to be ] a country: ) <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That source is not 3rd party it says what its population wants to think. ] (]) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:OK. Well, you haven't convinced me, nor (m)any others. Looks like there's not a consensus for your preferences to be facilitated. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An article aimed at a global audience really shouldn't be using a special regional meaning of a common English word in the defining sentence. I know the article is written in British English, but this is needless obfuscation. Most readers think they know what a country is, and seeing England defined as one will not be helpful, when what is actually meant is "country in the British constitutional sense". Covering it in citations flags the problem, but does not fix it. How about just "part", or "the largest and most populous part (or "country")", and explaining the usage in the Etymology and usage section? ] (]) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:This has been discussed at length in the past, but seems to always come back to the same position. The trouble is that England is ] a country. Not only that, but simiply removing it from the lead here has no effect on the thousands of articles, templates, infoboxes that use the word "country" themselves. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::Since the term is used by the government, it should certainly be in the article. My objection is to using it in the definition of England in the first sentence. ] (]) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::The whole proposition on which this discussion is based is fundamentally flawed, because England ''does'' have a government specific to itself. Almost all government ministries deal only with England. These same functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are dealt with by the devolved governments (and prior to their creation, by the offices responsible for those countries, e.g. the Scottish Office). It shows a complete lack of understanding of how our constitution works to suggest that England has no government. And the fact that a small percentage of MPs represent constituencies outside England is also completely irrelevent - a country can run itself however it likes. England comprises 83% of the population of the UK, and to suggest that it is not in control of its own affairs is palpably ridiculous. Indeed, so overwhelmingly does it dominate, it can even afford to be generous. ] (]) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Your last sentence has no bearing on this discussion! It does not even make sense! --] (]) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::By allowing, for example, a higher number of MPs from the other countries than their populations would merit. ] (]) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't question the fact that England is a country. I question your last statement. England does not allow anything, The UK government does! --] (]) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::Not to get off topic, but does England have a ''First Minister'' (like Scotland, England & Northern Ireland)? ] (]) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::It has a prime minister, whose authority in the other countries is much more limited than in England. I'm not saying there aren't grey areas - in particular matters concerned with the armed forces, which ''are'' under central government control throughout the UK. Most other matters outside England though are dealt with by their own administrations. ] (]) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Basically, it's location. No ''First Minister of England'' due to the fact the UK Government is located in (well) England. Hmmm, perhaps I can persuade the ] government to dissolve (as the Canadian Government is located in Ontario); Oh well, different sovereign countries = different political setups. Interesting stuff, though. ] (]) 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The main difference I suppose is that the UK is not a federal state. The governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland derive their authority from Acts of the Westminster parliament and all their powers are delegated (and could in theory be taken away at any time). Also, Ontario doesn't dominate Canada either in terms of size or, even more importantly, population - at least, nowhere near the same extent as England does in the UK. Creating a separate parliament for England would be truly monumental waste of time and money. And it would leave the UK government with virtually nothing to do - except defence and foreign relations. ] (]) 07:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::There are of course many English people who would like a devolved English parliament! ] (]) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
England is NOT a country. No country on the face of the planet recognises a country called "England", neither is there any form of "English Government". Even Cornwall and Devon eash have Stannary Parliaments! Muppets. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::As far as I am aware, the Cornish and Devonish stannary parliaments are not manned by muppets - though neither are they recognised by Westminster as having any legislative ability. ] (]) 07:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:I think you are confusing "country" with ]. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me ''and'' all the sources I've mentioned. ] (]) 07:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:: As far as I can see the only source you have mentioned is the absence of England from a list which has been countered. This issue has been resolved elsewhere and it looks like the same (weak) arguments are being asserted here as we had on the Wales page, with similar forms of argument --] (]) 07:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is ''3'' lists, not just one, and it has no been countered. The issue has ''not'' been resolved elsewhere, as you have "won" the dispute by calling everyone a troll. Jza84, you are saying something that has already been said, and my answer is the same: a country can be a nation, not just an independent state. Anyone who wants to dispute the definition I'm using, do it on the country discussion page, not here. ] (]) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::: Well we had one Troll on the Wales Page, who then turned out to be a sock puppet Gozitancrabz (and one with a persistent record of such behaviour) who was then banned, That person made much of lists and misquoted BBC reports Now you (122.109.250.74) were not engaged in that debate In fact your edit history starts on 29th April which was the time the sock puppetry was first formally reported and Gozitancrabz stopped editing. Can we have some reassurance from you here? --] (]) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Simillarly 122.109.250.74, I think the time as come to close this discussion. There's very little, if any support for the change you seek. Repeating your point over and over without bringing fresh, scholarly evidence is the type of thing discouraged on our page ]. I have a duty too, to make you aware that a country and nation are not the same too 122; a country is a territory, or division of land, whilst a nation is a group of people that occupy it, as has been established. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated myself because the same "its not a country but a constituent country" argument presented 3 times by different people, along with many others. To keep things simple, below is a summery of my arguments:

