Talk:England

25% of English people have Irish ancestry.

This is a surprising figure... where did this come from? The BBC source given doesn't say anything about it. Irish migration to Great Britain gives a different figure, "6,000,000 with at least 25% Irish ancestry (10% of the British population)". Is it actually meant to be that? I did search, but I can't find any figures for England specifically. Rettens2 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This 2001 article (or the survey it was based on) is the source of the claim, I think - but it is based on Britain not England. The 10% refers to the proportion with at least one grandparent from Ireland - so, if you go back further generations, 25% may be just about plausible but perhaps on the high side. As the article says, it's quite possible that some people have claimed Irish ancestry without real justification, because it is (or was) seen as a positive attribute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to match the source above. Would be better to have a figure for England rather than Britain, but I haven't been able to find one.Rettens2 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this to my 87-year old Irish grandmother today. She said "I'm not surprised". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well ancestry goes back a very long way. The English are supposed to be 20-50% Celtic/Briton so hardly news; and I expect the rest is primarily Germanic/Nordic among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.10.204 (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you get to go back 2,000 years, why not 70,000? Then we can say that 100% of English people have African ancestry. That's only marginally sillier than this claim. As the source says: "although many hold passionately to their Irish roots, more than half are probably exaggerating or even lying, say the authors of the report". You have to question whether this statistic should be in the article when even the publishers consider it to be wrong. Rettens2 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly important... (NB, Why the hell would people lie about their ancestry? Sad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Τασουλα (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why lie? Because Irish is cool and English is not. Because the English have been demonised in recent years by Hollywood and others. You don't have to look far to find examples of this, because there is one on this very page. It's got to the point where even English people believe that being English is bad, so they call themselves Irish instead. Rettens2 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You touch on an interesting point here. It seems to be cool to be Scottish or Irish these days, even Welsh, but the English have no particular idea of themselves since they are so mongrelised and part of the boring majority, which is not cool at all. Almost everyone in England has some Scottish, Irish or Welsh ancestry, amongst many, many others, and can best be described as British indeed. (Not that Scots, Welsh and Irish aren't mongrelised in the same way, but they get around it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.224.245 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

North-South Divide

Any English person will know what this is. I think it is worth mentioning.

This is a historic indefinible cultural divide between the north and south of England. The boundary of the divide is not precise but goes through the Midlands somewhere, for many at the latitude of Watford Gap in Northamptonshire. The differences between the north and south are multiple. Linguistically there are dialectic differences particularly of vernacular vocabulary, which are not homogenous across either the south or north, but which contain certain characteristics which are ubiquitous across both areas, such as the open vowel sounds of the north and the long vowels of the south. Contrast the word 'Bath' said by a northener and a southerner. Forms of dress such as the flat cap typify the north (in the stereotype). The north is traditionally industrialised and poor, the south commercial and wealthy, although this has changed considerably in recent years. Interestingly the divide roughly equates to the areas settled by two different groups of tribes after the Roman Departure from Britain. The Saxons (and some Jutes) from northern Germany settled the south (in the kingdoms of Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex and Kent), whilst the Angles (from Denmark) settled the north (in Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia). It is likely that cultural features of these two distinct groups are the basis for cultural divisions between northern and southern England today. Whilst the Angles and Saxons are commonly lumped together as Anglo-Saxons, they were not the same people. Another fallacy is that the Angles and Saxons entirely replaced the native Britons in England. This is extremely unlikely and genetic evidence (I forget where I saw it) suggests that the further west and north you go in England the greater the incidence of pre-Anglo-Saxon ancestry, which is most significant in Cornwall, Herefordshire and Cumbria.

