Talk:England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the England article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
England is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
England Portal
British Flag

Note to editors: The page England was created in British English (en-GB).
Please refer to:

Contents

[edit] It is not a Country because it doesn't have a Government; that discussion had not been finished.

It is not a country because it doesn't have a government

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

The 1st citation in this article even says it doesn't have a government. 220.253.40.31 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a constituent country of the UK. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It still contradicts the article on country. 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In collins world atlas its borders are marked as an adminastrative divsion. It isn't included in the list of countries in Europe section eather.220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the country article in full. Especially this bit, "the countries constituting the United Kingdom are sometimes called the home nations." The article you are trying to use to back up your point then, actually calls England a country.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That article contradicts itself and this article. 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to add one of the thing which says "This article appears to contradict another article". 220.253.8.243 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. What is contradicting exactly? England is a constituent country and complies with that definition as set out by the UK government. Looking up the definition of 'country' will be different to 'constituent country'. Your arguement makes about as much sense as saying that 'Horse-Chestnut' is not a tree, because the article on Horse contradicts it. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
We do have a government. --ジェイ ✉@Wikpedia／✍ 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed we do not, especially not just to appease one anonymous IP user whose sole contribution to wikipedia under that IP has been this thread and nothing else. However, regardless of that, England is actually described as being a Constituent countryConstituent country of the UK, which is perfectly legitimate and accurate.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on Constituent country says to be a Constituent country it has to be a country. 220.238.170.92 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

My reference is collins world atlas. It says the UK is a country too. 122.105.220.244 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all countries have governments, the government of the UK is "owned" by England. --ジェイ 接触 貢献 ゲストブック 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you cant "own" a government. secondly,countries have to have governments according to wikipedia. thirdly, read collins world