A country is ether an independent state, or a nation. It's clearly not an independent state, and it is not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. If you dispute ether of the definitions, dispute it on its own article, not here. Any one else, don't act like I invented the definitions, like some have before, as they are on the country wikipedia article.
My references are: Phillip's atlas, Collins atlas, the CIA and http://www.citymayors.com/features/capitals.html.
You can't get an English passport, and England doesn't have a seat at the UN.
Don't give me the "its not a country but a constituent country" argument as the constituent country page says it is a type of country.
Don't say "stop repeating yourself" as i have explained why i do so.
Don't give me UK gov references as they are not 3rd party or neutral so do not qualify as suitable souses.
Don't tell me to end this argument as some users have shown support for me. ] (]) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:Who said "a country is an independent state"? What definition or source are you alluding to that suggests this is the case? <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 12:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I said "a country is ether an independent state or a nation." my reference is the country page if you dispute the definition, dispute it there and not here. ] (]) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right:
# In British English (or at least the version preferred by the UK government), England and the rest are "countries".
# In the rest of the world, "country" is synonymous with "state", and in places that have states, "country" is the preferred term.
# This article is written in British English, but using "country" in the British sense in the first sentence will be very confusing to non-British readers. For those readers the British usage needs an explanation, which should be later in the article. Making them follow a wikilink or look at references just to understand the first sentence is unreasonable.
Hence I suggest just "part" in the first sentence (like Britannica) with an explanation of the British usage later. ] (]) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:British English? Cite please. ] (]) 08:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with the first two points raised above! But why isn't a wikilink OK? British English should be used here and thus such a motion should be fine! Perhaps we should ask for the article Cookie to be rewritten to biscuit as we British can't understand what a 'cookie' is meant to be!I would have though UK goverment links should be enough to prove the case? --] (]|]|]) 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::Oh but we can understand it: the first sentence of the article tells us what it means by a cookie, without us having to chase off to other articles or refs to understand it. The whole lead can be read without such interruption, except (for some) for the last word. ] (]) 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm British, I'm even a Unionist; constituent "part" is fine by my account, but this change you seek has never been popular with the majority of editors, and there are many sources given to verify the claim. I suppose you could raise this with ] to get some feedback. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::A brilliant idea, if ever I saw one! = )--] (]|]|]) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaz84, could you be a bit more clear; i don't know who "you" is and a can't tell which claim "the claim" is ether. Cameron, I'm waiting for the reference. ] (]) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::A reference as to what, if I may inquire? = ) --] (]|]|]) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That England is a country is British English. ] (]) 06:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well that is going to be rather hard if you won't let me use British sources. I have a Commonwealth Act one stating that a country needn't been independent . --] (]|]|]) 14:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:Officially, England is not a "country", but a "constituent country"; the two do not mean the same thing. I think this needs to be made clear ] (]) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations 12.106.168.180! You are the 4th person to say that! Misplaced Pages's article says that constituent countries are a type of country. If you dispute that go to ]. Cameron, what about finding a British dictionary with the definition that if used England is a country? ] (]) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's more references for it not being a country: http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm, http://dir.yahoo.com/regional/countries/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/collab/country.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/worldref/country/country_index.htm#e, http://www.state.gov/misc/list/, and http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/StaatenlisteVisumpflicht.html. I think that England is definitely not a country in American English. ] (]) 07:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:I think you're wrong about that. In Amercian English, "England" is certainly a country - and includes Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. ] (]) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what the talk about American vs. British English is about, but I don't think there's a particular difference in the definition. The difference is how people interpret the words ''country, nation, and state'' (even all the sources don't agree on the semantics). There are almost ten separate definitions in some dicitionaries on just the word country. I have never personally thought of England as a separate country (different region of the UK), but I don't see what the problem with leaving it as ''constituent country'' is. None of the constituent countries of the UK are fully independent, as they have the same military, currency, passport, central government,.... No matter what you call them, they are what they are, and I think we're getting too caught up in semantics here. And just because some of them have devolved governments like Scotland, doesn't automatically make it an indpendent country. In the U.S., every state has it's own government that passes their own laws, have different taxes, different official languages, etc., but no one would consider any U.S. state a separate country. ] (]) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::The US government do not claim they are anything other than states. The Downing St website says that England is a country. Where is the argument? ] (]) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
''Where is the argument?'' There wasn't an argument from me, as I stated that I agree that it should be left as "constituent country", even though my own opinion is that they are not separate countries. I believe the UK government website that I read a few months back specifically called them "constituent" countries. The argument from others is that they're saying you can't use the the UK government websites as sources and need a 3rd party source. The reason that I brought up the U.S. states is that I was just saying that I didn't believe you could use the "has it's own government" as a reason that it's a country, especially if there is a higher government (UK being higher level than England, Scotland, Wales,...). The nationalists in the autonomous communities in Spain try to call their regions/communities separate nations/countries as well (Basque and Catalonia specifically), but the world thinks of Spain as just one country. ] (]) 09:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::, , , , , . These are just a few link certifying that England is a country. They come from Ebassies, Travel agents, government sites and articles. --] (]|]|]) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop giving me biased British websites. I couldn't tell wether the last two were British, but all the others were. Only non British references are 3rd party on this. Show me one of those, then it needs to be stated in the article that it is disputed. Tharkuncoll, you disputed about 10 references, and didn't give any yourself. Kman543210, have you read ]? It clearly says that they are a type of country. It is definitely not a country is American English as Yahoo, the CIA and the Washington Post all say its not. ] (]) 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I have read "constituent country" and fully understand what it means; pretty much England is called a country within a country by the British sources. I've already stated that I personally don't think that England is a country, but I'm not going to argue semantics. It may be American sources that say that it isn't a country, but I just don't think it's inherent to American English vs. British English but rather viewpoint; it seems to me a nationalistic pride thing (that's why I equated it to Catalonia in Spain). Again, I personally think that each state in the U.S. has more autonomy than England itself, but I just feel using the term "constituent country" is a middle ground. I was not disagreeing with your opinion that it is not a country, but I'm not sure that we can discount ''all'' British sources like you suggested. ] (]) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew you weren't disagreeing with me, but I have no idea how reach the conclusion that constituent country is middle ground. Middle ground would be saying that there are references for both sides, or simply not stating its country status at all. The "nationalistic pride thing" is exactly why British references are untrustworthy on this subject. The reason I bring up the British/American English is because Kanguole said "In British English (or at least the version preferred by the UK government), England and the rest are countries". ] (]) 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::I can assure you that I am not proud of any nation on earth! I merely seek to add country to the intro as the whole country (England) refers to England as one! Even the government seems to think so!The Scotland article already has it written in its intro!--] (]|]) 11:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

England thinks its a country, that is correct. But if I think I am a country does it make me one? ] (]) 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Find a source for it and I'll call you a country! It's not really the best name in the world. :> ] (]) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

a source from a US government website. ] (]) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks josh! So now we have US government, UK government and Commonwealth Acts stating that England is a country. I hope that is sufficient for everyone?--] (]|]) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me where in that it says England is a country. I don't want to look through all of it. If there are reliable, 3rd party references that say England is and and ones that say England isn't a country we say that it is disputed. Anything wrong with that? ] (]) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
: don't feed the troll people. ] (]) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember to ]. And in any case, I am not the one who is following someone around and calling them "troll" at every opportunity. Remember too, ]. ] (]) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:On page 45 it calls England and Scotland "constituent countries" and Wales a principality. ] (]) 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(at anon ip 122.....) The assumption of good faith can only be upheld by showing good faith edits and comments. There is no likelihood whatsoever this discussion will go your way, hence continuing provides evidence of disruptive discussion which evidence overwhelms any assumption of good faith. ] (]) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Arnoutf, Yorkshirian and 90.216.167.10 have shown support for me. Reliable, 3rd party refferences have been shown for both sides, so we need to say it is disputed. Anyone have a problem with that? ] (]) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

: To say that England is not a country (or Wales or Scotland for that matter) flies in face of UK government web sites and all common usage. To say it is disputed is a nonsense, or the equivalent of saying that evolution is disputed because some people think the world was created in 4004 BC. I think Arnoutf may well be right, we are feeding trolls in this debate which seems to have been orchestrated on all three country pages in the last month --] (]) 07:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It flies in the face of the UK government ''because it is not a nutural reference on this subject and so can not be used''. Common usage? It has been months since I have herd anythng that stupid. I do not belive you belive what you are saying. Unless country has a different meaning in your casul dialect to mine, country means "independent state". I have seen ''1'' sutible reference that England is a country whereas I have supplied several references. Can you stop with the insults? If not I suggest you take a wikibreak. ] (]) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

: OK you think its stupid I think I can live with that. Country does not mean independent state, check out the appropriate pages in Misplaced Pages and the discussions on the talk pages. If you want to carry on with these intemperate posts then fine, but I suggest you put a brake on your wiki editing (just to help you out here, that is a reference to your final spelling mistake). Continuing to push a line beyond reason in the face of consensus is to push a POV and potentially to be labelled as a Troll. --] (]) 09:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think country's common usage is then? If you disagree with me I think you should respond to all (or at least as many as you can) of my comments rather than just responding to one. The definition of country that I used then was just the way I have always found it to be used, before I went on wikipedia that is. I know the country pages well, and to me it is as clear as day that England does not fit the definition.