Does anyone agree with this idea? It needs some embellishing but there are plenty of resources to draw on out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Ee by gum it's been done! Trust Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwbiedooo (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a very good article though - feel free to improve it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"The north is traditionally industrialised and poor, the south commercial and wealthy" - I think this is nothing more than a lazy stereotype. There's always been impoverished areas in the south of England, especially in and around London, and areas of many towns in the south east. In addition the south has consistently absorbed higher levels of immigration which is generally associated with poverty in almost all countries in the first few generations. There have always been plenty of wealthy areas & people in the north of England. Take a trip around the smart areas of Newcastle, Durham etc., or wealthy estates in Cumbria, Yorkshire etc. etc. (Perhaps this misconception comes from the fact that privately-educated northerners are often incorrectly attributed to the south due to their well-spoken accents - e.g. Tony Blair, leading to the highly inaccurate misconception that most northerners are working class.....). Brunanburh (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read on to my next sentence you will see that I mention this situation has changed in recent years. Tony Blair, is by best definition a Scotsman, not an Englishman. He went to Durham university, big deal. In fact of course, he's British, but that term seems to be out of use these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.176.110 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact it is all a great deal more complicated than that - read Graham Turner's book "The North Country" on the cultural and economic divide. Of course these are all generalisations and there are always plenty of exceptions to any generalisation, which does not necessarily mean that the generalisation is not true. A radically different way of looking at these issues is Michael Steed's core-periphery analysis, which also calls into question the artificial "a UK of four nations" view we were discussing earlier. -- Alarics (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Michael Steed, I'm not sure a campaigner for regional assemblies in England is a suitable objective source on this issue. Although incidentally, the overwhelming rejection of regional government in the north east in 2004 (78% against), a region chosen as being most likely to harbour a strong regional identity, is good evidence against their being strong regional divides within England, at least in contrast to other countries in Europe (if I dare call England a country on here at the mo...). Clearly though there is a minority who do have ambitions for regional government, including the late Tony Wilson if I remember rightly.

I do of course agree that historic and current regional differences in culture, language etc. within England most definitely exist (e.g. the linguistic, surname & place name legacy of the Danelaw). However, I think it should be noted that England has remained remarkably unified and largely devoid of clear defined regions throughout its history in contrast to many other countries in Europe of equivalent size, hence the difficulties with recent political attempts to promote the subdivision of England along the lines of many European states with pre-existing historical/cultural subdivisions. Brunanburh (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a massively complex issue, and one which is difficult to summarise. I would say that, generally, there is very little sense of a strong "English" identity across England, one which stops at the boundaries with Scotland and Wales - except, in international sporting terms (specifically, for football and rugby - not, for example, in golf, tennis or athletics where competitors are only very rarely categorised by which part of the UK they come from, or cricket in which "England" is taken to include Wales). There are massive cultural differences underlying all parts of England - an area like Cornwall, for instance, has in many ways very little in common, culturally, with places like Bristol or Wiltshire which have been lumped in with it in the same South West region - let alone with places like Essex, or Leicestershire, or Durham. The same arguments apply to all parts of the country. Overlying all those deep-seated historical differences are the effects of the economic dominance of London and the south east, which goes back many centuries but which has been exacerbated in recent years, and the fact that heavy industry largely developed outside the south east, generated massive urban development in other parts of England in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and subsequently declined dramatically leading to relative social and economic deprivation in many areas. The combination of these factors means that a "North-South divide" is real in some senses - although areas like Cornwall have more in common with the north than the south east (other than climate!) - but it is still a gross simplification of reality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Englishness is often best defined as a set of cultural characteristics; such as love of fair play; loathing of the French (only slightly joking); enjoyment of ironic humour; taste for certain traditional products such as warm beer, yorkshire pudding and as seperateness from neighbours like the Scots and Welsh. However, I don't think you are quite right Ghmyrtle about the overall lack of, as you put it, "strong" English identity - many surveys for example show that the predominant identification is English. The English are simply not particularly worried about over-claiming patriotic identity. My own feeling is that this arises from deep-seated security - a long-running unity and isolated safety on our little island and the defeats our ancestors inflicted on their neighbours many centuries ago contributed to a sort of "rock-solidness" that meant it was unnecessary to make too many protestations of nationhood. The excessive zeal of newer countries like the US for their nation, flag and identity have on the whole been absent, although they are making some inroads now in England, at least partly due to media coverage of those approaches in the US. Simply put, we are too smug about our own secure privileges to waste time boasting about them. Some would call it arrogance. I call it knowledge of superiority. (joke) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All true, but I find myself very conscious of two broad categories of Englander, roughly described as the southern Saxon and the northern Angle, with different character, tradition and speech. The two would most certainly be more distinct from each other (and who knows, going for autonomy) had they preserved names for themselves as have the Scots and Welsh. Draw a couple of flags and make up a couple of songs, and hey, it could happen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.224.245 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister

The UK PM should not be listed on the infobox, otherwise you may as well add him to all the English regions/settlements. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the UK PM from this infobox & the infoboxes at Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland; on the condition that it's removed from all 4. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The PM has direct control over the government of England, but not of the other areas. And so do government departments. ðarkuncoll 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. England doesn't have a devolved government. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need one. It has the British government. ðarkuncoll 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's England's choice. Anyways, whatever's decided here, should be reflected on the other 3 articles-in-question infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing it from the others, but to remove it from England would give the erroneous impression that England doesn't have a government. Almost all government departments, with the only major exception being Defence, have jurisdiction only in England. The devolved governments take on those roles elsewhere, and indeed, even before devolution, the Scottish Office, etc., did so. ðarkuncoll 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna sit back & see what's decided here. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TharkunColl (which is rare) jurisdiction point is a good one. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TharkunColl too (which is also quite rare, although not as rare as one might suppose). David Cameron is the de facto head of English government. It would be gravely mis-representing the real-life constitutional predicament of England to omit him from the infobox of this article. It is Wikipedia's job to present complex real-life situations, not obfuscate them. Certain disruptive elements consistently try to misrepresent the complexities of the UK constitution, presumably because they lack the intellectual capacity to cope with complex topics. The UK is very far from being "uniform", and Wikipedia should never misrepresent it as being uniform. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TharkunColl and Mais oui! are right - there is no case for removing PM here. The current position in Scotland, Wales and NI is different in each case - this article should not be used to justify the UK PM's inclusion in other articles (which is what GoodDay and others are trying to do). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

