Talk:England/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Religion section

The section states that the Church of England considers itself both Catholic and Protestant, which just isn't true. The CoE is Protestant, and specifically broke away from Catholicism in the 1500s... To say it calls itself Catholic is a tad insulting. This needs to be changed. 16:32, 05 November 2016 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5008:6D00:15D0:6056:ACE5:42BD (talk)

Hmm... They might regard themselves as Catholic, but if so they are using terminology in a way that is confusing to most people. Anyway, the statement is unsourced, so I've added a tag - others may prefer to simply remove the statement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement has now been cited. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous statement by Ghmyrtle (and Chrism). What a joke wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.198.1 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Please sign your posts (4x~) Britmax (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Country is a courtesy term only. England is a region of Britain. England does not, and can not have an anthem. There's no such thing as "the Celtic Sea". England doesn't have a "national day". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.198.1 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wondering what is sung at international rugby and football matches .... Sources clearly establish it is a country and it has a national day as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to ask why would someone from Glasgow (the unsigned comments with with the bare IP appear to come from Glasgow) have an opinion on whether or not England is a country. SJ NM78 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220225201/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/uk_countries.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0%2C6903%2C406152%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://heritage-key.com/publication/architecture-roman-britain
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/citiesandregions/pdf/1073344.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/related-139-94056-articles-reviews/River%2BThames-London%2B%28England%29/related.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605003213/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/nw/ to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/nw/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110223-710213.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00724.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719124226/http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf to http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521815000&ss=exc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580406/independent_schools_in_the_united_kingdom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nra-rounders.co.uk/dyncat.cfm?catid=17177

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305032854/http://www.geo-east.org.uk/special_projects/eco_culture.htm to http://www.geo-east.org.uk/special_projects/eco_culture.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ln5LLsEM?url=http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf to http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/cornishcom/documents/OnbeingaCornishcelt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505015321/http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/CUSTOMS/questions/costume.html to http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/costume.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

England's Parliament or Legislature?

If we're going to place this committee into the infobox. Then perhaps we should change Legislature to Legislative committee. After all, England doesn't have a devolved government. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand your argument. Whether England has its own government or not seems immaterial to me. Laws in England are made by the UK parliament. It's not the first time one country has legislated for another.--Ykraps (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I might have in the past opposed listing the UK's Parliament, but after thinking into it I've changed my mind. Since Parliament can enact legislation for each of the UK's countries individually (and has done so throughout history), it's technically a legislature of all four respectively. Furthermore, given it has remained responsible for devolved matters in England (as in, those devolved in the other three countries), it is effectively acting as a legislature for England. And even more so now that bills which only effect England have to be additionally scrutinised and voted on by the 533 MPs in England. I suppose listing just that it has a legislative committee within Parliament is an option though. Rob984 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Twitch

Is it just me or is the entire page just a giant link for Twitch? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Update It's not a problem anymore, but someone must've messed with the links or the page or something at one point - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Will have happened to thousands of articles potentially. Someone vandalised a sub template of {{Infobox country}}. I reverted the vandalism and requested template protection. Unfortunately it was vandalised again soon after as it took several hours before the protection request was fulfilled. I don't know where I'm suppose to report matters of urgency like that. Rob984 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Bokmanrocks01 - Some moron's been messing around with the templates I believe - Thousands of articles have had the same treatment too, My best advice would be if you spot it again report the editor to AIV and maybe ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

GDP / GVA data in infobox

Hi Harper9979‎. Could you tell me where I can find the data you add to the article in the citation you provided (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/grossdomesticproductpreliminaryestimate/julytosept2016)? I checked and I can't find any mention of England's GDP / GVA. If you let me know how to find it, I can correctly format the citation. Otherwise, I can only assume the data you added is original research. Rob984 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ln5L5oTN?url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00724.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00724.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Religion, Literature and the Church of England specifically

I have noticed the literature section has nothing on the KJV of the bible, or indeed of any of the bibles used during the reformation such as the Great Bible or Bishop's Bible, Coverdale Bible, Tyndale Bible or so on. Considering the importance of this literature to English writers for centuries it seems a bad idea to leave it out.

There is a statement that the Church considers itself both 'Catholic and Protestant'. This is a little misleading, it does state 'catholic and reformed' but this is not quite the same. The Church is Catholic in doctrine, but not Roman catholic, catholic simply means universal in this sense, and is also used similarly by the Orthodox Churches. Notice the Church does not use the word 'Protestant' itself, but rather reformed. Why is this? The Church says so itself, in the Book of Common Prayer (preface, and first two sections, also the thirty nine articles) and the Canon Law (both 1604 and modern versions), the Church is a middle way, it is not Protestant, neither is it Roman Catholic, rather it has a complicated history involving both, but nonetheless is neither.

88.106.216.210 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The section as is in no way claims that the church is Roman Catholic. It says merely what it says, that the church considers itself to be descended in part from the catholic tradition and follow the old catholic creeds, which we do. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I might add in reference to the KJV accord, that the mentioning of it as "the greatest masterpiece of literature in the English language" is a quite significant claim, one which has neither source, nor merit of accreditation. There is simply not a unified consensus, nor group qualified to represent a single work on a pedestal claim of this nature. This article needs to continue to center around factual information related to England's history, not the glorification of the immense popularity of a work of literature. While certainly the Bible is a quite popular and world changing work of translation, who might have the authority to proclaim within a creditable source, and without question, that it is "the greatest masterpiece of literature in the English language"? If we are to spout off with such blatant disdain for maintaining integrity of history, the future will be presented with opinions which are only that; opinions. This article needs to be cleared of such statements, and keep to the facts. 2605:A000:C809:2900:34D2:D0E1:57E0:DE5D (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

Thank you. Under Modern section it incorrectly states that Oliver Cromwell declared himself Lord Protector when in fact he was offered the crown by the people and he refused it. It seems obvious that he had no intention of Kingship by his refusal of same. History books well stated refer to Lady Antonia Fraser plus many more. This is why he is incorrectly portrayed as a dictator when indeed he was not, please and thank you!New Model Army (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC) New Model Army (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025121640/http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2013%20Society.htm to http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2013%20Society.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116012752/http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/prison-population-figures to http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/prison-population-figures
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708141658/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/overview.htm to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007035746/http://www.moorerail.com/history/timeline1825.asp to http://www.moorerail.com/history/timeline1825.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Motto

"God and My Right" is not the motto of England, but of the British sovereign. The cited reference did not say it was.Ttocserp 09:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A simple web search says it is the motto outside of Scotland. Now I'm Welsh so I am not wild about this, but it was first used by King Richard I in 1198 at the Battle of Gisors which is before the conquest of Wales so I think its pretty safe. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to go by sources actually cited in the article. If there is a source that actually says that "God and My Right" is England's motto, it should be referenced in the article. It must be a reliable source, of course.Ttocserp 21:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You can find three references here if you want to substitute the existing one ----Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, I am sure you can see the difference between (1) the motto 'of England (if any) and (2) the motto of the British monarch. (Imagine trFying to convince a Scotsman, say, that there's no difference!) If it is tnhe motto of d England, find a reliable source that actually says so, and put it in the article. In the meantime I'm going to tag it as "not in cited source".Ttocserp 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In respect of Scotland there is a different motto and the sources I reference are more than good enough. But lets see what other editors say - Ill leave it a few days and if there is no support remove the tag. There is a duty on editors to try and find sources you know. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can only assume there is a bit of talking at cross purposes here since as far as I can see all the sources indicated do refer to it being the motto of the monarch and not that it is that of the country. Are there in facts ones that say it is the motto of the country or is there just an honest mix-up in what is being discussed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've found a few which say it is the motto of the country. But in general, in a monarchy the motto of the country is that of the monarch. The fact there are separate ones from Scotland and Wales supports this. But its not a major issue. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ttocserp has a point. Snowded's reasoning appears flawed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Removed as per previous talks on the matter. Best get new real sources if this will pass a RfC.--Moxy (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm write on mottos in a monarchy but if there have been prior discussions and a consensus has been reached fine ----Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Official language again