P.S. That last statement of yours is complete rubbish. There is no consensus and "push a line beyond reson" you're doing that, not me. ] (]) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

: Suggest you pop into the sandpit and learn how to use Misplaced Pages - indenting would help. Otherwise a bit of research on the other country pages will show you the debates that have taken place and the evidence presented. also look at the ] page for definitions. That way you might avoid other editors having to waste time repeating issues which have been discussed and resolved. --] (]) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't know what you mean by "sandpit" or "indenting". Can you specify which arguments from which arcives from which article you want me to read? ] (]) 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

::: I indented your comment for you (just to help out). The sandpit is where you go to learn how to edit the Misplaced Pages and I suggest you spend time there). I am not going to do your research for you the articles are there, the topics are clear go and look. --] (]) 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is not that clear, Scotland has had 19 archives, and, if what you say is true, I would be continualy re-reading the same arguments. ] (]) 11:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: Go to the talk age on Wales you will see several discussions on the current page (and I indented you again) --] (]) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I find the sandpit? ] (]) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:Look ]. For indenting look ]. ] (]) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure how the sandbox is supposed to help me edit, but I have had a good long look at the Wales discussion page. Both sides seem to be ignoring each other. The "it's a country" side is acting like the others references are not trustworthy (when they are) and the "it's disputed" side is ignoring the fact that there lists don't include England or Scotland ether. I can address this criticism by having a slightly different position; I think that England and Scotland aren't countries. ] (]) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Well if you don't try (the sandpit) you will never learn. I have indented for you (again). The Wales page was a debate between a majority of the editors and what turned out to be <s>and one other (if we ignore the</s> two sock puppets. The question of "lists" was debated there and evidence provided both to establish that Wales is a country and also that the lists and other dubious web sites did not provide evidence that it wasn't. ow if you can't accept that and persist in stating that Wales, Scotland and England are not countries then I don't think anyone could persuade you and further attempts (like getting you to learn basic conventions of editing) would be a waste of time. --] (]) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::A good idea would be to look through all the tutorial pages and even print them off. Then use the sandbox to practice indenting etc. It's also a good idea to open an account which enables you to have your own sandbox. ] (]) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::What evidence? All I have seen that is suitable is 1 USA government website. It is also not helpful to say "if you don't try you will never learn" when I don't know what I am supposed to be trying to do with the sandpit. ] (]) 06:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: As to what you can learn, start with using colons to indent your comment. I have now done this for you three times in a effort to help you understand a basic protocol. Jack Forbes also gave you some links. I suggest you following them. And, while you are at it read the material again. If you only saw 1 USA web site then you have not read it. --] (]) 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another reference for me is http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasing-power-parity-per-capita. ] (]) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, I think it's clear that that's how the word is usually understood outside the UK. As for British English, the ] (1893) has "3. The territory or land of a nation ; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." I do, however, feel that the word is unsuitable for the lead, precisely because it is misleading for non-British readers. "Constituent country" is less bad, as it is merely confusing rather than misleading. ] (]) 07:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What is less bad about Constituent country? Don't forget that the Oxford dictionary is British. ] (]) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:For a non-British reader, "England is a country" says that England is an independent state, while "England is a constituent country" merely sounds garbled, causing the reader to pause and perhaps guess that this is some quaint Britishism for a part of an independent state. It would be even better if the first sentence could be read without having to stop and guess. ] (]) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:: That is not my experience. People in Washington USA, Singapore, Canada, Brazil and Greece are fully aware (going on my experience in the last three months) of the the fact that the UK has different countries. Not all the population by any means, but the informed reader. In addition ] does not require a country to be sovereign. The first paragraph makes the position perfectly clear and the links will elaborate if anyone is confused. --] (]) 09:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I very much agree with Snowded on this matter. To the list of people in different countries, I would add, from my own experience, people from Japan and China (and not just educated people from Beijing in tis last case): in all the cases I have come across people, not especially ''extremely'' well-read, know about the status of the UK and the different countries that are contained within it, and this has been from the beginning of me getting to know them. Even my son, who was educated in a Chinese primary school for quite a few years, was taught about this in one of his lessons there. ]&nbsp;] 09:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, but the problem still remains if the reader chooses to follow the link ], they will probably think it means that England is an independent state that is part of an international body (such as the EU). ] (]) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think they would, since going and actually reading the article makes it very clear this is not what it means with respect of England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland when one reads the section dealing with the United Kingdom. However, perhaps I am mistaken. In which case, if you think it is unclear on this matter, you are at liberty to go and edit it to make it more clear in your opinion, thus achieving a net positive to an article very easily, rather than spend more time repeating points here which, from the points of view of all sides on the issue, seem to getting nowhere. ]&nbsp;] 09:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your personal experience is contradicted by the large number of references I have presented. Snowded, you are one of heaps of people to say that. I have said many times that I accept the definition of country on the country page that countries don't have to be independent states. According to that definition if it's not that then to be a country it has to be a nation, which England isn't because not everyone there would share the same identity. If you dispute any of the above go to the appropriate page. ] (]) 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:I commented on the clarity with which the article on constituent countries makes its point. None of the references you provide have argued at all in favour of the wikipedia article being not clear, so I fail to see the relevance of your point. Neither do any of your references argue against my observations in China or of the primary school teaching in China, and so again, you are wrong to say that they do. ]&nbsp;] 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you say the status of the UK and its divisions are? I need to know this because it depends on what status they know about whether they contradict it or not. ] (]) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
: See previous comments, you are starting to look like a vandal/Troll --] (]) 10:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::I have seen no vandalism by ]. ] (]) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing to look like one, and which comments should I see? ] (]) 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
: persistent assertion of a position without adding arguments, not reading or thinking about material posted by others, perversely refusing to follow editing conventions, wasting other editors time. I could go on but can't be bothered. --] (]) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:Seems to me both Snowded and myself have tried to help you out! Not working, is it? In case you missed it, my advice to you was to read the tutorial pages, print them off then practice in the sandbox. If you create an account you can have your own sandbox. ] (]) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Now I understand. Snowded, I have said multiple times why I repeat myself, and its because some people (e.g. you) are saying things that others have already said before. I am "reading or thinking about material posted by others". I don't see why you think I am not. I haven't refused "to follow editing conventions" I just have not because I was not aware of them. Here are some more references that say England isn't a country. *http://www.postur.is/english/Business_Solutions/To_and_from_Iceland/Countries_in_Europe.html
*http://www.internationalgiftitems.com/european_countries.htm
*http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/geo/countrylist.php
*http://www.timberhunt.com/timber_trade/europe.html
*http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/regions#table1_europe
*http://www.yourchildlearns.com/europe_map.htm
*http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm
*http://www.obs.coe.int/db/persky/ ] (]) 01:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

: Well you are now aware of them (editing conventions) and have ignored them yet again. The validity of lists like this as against official documents and common use was extensively discussed during a similar debate on Wales. I see no need to repeat those arguments yet again and I refer you to them. I must also say that given recent experience with multiple sock puppets I am not inclined to give Anon contributions much credibility, especially when their arguments are similar to those of said sock puppets. I think if no one else supports you this discussion is over. --] (]) 02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the editing conventions ''now'' but a actually wasn't when I made the list. I will rearrange it. Common usage is disputed, and the official documents are not 3rd party references, something you are ignoring. Not giving anon people credibility is biased, and I would advise you to stop it. You are also ignoring the fact that others have supported me. ] (]) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


This is probably a good definition of England (re-worded to give emphasis on England itself): The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales ] (]) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

::It is unacceptable to have the word 'country' in the article and have that word linked to the 'constintuent country' article. This article should read that England is a constituent country, not simply a country. There needs to be consistency on Misplaced Pages. Wales and Northern ireland are termed constituent countries whilst England and Scotland are termed countries. If the term country is to be used here it would then clash with articles such as France, Spain, Mexico or any over PROPER country articles. LET'S HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY. ] (]) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Tom, I strongly suggest you look through the archives of this talk page, and (importantly) look at the mediation link at the top of this page. This is not a simple change you seek. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::: I'd support Jza84. Attempts to get a common agreement across Wales, Scotland and England failed after a months debate and mediation. Wales is currently under information mediation around a proposal (currently with majority support) to conform with Scotland and England. Scotland insists on country and will not change to constituent country. Consistency is more likely to be achieved by standing still. The specific points you raise have been debated ad nausiam over the last month so you can read them in the UK pages and mediation. --] (]) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree that consistency seems impossible. However Tom Green does have a point about "country" linking to "constituent country". I suggest that it return to "constituent country" linking to "constituent country", as it was until the consistency-driven changes that led to the failed mediation. ] (]) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Read the first source that is cited - it clearly shows that England is a country within the country that is the United Kingdom. Trying to suggest that England is not a country is just plain silly. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is probably a unique situation, that does not mean however that the countries that make up this united kingdom are not indeed countries. If one reads the history beind it then it is all apparent. I can see why non British people might get confused if they don't have the knowledge of the situation but that shouldn't be a factor, it's not hard to read up on it. (] (]) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