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

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

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

1) Perhaps you could tell us what Britannica says that is relevant to the matter. Are you looking at its entry on "country", or on "England", or what? I don't have access to paper Britannica here, but the online edition calls both England and Scotland "countries" several times on their respective pages (as well as "units" and "parts" of the UK). Ultimately, though, what the British government calls them is more important than what encyclopedias call them (encyclopedias are tertiary sources, after all).
2) You can't cite Wikipedia as an authority to decide what Wikipedia should say. There are clear errors on List of countries in Europe (it even says that the UK is known in the short form as England). Furthermore, that page doesn't make any attempt to define "country", which is what is at question here. Marnanel (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • even the farthest points in the country are no more than a day's journey by road or rail from London. [6]
  • England is known as a wet country, and this is certainly true in the northwest and southwest. [7]
  • Cultivated gardens[...] account for much of the varied vegetation of the country. [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole argument is pointless me and only me should decide what is a country and what isn't so next time you want to know if it is a country and what is a giant bloke of land you know who to call and as for hovercrafts they are not countries and helicopters are not either good night folks.
ps: hey Nik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.152.177 (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a real country in the sence that Germany is a country or Belgium is a country, which is pretty clear and hasn't been since the Acts of Union 1707. But you won't win an argument on the matter, the "English" "national"ists (unwilling to accept that they're British) won't allow it. And so on all Wikipedia pages, British cities do not have, for example Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.. but Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Perhaps if the "English" want to be angry about it they should study the history of the English Civil War and consider, "would England instead still be a real country today, had Oliver Cromwell never been born". I suppose until then, Parliament will have to make do with disbanding the historic counties, causing more confusion on topics relating to this area, its identity and culture. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No, it's not okay. Constituent country is the most often used term. TharkunColl (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you check how many sources you come across that call England a 'country' compared to the number that describe it as a 'constituent country', I think you'll find that 'constituent country is not used very often - apart from in Wikipedia where it seems to crop up all over the place! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK's government is not 3rd party. Its point of view is not neutral; it probably says England is a country just to stay/become popular. And there are the two atlases I cited. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was 'resolved' with the discovery that the opposition were trolls. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.citymayors.com/features/capitals.html has a list of countries and their capitals, and England is not included in the list their ether. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be verifiably a country: [1]) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That source is not 3rd party it says what its population wants to think. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, you haven't convinced me, nor (m)any others. Looks like there's not a consensus for your preferences to be facilitated. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This has been discussed at length in the past, but seems to always come back to the same position. The trouble is that England is verifiably a country. Not only that, but simiply removing it from the lead here has no effect on the thousands of articles, templates, infoboxes that use the word "country" themselves. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the term is used by the government, it should certainly be in the article. My objection is to using it in the definition of England in the first sentence. Kanguole (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole proposition on which this discussion is based is fundamentally flawed, because England does have a government specific to itself. Almost all government ministries deal only with England. These same functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are dealt with by the devolved governments (and prior to their creation, by the offices responsible for those countries, e.g. the Scottish Office). It shows a complete lack of understanding of how our constitution works to suggest that England has no government. And the fact that a small percentage of MPs represent constituencies outside England is also completely irrelevent - a country can run itself however it likes. England comprises 83% of the population of the UK, and to suggest that it is not in control of its own affairs is palpably ridiculous. Indeed, so overwhelmingly does it dominate, it can even afford to be generous. TharkunColl (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Your last sentence has no bearing on this discussion! It does not even make sense! --Jack forbes (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
By allowing, for example, a higher number of MPs from the other countries than their populations would merit. TharkunColl (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't question the fact that England is a country. I question your last statement. England does not allow anything, The UK government does! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to get off topic, but does England have a First Minister (like Scotland, England & Northern Ireland)? GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It has a prime minister, whose authority in the other countries is much more limited than in England. I'm not saying there aren't grey areas - in particular matters concerned with the armed forces, which are under central government control throughout the UK. Most other matters outside England though are dealt with by their own administrations. TharkunColl (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, it's location. No First Minister of England due to the fact the UK Government is located in (well) England. Hmmm, perhaps I can persuade the Ontario government to dissolve (as the Canadian Government is located in Ontario); Oh well, different sovereign countries = different political setups. Interesting stuff, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The main difference I suppose is that the UK is not a federal state. The governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland derive their authority from Acts of the Westminster parliament and all their powers are delegated (and could in theory be taken away at any time). Also, Ontario doesn't dominate Canada either in terms of size or, even more importantly, population - at least, nowhere near the same extent as England does in the UK. Creating a separate parliament for England would be truly monumental waste of time and money. And it would leave the UK government with virtually nothing to do - except defence and foreign relations. TharkunColl (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There are of course many English people who would like a devolved English parliament! Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

England is NOT a country. No country on the face of the planet recognises a country called "England", neither is there any form of "English Government". Even Cornwall and Devon eash have Stannary Parliaments! Muppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.167.10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Cornish and Devonish stannary parliaments are not manned by muppets - though neither are they recognised by Westminster as having any legislative ability. TharkunColl (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing "country" with Sovereignty. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and all the sources I've mentioned. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It is 3 lists, not just one, and it has no been countered. The issue has not been resolved elsewhere, as you have "won" the dispute by calling everyone a troll. Jza84, you are saying something that has already been said, and my answer is the same: a country can be a nation, not just an independent state. Anyone who wants to dispute the definition I'm using, do it on the country discussion page, not here. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we had one Troll on the Wales Page, who then turned out to be a sock puppet Gozitancrabz (and one with a persistent record of such behaviour) who was then banned, That person made much of lists and misquoted BBC reports Now you (122.109.250.74) were not engaged in that debate In fact your edit history starts on 29th April which was the time the sock puppetry was first formally reported and Gozitancrabz stopped editing. Can we have some reassurance from you here? --Snowded (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Simillarly 122.109.250.74, I think the time as come to close this discussion. There's very little, if any support for the change you seek. Repeating your point over and over without bringing fresh, scholarly evidence is the type of thing discouraged on our page WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have a duty too, to make you aware that a country and nation are not the same too 122; a country is a territory, or division of land, whilst a nation is a group of people that occupy it, as has been established. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