England is governed directly by the United Kingdom government, I haven't disputed that fact. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the role of the UK government has been severely misrepresented here. It is not made up of English departments plus defence. There is also Attorney General's Office, Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth, Treasury, Northern Ireland, Office of the Advocate General for Scotland, Scotland, and Wales Office. With most of the other departments only partially devolved. The Prime Minister does not represent England any more than he represents the rest of the UK. England doesn't have a government. It is looked after by the UK government just like the rest of the UK with exception that it doesn't have its own regional version to opt out of parts of the legislation. The way fairly represent the situation in England is simply put 'none' in a devolved assembly section of the infobox. Eckerslike (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no English government. That's why you've got CEP in existance. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The CEP has almost no support - why duplicate what we already have, at twice the cost? The Westminster Parliament has been in existence since the 13th century. To not realise this is to fundamentally misunderstand the UK constitution. The UK is not federal. ðarkuncoll 00:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Even so, according to the sources of Governance of England article, there hasn't been an English government since 1707. GoodDay (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You read the sources, did you? There's only one and it's a dead link. The article, in its primary assertion that England has no government, is simply wrong. ðarkuncoll 13:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blasted, who messed up the source? You're correct it's now a dead-link. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So when you said, "according to the sources of", you weren't being strictly accurate? ðarkuncoll 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A mess up on my part, there was just one source. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Which you couldn't have read, since it's a dead link. And yet you gave the impression that you had. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I did read it months ago & assumed it was still intact. Sorry Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Eckerslike's description of the present constitutional situation is quite accurate. Not only does England not have a government, it doesn't really exist in any constitutional sense, except to mean "that part of the United Kingdom that is not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland". Any notion of the UK as a union of four entities of equal status (albeit it of wildly different population sizes) is quite false, and is in my view the product of a kind of misconceived "reverse engineering" or backformation from the concept of, mainly, Scotland (as if to say "if X, Y and Z are the attributes of Scotland, England must be the same"). Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the infobox as it now stands, since it says the PM is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and does not claim that England has its own prime minister. -- Alarics (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's completely untrue, I'm afraid. It's the sort of rubbish that people such as the CEP put out. England has a parliament, and it sits at Westminster as it has done since the 13th century. That it also has MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI doesn't stop it being the body that governs England. ðarkuncoll 13:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think what I wrote above is "the sort of rubbish that people such as the CEP put out", then not only are you being offensively uncivil but you have also completely misunderstood my point, which is wholly opposite to the view of the CEP. It is precisely people like the CEP that I had in mind when I referred to the misconceived idea that the UK consists of four entities of equal status and that "therefore" (in their opinion) England ought to have its own parliament. Of course the parliament at Westminster is the body that governs England, but the point is that England doesn't have a parliament or a government of its own, and in that constitutional sense it does not exist. However, since the infobox doesn't claim that it does have a parliament or government, I don't see what is wrong with the infobox as it is, and I really fail to see what is being argued about in this thread. There seems to be a lot of seriously muddled thinking going on here. -- Alarics (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK Prime Minister belongs at the infobox of the United Kingdom, not here. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that this article is about England, not the United Kingdom & England doesn't have a government of its own. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have 4-3 infavour of deletion. I hope we get more imput then this, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TharkunColl's rationale. The UK PM needs to stay in this infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont see any reason why the Prime Minister cant be in the infobox he is the political leader of the administration that governs England (the fact that he does other stuff is not really relevant to this article). MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the infobox describes him as PM of the UK, not PM of England, so it is quite correct as far as it goes. My quibble with the infobox is a different one: it describes England as a "non-devolved state", but actually England isn't a state. I don't think you can describe as a state any entity that doesn't have a government or parliament of its own. In constitutional terms, England doesn't really exist, as I keep pointing out. (There is a legal jurisdiction called England, but that includes Wales.) -- Alarics (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to that view as well. (the one Alarics puts forwards). The problem with TharkunColl's argument above, which some support, is that he/she talks about "England having a government" as being the key issue - actually, it does not, because England is not a state. It is a historic country and nation. In modern times, it is wholly subsumed within the United Kingdom governmental structure. At the moment, effectively, we should be using some kind of historical country infobox template. Until devolution, I would have said the same of Scotland and Wales but now they actually have their own governments and parliaments, so the wierd-but-true fact is that they are more "states" than England is. So we are using the wrong infobox format here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A historical infobox would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument advanced above is, I'm afraid, based on ignorance. All four countries of the UK have separate forms of administration, the difference in the case of England being that it is carried out by the UK government. I have to say that all this is typical Wiki "fact", based on lack of knowledge. This has always been the case with Ireland and Scotland, and has been the case with Wales since at least the 1960s. Devolution simply transferred powers from the UK government departments responsible for those countries - e.g. the Scottish Office - to the devolved assemblies. Those who argue for a separate parliament, the intelligent ones, at any rate, don't do so on the grounds that England has no parliament - which it patently does - but on the grounds that it contains representatives from outside England who can, nevertheless, vote on English matters. ðarkuncoll 21:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, we may be talking about different things. I was referring to the fact that England is not obviously a state. Clearly it is under governmental control, but there is no government of England as such. Something you seem to agree with, as you argue that England is governed by the UK government. Since England itself has no seperate "English government" and it is not a state, we are actually in agreement and the infobox being used is the wrong one. Clearly England is represented by MPs at Parliament, but they are not MPs representing an English state. The MSPs actually do represent Scotland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you are misinterpreting the facts. The UK government actually governs England - specifically - whereas the government of the other countries is carried out by their devolved administrations. So England does indeed have a government, and not just as part of the UK as a whole. Most departments of the UK government only have jurisdiction in England. That's why, for example, the recent controversy about tuition fees only applied to England. This is the case across the board. You appear to fail to grasp what I'm actually talking about here, and assume I simply mean that England is governed as part of the UK. It isn't. It has it's own administration. ðarkuncoll 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't misinterpret anything and I'm not failing to grasp. What you are talking about is the assumed government of England which derives from the fact that some UK laws and actions now only apply in England. There most assuredly is no "English government" as an entity. If there is, can you point to it? Where is it based? Who is it's leader? To state that England has a government is actually an opinion and possibly even synthesis or OR, as it is an assumption based on the limitations of government departments, limits of regulations, etc, not an entity that clearly exists. To put it at it's simplest, I repeat, England is not a State. There may well be all sorts of regulations governing it, but it does not have a "government". It is governed by a higher realm. Your statement that "it has it's own administration" it just wrong. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by a "higher realm"? I can easily point to the government, it's in Westminster. It's you who are misinterpreting facts, not me. ðarkuncoll 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

James, may we see an example of the infobox you propose? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my mind is something that has a History section and lists of most recent rulers, etc. An example would be the one at the former state of Czechoslovakia. I doubt there is an exact fit out there though, as England still exists as a national entity, albeit one that is not a state and has no government of it's own. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It does have a government of its own. ðarkuncoll 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The GLA perhaps? Ofsted? Marks & Spencer? I'm not sure that constantly repeating the same thing will win the day. Perhaps if you could respond to facts a little, eg, let's start with, where is the Government of England's website? Just as an example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that constantly repeating the same thing will win the day." Let's hope you mean that. And here's the website you requested http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm ðarkuncoll 23:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're operating at this level of discussion there is no point even having you involved in it. DirectGov is a website for the UK government and operates UK-wide information services. Or do you think the DVLA doesn't operate in Scotland for example? Come back when you are willing to engage properly. I certainly won't be wasting my time arguing points like this any more. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't you see that it's you who have so fundamentally failed to comprehend the reality of the situation? ðarkuncoll 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, TharkunColl, Jamesinderbyshire is correct and you are being remarkably obtuse about this. There is no English government AS SUCH. You seem to think the UK government's writ now runs only in England. This is not so. It currently runs throughout the UK for certain purposes which have not been devolved, of which there are rather more than you seem to realise. It also runs everywhere in the UK in the more fundamental sense that devolution could technically be reversed if Westminster ever so decided: as Enoch Powell once observed, power devolved is power retained, because, as you yourself noted earlier, the UK is not a federation. -- Alarics (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said the UK government does not also run the other countries, but it runs England at a far more immediate level. The obtuseness here is coming from people who are only seeing this in black and white - either the UK government runs the whole UK equally, at every level, or it only runs England. In fact, neither is true. ðarkuncoll 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The historical infobox would be tricky. We should delete the UK Prime Minister out of this infobox, as this wouldn't damage things. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If England isn't a state, how come it gets to field a separate team in the Commonwealth Games, and compete against Scotland, Wales, NI, Channel Islands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and all the rest? How come Canada doesn't get to field 10 teams, one for each province, and Australia doesn't get to field 6 teams, one for each state? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an unhelpfully trite comment. Of course England is, by most definitions, a country and a nation. What this discussion is about is whether it is governed as a state - not the same thing at all. England's constitutional arrangements may well be unique, but they are still real. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right. England is both a modern and historic country and nation, but in its modern form, it does not have a distinct government - government is conducted at the UK level, into which England was subsumed. This was also historically the case for Wales and Scotland in different ways, but has changed since devolution and the establishment of the WA and SP. Now England is alone in the UK in not having any of the usual branches of a democratic structure uniquely set up for it as an entity. I suppose the infobox to be fair does make this clear already, describing England as a "non-devolved state within a constitutional monarchy" and Cameron as PM "of the United Kingdom". One problem is that we don't have an article defining what a "non-devolved state within a constitutional monarchy" is - that pipelinks to devolution, possibly incorrectly. The other problem is that we don't properly define what powers at the UK level are confined to England in the article. TharkunColl is correct that a bunch of "UK-level" powers and institutions now effectively only apply to England and this would be worth describing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Of course New South Wales and Ontario are going to find it harder to beat England than Australia or Canada. But at least they'll realise how hard Wales and Jamaica have had to work over the years. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.171.102.54, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} IN HISTORY: it says "In the early 9th century the Mercia was displaced as the foremost kingdom by Wessex." but I want to change it to "In the early 9th century Mercia was displaced as the foremost kingdom by Wessex."