== Close discussion on England as country ==

As far as I can see we have one anon user (122.105.220.129) arguing that England is not a country. Looking back through a very long discussion I can seek weak support not repeated from another anon user. Now there is a lot if prior discussion so I could have missed one so apologies if so. All other editors are for country status and this replicates discussions elsewhere such as ]. On all normal grounds this discussion should now cease and be archived. Does anyone, other than ] disagree? If there is any support for ] then I suggest we move straight to a vote, if not then I think it is over and persistence by ] should be reported as vandalism. --] (]) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, I also stated previously that I don't think of England as a country for several reasons; however, I am fine with keeping it as "constituent country" because the article there defines what that means in a broad sense. I also realize that "country" can have several different meanings from an independent country to a group of people or region. I think of England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland just as Catalonia and Galicia in Spain (although they call them "autonomous communities").
:So question for user 122.105.220.129: What was your suggestion in the first place to change it to? I think saying "constituent country within the United Kingdom" indicates that it is a separate piece of a whole. I am fine with that. And for everyone else, I don't think his persistence can be considered vandalism since I don't see how he has tried to continually change the article; he just has a very strong opinion based on several legitimate sources. You can find legitimate sources for both sides of this discussion about it being a country and not being a country. Like I had said before, we are just arguing semantics, and I agree that this matter should just be closed. What I do find interesting is that the Scotland article seems to be the only one that does not use "constituent country" and just wants to label it as "country." ] (]) 03:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Snowded, Yorkshirian and 90.216.167.10|90.216.167.10 have shown direct support for me, so please stop acting like it's only me. Weak support?! You call about 15 references weak support?! I have seen ''1'' 3rd party reference for it being a country. Also, votes aren't good because they can easily be rigged by sockpuppeting. Kman543210, I suggest changing it to something like "a division under direct control from the UK government that does not have any mid-level administration". ] (]) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

: PLEASE PLEASE learn how to edit, colons are not too hard are they? How many times do you have to he told?
: Sorry two people with single entries is weak support, especially when you read what they said and the number of other editors on the other side. Number of references has nothing to do with that statement. Kman543210' suggestion is reasonable, corresponds with the page on Wales and would I think gain a consensus. I suggest you accept it. If no one else enters this debate then I think the status quo stands and there is no authority for you (or anyone else) to amend the current text. --] (]) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not using these as references, but I was just curious how other online encyclopedias handle this. Here are three examples (sorry they are describing Scotland instead of England, but I think you get the idea):
::"most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom, occupying about one-third of the island of Great Britain" (Britannica)
::"political division of Great Britain (1991 pop. 4,957,000), 30,414 sq mi (78,772 sq km), comprising the northern portion of the island of Great Britain and many surrounding islands" (Columbia)
::"one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (MSN Encarta)
::None of these use the word "country," but I am still fine with using "constituent country" in the article. ] (]) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, what have colons got to do with this? Number of references has plenty to do with the statement, it shows how much backing up I have. 90.216.167.10 didn't have a good argument, but Yorksiren did. His point is the reason, and the only reason, why I have not won this debate. Also, I think it would be more productive if you had actual evidence rather than your evidence being not many people agreeing with me. Kman543210, I'm still not sure why you find "country" not OK, but constituent country OK, when, if England is not a country, it is clearly not a constituent country. ] (]) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

: Colons are a basic fomating device when you comment, to indicate who you are responding to. Jack and I have tried to explain this several times and illustrated it as well as pointing you to the sandpit to learn more. Persistently ignoring such advice is not likely to gain you a sympathetic audience or provide credibility that you have read material already provided on this subject.

: Your "evidence" has been handled on other pages (Wales in particular) where substantial evidence has been provided and cited to say that these are countries. If you bother to check you will see lists of evidence and refutations. As far as I am concerned its over. Unless someone other than you comes in and argues against ] or refutes the existing evidence there is no point in continuing the argument. Kman is right to say that you are not being a vandal, that was an error on my part. However continuing to argue a position in isolation is tedious and in terms of Misplaced Pages behaving like a troll, even if you do not intend to. Please do the decent thing and desist --] (]) 08:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What handling? There was the criticism that all their references had England and Scotland as countries, which I have addressed by saying that none of them are. There is just 1 non British and therefor 3rd party referece that says England is a country.
*http://www.spike.com/video/england-is-province/2796320?cmpnid=800&lkdes=VID_2796320
*http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/englandnot.htm
*http://geography.about.com/b/2006/06/08/england-is-not-a-country.htm
*http://in-ger-land.blogspot.com/2007/05/england-is-not-country.html
] (]) 01:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

: I repeat (i) you are failing to format (ii) you are failing to read prior data. --] (]) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::Actually, you're repeating yourself. I also suggest you base your decisions on logic rather that what everyone else is doing. I am trying to follow the formats, but it's difficult to learn everything at once. ] (]) 08:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::For the record, if I were writing this article myself, I would not use the word "country" at all and would choose to use a version similar to the other encyclopedic examples above; however, I fully understand the flexibility of the definition of the word "country." So to answer the question of 122.105.220.129, I am fine with using "constituent" country, even though I don't think of England as a country, because it at least specifies the type of country as defined by the ] article on wikipedia. As long as it's in the same sentence and indicates England is in the United Kingdom, then this diminishes the chance of confusion of thinking England is independent. I also believe that there are enough sources that use ''country'', ''nation'', or ''constituent country'' to support incorporating that term. ] (]) 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

]

::: Colons at last! Yes I am repeating myself and getting fed up of having to do so in the face of a stubborn refusal by you to read or pay attention to prior discussions. However your first properly formatted reply deserves some recognition so I decided to respect the Misplaced Pages convention to be tolerant and check out your authorities. I more or less instantly regretted my decision You quote (i) a satirical video made with a hand held camera of no authority, (ii) & (iii) citations from about.com which is primarily an advertising site with no authority and (iv) a blog which references said about.com and therefore is not a new authority. If that constitutes evidence God help us all. However the style of your writing and the use of about.com and similar web links reminds me strongly of Gozitancrabz a sock puppet on the Wales page so I am now getting suspicious. Either way sock puppet or not I think you now deserve this badge and I will act accordingly hereafter. --] (]) 09:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::: FAD - above references 122.105.220.129 not Kman543210 --] (]) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:::: I have paid plenty of attention to prior discussions and I have responded appropriately. Those references that you addressed were just 4 of the many more that I've presented. You on the other hand haven't given any references yourself while continually pressuring me to stop this discussion, so I have actually wondered whether you are a troll. I am not Gozitancrabz. ] (]) 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, the one time Snowded commented on my references is also the one time they were not reliable. ''big'' coincidence, don't you think? ] (]) 02:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

: What are you talking about? Come to think of it, don't bother this discussion is over. --] (]) 06:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You have never said ''anything'' about my reliable references, you just mention the ones that are unreliable. ] (]) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowded is trying to win this debate by disrupting me, so I suggest everyone should ignore him. ] (]) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