A country is ether an independent state, or a nation. It's clearly not an independent state, and it is not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. If you dispute ether of the definitions, dispute it on its own article, not here. Any one else, don't act like I invented the definitions, like some have before, as they are on the country wikipedia article. My references are: Phillip's atlas, Collins atlas, the CIA and http://www.citymayors.com/features/capitals.html. You can't get an English passport, and England doesn't have a seat at the UN. Don't give me the "its not a country but a constituent country" argument as the constituent country page says it is a type of country. Don't say "stop repeating yourself" as i have explained why i do so. Don't give me UK gov references as they are not 3rd party or neutral so do not qualify as suitable souses. Don't tell me to end this argument as some users have shown support for me. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said "a country is an independent state"? What definition or source are you alluding to that suggests this is the case? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I said "a country is ether an independent state or a nation." my reference is the country page if you dispute the definition, dispute it there and not here. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right:

  1. In British English (or at least the version preferred by the UK government), England and the rest are "countries".
  2. In the rest of the world, "country" is synonymous with "state", and in places that have states, "country" is the preferred term.
  3. This article is written in British English, but using "country" in the British sense in the first sentence will be very confusing to non-British readers. For those readers the British usage needs an explanation, which should be later in the article. Making them follow a wikilink or look at references just to understand the first sentence is unreasonable.

Hence I suggest just "part" in the first sentence (like Britannica) with an explanation of the British usage later. Kanguole (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

British English? Cite please. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first two points raised above! But why isn't a wikilink OK? British English should be used here and thus such a motion should be fine! Perhaps we should ask for the article Cookie to be rewritten to biscuit as we British can't understand what a 'cookie' is meant to be!I would have though UK goverment links should be enough to prove the case? --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh but we can understand it: the first sentence of the article tells us what it means by a cookie, without us having to chase off to other articles or refs to understand it. The whole lead can be read without such interruption, except (for some) for the last word. Kanguole (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm British, I'm even a Unionist; constituent "part" is fine by my account, but this change you seek has never been popular with the majority of editors, and there are many sources given to verify the claim. I suppose you could raise this with WP:ENGLAND to get some feedback. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A brilliant idea, if ever I saw one! = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaz84, could you be a bit more clear; i don't know who "you" is and a can't tell which claim "the claim" is ether. Cameron, I'm waiting for the reference. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