IN GEOGRAPHY: it says "There are many lakes in England but the majority are in the aptly named Lake District; the largest of which is Windermere,". Technically Windermere is a mere, and Bassenthwaite Lake is the largest true lake in Lakeland, and the sentence should end with a full stop not a comma!

IN INFRASTRUCTURE: it says "There are air transport facilities in England connected the public to numerous international locations," but I want to change it to "There are air transport facilities in England connecting the public to numerous international locations,"

Thank you

86.171.102.54 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now made your requested edit to the History section, and have tweaked the sentence in Infrastructure, although I have altered it in a slightly different way to how you proposed, please feel free to comment if you disagree with the new text.

I await the comments of others on your proposed edit to Geography, on which I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to make a decision. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the proposed change re lakes, though the sentence does need changing slightly, which I will do have done. A "mere" is (merely) a type of lake. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted to IP for all those grammatical errors. On the lakes point, most books and sources state that Windermere is the largest natural lake in England (Kielder Water is bigger, but a modern reservoir) - mere has fluctuating meanings over the centuries and in different regions but "lake" is an accepted meaning, although in the North-Western context it is often applied to lakes that are wide and shallow. Nothing wrong with using Windermere in the way it is used in the article currently. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody will mistake the Queen as Monarch of England. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article establishes in the lead and in the infobox that England is part of the United Kingdom, so adding UK to Monarch is superfluous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What of the UK Prime Minister entry? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has posted identical questions on Talk:Scotland, Talk:England, Talk:Wales and Talk:Northern Ireland. As debate is already in progress on Talk:Scotland, I suggest that interested parties comment there. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JacobiteBoy, 12 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} IN DEMOGRAPHICS, RELIGION: it says "The largest form practised in the present day is Anglicanism,[195]."

The citation given leads one to a description of the nature of the Church of England (C.ofE.). None would doubt that the C.ofE. has the largest membership by Baptism, however in terms of the practice of religion there is significant doubt as to whether it remains the plurality expression of Christianity as opposed to Roman Catholicism. The most recent statistics which I saw had both bodies with a typical Sunday attendance of a shade under a million people, the C.ofE. declining at a faster rate than the R.C.C. in recent years. The nature of the practice of religion is a complex and controversial area, and therefore such a definitive statement should not be made without clear evidence in support of it.

Thank you

Church attendances aren't relevant. Why does one need to attend church to practise their religion? It doesn't surprise me that more Catholics attend church as their religion places a great deal of importance on doing so.--Ykraps (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of factors to be taken into account, but for both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism taking part in public worship is a critical aspect. Thus my point that it is not clear that Anglicanism is the most practised form of Christianity in England...thus my request that the claim be more substantiated. At the moment a 'fact' is stated without any evidence provided in support of it. Jacobite Boy

The BBC says so in the reference already provided: "On any one Sunday more than a million people attend Church of England services, making it the largest Christian denomination in the country." The BBC is a Wikipedia:Reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nominal GDP

The figure given is higher than that of the entire United Kingdom in 2009, according to the UK wikipedia page. The figure given here is clearly wrong. Op finish them (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)