: I pointed you to multiple discussions over the country issue and suggested you read them as you were raising no new issues. Finally as an act of charity I handled the latest set you cited. I am pleased you admit they were unreliable. You disrupt yourself ... --] (]) 07:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If a few non British read this debate they would be sure that England is not a country. My gess as at why they havn't commented is that mostly British try to improve the article and any non British who do would be put of by the British, who are clearly in denial. ] (]) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
: I am not British and I know that England is a country. ] (]) 12:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There would still be a couple of non British who are still in denial, but most probably wouldn't be. ] (]) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And it is quite possible you are convinced, but like annoying me as you often call me "troll" and, like Snowded, keep telling everyone to stop the debate. ] (]) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It should at least be mentioned in the intro that England has no government. ] (]) 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

::England does have a government though. The Parliament in Westminster is the English parliament, it merely passed acts making Scotland and so on part of the Kingdom and renaming itself. At any time it wants the parliament in London has the power to repeal these acts, and it would return to just governing England. It may be "dormant" as such but the power of the English parliament is still there and can do what it wants vis a vis the acts of union. So I don't think you can really say England doesn't have a government, as such. (] (]) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
''If'' it undid those acts England would have a government. If you look at ] you'll see that all laws in England also apply to Wales, so right now England has no more government than the square meter of ground below me. ] (]) 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

: You continue to miss the point. The Parliament in Westminster can pass acts which just relate to England (and de facto does so given the disposal of powers to Wales and Scotland. Until you can create a sustainable argument with citations this will not go anywhere --] (]) 11:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have a case of ], as indicated by the fact that you continuously ignore the countless references I have given and change the subject whenever I bring this up. ] (]) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I think we're ignoring you actually. This isn't a case of ], but rather ]. You have no consensus, and you're not likely to ever get one. Move along - we have. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it happened again. When I bring my massive support up, you avoid responding to it. Snowded has said what you just said countless times, so you are the one with ]. Any reasonable open minded person can see that I have won this debate. Just bring a few non-English here and you'll see the support I will have. ] (]) 01:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

England is a country. End of STORY (It rhymes!) It will not be changed. No more trolling. No more irrelevant crap. If this continues i will get an Admin to try and stop this general trolling/spamming. This debate is OVER. Now get used to it. (] (]) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

If you are going to get an admin could they please be non-English? ] (]) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:] please. ] (]) 08:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I want a non-British admin to prevent bias in the ruling, in the same way a Judge can not know the people in court. ] (]) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you some advice. Just leave it. Your argument has failed. England’s status on this page as a country will never be changed. Second, your comment that an English Admin would be Bias is woefully misjudged; Third, I don’t see you having a problem with Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland being called countries, which is very suspicious. I have absolutely no idea why you are even here, considering you have no interest at all in the main article at all other than to try and disrupt it with your misguided and poorly sourced comments. Why don’t you go do something better with your time rather than coming here and trying to fight for a lost argument. (] (]) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

== RIP Constituent country ==

Sniff sniff. I see ''constituent country'' was removed from this article. ] (]) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

::It should remain, as it is the only accurate, non-misleading term that can be applied. ] (]) 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:::IF it is deleted here, it should be deleted in ], right? But it's still there. But looking at Google Books, there seems to be enough references, so what's the problem?--] (]) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Richard Arkwright – inventor of the first industrial spinning machine ==

in the section about Engineering and innovation

Richard Arkwright didnt invent the spinning machine

as it says in the article;
Sir Richard Arkwright (Old Style 23 December 1732 / New Style 3 January 1733 – 3 August 1792), was an Englishman who is '''credited''' for inventing the spinning frame — later renamed the water frame following the transition to water power. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Why British English??==
Why does the England page use British English? The United Kingdom article uses British English, the Scotland article uses Scottish English..so why does the England article not use plain English? The language originates in England so why should the article not use "the purest form of English"? = ) Yours confusedly, --] (]|]|]) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:Can you define what the purest form of English is! Do you mean the Queens English? --] (]) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Why of course! "Her Majestie The Queen shall be the Fount of all English"! = ) --] (]|]|]) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:I understood that ] pertains moreso to speech and dialect rather than formal writing. Whilst ] would be viewed more as ] in writing. I could be wrong though. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
::Then surely the same applies to the other constituent countries?...--] (]|]|]) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Yep! But I think folk like to assert the (sub-)national variety, for reasons I couldn't possibly comment on! <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh dear, it's one of those things again. --] (]|]|]) 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think it would be hard to do, what with England having a much larger variety of dialects.--] (]) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::As it's kept purely on talk pages, it's not been a concern of mine. It's a bit odd though- kind of like saying on ], we use ]. It just doesn't work. The reality is we use ], with ] spelling. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with you there. I don't agree with the term Scottish English. It's all English with different accents. --] (]) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Why can't everyone just speak proppa like what I do!? = ) --] (]|]|]) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah dunno! --] (]) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"purest form of English"? Is there really such a thing? Honestly though, what in this article is not written in standard English? ] (]) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==Omitted names of notables, and section on the visual arts and film==
The debate could continue indefinitely as to whom should be included among the list of notable contributors to specific fields of endeavour, but there appears to be a few surprising omissions imo which need consideration, and the inclusion of a section covering the "Visual arts" and Film. Figures for consideration would include; ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Figures for addition to the current sections: ], ], ], and ]. –] (]) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== Trolling ==

Can I just make everyone aware of ]. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

== Sigh... ==

Im getting fed up of seeing so many people coming on to the talk page, talking a load of crap about the Article aka England. It’s annoying as hell seeing so many Scottish/Welsh/Irish and American Editors (Mostly) coming here with no interest in the state of article, there only aim is to cause a flame war.
Give it a rest why don’t you. (] (]) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I hope you don't include me in that list. ] (]) 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Actually. From reading your comments above it is clear you have no interest in the true article well being but are intent on insulting English people, along with Scottish and welsh persons by saying there not proper countries, which is absurd. You are clearly Anglophobic. And that’s the main problem with this talk page, there is far too much Anglophobia here. (] (]) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

The only time I have come even remotely close to 'insulting' them is by saying that they are too proud to admit that England isn't a country. After all the references I have given it is "absurd" to say they are. ] (]) 06:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Please guys ]. I would be very careful about making comments like that. You seem to be insinuating that foreign people do not have a right to edit English topics. Just a friendly note = ) --] (]|]) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

== Some sentence style in introduction ==

It is pretty seamy to me to begin three of four sentences in third paragraph of intro with known name of article "England ...". They educated us in elementary school that is not good style of writing. :)

--] (]) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

:Feel free to ] and make some amendments as you see fit :) <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

::OK, because I thought that is pretty important article, so I won't made some bigger corrections without consensus.
:: --] (]) 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==Use of pictures in history section = bias, Protestantcentric==
*First in the Reformation, we have a picture of Elizabeth I. IMO it needs to be a full, family portrait including Henry VIII '''and''' Mary I. Even though this is an article about England and the ] family are Welsh.
*During the Civil War section we have a picture of Cromwell, but neither ] or ] one of the most popular monarchs in the history of the country. If the Welsh Tudors manage to slide their picture in, then the Scottish Stuarts surely deserve the same. Otherwise in that section there should be a picture of Cavalier and Roundhead soldiers fighting. - ] (]) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

: Henry VI was part Welsh, Henry VII and his offspring less so and they were Kings/Queens of England. I would have thought a picture of James was more appropriate to the Reformation than Elizabeth however. I agree that Charles should be added into the Civil War section. --] (]) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
::I am not sure adding more pictures there would be a good idea, but reconsideration of the image up now, may be a good idea. ] (]) 09:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with the directly above. Also England is a historically prostant nation. Further, the Tudors are of English and Welsh heritage whereas the Stuarts are purely Scottish. --] (]|]) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Oooo! They're descended of an ], paternally, and their house name is derived from an English word. There's an ocean of European geneaology in the Stuarts, like any Royal dynasty really. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