This previous discussion [1] did not clarify very well. In what way is English not the official language of England? Comment welcome please before I change the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Only down to the fact due to the way common law works nobody has ever said English is the official language. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The official language refers to the language used by the government of any particular region. As England doesn't have its own goverment it can't have an official language. Eckerslike (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to confirm that, Eckerslike? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a two edged argument Roger 8 Roger, do YOU have a reference claiming English is the official language of England. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do, or more precisely, one showing that to be official a language does not have to be one used by a government. Here it is: [2]. Seeing as English meets all the requirements of being used officially within England, why do we insist on claiming that England has no official language? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alteration now made to the unsupported claim that England does not have an official language. A side issue, but one that is relevant here, is that England most certainly does have a govt, it sits in Westminster. The fact that that government also governs other areas is another matter entirely. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - existing wording of national language is better - and the position has changed. Please get agreement before making changes you know will be controversial Italic text -- Snowded

FWIW, England doesn't have a government of its own. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day GoodDay, that what I said: I'm glad we agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The English language is not the official language of England? Who would've thought. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

GVA? why is GVA given as a measure of economic performance. You haven't used it for other countries and it is, frankly, rather meaningless and misleading. Worse still, you've taken a 2015 figure (in GB pounds) and then converted it to US dollars, clearly not realizing that you can't do that unless you correct for the relevant taxes and subsidies which were operating in the two economies at the time. GVA is not an independent measure of performance; it is a national/regional balancing item which varies according to the fiscal policy of the government of the day. If you don't have a useful and comparable value (e.g. GNP/GDP) you shouldn't give anything at all. For what it's worth, GVA is loved by economists who want to prove that London is superior to the provinces, precisely because it produces ludicrous distortions based upon the (supposed) dependence or otherwise on subsidies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Flag and Genoa

The National Symbols section of the article talks about the flag having its origins in the English king paying the Doge of Genoa for the right to use Genoa's flag in the Mediterranean. The Flag of England article contradicts this, saying that it "cannot be substantiated as historical". For consistency sake, which are we going with? --Inops (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

typo

There appears to be a formatting error causing the following sentence to float in the middle of the page isolated in a yellow outline: "– the Yorkists and Lancastrians – known as the Wars of the Roses.[56] Eventually it led to the Yorkists losing the throne entirely to a Welsh noble family the Tudors, a branch of the Lancastrians headed by Henry Tudor who invaded with Welsh and Breton mercenaries, gaining victory at the Battle of Bosworth Field where the Yorkist king Richard III was killed.[57]" I can't see the text as the article is semi-protected (I assume) so will have to be a logged in person who fixes. Ta. 2A02:C7F:2C57:FD00:9DE0:E7AE:33A0:776F (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Official population update

Latest ONS statistics for England's population as of 30 June 2017 were released yesterday. Now 55,619,400. Here is the link:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest

Can someone please update the article with this and also update the "population of over 53 million" in the introduction to "population of over 55 million". 80.195.12.177 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Batternut (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I feel it would be appropriate to add in the word 'non-sovereign' before 'country' in the opening line. This would serve to clarify as the page for the UK, as well as most other pages for countries, are also simply described as countries, and there is of course a difference between such other countries and the home nations. JJThunder1 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I fear it would raise more issues than it solves. A quick scan of this talk page's archive will reveal endless bickering over how to represent the constituent countries. Batternut (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a shame, however surely just the term 'non-sovereign' would be fine as, whatever someone may say about the home nations, the term is completely factual JJThunder1 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no - they are sovereign in some aspects of what they do - the UK Government in general uses the word 'country' (per previous arbitratration) so lets just keep to that rather than adding commentary -----Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear ya, JJ. But, you've little chance of getting something like that added into the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Claim about anthems.

The stuff about England having anthems is nonsense and should be removed. There can be no such thing as an "unofficial national anthem" as it's a contradiction in terms. Also England isn't a nation. It's a part of The UK.213.205.241.1 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

National is open to numerous interpretations, so your argument falls flat without a very clear definition. Official is also loosely defined and is similarly open to interpretation. Without going into detail, it seems that on the balance of probability, England is a nation and a national anthem does not need to be official, hence it can be unofficial. You need to provide much stronger reasoning for your argument to carry any weight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It is a fact that Britain is a nation. Official has only one meaning.213.205.241.1 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Waltzing Matilda" is an unofficial national anthem of Australia, and "God Bless America" is an unofficial national anthem of the United States of America.24.121.195.165 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

‘There can be no such thing as an "unofficial national anthem"’ — Well, actually your wrong. The UK itself has no official national anthem. God Save the Queen has been adopted through longstanding use, but has no legal recognition as the British national anthem. Indeed, many British symbols such as the Union Jack have no legal recognition. Their use as national symbols are only legitimised through longstanding use. The fact that God Save the Queen is sung at most English sporting events and Jerusalem specifically for cricket, is enough to justify their inclusion on Wikipedia as unofficial English anthems.

’Also England isn't a nation. It's a part of The UK.’ — England is a nation and has been recognised as such since the time of Bede over a thousand years ago. The UK is an amalgamation of different nations (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales etc...). This is a fact that has been repeated by many politicians and journalists alike. David Cameron, the former PM, described the UK as a country of countries. There are multiple examples of UK institutions making references to the various nations of the UK. If this isn’t enough, then you might be interested to know that England competes as an individual nation in many sporting events such as football, rugby league, rugby union and cricket. England also has its own distinctive national symbols such as St George’s Cross and the Three Lions. Wales and Scotland are also distinctive nations in their own right. Being part of a political union does not undermine this fact. Margalant (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Area?

I cannot understand what the correct area for England is:

• As per https://www.britannica.com/place/England it should be 130'281 square km
• As per http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom it should be 130'395 square km
• As per this article on Wikipedia, it should be 130'279 square km

... which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitokmen (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably all of them, they may have slightly different criteria for measurement and none of them are that different to each other. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The UK, and therefore England, has a particular problem shared by the few other island states... most or all of their national border is with the sea. Which not only moves near-continually, going up and down in a nonuniform manner (the ~120 sqkm discrepancy could be *easily* explained by disagreements over whether to draw the line along endless miles of wide saltflats and the like - high spring tide, low spring tide, mean height between neap tides, technical global "sea level" geoid?), but is also something of a fractal outline. It's even more difficult to come up with any kind of meaningful length for the perimeter... and that's before we start considering the area covered by territorial waters as well as the land they surround and frequently inundate, and the possible issues of imprecise conversions from square miles, acres, etc. Even the Isle of Wight is notable as having two different official areas - one for high tide, another for low. The Wikipedia value is probably taking a mean of several other values, and is hopefully cited as coming from somewhere in particular. I would however suggest that the "official" figure is that given by the commonwealth office, even if it's a slightly high estimate. If you just need to be approximate, then "about 130,300 sqkm" should do it. 46.208.118.147 (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing link to West Midlands article in "regions" section

I'd put it in myself, but being a lowly IP user I'm blocked by the semi-protection. Every other listed region has a link but for some reason WM is isolated as the only one without it (which I discovered by trying to click through on a lazy search for a certain piece of data). Could some kind person implement a quick fix?