That England is a country is British English. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Officially, England is not a "country", but a "constituent country"; the two do not mean the same thing. I think this needs to be made clear 12.106.168.180 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations 12.106.168.180! You are the 4th person to say that! Wikipedia's article says that constituent countries are a type of country. If you dispute that go to constituent country. Cameron, what about finding a British dictionary with the definition that if used England is a country? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's more references for it not being a country: http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm, http://dir.yahoo.com/regional/countries/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/collab/country.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/worldref/country/country_index.htm#e, http://www.state.gov/misc/list/, and http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/StaatenlisteVisumpflicht.html. I think that England is definitely not a country in American English. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about that. In Amercian English, "England" is certainly a country - and includes Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the talk about American vs. British English is about, but I don't think there's a particular difference in the definition. The difference is how people interpret the words country, nation, and state (even all the sources don't agree on the semantics). There are almost ten separate definitions in some dicitionaries on just the word country. I have never personally thought of England as a separate country (different region of the UK), but I don't see what the problem with leaving it as constituent country is. None of the constituent countries of the UK are fully independent, as they have the same military, currency, passport, central government,.... No matter what you call them, they are what they are, and I think we're getting too caught up in semantics here. And just because some of them have devolved governments like Scotland, doesn't automatically make it an indpendent country. In the U.S., every state has it's own government that passes their own laws, have different taxes, different official languages, etc., but no one would consider any U.S. state a separate country. Kman543210 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The US government do not claim they are anything other than states. The Downing St website says that England is a country. Where is the argument? Jack forbes (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the argument? There wasn't an argument from me, as I stated that I agree that it should be left as "constituent country", even though my own opinion is that they are not separate countries. I believe the UK government website that I read a few months back specifically called them "constituent" countries. The argument from others is that they're saying you can't use the the UK government websites as sources and need a 3rd party source. The reason that I brought up the U.S. states is that I was just saying that I didn't believe you could use the "has it's own government" as a reason that it's a country, especially if there is a higher government (UK being higher level than England, Scotland, Wales,...). The nationalists in the autonomous communities in Spain try to call their regions/communities separate nations/countries as well (Basque and Catalonia specifically), but the world thinks of Spain as just one country. Kman543210 (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. These are just a few link certifying that England is a country. They come from Ebassies, Travel agents, government sites and articles. --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop giving me biased British websites. I couldn't tell wether the last two were British, but all the others were. Only non British references are 3rd party on this. Show me one of those, then it needs to be stated in the article that it is disputed. Tharkuncoll, you disputed about 10 references, and didn't give any yourself. Kman543210, have you read constituent country? It clearly says that they are a type of country. It is definitely not a country is American English as Yahoo, the CIA and the Washington Post all say its not. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read "constituent country" and fully understand what it means; pretty much England is called a country within a country by the British sources. I've already stated that I personally don't think that England is a country, but I'm not going to argue semantics. It may be American sources that say that it isn't a country, but I just don't think it's inherent to American English vs. British English but rather viewpoint; it seems to me a nationalistic pride thing (that's why I equated it to Catalonia in Spain). Again, I personally think that each state in the U.S. has more autonomy than England itself, but I just feel using the term "constituent country" is a middle ground. I was not disagreeing with your opinion that it is not a country, but I'm not sure that we can discount all British sources like you suggested. Kman543210 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew you weren't disagreeing with me, but I have no idea how reach the conclusion that constituent country is middle ground. Middle ground would be saying that there are references for both sides, or simply not stating its country status at all. The "nationalistic pride thing" is exactly why British references are untrustworthy on this subject. The reason I bring up the British/American English is because Kanguole said "In British English (or at least the version preferred by the UK government), England and the rest are countries". 122.109.250.74 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not proud of any nation on earth! I merely seek to add country to the intro as the whole country (England) refers to England as one! Even the government seems to think so!The Scotland article already has it written in its intro!--Cameron (T|C) 11:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

England thinks its a country, that is correct. But if I think I am a country does it make me one? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Find a source for it and I'll call you a country! It's not really the best name in the world. :> Jack forbes (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Please tell me where in that it says England is a country. I don't want to look through all of it. If there are reliable, 3rd party references that say England is and and ones that say England isn't a country we say that it is disputed. Anything wrong with that? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

don't feed the troll people. Arnoutf (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith. And in any case, I am not the one who is following someone around and calling them "troll" at every opportunity. Remember too, no personal attacks. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Actually Arnoutf, Yorkshirian and 90.216.167.10 have shown support for me. Reliable, 3rd party refferences have been shown for both sides, so we need to say it is disputed. Anyone have a problem with that? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It flies in the face of the UK government because it is not a nutural reference on this subject and so can not be used. Common usage? It has been months since I have herd anythng that stupid. I do not belive you belive what you are saying. Unless country has a different meaning in your casul dialect to mine, country means "independent state". I have seen 1 sutible reference that England is a country whereas I have supplied several references. Can you stop with the insults? If not I suggest you take a wikibreak. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

P.S. That last statement of yours is complete rubbish. There is no consensus and "push a line beyond reson" you're doing that, not me. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you pop into the sandpit and learn how to use Wikipedia - indenting would help. Otherwise a bit of research on the other country pages will show you the debates that have taken place and the evidence presented. also look at the Country page for definitions. That way you might avoid other editors having to waste time repeating issues which have been discussed and resolved. --Snowded (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "sandpit" or "indenting". Can you specify which arguments from which arcives from which article you want me to read? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I indented your comment for you (just to help out). The sandpit is where you go to learn how to edit the Wikipedia and I suggest you spend time there). I am not going to do your research for you the articles are there, the topics are clear go and look. --Snowded (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not that clear, Scotland has had 19 archives, and, if what you say is true, I would be continualy re-reading the same arguments. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Go to the talk age on Wales you will see several discussions on the current page (and I indented you again) --Snowded (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I find the sandpit? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Look here. For indenting look here. Jack forbes (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the sandbox is supposed to help me edit, but I have had a good long look at the Wales discussion page. Both sides seem to be ignoring each other. The "it's a country" side is acting like the others references are not trustworthy (when they are) and the "it's disputed" side is ignoring the fact that there lists don't include England or Scotland ether. I can address this criticism by having a slightly different position; I think that England and Scotland aren't countries. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if you don't try (the sandpit) you will never learn. I have indented for you (again). The Wales page was a debate between a majority of the editors and what turned out to be and one other (if we ignore the two sock puppets. The question of "lists" was debated there and evidence provided both to establish that Wales is a country and also that the lists and other dubious web sites did not provide evidence that it wasn't. ow if you can't accept that and persist in stating that Wales, Scotland and England are not countries then I don't think anyone could persuade you and further attempts (like getting you to learn basic conventions of editing) would be a waste of time. --Snowded (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A good idea would be to look through all the tutorial pages and even print them off. Then use the sandbox to practice indenting etc. It's also a good idea to open an account which enables you to have your own sandbox. Jack forbes (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What evidence? All I have seen that is suitable is 1 USA government website. It is also not helpful to say "if you don't try you will never learn" when I don't know what I am supposed to be trying to do with the sandpit. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As to what you can learn, start with using colons to indent your comment. I have now done this for you three times in a effort to help you understand a basic protocol. Jack Forbes also gave you some links. I suggest you following them. And, while you are at it read the material again. If you only saw 1 USA web site then you have not read it. --Snowded (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another reference for me is http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasing-power-parity-per-capita. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clear that that's how the word is usually understood outside the UK. As for British English, the Oxford English Dictionary (1893) has "3. The territory or land of a nation ; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." I do, however, feel that the word is unsuitable for the lead, precisely because it is misleading for non-British readers. "Constituent country" is less bad, as it is merely confusing rather than misleading. Kanguole (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is less bad about Constituent country? Don't forget that the Oxford dictionary is British. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For a non-British reader, "England is a country" says that England is an independent state, while "England is a constituent country" merely sounds garbled, causing the reader to pause and perhaps guess that this is some quaint Britishism for a part of an independent state. It would be even better if the first sentence could be read without having to stop and guess. Kanguole (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not my experience. People in Washington USA, Singapore, Canada, Brazil and Greece are fully aware (going on my experience in the last three months) of the the fact that the UK has different countries. Not all the population by any means, but the informed reader. In addition Country does not require a country to be sovereign. The first paragraph makes the position perfectly clear and the links will elaborate if anyone is confused. --Snowded (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree with Snowded on this matter. To the list of people in different countries, I would add, from my own experience, people from Japan and China (and not just educated people from Beijing in tis last case): in all the cases I have come across people, not especially extremely well-read, know about the status of the UK and the different countries that are contained within it, and this has been from the beginning of me getting to know them. Even my son, who was educated in a Chinese primary school for quite a few years, was taught about this in one of his lessons there.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, but the problem still remains if the reader chooses to follow the link constituent country, they will probably think it means that England is an independent state that is part of an international body (such as the EU). 122.105.220.129 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Your personal experience is contradicted by the large number of references I have presented. Snowded, you are one of heaps of people to say that. I have said many times that I accept the definition of country on the country page that countries don't have to be independent states. According to that definition if it's not that then to be a country it has to be a nation, which England isn't because not everyone there would share the same identity. If you dispute any of the above go to the appropriate page. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

What would you say the status of the UK and its divisions are? I need to know this because it depends on what status they know about whether they contradict it or not. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See previous comments, you are starting to look like a vandal/Troll --Snowded (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen no vandalism by 122.105.220.129. Kanguole (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing to look like one, and which comments should I see? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

persistent assertion of a position without adding arguments, not reading or thinking about material posted by others, perversely refusing to follow editing conventions, wasting other editors time. I could go on but can't be bothered. --Snowded (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me both Snowded and myself have tried to help you out! Not working, is it? In case you missed it, my advice to you was to read the tutorial pages, print them off then practice in the sandbox. If you create an account you can have your own sandbox. Jack forbes (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Now I understand. Snowded, I have said multiple times why I repeat myself, and its because some people (e.g. you) are saying things that others have already said before. I am "reading or thinking about material posted by others". I don't see why you think I am not. I haven't refused "to follow editing conventions" I just have not because I was not aware of them. Here are some more references that say England isn't a country. *http://www.postur.is/english/Business_Solutions/To_and_from_Iceland/Countries_in_Europe.html

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

I am aware of the editing conventions now but a actually wasn't when I made the list. I will rearrange it. Common usage is disputed, and the official documents are not 3rd party references, something you are ignoring. Not giving anon people credibility is biased, and I would advise you to stop it. You are also ignoring the fact that others have supported me. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close discussion on England as country

As far as I can see we have one anon user (122.105.220.129) arguing that England is not a country. Looking back through a very long discussion I can seek weak support not repeated from another anon user. Now there is a lot if prior discussion so I could have missed one so apologies if so. All other editors are for country status and this replicates discussions elsewhere such as Wales. On all normal grounds this discussion should now cease and be archived. Does anyone, other than 122.105.220.129 disagree? If there is any support for [122.105.220.129]] then I suggest we move straight to a vote, if not then I think it is over and persistence by 122.105.220.129 should be reported as vandalism. --Snowded (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I also stated previously that I don't think of England as a country for several reasons; however, I am fine with keeping it as "constituent country" because the article there defines what that means in a broad sense. I also realize that "country" can have several different meanings from an independent country to a group of people or region. I think of England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland just as Catalonia and Galicia in Spain (although they call them "autonomous communities").
So question for user 122.105.220.129: What was your suggestion in the first place to change it to? I think saying "constituent country within the United Kingdom" indicates that it is a separate piece of a whole. I am fine with that. And for everyone else, I don't think his persistence can be considered vandalism since I don't see how he has tried to continually change the article; he just has a very strong opinion based on several legitimate sources. You can find legitimate sources for both sides of this discussion about it being a country and not being a country. Like I had said before, we are just arguing semantics, and I agree that this matter should just be closed. What I do find interesting is that the Scotland article seems to be the only one that does not use "constituent country" and just wants to label it as "country." Kman543210 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Snowded, Yorkshirian and 90.216.167.10|90.216.167.10 have shown direct support for me, so please stop acting like it's only me. Weak support?! You call about 15 references weak support?! I have seen 1 3rd party reference for it being a country. Also, votes aren't good because they can easily be rigged by sockpuppeting. Kman543210, I suggest changing it to something like "a division under direct control from the UK government that does not have any mid-level administration". 122.105.220.129 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE learn how to edit, colons are not too hard are they? How many times do you have to he told?
Sorry two people with single entries is weak support, especially when you read what they said and the number of other editors on the other side. Number of references has nothing to do with that statement. Kman543210' suggestion is reasonable, corresponds with the page on Wales and would I think gain a consensus. I suggest you accept it. If no one else enters this debate then I think the status quo stands and there is no authority for you (or anyone else) to amend the current text. --Snowded (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not using these as references, but I was just curious how other online encyclopedias handle this. Here are three examples (sorry they are describing Scotland instead of England, but I think you get the idea):
"most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom, occupying about one-third of the island of Great Britain" (Britannica)
"political division of Great Britain (1991 pop. 4,957,000), 30,414 sq mi (78,772 sq km), comprising the northern portion of the island of Great Britain and many surrounding islands" (Columbia)
"one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (MSN Encarta)
None of these use the word "country," but I am still fine with using "constituent country" in the article. Kman543210 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, what have colons got to do with this? Number of references has plenty to do with the statement, it shows how much backing up I have. 90.216.167.10 didn't have a good argument, but Yorksiren did. His point is the reason, and the only reason, why I have not won this debate. Also, I think it would be more productive if you had actual evidence rather than your evidence being not many people agreeing with me. Kman543210, I'm still not sure why you find "country" not OK, but constituent country OK, when, if England is not a country, it is clearly not a constituent country. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Colons are a basic fomating device when you comment, to indicate who you are responding to. Jack and I have tried to explain this several times and illustrated it as well as pointing you to the sandpit to learn more. Persistently ignoring such advice is not likely to gain you a sympathetic audience or provide credibility that you have read material already provided on this subject.
Your "evidence" has been handled on other pages (Wales in particular) where substantial evidence has been provided and cited to say that these are countries. If you bother to check you will see lists of evidence and refutations. As far as I am concerned its over. Unless someone other than you comes in and argues against Constituent country or refutes the existing evidence there is no point in continuing the argument. Kman is right to say that you are not being a vandal, that was an error on my part. However continuing to argue a position in isolation is tedious and in terms of Wikipedia behaving like a troll, even if you do not intend to. Please do the decent thing and desist --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What handling? There was the criticism that all their references had England and Scotland as countries, which I have addressed by saying that none of them are. There is just 1 non British and therefor 3rd party referece that says England is a country.

122.105.220.129 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat (i) you are failing to format (ii) you are failing to read prior data. --Snowded (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you're repeating yourself. I also suggest you base your decisions on logic rather that what everyone else is doing. I am trying to follow the formats, but it's difficult to learn everything at once. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, if I were writing this article myself, I would not use the word "country" at all and would choose to use a version similar to the other encyclopedic examples above; however, I fully understand the flexibility of the definition of the word "country." So to answer the question of 122.105.220.129, I am fine with using "constituent" country, even though I don't think of England as a country, because it at least specifies the type of country as defined by the constituent country article on wikipedia. As long as it's in the same sentence and indicates England is in the United Kingdom, then this diminishes the chance of confusion of thinking England is independent. I also believe that there are enough sources that use country, nation, or constituent country to support incorporating that term. Kman543210 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls.
Please do not feed the trolls.
Colons at last! Yes I am repeating myself and getting fed up of having to do so in the face of a stubborn refusal by you to read or pay attention to prior discussions. However your first properly formatted reply deserves some recognition so I decided to respect the Wikipedia convention to be tolerant and check out your authorities. I more or less instantly regretted my decision You quote (i) a satirical video made with a hand held camera of no authority, (ii) & (iii) citations from about.com which is primarily an advertising site with no authority and (iv) a blog which references said about.com and therefore is not a new authority. If that constitutes evidence God help us all. However the style of your writing and the use of about.com and similar web links reminds me strongly of Gozitancrabz a sock puppet on the Wales page so I am now getting suspicious. Either way sock puppet or not I think you now deserve this badge and I will act accordingly hereafter. --Snowded (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
FAD - above references 122.105.220.129 not Kman543210 --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have paid plenty of attention to prior discussions and I have responded appropriately. Those references that you addressed were just 4 of the many more that I've presented. You on the other hand haven't given any references yourself while continually pressuring me to stop this discussion, so I have actually wondered whether you are a troll. I am not Gozitancrabz. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Constituent country

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

It should remain, as it is the only accurate, non-misleading term that can be applied. Tom Green (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
IF it is deleted here, it should be deleted in constituent country, right? But it's still there. But looking at Google Books, there seems to be enough references, so what's the problem?--Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Arkwright – inventor of the first industrial spinning machine

in the section about Engineering and innovation

Richard Arkwright didnt invent the spinning machine

as it says in the article; Sir Richard Arkwright (Old Style 23 December 1732 / New Style 3 January 1733 – 3 August 1792), was an Englishman who is credited for inventing the spinning frame — later renamed the water frame following the transition to water power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dace83 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why British English??

Why does the England page use British English? The United Kingdom article uses British English, the Scotland article uses Scottish English..so why does the England article not use plain English? The language originates in England so why should the article not use "the purest form of English"? = ) Yours confusedly, --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define what the purest form of English is! Do you mean the Queens English? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why of course! "Her Majestie The Queen shall be the Fount of all English"! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I understood that English English pertains moreso to speech and dialect rather than formal writing. Whilst British English would be viewed more as Standard English in writing. I could be wrong though. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Then surely the same applies to the other constituent countries?...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep! But I think folk like to assert the (sub-)national variety, for reasons I couldn't possibly comment on! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, it's one of those things again. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to do, what with England having a much larger variety of dialects.--Jack forbes (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As it's kept purely on talk pages, it's not been a concern of mine. It's a bit odd though- kind of like saying on Liverpool, we use Scouse English. It just doesn't work. The reality is we use Standard English, with British English spelling. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I don't agree with the term Scottish English. It's all English with different accents. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why can't everyone just speak proppa like what I do!? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah dunno! --Jack forbes (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"purest form of English"? Is there really such a thing? Honestly though, what in this article is not written in standard English? Kman543210 (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omitted names of notables, and section on the visual arts and film

The debate could continue indefinitely as to whom should be included among the list of notable contributors to specific fields of endeavour, but there appears to be a few surprising omissions imo which need consideration, and the inclusion of a section covering the "Visual arts" and Film. Figures for consideration would include; Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, John Constable, J. M. W. Turner, John Ruskin, and William Fox Talbot. Figures for addition to the current sections: Pope Adrian IV, William of Ockham, John Harrison, and Samuel Plimsoll. –Oneblackline (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Can I just make everyone aware of WP:DENY. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh...

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

I hope you don't include me in that list. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The only time I have come even remotely close to 'insulting' them is by saying that they are too proud to admit that England isn't a country. After all the references I have given it is "absurd" to say they are. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please guys assume good faith. I would be very careful about making comments like that. You seem to be insinuating that foreign people do not have a right to edit English topics. Just a friendly note = ) --Cameron (T|C) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some sentence style in introduction

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

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and make some amendments as you see fit :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, because I thought that is pretty important article, so I won't made some bigger corrections without consensus.
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of pictures in history section = bias, Protestantcentric

  • First in the Reformation, we have a picture of Elizabeth I. IMO it needs to be a full, family portrait including Henry VIII and Mary I. Even though this is an article about England and the Tudor family are Welsh.
  • During the Civil War section we have a picture of Cromwell, but neither Charles I of England or Charles II of England one of the most popular monarchs in the history of the country. If the Welsh Tudors manage to slide their picture in, then the Scottish Stuarts surely deserve the same. Otherwise in that section there should be a picture of Cavalier and Roundhead soldiers fighting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Henry VI was part Welsh, Henry VII and his offspring less so and they were Kings/Queens of England. I would have thought a picture of James was more appropriate to the Reformation than Elizabeth however. I agree that Charles should be added into the Civil War section. --Snowded (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure adding more pictures there would be a good idea, but reconsideration of the image up now, may be a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)