=="Country within a country" wording proposal==
Come look see ] and vote. ] (]) 02:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors on this page need to be aware that a consensus is being built on ] to replace refrence to England being a country with the phrase '''"England is a constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the southern two thirds of the island of Great Britain'''" --] (]) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== NHS "free at the point of use" ==

This is rather misleading, a foriegner might think it meant that you get sent a bill later on. Cannot it just say "free" and paid for by taxation? Also, it would be good to point out that the "charges" are only a few pounds and nearly always a tiny fraction of the real cost (especially when you include overheads and staffing costs etc, or compare with likely private charges for the same thing). ] (]) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:perhaps 'at no cost to the patient' would be the wording we are looking for: there is a cost but not paid for by the patient. Cheers ] (]) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

== Subheadings under History ==

The emphasis on Kingdom of England is rather unusual for histories of England, and places undue weight on constitutional structures (which were probably rather weak for much of that time). Most histories of England would identify the Saxon settlement, the Norman conquest and the Reformation as the major turning points. ] (]) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
:Hi there. A fair point so let me explain my changes. I didn't like the way the history section was so divided into further subsections each about a paragraph long and to be honest I think the section would be much better without any subheadings. If we are going to have subheadings, we need to decide how many would be appropriate and then identify what they should be. If it was felt that 3 subsections were appropriate for England's history, these could be 1) prior to a unified England, 2) the period of the Kingdom of England 3) the period after the Union, but, of course, other ways of dividing could easily be used and may well be more appropriate - I don't have a strong view in any direction, but I do feel the article is better with less short subdivisions. Cheers ] (]) 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
::I don't see the problem with 4 or 5 subheadings; England has a rich and varied history. But I've never seen any account divide it into the 3 you suggest, and as I said, it places undue weight on constitutional structures. It doesn't match the main article it's supposed to be summarizing either. I'd suggest 1. Iron Age and Roman England, 2. the Middle Ages, 3. Tudors and Stuarts, 4. after the Union. ] (]) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Sounds good to me. Cheers ] (]) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== Status of English Language in England. ==

The section no 'Other languages' is contradictory. I can't edit it because I don't have the knowledge, but it needs amending. It starts by saying "UK legislation does not recognise any language as being official..." Then in the next paragraph when talking about Cornish it says "This has no official status (unlike Welsh)" Then in the next paragraph it says " BSL is not an official language of the UK and ...!". Clearly the issue of what status languages have in the UK needs to be clarified and the article made self-consistent. ] (]) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

== Was England the first modern parliamentary democracy? ==

I don't believe that the English parliament (prior to 1707) would satisfy today's understanding of parliamentary democracy, and even if it did, could England be the first 'modern' parliamentary democracy over 300 years? What counts as 'modern'? Cheers ] (]) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
: And how would other republics (e.g. Venice) older than that count? ] (]) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

:: I think this is an interesting one. There are a range of Republican forms of government that predate the English Parliament. I think the unique thing is a parliament and a constitutional monarchy. However it is true to say that the current wording is an overclaim - it needs to be modified. --] (]) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
:::If the "unique thing is a parliament and a constitutional monarchy", I would have thought that Scotland was in the same position, also having "a parliament and a constitutional monarchy". I tried to check the reference but couldn't find anything that backed up the claim. As you say, this claim needs work! Cheers ] (]) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland's parliament is about as old as England's and recent research shows that it did exercise a lot of influence over the Scottish king. See historians Michael Lynch or Tom Devine's recent works, so I doubt that England has any more of a claim to 'earliest parliamentary democracy' than Scotland - IMO neither were very 'democratic' in our modern sense anyway.

--] (]) 11:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
: And why would monarchy be a qualifier of modern parliamentary democracy. It is one form of such a system. ] (]) 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

::The monarchy is irrelevant in this context. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the republican system that operated in Venice was akin to the Roman senate in that it consisted of a body representing noble families. The English/British parliament consists of two houses one consisting of the nobility, the Lords, and one representing everyone else, the ]. The ] of ] summoned knights or sherrifs from the shires and burgesses from the boroughs. These men were elected by their peers, guildsmen and men of property and the like (]). It was not a universal suffrage to be sure, but it was democratic to an extent unheard of elsewhere (as far as I know), and it was a ] and not a ]. ] (]) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
::: Indeed Venice was a senate of nobles as far as I know. However, the lack of universal suffrage makes me doubt whether the 1295 parliament would match the "modern" classifier. I don't have sufficient knowledge of English history to be sure. ] (]) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:Ok I didn't catch on to the fact that it was the word "modern" that was problematic. I've just looked at the article and the cite next to "modern parliamentary democracy" doesn't support the text. The cited BBC article says it is the "oldest parliamentary democracy". I dunno why the word ""modern" is in the article. The word is subjective. Universal suffrage wasn't adopted properly in the UK until 1928. In some case blacks were disenfranchised in various states in the US until the mid-1960s and in France women were not granted the vote until after WWII. When is modern? The English system, the ] was the first of its type, as a ]. It was a democratic system because the members of the commons are elected by popular vote. The lower house is not meritocratic. It's the oldest its type in these respects, but how can you class it as modern? Many would say that the British system still needs a lot of modernising. I think the word ''modern'' in the article is misplaced. ] (]) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

== History images ==

No, no, nothing to do with the lead for a change! I'm seeking feedback about the use of images in the ''History'' section. I'm a bit concerned about the amount first and foremost: as ] states ''"Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other"''. Could we reduce the amount or reorder them in someway to improve the look of the section?

My second point is their selection. Call me mad (well don't per ]), but I'd expect to see a part of the ] (perhaps the image of ]) - the ] being a watershed in ]. Thoughts??? <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:I was thinking just the same thing. The text does seem rather "sandwiched" but then again there are so many wonderful images to add to such a vast article. I am definately pro adding bayeux images! = ) I think the cromwell image could be removed easily. --]] 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

::Seems reasonable. :-) <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 20:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:Also agree that the tapestry image on ] would be very suitable. Charles II is surely less significant than Oliver Cromwell or a Civil War image. ] (]) 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== rank by population ==

"If it were a sovereign state, England would have the fourth largest population in the European Union and would be the 25th largest country by population in the world." Does this take into account that if England by itself were a sovereign state, the UK would not be above it on the list? --] (]) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
:I assume it does on the basis that Germany, France and Italy would be above it, placing it fourth in the EU. Cheers ] (]) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

== Please see ] ==

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. ] (]) 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

== Nomenclature section ==

It doesn't make any sense to organize the names by language family, except for the Celtic branch (and possibly Germanic), because these names aren't old enough to have a common history within language families. A geographic organization makes much more sense, because the names spread through borrowing from neighbours. Witness, for example, the names in Basque, Maltese and Turkish. ] (]) 09:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

== Regional recognised languages ==
The info box should mention that Cumbric and Cornish are recognised regional languages.<div style="font-size: 10pt; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.1em; position:relative; left:0.5em; margin-top:-0.2em; color:Orange"><span style="color:Red">Phoenix</span> Bird Of Fire</div>]

:They are recognised minority ], AFAICT. Something a little bit different. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

::I thought that ] was long extinct? ], anyway, has a much more solid status than Cumbric does (or arguably ever has...) --] (]) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cumbric ''is'' long extinct, and ''not recognised''. It's vestiges are a few place-names, as far as I know. ]&nbsp;] 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

== Piped link in the first sentence ==

I suggest changing the piped link <nowiki>]</nowiki> in the first sentence back to <nowiki>]</nowiki> (as it was until the recent consistency drive), per ] and ]. ] (]) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:I agree.] 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::I don't mind either way what people wish to call England, though we all know that it is a country! I thought that 'country linked to constituent country' was a very clever way to satify both 'sides' since it reads as country but the link goes on to explain more detail of the particular arrangement of a 'country that is part of a larger country'. Cheers ] (]) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowded has not commented here, but has reverted to the piped link with the comment "Discussed but not agreed. Wales under mediation, Scotland uses country. Please discuss." He has formerly justified keeping it on this article by reference to the mediation that was then in progress, and is now arguing on ] that that article should change to "a <nowiki>]</nowiki> within the United Kingdom" for consistency with England and Scotland. Yet the ] article has <nowiki>]</nowiki>, and the editors there seem to feel strongly that to mention the relationship to the UK in the first sentence would grant it undue weight. So it seems there's a degree of circularity in the argument regarding England and Wales. Such are the problems with seeking uniformity, which is why the mediation ended devolving the decision to each individual talk page.