NB, it'll have to be "West Midlands (region)", as the name is also used for a county (yay confusing bureaucracy) and so WP doesn't have a straight "West Midlands" article, only the disambiguated subpages.

edit: it's the Regions section under "Governance", not "Geography"

edit2: be sure to get the capitalisation right, WP seems to be extremely fussy about that, as I just found trying to go back to that page manually. Capital W, capital M, lower-case r.

Thanks... 46.208.118.147 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Royal Banner of England

I notice that the Royal Banner of Scotland is featured alongside the national flag on the Scotland article, perhaps it would make sense to include the corresponding Royal Banner of England (three golden lions on a red field) here for symmetry?

Indeed, the Scotland article’s infobox looks more visually appealing with the Royal Banner included alongside the Saltire. I would personally be in favour of including the English Royal Banner or Royal Arms in the England article’s infobox. I believe most countries/nations on Wikipedia have either a coat of arms or national emblem accompanying their national flags in their infoboxes. As far as I know, England and Wales are the only exceptions.

There are a number of issues however with including the Royal Banner in the article’s infobox. While Scotland possess a newly-designed and aesthetically pleasing royal banner, England sadly does not. This is an example of one of the English Royal Banners availible on Wikimedia Commons. As you can see, the design is quite old and outdated. Most Banner designs don’t look much better. There is however, a very well-designed Royal Arms freely available, but this leads me on to my next point.

There has been a bit of opposition from some editors relating to the inclusion of the Royal Arms in the infobox. Whenever someone attempts to include the Three Lions in the infobox, the usual editors take it down again. The reason given is a bit odd; apparently because England’s traditional arms are rarely used in unmodified form, they therefore shouldn’t be featured in the infobox. I personally believe this is an unusual argument. Ireland’s arms for example, feature in a modified, black and white form in almost all contexts such as on state examination papers and government documents. Denmark similarly also uses a modified form of its arms (also three lions) in almost all contexts such as in sport.

In short I agree with you, but what your proposing will need more general support. PS, please sign your posts. Margalant (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Chicken tikka masala

Does a traditional English dish need to have its origins in England? Not necessarily I think. That would mean the CTM, if it is popular and eaten regularly in England, can be part of the current stock of English cuisine, even if it were invented in Scotland, or the sub-continent. The article could be improved by making this clearer. Reference to being a popular British dish from 1971, when 1971 was when it was 'invented' in Glasgow, is slightly misleading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

and its all pretty murky anyway - Glasgow is one claim. Its a good illustration of a stable aspect of English cuisine -----Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The name of England

The Arabs used to call England in the golden age (the dark age in Europe) Alinkitar which is maybe type of making the word sounds like Arabic words. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems like (a) original research, and (b) dictionary material, which Wikipedia is not. Batternut (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably also explainable as Al-inki-tar or similar... which I'd guess as "the land of the Engs", or as close as arabic can get to that. Most likely that was a translation of "England", rather than being any kind of source for it. 46.208.118.147 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If ‘Alinkitar’ is truly an old Arabic name for England then that is an interesting piece of trivia, but unfortunately has no place on this Wikipedia article — especially if there are no credible sources to back up this claim. However, I am almost certain that some countries such as France and Germany have specific articles dedicated to the name of their countries in other languages. I’m not certain if England has one, but if it does then you should contribute to it, but only if you have credible sources. Also, you should refrain from publishing your own interpretations on articles as that qualifies as original research, which breaks Wikipedia’s code. Margalant (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not know If you Know Arabic or not, this will be useful - [http://web.archive.org/web/20160305011802/http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=936&pid=499547 Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine

this website is one of the best Arab website that concerns with the history of Islam, and it can be surfaced in English version. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

parliament

Parliament, as far as I know, usually refers to the two Houses (Pamour (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

There is a markup error in the section describing the Tudor Rose:

The Tudor rose, England's national floral emblem

.

The final period appears spuriously in the text of the surrounding paragraph, as it is not contained within the paragraph. The line should be corrected to:

The Tudor rose, England's national floral emblem.

MichSchli (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Capital

England doesn't officially have a capital unless someone can source this (also see relevant discussion on Talk:London) IWI (chat) 22:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times - please check the archive. There is no dispute that it is the de facto capital, and the only question is the meaning of the word "official" in this context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions include Talk:England/Archive 4#Capital, etc.. If there is evidence that consensus has changed, the text can be changed. But I haven't seen any discussion here that suggests that it has. So, there is no need to specify anything like "de facto" capital, as against "official" or "de jure" - it is simply recognised as the capital of England as well as of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The term 'capital' ('head') in this context originally referred to the usual seat of the reigning monarch, who was effectively the government. As the King/Queen often moved around the country with the seasons the location of the 'capital' often changed. For one period the capital of England was Winchester. However for the past several hundred years the usual seat of government has been London, and, as the UK has an unwritten constitution, there has never been any reason for making London the 'official' capital, as everyone who has good reason to need to know where the capital is, already knows.

BTW, the use of the term 'official' really only pertains to matters of law and legal matters such as are required in treaties and contracts. Countries with written constitutions, republics, etc., require an 'official' capital for legal purposes, whereas England, being the originator of Common law, doesn't, as it is already assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

England Royal Arms

Hi everyone,

Can we please have some consensus surrounding the use of the Royal Arms of England on this page? The Arms had not been included in this infobox for some time, however, with the rest of the constituent countries of the UK, Royal Arms, such as the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland (which was used when the Kingdom of Scotland was an independent sovereign state) is no longer in use. However, the Royal Standard of Scotland is still in use. A user has re-added the arms to the page, claiming that the Arms of England is still in use, and claiming that sports team still use it. Granted, this however, is not a worthy enough reason to have it in the infobox as sports team such as the England national team using the Arms (or three lions in the case though) is not a worthy enough reason and argument to claim that the arms are still in usage. My understanding was that following the Treaty of Union in 1707 both the Royal Coat of Arms of both England and Scotland became defunct and merged into the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.

Can we please discuss and have clarity on this.

Goodreg3 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Best review old talks SEE HERE.--Moxy (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy. Goodreg3 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The main reason why the Three Lions should be included in the infobox is because virtually every other country on Wikipedia has a coat of arms/state seal in its infobox. England’s equivalent is the Three Lions. In relation to usage, England does not have a government so the Three Lions do not feature alone on state documents, but they do feature (twice) in the British Royal Arms (which do feature on state documents) and it’s plainly obvious that the Three Lions represent England. That however, does not undermine the national importance of the Three Lions. The English public recognise the Three Lions as a national symbol of England. The Three Lions have also been adopted (in altered form) by English national sports teams, highlighting the fact that the Three Lions are an important national symbol. In relation to the arms’ ‘unofficial’ status, the same arguement can be made for St. George’s Cross and indeed the Union Jack. All state symbols of England and the UK are unofficial as Parliament has never made them official. There is no such act of Parliament that states St. George’s Cross is the official flag of England or that the Union Jack is the official flag of the UK. If you are going to remove the Three Lions from the infobox because they are not recognised by Parliament and are not used by any state body, then you must also remove St George’s Cross as the English flag is only ever used in a sporting and heritage capacity, just like the Three Lions. They are made de facto official through long-standing use and by public recognition. In relation to the Act of Union, I don’t know where you got the idea that the act abolished all state symbols of both England and Scotland, state symbols which were never official in the first place. Margalant (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not shown in Wales or NI so no precident - sort can't see any value in this -----Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is precedent: Scotland. NI is a poor example as symbols like flags are too divisive. Wales does not have a coat of arms. England however, does and I don't know why it's such a big deal to include it in the infobox. It's common to include arms in infoboxes for both countries and regions. The Three Lions remain a national symbol (which the citation stated).. Margalant (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wales does actually and there was a long debate about its inclusion and the devision was made to remove it. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you’re correct, but it is included in the infobox. Go check for yourself. Regardless, this does not change the fact that most countries (and sub-national entities like states and regions) on Wikipedia have a coat-of-arms or state seal accompanying their national flags. If Wales and England have coat-of-arms, why not include them in the infobox? Margalant (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The banner should be removed from Scotland's infobox, too. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

But what’s the reason for not including a coat of arms in the infobox though? Switzerland has one as does Bavaria. If it exists then why not include it. It’s not as if there isn’t room next to the flag. Margalant (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland and Bavaria have official coats of arms whereas the English one is unofficial. I do however agree with you and see no problem with including it in the infobox. Justinorbit (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you have to show significant use through references. The Welsh one is in the main body not the info box as it is little used for example (a long discussion on that one). The need is stronger where the status is not official. Whatever edit warring needs to stop -----Snowded ^TALK 00:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends how you define “little used”. If you count how the arms feature in altered form by sports bodies such as the FA and the England and Wales Cricket Board; and how they feature twice in the UK coat of arms, which feature on most government documents; and how they feature on the buildings of some English heritage sites; and are used to represent England in medieval films and video games, then the criteria is probably met. England doesn’t have a devolved government, so there is no possibility of citing use of the Royal Arms as a stand-alone, unaltered symbol. Sources can be provided that support the fact that the Three Lions are considered a national symbol of England by English people. The reason why it was placed in the infobox in the first place is because that is where most countries’ Wikipedia pages place their coat of arms. Margalant (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the Royal Banner of Scotland, this is still in official use and the First Minister of Scotland is permitted to fly and use this standard, that is why Scotland does not have a Royal Coat of Arms of the such. The Royal Standard remains in use in terms of government and the FM is permitted to fly this. That is why the Royal Standard is shown in the Scotland infobox, quite different from displaying a Coat of Arms which is not in use and has not been for over 300 years. Goodreg3 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

I need to change the driving side from left to right coz it`s incorrect please awnser VoodoHassan (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please stop re-opening -- this isn't going to be done. aboideau^talk 17:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mushrooms

please change ((mushrooms)) to ((Edible mushroom|mushrooms))

Done - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

Raif2007 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

HDI Index

There appears to be no H.D.I. (Human Development Index) value shown for England alone. There is a value for N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales as individual countries and also one for the UK as an entirety. I've tried calculating a value for England using the existing numbers but come up with a number which is greater than 1, so impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feduplookingforusername (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Toponymy vs etymology

Why is the first tab here 'Toponymy' rather than the more usual 'Etymology'? The section currently has three paragraphs, the first two of which deal with the specific etymology of the term 'England', which is how national Wikipedia entries usually begin (eg, Scotland, Wales). The third paragraph, about the term Albion, is actually out of place here and internally inconsistent. The statement "An alternative name for England is Albion" is not supported by any of the following text, and is in fact refuted by the next sentence, "The name Albion originally referred to the entire island of Great Britain". In short, Albion derives from an ancient word for the landmass of Great Britain, not England specifically, and it should really be removed from this section with references added into the Albion or Great Britain page instead. The final sentence in this paragraph remains pertinent, however, in that the Welsh Loegr is another word for England, and would follow along nicely with the previous paragraph's coverage of Gaelic and Welsh words for English.

So in summary, might I suggest that the first tab 'Toponymy' be changed to the more commonly used 'Etymology', and that the third paragraph in this section (beginning "An alternative name for England is Albion", a factually incorrect statement) be removed except for its last sentence, (beginning "Another romantic name for England"). which follows on seamlessly with the end of the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaldon (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox 'Establishment' oddity

Why is this link in the infobox: 'Unification of Angles, Saxons and Danes 12 July 927'? It links to a subsection in an article on Kings Athelstan, where it states that on that date the king of SCOTLAND accepted Athelstan's overlordship. Irony of that in an article on 'England' aside, I can think of a dozen events in English history of similar or greater significance. Second point: Is 1707 not the Establishment of GB? In other words should the word 'Establishment' in the box be changed to something like 'Significant Events'?92.237.196.75 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest should happen? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Please update the population figure in the right hand summary from the 2017 estimate (55,619,400) to the 2018 estimate (55,977,178). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest PopEstUnit (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Undo please

Please UNDO the last contribution to this article!! Someone who has permission to this article!! Thanks Hyxl4161 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done by PortonHend, Thanks. Rob984 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Coat of arms

@Rab-k: Sorry to bring up a subject which I see has come up a lot over the years, but... You reverted my addition of the English royal arms to the infobox with the summary Again - no official contemporary use of such in the form shown. Despite everyone's (self included) previous best efforts there was no example found which verified official use of either the escutcheon or standard depicting 'only' the 3 Lions Passant Guardant. Do the most recent designs for Bank of England £5, £10 and £20 notes count as official use? They show these four shields: . What can they represent if not the four constituent countries of the modern UK? They're not the historical kingdoms in the Union, because Wales is included. The Irish shield would be the part of the Kingdom of Ireland still in the UK, i.e. Northern Ireland, the design being distinct from the Republic's arms where the harp is based on the Trinity College harp. Ham II (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand, to a degree, your trying to justify 'official use' by the Bank of England, however the same design appeared on the reverse of a 1997 £1 coin. Does use of any design on a coin/note issued by the Bank of England make such a design official? If an engraving of HMS Norwich had appeared on a note to mark the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Restigouche, (1760), and the pre-1801 version of the Union Flag had been seen flying from the jackstaff, would that have made that flag's design count as official and contemporary because it had appeared on a 2010 bank note? There are many symbols associated with the countries of the UK, but do we show a blue shield bearing the Gold Harp of (Northern) Ireland on the Northern Ireland article? Royal symbols, for want of a better description, are those of the UK. If, for example, the Royal Standard of England had official use in England, (as the Lion Rampant does in Scotland), then that would be an ideal image to include. But, for reasons of convention surrounding heraldry in England, it doesn't. I don't regard the shield as appropriate unless the design shown can be confirmed to be in contemporary use, in England, other than on the notes/coins issued by the UK's independent central bank. Not getting into any 'war' footing on this but I remain unconvinced. Happy as ever to go with the consensus however.Rab-k (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Union with Wales

I've added the Edward I date for the union with Wales in preference to the 16th century, though both are arguable. Both mark stages of the integration of Wales to form the Kingdom of England, of which Wales is a Principality. By contrast the union with Scotland is to form a new entity - Great Britain. Thoughts? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wales isn't a Principality for a start. The conquest made Wales a de facto possession of the crown but it retained its own legal systems and Marcher Law continued as well. It isn't integrated until the various Tudor laws; and the Tudors were the Welsh revenge on the English by the way :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't need to mention unions (with Wales or Scotland or EU for that matter), just the establishment of England as an entity, on which point I should say that the very accurate date of 12 July 957 is not sourced in the box, nor in the text. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

'Wales isn't a Principality for a start.' On what basis do you make that claim. It's got a Prince, and has had one since the term 'Prince of Wales emerges in the 13th century, before the English conquest. In Feudal times Counties were headed by Counts / Earls, and Margraves by Marquises and Duchies by Dukes (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Burgundy). So a Principality should have a prince...

Its legal integration into the Kingdom of England, which the Tudors legislated for, means that England was completed at that point. So it does make sense to include one of the dates in box, unless you want to argue that the 'Kingdom of England' is separate from 'England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 11:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to argue; the point is that England, as a discrete entity, came into being at some point (unsourced) in history, and its make-up subsequently changed, at one point absorbing or uniting with the Principality of Wales. At some later point (as now) England and Wales were constituent countries of the UK. This is important enough to be discussed in the article, but is too complex to be stated simply in the infobox, which should simply contain a (sourced) date for the foundation of England, not as it became subsequently, but as it came into being in the first place. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The 957 date is referenced in the linked section of Æthelstan.

For what it’s worth, the union with Scotland may also be unnecessary in the infobox since it has nothing to do with the establishment of England, only the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

Population Update

Please update the population figure in the right hand summary from the 2018 estimate (55,977,178) to the 2019 estimate (56,286,961).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardyak (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Vast succession of unexplained non-minor edits

I'm rather concerned at the obscurity of intent of the vast succession of edits made today, none with edit summaries and all marked as minor, overwhelmingly incorrectly. I have no reason, certainly as yet, to doubt the faith of the edits but so far can see little positive purpose in them. It is nigh impossible to keep track of what may have been removed permanently, what has been subsequently resituated and what the purpose of most edits may be. I'm somewhat of a mind to revert to the last stable version for now, pending an explanation by the editor of their intent but someone may have gained a better impression of the purpose and worth of the edits and as to whether they are an improvement and fit to remain. Has anyone? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned, too, and you have given an accurate view. I have gone through the edits superficially, and noted unsourced additions and unexplained changes. The (presumably) new and obviously very keen editor should, I guess, be given the chance to engage with more experienced editors rather than go at it at such a rate (as they have done with other articles), but in the absence of engagement the reversion to the last stable version may be the best way of attracting their attention. Sometimes it's the only way. I have left a message on their talk page about marking edits as minor. We'll see if that is taken notice of. Large parts of the article are unsourced and, as we have seen with Wales, it is in danger of having its GA status challenged. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, lots and lots of pictures now personal essays from a couple of editors here and at Culture of England. Needs more engagement. They don't edit war so I think the intent is fine -----Snowded ^TALK 11:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just removed a couple of sections that were wholly unsourced (though not wholly inaccurate) and quite poorly written - or, at least, not written in an encyclopedic style. I'm sure they were the work of a well-intentioned and quite new editor - but they need to learn that additions need to be sourced, and written in an appropriate style. They have also changed a whole bunch of images, for no apparent reason - I haven't reverted those (yet). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've also removed a few of the images. There are still far too many images in the article - I'm not too concerned about which ones go and which ones stay, but we should try and avoid turning the article into a picture book. My main concern is to persuade the editor concerned to discuss on this page what they are trying to do - otherwise it may indeed be best to revert to the status quo ante. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Canterburybuttermarketsquare.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Racial demographics

The racial breakdown is incorrect.

Firstly the source quoted says it's an estimate.

Secondly the racial demographics are an estimate of two countries combined, that being England and Wales.

HardeeHar (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Which racial breakdown, and which source, specifically? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The info cited from citation #1 isn't on that webpage.

Plus source #1 relates to England & Wales.

this Wikipage isnt about Wales and so shouldn't be citing demographics relating to Wales as that's a different country.

The info cited from citation #3 isn't on that webpage.

Plus source Citation #3 relates to the UK and not specifically to England.

I haven't checked the all other citations but from what I've checked I've seen a pattern, that being the sources don't contain the info cited and the sources aren't specifically about England and really relate to two or more countries info combined

HardeeHar (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Re the first citation (ref 13), the separated info is in the report (e.g. page 12). The third ref (ref 203) is a dead link and needs replacing. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

shdxiwgvBAJHJALIJHFGFDJSAKajhsgdfvcgbxjzoa0d. --> 2A02:C7D:E40A:1C00:4523:7007:986B:9AE3 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC) hbvghsbschcgyxsexydueihdjdxjslanjsapdv dw9iQIUHFU9Dxr

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Irish

please change ((Irish)) to ((Irish people|Irish)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are Irish listed under Other in the Ethnicity Box? I always thought the Irish were white? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MairiC (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

De jure and de facto

If Parliament (and Buckingham Place) is in the city of Westminster, surely it is capital de facto. London would be its county and the city of London is capital de jure. This would also be the case with the UK. Why is this not on here in the infobox? Chocolateediter (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Because we go with the WP:COMMONNAME and nobody actually calls it that, ever. Britmax (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Because this and other sources state so. That is what de jure is for, an entity which is most known while de facto is fact. Westminster is official/de facto. An encyclopaedia needs to state fact otherwise every time a person who looks would get an impression it is all London, which it isn’t the name is used for its long history. WP:Commonname is article titles not infoboxes so that’s helpful isn’t, find a bit about it that I missed or point me to another wikiguide. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind 1900 saw the old city status (I guess the capital title) to pass to London. A bit of text on the article might be good since Westminster has been the capital for centuries until 1900. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be an idea, yes. Britmax (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister

Has anyone thought about adding the British Prime Minister to the Infobox below Parliament of the UK? I just find it strange that it’s not there already! The office is the head of the central government of a sovereign state that England is part of, so why not add it? What’s everyone views on this? Ciaran.london (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, see Ontario (for example), which doesn't show the Canadian prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not included in any other article for UK countries Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Short description

(Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC))

What's that for??!! Global readership - need to say where in the world it is! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, exactly, and it's in the UK! We don't say for Manchester: "City in north-west Europe, in England and in the United Kingdom". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And where in the world is the UK? We say that Japan is {{Short description|Island country in East Asia}}, and there's no good reason to do anything different for England. I was merely reverting this edit, by the way, to re-establish the longstanding wording - not to make any significant (or politically-motivated) change. (And the reason I commented first on your talk page was that your edit seemed so odd, and your explanation so obviously wrong, that I simply thought you'd made a mistake.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, thank you, but it wasn't a mistake, I agreed with the edit that you reverted. England is not a country like Japan, it doesn't have its own sovereignty or a government of any description, it is a constituent part of the UK - which is a country like Japan. England's position is more like that of Scotland or Alberta or New South Wales, except that, unlike them, it doesn't have a government of its own. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a country like Japan, but it's still a country - as discussed ad nauseam, multiple times on multiple talk pages. The point is that we try to be helpful to readers rather than unhelpful, by providing basic geographical info for example, and in this instance the editor who reverted the previous long-established wording had given no valid explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In the lead, the aim should be to introduce the topic as much as possible while remaining as concise as possible. To describe somewhere geographically, it makes sense to describe what is at the next geographical level above, but anything else is overdescribing. We don't say "France is a country in Western Europe on the west of Eurasia on the Planet Earth in the system of the star Sol in the Milky Way Galaxy", because we can assume the reader knows where Europe is. The article France is not about Europe, so we don't include information about Europe. The article is not about the UK, so information about the UK is left out. If someone doesn't know where the UK is, they can click on the link to United Kingdom and see in that article where the UK is located. Japan is not part of another country, it is a sovereign state, while England is a first-level administrative division, so the two are not comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jèrriais janne (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue was not about the lead, it was the short description. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

ADD GOGY 66.243.255.215 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

TomMachen (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Paleolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, a Germanic tribe deriving its name from the Anglia peninsula, who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. Interestingly enough, they say that England being Anglo Saxon, and the Saxons, from Saxony, Germany. Whom have a troubled history with the English. England became a unified state in the 10th century and has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century.[10] The English language, the Anglican Church, and English law—the basis for the common law legal systems of...

 Not done - It is not clear what edits are requested, and unencyclopedic words like "Interestingly" and "Whom have" do not inspire confidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Population update

The 2020 population figures have been released by the ONS: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2020

Can somebody please update the population figure? (56,550,000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardyak (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

They are only estimates, so best to wait for 2021 census results. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

I would like to edit the page about England 2409:4073:2E89:3064:1827:E9BB:8B42:1902 (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Living Concrete (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

98.114.254.117 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

England’s motto is “dieu et mon droit“

 Not done: No, that is the motto which figures on the coats of arms of the UK monarch. As such, it is not the motto of England, rather that of its monarch. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Dieu et mon droit" was the motto of England before the United Kingdom was created, just because the term also represents the newer union doesn't necessarily mean it was abolished for the English nation, certainly some United Kingdom protocols represent England where there is no alternative. The motto is often seen on English courthouses so can at least be said to still apply to the legal jurisdiction of England-and-Wales. Never heard the motto verbally, so it isn't too important for the article whether it's included or not though, but think it would add consistency as Scotland has a motto listed. Jojo the Dodo (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Legislative Grand Commiteee

I believe the Legislative Grand Committee for England has been abolished. Should the footnote in the infobox be amended because of this? EllDB7567 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Gone. David (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

England is a nation not a country

That is according to Wikipedia's own definition of such things.

According to Country is distinct political entity.

According to Nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, a common culture and, in many cases, a shared territory.

Therefore a far more accurate phrasing would be :-

England is kingdom nation of the country the United Kingdom.

94.72.203.147 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sources refer to England as a country. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

... because it certainly is a "distinct political entity". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

England is known as a constituent country of the United Kingdom Penrithguy (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

I would like to correct some pages with bad grammar because it seems right to do so 2A01:4C8:1C00:9322:3133:1865:DBDE:84CC (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to be specific what changes are required like replace "X" with "Y". This would only cover changes in this article, if you need to correct other pages then you need to raise a request on each talk page if the articles are protected. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

The Bank of England was founded by Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax in 27 July 1697. The Scottish banker named in the ecomony section was not the main founder of the Bank. May we have that changed? [https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG30370 Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister; started the Bank of England and reformed government borrowing by initiating the National Debt; a leader of the Whigs. DdLiam (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done as this looks like block evasion and related articles suggest there's some complexity to who founded it, but I'll remove the unsourced claim. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it. I did some research and the Scottish banker listed before made some foundations, but it was Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax who properly found it and opened it. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. DdLiam (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury sock now blocked. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we all come to an agreement that England is constituent country rather than a country in its own right? A "country" without its own government can't be a country.

I'm in multiple edit wars over multiple pages and it would be great if we could come to an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijipedia (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• please see Country and Country (disambiguation). --Heanor (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fijipedia seems to be convinced that their own preferred definition of "country" is the only one. That is not the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The case is that the facts support my claim. It's basic knowledge that a country needs to govern itself to be a country. We could say its a "constituent country" and everyone would get what they want but people don't want that. Fijipedia (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"It's basic knowledge that a country needs to govern itself to be a country." Not so. "...everyone would get what they want but people don't want that...." Umm.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

england is actually 131,246 km2 (50,674 sq mi) Felinechunk (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive side is right in England

In the page it is mentioned that drive side is left in England but it is not the case. It is right in England 80.1.113.21 (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You might find this article useful.--Ykraps (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

lol no we don't. This is why Japanese cars are so popular in the UK, easy to import as we both drive on the left. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:359A:58E2:1D83:BF3F (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a country?

Wouldn't it be important to at least mention it's legal state as a "country"?

"England fails to meet six of the eight criteria to be considered an independent country by lacking: sovereignty, autonomy on foreign and domestic trade, power over social engineering programs like education, control of all its transportation and public services, and recognition internationally as an independent country." https://www.thoughtco.com/england-is-not-an-independent-country-1435413#:~:text=England%20fails%20to%20meet%20six,internationally%20as%20an%20independent%20country

"Just like Wales and Scotland, England is commonly referred to as a country but it is not a sovereign state." https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-UK-Great-Britain-Whats-the-Difference/

(Oxford) Country : a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. + "England itself does not have a formal government or constitution, and a specifically English role in contemporary government and politics is hard to identify in any formal sense, for these operate on a nationwide British basis." https://www.britannica.com/place/England/Government-and-society + England doesn't have a parliament: "The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and the overseas territories." Wikipedia - Parliament of the UK Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That would imply the term "country" has some exclusive, legal status that it does not. The material you have posted regards whether England is independent or sovereign, not whether it is a country. These matters are covered. See also the talk archives here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Late modern

In the late modern section there is no mention of the American War of Independence, a significant event in the evaluation of the British Empire (and the West). If the napoleonic wars are talked about, so should the break away of the 13 colonies Max3218 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If it should be mentioned, it is part of the early modern period (c. 1500- c. 1800). According to the main article, the series of events which ended the period include:

• • "mechanization in society, the American Revolution, the first French Revolution ... the redrawing of the map of Europe by the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna and the peace established by Second Treaty of Paris which ended the Napoleonic Wars." Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

Adding the category "Category:Countries in Europe" LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nythar^T.C 06:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason this category isn't already here is WP:SUBCAT. Category:Countries in Europe contains Category:United Kingdom, which contains Category:United Kingdom by country, which contains the categories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - so those four shouldn't be repeated further down the category tree. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Claim that England doesn't have free cancer treatment

Is of course nonsense as I personally know as I've been undergoing treatment most of the year. Source actually says some drugs are available in Scotland that aren't in England, but that's a 2008 source so obsolete. The whole sentence should probably go. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Treasury

Her Majesty's Treasury should be renammed His Majesty's Treasury in the ecomony section, due to the sad news of the Queen's death. 86.6.114.104 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Papal States Vassal

The article is missing that for about 100 years England paid tribute to Papal States as a vassal. https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2015/07/papal-overlordship-of-england-the-making-of-an-escape-clause-for-magna-carta.html https://academic.oup.com/book/38976/chapter-abstract/338212386?redirectedFrom=fulltext 64.53.212.155 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

In the politics & government section, there are some outdated claims. Cancer treatment is completely free on the NHS in England. I'm not sure if at one point it was, but treatment for any cancer is free for English taxpayers, as they pay for healthcare fees via taxes. I'm sure I can find some sources to back this up. Essexman22 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

On that note, most English people do not pay for prescription charges. Those on welfare and low income, the unemployed, pregnant females, over 60s, in education, and under 18s have free access to all prescriptions. While it's true prescriptions aren't free of charge like the rest of the UK, it's wrong to suggest they aren't free of charge for a certain sector of the public. Essexman22 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 3mi1y (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

2A02:C7C:52BD:1700:2D8B:65CE:3EA3:F0B4 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to edit

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Terasail^[✉️] 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Cancer is free

As two people have already pointed out, cancer treatment is free in England. Can we please change this? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

From: Religion (2019) 51.2% Christianity 37.9% No religion 5.9% Islam 1.7% Hinduism 0.7% Sikhism 0.6% Judaism 2.0% Other

To: Religion (2021, via Census21, ONS) 46.2% Christianity 37.2% No religion 6.5% Islam 1.7% Hinduism 0.9% Sikhism 0.5% Judaism 7% Other SublimeTimes (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

England is a minority Christian country.

2021 Census has revealed. Article needs an update. [3] (not watching the page, pls ping) Cinadon36 11:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

2A02:C7D:ED3:AA00:4122:6C83:9952:57B6 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Welsh is also a regional language in some parts of England (around Oswestry, Clun and Archenfield)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

GENUKI

DeFacto I was surprised by your rapid removal of the external link to GENUKI which contains a wealth of largely-reliable information and onward links to counties and parishes in great detail and with sources. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC) To be specific, I think it falls under WP:ELYES, point no. 3. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham, being self-published by volunteers, we cannot be sure how accurate or reliable the data is on that site. It therefore fails WP:EL per WP:LINKSTOAVOID item Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto - I think GENUKI is acceptable on many counts: (a) it presents data from many sources that can be fact-checked elsewhere; (b) it is rare to find on GENUKI factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, and even more rarely opinion; (c) it is a source of sources, some of which cannot be found elsewhere; (d) it is widely-used as a reference on hundreds of Wikipedia geographical articles. So I don't think it fails WP:EL. Having said that, I don't feel strongly about it being included in EL in this article, but on balance I think it is a helpful, rather than unhelpful, link. Anyone else care to comment? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

Under the 'Government' section in the table on the side, add the fact that the current prime minister is Rishi Sunak. Privatedev11 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

England doesn't have a prime minister. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See Mutt Lunker's reply. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"English Nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect English Nation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § English Nation until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

2021 census data available

Only infobox and introduction have been updated with 2021 census information; many references remain to the 2011 census. Is this an overdue update? PurpleQuaver (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Demography

Demography section should be edited to reflect the results of the 2021 Census. Wikiedits050999 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Combined Authorities

England has Combined authority that have a varying number of powers https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/english-devolution ChefBear01 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Description of countries bordering England. 75.80.227.134 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Combined Authorities form part of devolution in England ChefBear01 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

After recent edits, this pages needs to be reviewed to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. This is a good artcle and, sadly, it could be delisted if the images are not corrected. Someone has made a bit of a mess of the images and they are not lined up correctly and do not follow the style guide. 86.173.216.66 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I fixed what I saw was wrong. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. looks a lot nicer now, imo. You did a good job! The only thing I would fix is removing the Gatwick picture in transport because it looks too far down (I have a large screen and I don't want to think how low it looks on a smaller screen). Or perhaps moving the image slightly. Thanks again! --86.173.216.66 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, better. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023

A source for the UK investing over £60 million in world’s first air-breathing rocket engine back in 2013 for the economy section.

In 2013, the British Government pledged £60 million to the Skylon project: this investment will provide support at a "crucial stage" to allow a full-scale prototype of the SABRE engine to be built.

Source that could be used for this: https://reactionengines.co.uk/british-government-to-invest-60-million-in-worlds-first-air-breathing-rocket-engine/ 86.173.216.66 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, but I cited an article from the Graun instead of using the company press release you provided. Xan747 (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

In the climate section, the UK is now ranked 2nd in the environmental index; the energy department needs to be changed to the new one in the link. If you clcik on the Department for Net Zero it is still linked to the old department that closed down for this one in Feb this year. The link just needs to be changed to the Department for Net Zero.

Also there's a strange spacing issue in the architecture section in culture, the picture of St Pauls should be moved up slightly because thereis an unnecessary large space. 84.65.117.106 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Updated Environmental Performance Index.

 Not done: St Paul's Cathedral image is correctly anchored to the paragraph mentioning English Baroque period.

Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023 (2)

Vital information on other sports in England were removed in the latest edit on this page, and in the economy section. The tag at the top of the page says this artcle is too large but it's a normal size for a country page? And where is the talk page discussion about it? Can we please stop removing information without talking about it on the talk page first? 84.65.117.106 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (You could reach out to the involved editors on their talk page, and/or ping them here.) Xan747 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Fored image size fix

I took the time to go through this page and fix the forced image sizes issue, because it breaches the GA guidelines. I also updated some information like London Heathrow being the busiest airport in the world, which has been outdated and incorrect for a number of years. Bwflag2 (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Changing upright to px is introducing forced image sizes, this is the opposite of what WP:THUMBSIZE says to do. Belbury (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed this. Is that okay? Bwflag2 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

I feel like overlooking at things the cinema picture in culture could be changed to something somewhat a little smaller. Would everyone agree or disagree on this? The current cinema picture looks a bit too large compared to the other images used. Bwflag2 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Length

@Bwflag2: What matters most in measuring article length is its readable prose size; by that metric, this article is considerably larger than that of the United Kingdom, and remains longer than it should be. Additional work is needed to condense the text and improve readability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we making progress? Bwflag2 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Yes! getting there "Prose size (text only): 89 kB (14381 words) "readable prose size" WP:SIZERULE. Our FA's Canada 69 kB (10531 words). Japan 51 kB (8031 words). Moxy- 23:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the annexation of Wales be added to 'Establishment' in the Infobox? DHW1947 (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

I think a mention of the UEFA Women's Championship should be added into the sport section, regarding England winning the 2022 world cup. Sportingfan2 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Religion in England

Christianity should be re added as (official) state religion as with other countries. The Church of England is Christian and is official therefore it must be reflected with an “(official)”. Cpuddifoot (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, because Christianity includes many variations, such as Roman Catholicism, Methodism, Baptist and many other types of worship, none of which are the state religion. The Church of England may be the state religion, but the list just includes Christianity as a whole. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Church of England is the state church, however the Church of England is not a religion. Christianity is the religion and officially is England’s state religion. Even if this means showing “church of England (official)” or “protestantism (official)” under the Christianity section it should be represented as England is one of the few non Islamic countries to have a state religion. Cpuddifoot (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's certainly something which should be covered in the article. But to put 'official' by Christianity in the Infobox would be misleading rather than informing. It also doesn't really relate to the demography field as it's about the structure of the Church and government rather than census statistics. The census in England doesn't record denomination like they do in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it wouldn’t be fully informative to put (official) next to Christianity but as mentioned I think it should be shown that Church of England is the state religion under “Christianity” because it is a section about religion in England. 212.237.220.242 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If I may add, on the Denmark Wikipedia page it shows Christianity and below it shows “Church of Denmark (official)”. I believe to be consistent the same thing should apply to England with “church of England (official)” being shown. Cpuddifoot (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer a couple of the points made above, the diversity of Christianity is covered in the article, under the section Religion. The infobox can't be expected to break Christianity down, nor any of the other religions which are necessarily summarised there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

Could someone who has an economic background check the recent infobox changes, please, mostly regarding Gini. The source provided isn't the best. Englanduser2c (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

I think it should be removed or updated ASAP. It's outdated, why not add the 2020-2023 figures if there are any? The UK, Scotland, and Wales pages have updated figures plus the correct symbol. It should be a green arrow downwards like the UK artcle, if the Gini figure is right. Englanduser2c (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

@Dgp4004 Englanduser2c (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

On the arrow, it reflects whether the figure went up or down since the previous figure. In the case of England, Gini hasn't moved since the last measurement hence there isn't an arrow. If you look at the entry in the Infobox it is 'stable' which is correct.

On the source, I too would have liked more up to date figures but there aren't any. Only the Scottish Government has done an analysis by UK nation and they stop in 2019. Thereafter, they have only done an analysis on Scotland which is why the Scotland page has a more recent figure. All other UK nations use the same source, including Wales and NI.

I looked at the figures the source has used. They come from the 'households below average income (HBAI) statistics' from the UK Department for Work and Pensions. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The report is also quoted in British Social Attitudes Survey: The 38th Report by the National Centre for Social Research.

If you can find a post-2019 source for the UK nations I'd welcome it. I've looked and looked. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Statistics for England without Wales?

Ethnic groups should maybe be deleted from infobox as cite seems to include Wales Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Dgp4004 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

First line should be changed as it's misleading and causing issues in google results.

The first 4 words of the article is "England is a country", which should be changed to "England is a state" U.K. is a soverign country, England is just a part of it. If a student searches for "Is England a country" the first result on Google shows the first line of this article and students will take that as the answer without reading more. The terminology is misleading and incorrect. 2600:8800:2221:F500:BCB9:7AB9:CD6C:C483 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

England is a country. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The terminology is indeed correct; that is simply the UK-English use of the term. The words country and states can be a bit confusing as they are semi-synonymous in many cases. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state - an entity that can engage in foreign policies (The UK is sometimes referred to as a country). The United States of America is also a sovereign state (often referred to as a country). The United States consists of 50 states. The United Kingdom of 4 countries (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) - none of these 4 countries are ever, nor should they be called state. Students who do not know this, don't check facts and interpret the first line as England being a sovereign state by the use of the word country, deserve a fail mark for poor scholarship. Arnoutf (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I think the Coat of Arms should be added back. The other UK nations have a coat of arms next to their national flags on their respected pages. Looking up, there wasn't actually much discussion about. There needs to be a broad consensus about changes like this, not just two people agreeing. Flower23d (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

Scotland and Wales have heraldic symbols in their infoboxes, Northern Ireland and England don't. Scotland uses its version of the royal coat of arms, and Wales uses the heraldic badge which was created in 2008 and is used by the Senedd.

England doesn't have a distinct version of the royal arms which is used by its institutions, or a devolved government with its own arms, so we'd need to find some other justification for including any. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your points. However, we do need to hear from a range of editors about such change. I think there needs to be a full consensus made with a vote; so everyone can have their say. I don't think removing the coat of arms without a vote is wise. Flower23d (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

A consensus would be good, to make any change more likely to stick. It's worth noting that, unless I've been very unlucky when looking through the article history, the infobox has only consistently contained the coat of arms since January 2021; before that, going back to at least 2015-ish, only the flag was used. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Arms image

A.D.Hope, I think it may be misleading in this England article to use in the infobox the UK arms with the caption that wikilinks to the England arms, unless I am missing something. I didn't want to revert your edit without mentioning it here first. Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that, I've updated the caption to link to Coat of arms of the United Kingdom. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, isn't the new arms image actually the Coat of Arms of the entire United Kingdom and not just England? As technically, there is no separate arms used by the monarch in England as is the case in Scotland? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is, yes. England doesn't have a distinct version of the royal arms, and the escutcheon depicting only England isn't commonly used officially. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So, with that then, shouldn't the arms image be removed entirely from the infobox if England doesn't have a stand alone or separate coat of arms for usage like Scotland does? As currently, the inclusion of the entire UK Coat of Arms means nothing for the England article and is misleading as it is not a coat of arms specifically or solely used by England. The arms on the Scotland page article is at least used distinctly and solely by Scotland (whether it be the monarch in Scotland, or the Scottish legal system and courts). Goodreg3 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the arms are the version used in England even if they aren't used exclusively to represent England. They're used by the monarch in England and in English courts, just like the Scottish version. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

previous talks on the matter that lead us to no arms. Moxy- 01:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you point me to the specific discussion which led to a consensus for no arms, the ones I've looked at so far are inconclusive. The article infobox also seems to have contained a coat of arms since around February 2019, albeit removed a few times, so any consensus against one can't be very firm. A recent, wide-ranging consensus may be required to settle the issue A.D.Hope (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Just need a source that this is used by England. NO editor guess work pls. Moxy- 02:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The royal arms are used by the monarch in England, by the government in England, and by the English courts. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

that looks ok to me. Moxy- 12:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose the tricky bit is what 'by England' means. The UK state uses the royal arms in England for all the purposes linked above, but the arms aren't used by the English government because there isn't one. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Surely if the arms of Scotland are actually the arms of the UK in right of Scotland, then the arms of England must be the arms of the UK in right of England?

Even the Kingdom of England didn't use the three lions alone. Although the three lions are a 'symbol' of England, they certainly aren't its coat of arms and haven't been for many hundreds of years. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

England doesn't appear to have it's own distinct coat of arms, rather, it seems to use the official coat of arms of the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which does not particularly means it can be used as the coat of arms of England as it could be seen as misleading. In the context of Scotland, Scotland obviously has it's own separate version of the official coat of arms which is used by the Scotland Office (the UK Government in Scotland) as well as the Scottish courts and legal system. It is also different from England considering Scotland has it's own government whereas England does not, and, I would imagine, the Scottish Government would be bound to use the official version of the coat of arms as used in Scotland by the monarch on an official capacity. From research and what I can see, England does not have it's own official or individual coat of arms or version of the official UK coat of arms that would be worthy of inclusion in the infobox in this article. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.thebritishmonarchy.co.uk/royal-coat-of-arms seems to a be a fairly definitive site for this. It shows the coat of arms for England, Scotland and after union England+Scotland then after further union England+Scotland+Ireland (what happened to Wales?).

It seems to imply that the coat of arms for Scotland at the time of union with England is still active and so by this logic the coat of arms of Elizabethan England should still be the coat of arms for England. But without another reference this would be unsubstantiated and not good enough for the article.

The three lions was the coat of arms of Richard the first which was "Used as the Royal Arms of England (1198 - 1340)" and was merged with some French motifs in 1340 as at this time the distinction between England and France was to put it mildly a bit complicated. The final coat of arms of England was in quarters with 2 x French fleur-de-lis and 2 x 3 lions. After the unifications it got very complicated with English, Scottish,Irish and French elements.

So I don't think England has had a distinct coat of arms since it unified with Scotland,Ireland and possibly France and ceased to have a independent identity. But this is just my interpretation and is totally in the dodgy realm of interpreting a single source. Mtpaley (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out or quote the seeming implication that you mention? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The last "Kingdom of England" shown in this article is Elisabeth I "1558–1603" and after that England and Scotland unify so there is no longer such a thing as Kingdom of England as the Kingdom is now "Scotland and England" with a different coat of arms.

Is this what you were asking? Mtpaley (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you state that your britishmonarchy link "seems to imply that the coat of arms for Scotland at the time of union with England is still active". Where in the source and what does it say to lead you to this interpretation? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, in case you were under the impression that the source is an official one, it is a self-published WP:BLOG, so not authoritative. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right. It is just someones personal page so not as reliable as I thought. Mtpaley (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the Elizabethan England coat of arms and call it a historical coat of arms in the text box?

I hope one day England has an adopted new coat of arms/ like Wales did, back in 2008. It's a shame the country's coat of arms is a bit of a puzzle. Indeed, it has so many coat of arms used throughout its history. But by the time of the merger of England and Scotland into a united kingdom, England lost its identity in some ways.

I personally do hope we can add some form of coat of arms or royal badge, to make England more in line with the other UK pages. Flower23d (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

I think a proper historian needs to provide a opinion on this. Mtpaley (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Add the Coat of arms of England at the top. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:6478:D481:F46B:A96 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I see a couple discussions about this topic on this page ­– feel free to contribute to them. Tollens (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Establishment date

This article explains that England was created over a period of a few decades, not overnight. However the infobox said that England was created on 12 July 927. That is patently false, as well as contradictory, so I have added the word "by" to indicate that that is the latest date, rather than the only date on which England came into being. Richard75 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

A source in the politics section claims England isn't a country, when it is. It's source number 86 and 87. 2A00:23C7:69B0:4601:9D6B:AE13:E062:ED3E (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

It was removed before this edit yet added back. [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&oldid=1193262021 2A00:23C7:69B0:4601:9D6B:AE13:E062:ED3E (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

@‎ ThaddeusSholto Thank you so much for removing. However, one of the sources is still present and needs to be removed. 2A00:23C7:69B0:4601:9D6B:AE13:E062:ED3E (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

 Not done What number? Geardona (talk to me?) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)