So, what is the argument for the England page to keep the piped link, without reference to the other pages? I have cited a couple of policies above that argue against it. ] (]) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

== Map ==

Would anyone be in favour of adopting a map closer to the one in use at ] or ]? -] (]) 07:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

: Both Scotland and Wales have maps which show the European location rather than just assuming everyone one knows where the UK is so I would support the change --] (]) 09:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:I would. The maps on Scotland and Wales (top one) accurately reflect their status, while also giving useful context, and they're prettier, too. The appropriate amount of context depends on the relative size and location of the part you're talking about: W and NI need less, S and E more. ] (]) 10:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::I was ] and changed the map, if anyone has any objections feel free to revert. -] (]) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I suggest a bit less of the Atlantic, but going south far enough to show the northern coast of Brittany. That would give relevant context, including the English Channel, and also place England closer to the centre of the map, while still showing the whole UK. ] (]) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, it's a nice map but it seems to be missing the Scilly Isles, so it still needs a little tweaking. -- ] | ] 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately they're not shown on the original ] from which this is cropped. ] (]) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:Any objections to the current map which I have just added?-] (]) 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't think it is as good as the one on Wales which shows more of Europe. Suggest you go to that one. --] (]) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== Please quote appropriate references! ==

Hi all. I don't mind whether editors believe that England should be decribed as a 'country', a 'constituent country, or a 'constituent part' but could I ask that editors wishing to change the term should at least change the references also! It is simply wrong to attempt to change a sentence to describe England as a 'constituent country' but leave the 3 references which don't describe England as such! Cheers ] (]) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:Oh right. Will do that.] 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== Opening Paragraph ==

Why is it being pushed that it is a 'country' even though it is clearly a disputed issue? Surely the very name of this article: ], shows that we should be using "England is a ]." ] (]) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
: Counties, municipalities, duchies, islands are all subdivisions. The term is just too vague to do justice to the special status of the constituent countries. ] (]) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::It is not being "pushed" multiple editor discussions have established that England Wales and Scotland are either countries or constituent countries (the debate is between the two). The main source is in the article, namely the UK Government. You owe it to your fellow edits to check back on the discussions and the formal mediate that took place on the United Kingdom Page. --] (]) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I would put it slightly differently: everyone agrees that both "country" and "constituent country" are reliably sourced in British English, and indeed "country" is used throughout the article; the question is how best to introduce the article. I would like to suggest again an idea originally proposed by Ddstretch: "'''England is a part of the ], variously described as a ], ] or (in sporting contexts) ].'''" ] (]) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
: Suggest you look at the mediation on the Wales page (which has DDstretch's agreement) to a form of words that would work there and could be copied across to England and (dare I say it) Scotland. We are pretty close now to something consistent and sustainable. Especially with independent mediation. Note also that merging constituent country (in respect of the UK) with sub-divisions of the UK also looks to have been agreed, and the mediation suggests a reference to that. I have some hope that the controversies might be at an end for a bit. --] (]) 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm so glad for Wales, but any agreement there has no bearing on the England article. ] (]) 20:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::True, but the suggestion there is a form of words that could be a basis for agreement on this article as well. It at least merits consideration and if the editors on this article reject it, so be it. Cheers ] (]) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Deja vu here, but haven't we been here before? - with ] and ]? <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Also, a publication submitted by the UK to the ] states England (and Sco/Wls/NI) "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-48-Add1.pdf|title=Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names|date=August 2007|author=]|publisher=unstats.un.org|accessdate=2008-04-14|format=PDF}}</ref> England isn't a "subdivision of the UK"; part maybe, but the UK isn't subdivided on the basis of four parts, it is united on that basis. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::The above phrasing uses "part" as a common English word, not as a technical term, and I think we can agree that it's accurate in that. I recall that back on Talk:UK Kman consulted three encyclopaedias, and found that they started with "part", "national unit" or "political division" (all common, non-technical terms), though they used "country" later. I don't think they do that because they're pushing some POV, but because they want to be clear. ] (]) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Quite. And I use "part" with a small-p, in the same sense that you and the source material asserts. :) <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So we're in heated agreement that England is a part of the UK in a non-technical sense, are we? ] (]) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It seems so. Who'd have thought two users (as opposed to normal people!) would think this!? <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
*******I like Kangaruole's idea is good, since it does not include bias. "'''England is a part of the ], variously described as a ], ] or (in sporting contexts) ].'''" ] (]) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) If someone is proposing or supporting a wording supported by citations then it is not bias. Please stop throwing provocative remarks about. It does not help. --] (]) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sure MinYinChao meant to say that this wording is even-handed, because it includes the competing terms, all of which are supported by citations. Do you see any problem with the proposed wording? ] (]) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::I do. We're a bunch of intelligent editors - I think we should be capable of articulating the situation a little more scholarly. Also, though I'm a self-confessed unionist, I have to admit that "country" has sat comfortably in the lead for quite some time. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Given his other edits (MinYinChao) I doubt that. Yes I do see problems and it does not have my support. (i) England is a "country which is a part of" the proposed wording deemphasises country to something which may be used as a description. (ii) Wales & Scotland both start (with variations) with the country label and I think we need some conformity between the pages. --] (]) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Do you have any reasons why this wording is unsuitable for England, apart from conformity? ] (]) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I think the issue is more complex than that. That proposal is one that appears to be designed to displease all in an effort to bring about, or force a consensus. That's admirable - of course - but, as I say, "country" is verifiable, tends to be the most prevailent term on WP and elsewhere and has sat in the lead comfortably for a long time. I think the existing wording in the opening sentence adequately reflects/describes realworld practice. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't see why it should displease anyone, unless they insist that their term and no other must come first. All the terms are verifiable, and "country" is used throughout the article. We're talking here about the first sentence, where there are additional criteria, such as clarity. And you're mistaken about "country" having sat there comfortably for a long time: that was "constituent country", which was changed to "country" and then frozen during the mediation, since which it's been held at "country" by Snowded and Malarious's reverts. ] (]) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: It has always been country or constituent country both of this work. Clarity and accuracy are both important in the first sentence and that supports country in some form together with a clear statement that it is a part of the UK to avoid POV. --] (]) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes I do have other reasons and stated them. The citations and common use support the fact that England is a country and the article should reflect that. Conformity is a second argument. Come on Kanguole you have been around all these discussions for long enough to know the issues. --] (]) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::I am neither a unionalist nor a nationalist thank you, but since Misplaced Pages is not supposed to take sides, surely both should be reflected? ] (]) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Min - If you're here to disrupt the process then don't bother please. The account you're currently using (you have already admitted to creating others), highlights you are a very inexperienced editor. With all due respect, (and assuming good faith that you're not a highly comparable sockpuppet) I don't think you could possibly be fully aware of the dynamics behind this issue. May I recommend you start on something a little smaller in scope first? To counter your point - the issue isn't about unionism and nationalism, its about ]. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::JZA48, I consider your behaviour during my time here to have so far been very rude. I come here, and am accused of creating fake accounts, or even being one! Then, I am told to stay away from an article! Well no, thank you very much, I shall continue to edit wherever I see fit. And did I <i>say</i> anywhere that I thought this issue was about unionism and nationalism? The fact of the matter is that since differing official bodies classify them as differing things, this must be shown in the opening paragraph. ] (]) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Please STOP this disruptive behaviour No one has told you to stop editing, they have just asked you to have the decency to do some research and respect other editors. --] (]) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

== Moving forward ==

The final compromise on the Wales page was to leave country in place and pipe link "part of". I think that would make a lot of sense here (and Scotland). That would mean the following:

'''England''' is a ] which is ] the ]. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....

The use of largest in the current intro is unnecessary given he 83% that follows.

Comments? --] (]) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:Whatever ya'll prefer? is fine with me. ] (]) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:It would be a good move, in my opinion. ]&nbsp;] 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
:Reasonable move, although I think the "largest" claim is still suitable; every other major encyclopedia makes a note about its size and/or dominance within the UK in its first sentence. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/England/2}}
:Agree with the suggestion. Cheers ] (]) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:Agree. That sounds great. Just to be a little pedantic about the grammar, though, it should be either;
::'''England''' is a ], which is ] the ]. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....


== Largest conurbations in England ==
::or


This table needs updating for the 2021 census. It's now more than a decade old. ] (]) 12:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''England''' is a ] that is ] the ]. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ....


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2024 ==
:I'd be happy with either, they both mean the same. ] (]) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|England|answered=yes}}
::Or "'''England''' is a ] and a ] the ]. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total ...." which is my preference. :) <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Direct rule by the UK Government with some sub-regional devolution within a parliamentary constitutional monarchy" in the information box should be changed.


Reason: The devolution is not just sub-regional, but also on a parliamentary level.
Looks like a rough consensus for "a country which" along with the a reference to the 83%. I will implement that now. I think "which" is better than "and a" and its got a few more people for it, but if Jza84 feels strongly I would not oppose another change. Now to Scotland anyone? --] (]) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


In October 2015, the Government implemented changes to the Standing Orders, introducing the "English Votes for English Laws" (EVEL) policy. EVEL addressed the West Lothian Question by granting English and Welsh MPs a more significant role in legislating on matters that exclusively affect their constituencies. Under the new procedures in the House of Commons, the Speaker is required to determine whether a bill pertains solely to England. If it does, and the bill includes provisions applicable only to England or Wales, it undergoes an additional stage before the third reading. At this stage, only English or Welsh MPs can exercise a veto over these provisions during the committee review. The changes do not affect the legislative process in the House of Lords however ] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Citations in the lede ==
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> Would need a few sources calling that devolution or describing the governance of England in a similar way.
] (]) 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


:{{rto|Chipmunkdavis}}{{rto|Leoshuo}}
I was under the impression that citations are only used in the lede for potentially controversial facts. Currently, there are several citations in the lede for facts that don't appear likely to be challenged (controversial). Why is this? ] ] ] 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:There is sub regional devolution in England through the ], England is not just ruled at U.K level.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-21 |title=English devolution |url=https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/english-devolution |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=Institute for Government |language=en}}</ref>
:] was scrapped in 2021 as confirmed by this citation and in the article.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-07-13 |title=Commons scraps English votes for English laws |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57828406.amp |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=BBC News |language=en-gb}}</ref> ] (]) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 ==
: While I don't think they are controversial, they have been challenged many times, here and also ] and ]. --] (]) 21:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|England|answered=yes}}
== Industrial revolution ==
In the infobox, next to Government, there is a tiny error. The cite isn't correctly placed after 'some sub-regional devolution'. There is a space. ] (]) 23:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 ==
The section "Within the Union", contains the sentence citing England as being the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Yet as this sentence has been replicated exactly in the opening paragraph, and as it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, appearing randomly and likely accidently, do I have the consensus of you all to get rid of it? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{edit extended-protected|England|answered=yes}}
: Agreed, and I would move the Royal Society down to science while you are at it. --] <small>]</small> 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Under culture > art, include England being the birthplace of the ]. Source: ] (]) 06:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> Britannica can be a reliable source, however I'm not confident in that page, especially for something like this you should be able to find another source. See ] ] (]) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Britannica is not a reliable source. The main article on the ] gives the entire group of ] as the birth place of the movement, citing the Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts. <ref name="grove">{{Cite book|last=Campbell|first=Gordon|title=The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Volume 1|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0-19-518948-3}}</ref>] (]) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:59, 7 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the England article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good articleEngland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 13, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 4, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEngland Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUK geography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEnglish Language Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from England was copied or moved into Outline of England with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.

The outcome of discussion is that England is a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation with respect to Wales, though the general issues are common amongst England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

The discussion about Wales is summarised in this archive. Further information on the countries within the UK for the different terms used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. A table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. Additional material and debates can also be found on the archived talk and FAQs at Talk:United Kingdom.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007 and 2010.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Cornwall


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

GA Reassessment

England

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited text throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Work could also be done on GACR3b, as the article has gained almost 3,000 words over time since its promotion. CMD (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Largest conurbations in England

This table needs updating for the 2021 census. It's now more than a decade old. 2A02:C7C:75BE:B300:99FD:EDD4:8AC3:B7DB (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The "Direct rule by the UK Government with some sub-regional devolution within a parliamentary constitutional monarchy" in the information box should be changed.

Reason: The devolution is not just sub-regional, but also on a parliamentary level.

In October 2015, the Government implemented changes to the Standing Orders, introducing the "English Votes for English Laws" (EVEL) policy. EVEL addressed the West Lothian Question by granting English and Welsh MPs a more significant role in legislating on matters that exclusively affect their constituencies. Under the new procedures in the House of Commons, the Speaker is required to determine whether a bill pertains solely to England. If it does, and the bill includes provisions applicable only to England or Wales, it undergoes an additional stage before the third reading. At this stage, only English or Welsh MPs can exercise a veto over these provisions during the committee review. The changes do not affect the legislative process in the House of Lords however Leoshuo (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Would need a few sources calling that devolution or describing the governance of England in a similar way.
CMD (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis:@Leoshuo:
There is sub regional devolution in England through the Combined authorities, England is not just ruled at U.K level.
EVEL was scrapped in 2021 as confirmed by this citation and in the article. ChefBear01 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC) ChefBear01 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, next to Government, there is a tiny error. The cite isn't correctly placed after 'some sub-regional devolution'. There is a space. 2A0A:EF40:E01:DB01:D4AA:2555:85C0:A869 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under culture > art, include England being the birthplace of the arts and craft movement. Source: 2A0A:EF40:E31:7101:F5EF:49B:1083:F441 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Britannica can be a reliable source, however I'm not confident in that page, especially for something like this you should be able to find another source. See WP:BRITANNICA Ultraodan (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Britannica is not a reliable source. The main article on the Arts and Crafts movement gives the entire group of British Isles as the birth place of the movement, citing the Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts. Dimadick (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. "English devolution". Institute for Government. 2024-06-21. Retrieved 2024-11-24.
  2. "Commons scraps English votes for English laws". BBC News. 2021-07-13. Retrieved 2024-11-24.
  3. Campbell, Gordon (2006). The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518948-3.
Categories: