Talk:England/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

English Cuisine

I think that the section on English Cuisine should link to some of the modern English chefs who are now well known beyond the borders of England. Fernely-Wittingsall, Rhodes, Delia...etc. I think we need to "big up" English cuisine (and Englishness for that!)... thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThemoreIseeyou (talk • contribs)

Mediaeval vs medieval

The mediaeval spelling is old, and with the ae dipthong it is archaic. As the Oxford English Dictionary prefers "medieval" I have changed the spellings to that, See http://www.oed.com/pdfs/oed-news-2003-12.pdf for example. Itis the OED's prefered use, not merelyan alternative entry. User:Barliner^chat 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

æ in mediæval is not a diphthong (note spelling) - it is a digraph - and it is only a single sound  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unified

I removed the [[ ]] from Unified as it was the incorrect unified. Anybody know the proper link to go there? JacќяМ ¿Qué? 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom and American additions

I am quite wary about bringing this subject up. Not only for the American dis-reaction but also the (so called British) English problem. I say British because I am, but I really wish the Americans could work out THAT British/Scottish/English/Welsh problem. We are 3 seperate countries with a common goal. Sometimes Englands goals are not what we would like, and occasionally we would like you to recognise that difference. If you are Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or English you just happen to be British, and that is the way of the world. In general we are quite happy with this situation, BUT please remember BRITISH IS NOT just English! Thank you America!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.174.179 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 August 2007

Actually it since we are the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" you happen not to be British if you are from Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Medina Didsbury (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy Medina Didsbury, actually, you are wrong. Perhaps you should read this - Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity in particular this - "People from Northern Ireland are British citizens on the same basis as people from any other part of the United Kingdom". Of course it is complex in Northern Ireland, but it is totally incorrect to state that anyone from Northern Ireland is not British. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm well that is strange as Im from Northern Ireland and Happen to have a BRITISH

Passport and consider myself to be British especially when that British Passport tells me that I'm a British Citizen honestly i have never heard such much nonsense before the people Of Northern Ireland are all British if they like it or not (yes Nationalists would usually say they are Irish but its done the Indidvidual)

You may want to check what is written on your so-called "British passport." I am from Northern Ireland and I have a passport that states this name of the country: "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I just pulled out my passport and nowhere on the passport does it say, "British passport", just a passport issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which proves that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, but is part of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain is the island that contains the countries England, Scotland and Wales..

-sorry you are WRON WRONG WRONG I find it insulting when people Insist that I and Many others Just being born In Northern Ireland whom Consider themselves British and Are British Citizens just like other people in the other home nations of the UK I proud to be Northern Irish but I'm also proud to be British ..and i also wonder If I'm not British then why do i have a BRITISH Passport ..with "BRITISH CITIZEN" LIKE HELLO ARE YOU STUPID!!! —Preceding

Check your passport again and I doubt you will see it called a "British passport". My passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Maybe the British government issued you with a different passport than they issued me, but I doubt it.

unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk • contribs)

Comment please keep it civil! Kbthompson (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Brittany Lesser Britain is a region in France.

Not until the seventeenth century did an Englishman come up with the notion to describe Irland as part of the British Isles. And I would not advise to say to someone from Irland that he/she is british.

Personaly I think beeing british does not have it’s limitation in geography, some of my friends from New Zealand and South Africa considere themselfes British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber Jack second account (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you are missing the point completely. This discussion is not about the Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hÉireann) nor is it about calling them anything other than Irish. Nor is it about the island of Ireland. And nor is it about the island of Great Britain. Whether you accept it or not, citizens in Northern Ireland are resident in the United Kingdom and as such they are British citizens - that is not an opinion, just fact. Of course it is complex as I said in my original message. However, when you say that you would not advise my saying that they are British, as I said initially this is about Northern Ireland only and not Ireland as an island, nor about the Republic of Ireland. The nationalist community in Northern Ireland do identify themselves on the whole as being Irish and not British. However, the Unionist community in Northern Ireland on the whole regard themselves as British. There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should not say they are British, which they are, regardless of politics. And taken from the Northern Ireland article - "In general, Protestants consider themselves British and Catholics see themselves as Irish but there are some who see themselves as both British and Irish. People from Northern Ireland are entitled to both British and Irish citizenship". Not that this has anything to do with England. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics map

The map is a bit rubbish. Population alone for each borough/county shows nothing, density really needs to be used instead. 90.240.62.88 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

A lot is made in the opening paragraph of Scotland's entry about it not being a sovereign state. I've got no issue with that, but this bit, "The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.[11] However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union." Seems a bit out of place if it isn't included in the English entry.

Shouldn't the introductions for England and Scotland be normalised with each other in the above example? Just a thought.

Kaenei 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Scotsman, I think it would be quite reasonable to do what you suggest for all four constituent countries of the UK. However I don't think it essential and if my English Wikipedian colleagues don't see the need for normalisation, perhaps the need does not exist.

After all one of the reasons that we have articles for each of the four constituent countries in addition to the article on the UK as a whole is that issues which are of high significance to one constituent country, may be of little or no importance to the others. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the thoughts above; I was more confused by the more obvious statements of non-sovereignty included in the Scotland article and not the English one. Maybe the former is too obvious in that regard and needs to be addressed there? Hmm.

Kaenei 09:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same applies to England. People think it is a sovereign state US-americans and continental europeans in particular but even some Brits think they are "English". I tell them to have another good look at their passport. Anyway Id add it into the intro. Definately. --Camaeron 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you think that the fact that their passport says "UK of GB and NI" means that they are incorrect in asserting that they are English? Or do you mean that these people are asserting that they are citizens of a sovereign state called "England" which doesn't include, say, Wales or Scotland? The Wednesday Island 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably more the latter. Though legally there are no "English". I suppose I could be classed as an England denier! What are the specifications for entering the English football team? Residence in England i suppose. I'm all for a UK football team to replace all others. --Camaeron 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no legal state of Kurdistan either (for example) but the Kurds do insist that they are a nation. A nation is any group of people who think they are a nation. I don't know what 'even some Brits think they are English' means. Also, some think they are Scots; some Welsh. That's because they are. 62.25.106.209 (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

England in Cornish

I have updated the nation title to include the Cornish language name, as both are spoken within England.

I have supported it with a ref (showing it is an official recognised language) and this here discussion, pls do not revert - if you are against it pls discuss here.

I am not Cornish or a Cornish nationalist fyi. Gazh 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In other cases, where the language is registered under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages but only used by a small minority, we don't do that but rather list the languages as footnotes (if that) - precisely what we did here before your edit.

See for example, Germany, Spain (where Catalan is a good deal more official than Cornish is in England), United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and so on. This means that we do not list the name of Serbia in 11 languages, of Germany in 8, or of Ukraine in 14. And other countries' subdivisions generally don't list them at all - see Schleswig-Holstein, Styria, Carinthia. It's only where languages are truly co-official - with equal standing - that we list more than one language up there in general. That is why Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland get extra languages - and also Belgium and Finland. Cornish is spoken by roughly 0.007% of the population of England (3.5k speakers, 50m population), and has almost no status in most of the country - so it fairly clearly falls into the first bracket and not the second. For these reasons I will revert your edit. Pfainuk talk 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK that's fine, in fairness though, listing Germanys 8 (or whatever) language names would be a bit silly, adding the one extra language to this article however would not - so you cannot really compare those situations.

I ask that we reinstate it purely because it is not in detriment to the article, it is not hindering or 'going against' any Wiki policies (as far as i am aware?) - infact it will probably be quite interesting to the reader.

We are surely all in support of improving articles here? so how does this not? 00.0000007% may be a small amount but it is still relevant is it not? Gazh 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In Denmark's case it would only be two languages (Danish and German). I guess my point is that that is a high-visibility position, and inclusion there suggests a far greater degree of importance for the language than is in fact the case, compared with other articles. It suggests that Cornish has a similar standing in England to Welsh in Wales - which it patently does not. But, yes, I see it could be of interest to the reader. I propose we compromise by using the solution on United Kingdom - in a footnote there it gives a list of names in each of the ECRML-recognised minority languages of the UK. I have implemented it so you can see what I mean - what do you think? Pfainuk talk 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy that you have willingly offered such a compromise, but to be perfectly honest i still think that the Cornish name has a place on the title, I would argue that no-one reading this article would for a second believe that Cornish has a similar status to English in England, and by reading the Cornish language article they would certainly know this. Even if you really did believe this could cause a problem - i would then suggest we include a small reference to the langue stating that there are only 3500 speakers (not all are even fluent) and that is covers 00.007% of the population. I belive that as it is the ONLY (isn't it?) native language (except English) in our country it deserves a decent mention.

It is different to German is Denmark as that is a foreign tongue, Cornish isn't a foreign tongue, just a very old one.

It's a difficult discussion as i can see why you would be against adding it to the article, but i would stress again that it is only improving the article and not hindering it. Gazh 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting England in Cornish does suggest that Cornish is important in England. It also suggests that Cornish is an ancient English language which of course it is not. It is an ancient British language in the same sense as Welsh - which was foreign to the Anglo-Saxons. It just so happens that the region that speaks it is within the current boundaries of England. It maybe worth mentioning somewhere in the England article that the Cornish language was resurrected by a minority in that region.White43 13:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that - a mention that it exists in the text of the article, provided it's not given undue prominence. Pfainuk talk 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) German has a similar status in Denmark as Cornish does in England. Yes, it's the language of a foreign country, but it is also the native language of a long-established minority near the German border. These aren't German-speakers who moved to Denmark - the border moved south in 1918 and happened to give Denmark a German-speaking minority. Cornish went extinct and is a relatively recent revival. I would argue that the indigenous German-speaking community of Denmark is rather better established than the Cornish-speaking community in England.

Cornish is, incidentally, not the only Celtic language spoken in England. There are 38 Welsh speakers for every Cornish speaker in England - and not all of these Welsh-speakers are "immigrants" (not the best word, I know, hence the quotes). I can quite see that people who have never been to England could look at this article with the Cornish up there and assume that Cornish was of equal status to English throughout England - because that's what that normally means. Having one rule for this article and another rule for the rest of Wikipedia doesn't make any sense.

And I'm not arguing for complete removal. Only that it should not be in the title of the infobox, nor that it should be treated equally with English on this page. WP:UNDUE states we should not give prominence to tiny minority viewpoints. I would argue that this applies here - that Cornish is a such a small minority language that such exposure would be undue prominence. There are dozens of languages which are more spoken in England than Cornish is - and I don't see that the fact that Cornish is indigenous should mean that it gets such high prominence. Again, Breton in France; Galician, Basque and Catalan in Spain; Frisian in the Netherlands - these are all indigenous languages in their respective countries, and they are all far more widely spoken in their countries than Cornish is in England, and none of them even get their names of their related countries referenced in the infobox anywhere. I don't see why we should make an exception here. Pfainuk talk 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I will say though WP:UNDUE is not really relevant to my personal arguement, as i am not arguing for a minority, but rather for the majority! I am not saying, put Cornish in! it's not fair! but rather, as an Englishman (about as far away from Cornwall as you can get) i see the Cornish language as an interesting part of our ancient culture (although small) that is probably not that well known, i was trying to improve the article, and as Cornish is only spoken in England - i thought it would be an interesting add to the article, it was never about what was more or less important, but about what actual native language are spoken, and there are just two.

Welsh like Pakistani, German, Polish and whatever else is spoken here, but it is also not indiginous or unique to our part of the island

I hope you can see my argument, even if you don not agree to reinstate my edit. Gazh 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I agree that this is not an unreasonable thing to mention in the article - we do so at England#Additional languages and in the infobox footnotes - but, as I say, I think that the top of the infobox is not the place. My WP:UNDUE point was essentially the same as the rest of my argument (undue prominence for a small linguistic minority), but I might not have explained it too well. Pfainuk talk 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unification of the nations

England & Scotland merged to become 'Great Britain' in 1707, not 1604 as this article suggests. GoodDay 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source? → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 00:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See United Kingdom articles' resoureces. GoodDay 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Which? I'm lazy :p → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - see the 'sources' at Acts of Union 1707. GoodDay 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be a dispute - categorically, it is 1707. Article? - Kingdom of Great Britain. Source? - Acts of Union 1707. 1604 was the Union of the Crowns. Jza84 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Added England's European Cup-winning football teams to give the sport parity in the article with rugby union. (All of rugby's Heineken Cup winners are mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. England and Scotland were part of Great Britain since time immemorial since it is an island, but politically speaking 'Great Britain' refers pretty unambigously to the state created in 1707.--Breadandcheese 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Old English

Can anyone explain why we have Old and Middle English translations of "England" in the lead section? To me it really breaks the flow of the opening wording, seems a little excessive, and is perhaps better placed in the Nomenclature section???? Jza84 11:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this bit pointless "Modern English (Early): England)" - the rest is fine, Scotland and Wales have alternate spellings of their respective countries in their respective languages. Although Anglo-Saxon is now a dead language, it's useful to see what the country was called in the previous predecessors to English. 84.12.47.154 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the other problem is that spelling standardization is a relatively recent phenomenon. Doops | talk 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to have the Cornish "Pow Sows" in the opening line? Cornish is now recognised under charter 2 of the European charter for regional and minority languages, and I believe there are more speakers of Cornish than Old English or Middle English.84.71.81.6 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious that Old English the ultimate language on planet Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.72.214 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

West Lothian Question

"Because Westminster is the UK parliament but also votes on local English matters (England has no parliament of its own) devolution of national matters to parliament/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has refocused attention on a long-standing anomaly called the West Lothian question. Before Scottish devolution, purely-Scottish matters were debated at Westminster, but subject to a convention that only Scottish MPs could vote on them. The "Question" is that there is no convention or rule whereby Scottish MPs are barred from voting on issues relating only to England and Wales in the post devolution era."

This makes it sound very convaluted and I wasn't aware of this Scottish votes on Scottish matters. This makes it sound like the Question is something to do with Scots having votes on Scots issues. Keep it simple, The West Lothian Question is the situation where all UK MP's can vote on English matters, but the reverse is not true.

There's no need for this "(England has no parliament of its own)", that has already been established in the previous paragraph. It sounds very POV hammering home the point. 84.12.47.154 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag

For some reason, the flag is not showing up properly for me on this page or a number of others that link using {{flagicon|England}} i.e or direct to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Flag_of_England.svg - anyone else having this problem? Jooler 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Matter of Relativity

I have a question for the keepers of this section. I am one of the editors in the Bulgaria section, and apparenty some people from your country are unhappy that the INTRO section to Bulgaria discussed Bulgaria's historical achievements. However I can see clearly that the English section does discuss its historical achievemnts in its INTRO. How do we reconcile this issue, and indeed should I take the initiative, like your compatriots in the Bulgaria section, to edit the England section in order to make matters more equitable?

Bulgaria is considered a cradle of European civilization by way of its Thracian heritage, Varna Necropolis Culture, Vinca scripts and Gradeshnitsa Tablet scripts which is considered by many archeologists, including Dr. Stephen Guide, Dr. George Kitov, et al. to be the oldest known writing system. Furthermore Bulgaria is home to the world's oldest gold treasure and was the core of Slav literary culture during the middle ages. Clearly if one nation can highlight its historical achievements, so can another.

Your educated opinion would be appreciated...

Some context. The user User:68.147.112.124, who also made this comment, has been making strong claims about the Gradeshnitsa tablets in the second paragraph of the article on Bulgaria, where others did not consider it appropriate. Martijn Faassen 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed he does! Mr. Faassen, please read more about the Gradeshnitsa Tablets and the "proto-writing" script or of the scientists at the Bulgarian Vratsa Museum that study these tablets, including academic articles by the likes Dr. Georgi Kitov. The point is that people who do not know anything about Bulgarian history are editing the Bulgarian section. That's not right, just as it wouldn't be correct for a Bulgarian to edit another country's section unless he/she were an academic and/or expert in that particular country's history. Martijn Faassen has not displayed any knowledge of Bulgaria's history, yet he insists on being its main editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, I think you have misunderstood the intent of my recent actions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I do not claim sole or main editorship of any articles. If you have any other complaints about my edits, let's discuss it in the talk pages of the appropriate articles, not this unrelated talk page. Martijn Faassen 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with improving the England article. It doesn't even have anything to do with the editors of England, just "some people from your country". It should be fairly obvious that not everyone who edits here is English, and it should be very obvious that anyone who does happen to be English is not at all responsible for the opinion of anyone else who happens to be English merely because of their nationality. Can you take it to Talk:Bulgaria, please? Marnanel 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

what is the size of the states in the british isles

hi i need to no the answer to the headline please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.235.155 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Look under Wales, England, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey and you'll find your answers. Marnanel 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What Do People In England Want?

What kind of things do people in England want, or crave or desire? What is hot right now in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.80.13 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Rugby, New Rave, Martin Jol being sacked, Parmo's and Punk fashion. I hate all five at varying levels. Gazh 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Map colors

The infobox map says:

"Location of England (orange)

– on the European continent (camel & white)

– in the United Kingdom (camel)"

"Camel" means the color of a camel, as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But most of Europe on the map is pale green. Art LaPella 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ain't england pink? --Jay^Tur₁ (Contribs) 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Charities?

Should something be mentioned about the socio-economic impact of charitable works in England? Certainly a significant number of well known international charities originated in England and it has a long history of charitable work within it. I doubt it can claim to be the birthplace of charitable work but perhaps the origins of (modern) charitable organisations. The history is there from the alms houses of the middle ages through the Charitable Uses Act of 1601 to the growth of such organisations as Barnados, The Childrens' Society etc.). As such it would seem appropriate to mention it here in terms of socio-ecomonic impact on the world. Then again perhaps it would be better in the article on Britain? Crimperman 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming in Asian languages

The Chinese name for England is Ying Ge Lan and not Ying Guo. Ying guo refers to the entire UK and not England specifically. The same is true for the Japanese entry. イギリス (Igirisu) and 英国 (Eikoku) are the common names for the UK. England is イングランド　(Ingurando). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.146.35.84 (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - what is your source?? Please don't say Ketchup.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Japanese.

イングランド (Ingurando) covers the central and southern parts of the island of Great Britain. The central part of the UK.[1]

To clarify why 英国 and イギリス are not appropriate:

英国 (eikoku) can be used to mean England, but it is not usual. It is from the combination of Chinese characters 英蘭, the characters being used for their sound to give some approximation of the word England. However, the now archaic long form of word for the UK is 英吉利 and the abbreviated form of both is the first character 英 + country　国. The meaning of 'the UK' is prevalent, and indeed the British Embassy in Tokyo calls itself 英国大使館 (Eikoku Taishikan). If there were any ambiguity in the meaning it would be a bit exclusivist.

Translations from Daijirin (2nd Edition) via goo.ne.jp (Unfortunately none of the Latin script dictionaries I could find were particularly authoritative.)

英国 (Eikoku) See イギリス(Igirisu).[2]

イギリス (Igirisu) is made up of the the island of Great Britain and the Northern Part of the island of Ireland, and 英国 (Eikoku) is an alternative name.[3]

There's also the Japanese wikipedia page, of course.[4]

In summary: イングランド (Ingurando) is the correct word.

Apparently the Chinese is 英格蘭 (Yīng gé lán).[5] 222.146.35.84 (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mandarin Chinese name is definitely 英格蘭 (Yīnggélán), an approximation for the pronunciation of the word England, not 英国 (Yīngguó), which is used to mean the United Kingdom, although the first character of Yīngguó is yīng, an approximate for Eng of England. AlexOUK 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Is nobody going to act on this? How does one edit a protected page? Porridgebowl (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to this late. The Chinese characters mentioned in previous messages for England are the Traditional Chinese characters, with some being the Simplified Chinese characters. To be accurate you need to specify which ones are used, not switch between the two of them haphazardly, and on wikipedia, it is recommended that one uses both, clearly indicating which ones are which. I can confirm, from my own knowledge of Chinese, together with knowledge from my wife, son, and brother-in-law (who are all Chinese) as well as various well-respected Chinese-English dictionaries I possess (published in the UK) the following facts.

The Chinese Traditional Character names of relevance here are: 英國 (United Kingdom), 英格蘭 (England), 蘇格蘭 (Scotland), 威爾士 (Wales), 北愛爾蘭 (Northern Ireland).

The Simplified Characters are: 英国 (United Kingdom), 英格兰 (England), 苏格兰 (Scotland), 威尔士 (Wales), 北爱尔兰 (Northern Ireland)

If one wishes to transliterate these into a "romanization" form, then it depends what Chinese Language (or Dialect) one is speaking: Cantonese is not, for example, the same as mandarin, and there are even sub-groups within the broad dialects which pronounce the characters differently, sometimes quite differently. If one is concerned with Standard Mandarin (or "putonghua") then pinyin (or Hanyu pinyin) is the official PRC China "romanization" method. It is the only spelt form I know, so I can't help with the other forms. The required terms are:

yīng guó (United Kingdom), yīng gé lán (England), sū gé lán (Scotland), wēi ěr shì (Wales), běi ài ěr lán (Northern Ireland).

The difficulty is that choice of characters, and romanization method has become a rather heavily politicized subject at times. I can only speak from my own knowledge which comes from my own knowledge and that of my relatives who are all PRC Chinese citizens, and so I have used the PRC China's methods. People from Taiwan may use different methods (in fact, if they are of certain political groups, they will always use different romanization methods, and will never use simplified characters), and people from the USA may have other methods of romanization that they use. I can provide detailed refs to hard-copy dictionaries that back up my statements that can be used as verified sources if this is required. I hope this helps a bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Satan Worshipers

I'm not sure that bit about the etymology of the word England coming from the Latin term for "Kingdom of Satan Worshipers" is entirely accurate, but I'm also quite frankly at a loss for an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetmar (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Doops | talk 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister

In the info box I intentionally put Prime Minister (of the United Kingdom) with brackets rather than Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as per the link. The reason was to clarify that the office is in respect of an entity (the UK) which is not directly analagous to the entity the article concerns (England). The Wales infobox is similar and I've edited the Northern Ireland one along the same lines. Scotland thus maybe needs similar attention. Mutt Lunker 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

European Words for England

I wanted to say that you can add Luxembourgish behind "England" in the part where you write the different european names for England,because in Luxembourg people also say England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Californicating (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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:

• The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp
• In the context of the UK, each of the 4 main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/glossary/c.asp
• The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41131&L1=41127&L2=41131&L3=41011&d=4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Language

Arabic and Polish are official languages of England.--81.145.240.33 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is so racist. --ジェイ ^✉@Wikpedia／_✍ 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that's racist, but citations for Arabic and Polish being 'official' languages of England? 87.127.178.28 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he's saying that England is full of foreigners. --ジェイ ✉／✍ 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

he is right you are a racist bastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.2.205 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying, I was not attacking 81.145.240.33. --ジェイ ✉／✍ 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You were just saying something prima facie ridiculous without citing any reliable sources to back it up. I think people can be forgiven their scepticism. Marnanel (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Arabic and Polish are now both official languages of the EU, so are indeed official languages of its subject states and regions - such as England (the Arabic in question is Maltese, an Arabic language, in case anyone was wondering). TharkunColl (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the adoption of a language by the government of a supranational union implies anything at all about what languages are official languages in the member states of that union. Marnanel (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. French is an official language of Louisiana, but that doe not mean it is that of Oregon. 86.154.159.219 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was being racist. but only 10% of foreinors in England are arabic. Polish? 3% I think. I personally, love the foreinors, they help us in many ways. --Jay^Tur₁ (Contribs) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Making ridiculous statements about the official languages of England being Polish and Arabic does not imply any degree of racism. Let's not get too overheated about things like this, and treat such statements for what they are, patently absurd, no more. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that TharkunColl is right. The European Union consists entirely of member states. This combined with the fact that the languages have to be official for some reason, means that the member states must therefor have those official languages. For example , if Yemen adopts Arabic as its official language and North Yemen and South Yemen both adopted a different language the fact that Arabic was the official language of Yemen would be meaningless. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That argument is absolute drivel. The official languages of a supranational entity imply nothing about the official languages of all its components, only that it they are official somewhere within it. Polish is the official language of Poland, and nowhere else. Maltese is the official language of Malta and nowhere else -- and to describe it as "Arabic" displays either a profound ignorance of linguistics or else malice or trollery; yes, it's related to Arabic, but it is also influenced by Italian and English, and is not written using Arabic script. -- Arwel (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the person who diesided that Aribic is an offical language of the EU is misguided, ignorent or stupid? 122.105.218.141 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. After all we don't even know if such a person actually exists. And it would be silly to decide whether a non-existent person was ignorant or not. We're more likely to suggest that someone who can't spell "decided", "official", "Arabic" and "ignorant" is misguided, ignorant or stupid, but even in that case we probably won't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over dates -- error or just unclear?

In the section on "Great Britain and the United Kingdom" there is the statement that "Most recently, the Interpretation Act 1978 declared that "a reference to England includes Berwick upon Tweed and Monmouthshire", but this was reversed by the Local Government Act 1972 which made it part of Wales." It's not clear how an earlier act can reverse a later act. Digitig (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The 1978 Act has been misquoted - it discusses historic definitions of England, rather than presenting a definition that was current at the time of the act. I've corrected this in the article.--Michig (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section in the act reads "in any Act passed before 1st April 1974, a reference to England includes Berwick upon Tweed and Monmouthshire and, in the case of an Act passed before the Welsh Language Act 1967, Wales".--Michig (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Capital

Wikipedia's article on country says a capital is a place's center of government. Since England does not have a government, it can't have a center of government. Therefor it has no capital. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before. Now, take your time, England is a Constituent Country, which is defined differently to a Country, London is the defacto capital as it contains the UK parliament. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how that works then. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is capital in the same way as that of other sub-national entities, like county towns (Exeter for Devon, Worcester for Worcestershire etc). You ask absolutely any UK resident and they will say that London is the capital of England. 86.154.159.219 (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All those places have the government of that area in them. Tell me why england can have a capital without a government. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In a similar way to the argument that England can't be a country without a government, saying that England can't have a capital without government is also wrong. Having a capital does not imply having a government, a capital can also be the main population centre, the main business centre, the main cultural centre, the centre for whatever you want.

Many things have a capital without it being a seat of government. In the EU we have 'capitals of culture'; this year one of them is Liverpool. That doesn't mean that Liverpool is the seat of some government of culture, it is just a descriptive noun that implies a concentration of a particular attribute. Which is exactly what London is with many attributes of Englishness - it is a the centre of many activities. 86.146.136.156 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When laws are passed which just apply to England, they are passed at the Houses of Parliament which is in London (or Westminster if you're being pedantic). Regardless of the fact that Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote on them (that's another argument altogether), and regardless of the fact that there is no specific government just for England, English laws are still made in London and is that not what government is really, a system of laws? Therefore, the fact that the people who govern England do so from London surely means that London is the de facto capital? little muddy funkster (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The capital of England is London, just as it was for the Kingdom of England. That England is without devolved government is irrelevant. Edinburgh was the capital of Scotland and Cardiff the capital of Wales before devolution. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands despite the government being in The Hague. The UK government is in the city of Westminster but the whole of London is still considered the capital. Capital status does not have to correspond with where the government is. josh (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you read my 1st comment? Wikipedia says that the capital is the center of government and not of anything else. The capital of the Netherlands is the Hague. Can you give me a citation for there being laws which are passed which just apply to England? If so you win. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment you make sounds like a personal insult to the English people, your tone is way too aggressive. (80.42.209.111 (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

What do you mean my "tone". We're writing stuff down, there is no tone. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About the existence of English-only laws: please read English law. 81.153.208.155 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008

I've looked at that and it is laws for England and Wales. It has a section just for Wales but none for England. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP address person does have a valid point although (s)he is being obtuse about it. The Wikipedia Capital article does indeed say that the capital of a country is the centre of government. This is, of course, proved incorrect by the case of the Netherlands having its capital as Amsterdam yet its seat of government in The Hague. I will raise the issue on the talk page. AJKGORDON«» 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This idea that England has no government is just plain wrong. Even before devolution, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had their own government departments (the Scottish Office, etc.) that dealt with a very large number of matters that in England were dealt with by ministers such as the Home Secretary. The UK has never had a unitary administration at any time. So, when the government acts on purely English matters it is governing England, and the other places are governed separately. In other words, England does have a government - even if there is no bar to non-English people being part of it. After all, there is nothing at all about the word "government" that implies that the people who govern must be of the place they are governing. We even have a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, and yet he governs England far more than he governs Scotland. I think it is one of the great strengths of the English national character that they are perfectly happy to let this sort of thing happen without a second thought - but I suppose this comes from the luxury of comprising 83% of the UK population. TharkunColl (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But I think he is pointing out that capital doesn't necessarily mean the seat of government. Although I might have read him wrong. There is no doubt that London is the capital of England as well as the UK, de facto or otherwise. AJKGORDON«» 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course a city can be simultaneously the capital of part of a country and the whole country. A country can set itself up anyway it chooses. Which is the case with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll belive there are english only laws when you give me a refference. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are English-only laws, but that is not really the issue. Most of what a government does is not making laws, but administering the country through ministers, departments, the civil service, agencies, etc. Even before devolution most of these matters were dealt with by separate departments for Scotland (always), Ireland/Northern Ireland (always), and Wales (since the 1950s). Where, in England, ministers such as the Home Secretary would make the relevant decisions, in Scotland for example it would have been the Scottish Secretary. Therefore, in all these matters, England had a government specific to itself - even if that government could include members who were not English. TharkunColl (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I'll belive you when you give me a reference. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For what? Do you doubt the existence of the Scottish Office etc.? TharkunColl (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I want a reference for the government of the UK running England in the same way as Scotland runs Scotland. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with TharkunColl, GoodDay et al on this one. There seems little scope of consensus here 122.105.218.141 to action the changes you seek. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you're driving at, 122.105.218.141. If you are claiming that London can't be the capital of England because England doesn't have a government, then you are simply incorrect on two levels. Firstly, the definition of capital doesn't necessarily indicate the seat of government (witness Amsterdam). If you have a gripe about that, then go to the WP article on Capital and argue as I have done that the entry is mistaken. Secondly, even if having a seat of government was a prerequisite of capital status, it's quite clear that England is governed from London through the House of Parliament in Westminster. The fact that Parliament also ultimately governs Wales, Scotland and NI is irrelevant. Government does not have to be exclusive. It seems that it is commonly accepted that London is the capital of England as well as the UK. If you doubt that this common knowledge is accurate or that it is indeed common knowledge, which may very well be the case, then you would do well to find a reliable source that disputes London's status as England's capital rather than asserting that it can't be.

Don't forget that England and the UK doesn't have a written constitution and, like much that is official, various things like capital status are through convention. AJKGORDON«» 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I should learn to read! Actually the intro of the Capital article is quite clear that being the seat of government is the norm for a capital rather than the rule. So, 122.105.218.141, it seems there is one less reason for your objection. AJKGORDON«» 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the last time I want a REFERENCE. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if nobody finds you a reference for the "government of the UK running England in the same way as Scotland runs Scotland", what has that got to do with the subject in question, i.e. your assertion that London isn't the capital of England? Besides which, you might want to moderate your language and use politeness if you want to have a serious discussion. AJKGORDON«» 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is now beginning to become tedious. The anonymous (Australian?) poster wants "a reference". What kind of reference would ever suffice this person? If references are really wanted (rather than merely perpetuating a kind of logic-chopping game that has preoccupied people on various trivial pursuit websites, amongst others), then let one of the following be considered: UK Embassy in USA, second example, third example, and fourth example. Now, no more logic-chopping, such as "I asked for a reference and you've given me four", or quibbles about the kind of reference (the demand didn't specify what kind of reference). The answer has now been given. Accept it and move on to making positive contributions to wikipedia if that is your desire.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally. That was what I asked for. I accept that London is the capital of England. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's something you don't see on here every day :) AJKGORDON«» 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And for anyone who doubts that England has a government specific to itself, here's just one example [9]. The Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, recently wrote to every GP in England instructing them to extend the opening hours of their surgeries. Note that he did not write to the GPs of Scotland, Wales, or Northern ireland, because responsibility in those areas falls under the devolved governments. So, despite being Health Secretary of the UK, he was acting simply for England. This is how English government works. TharkunColl (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"This is how English government works." Unfortunately. 84.12.47.154 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Should let you all know that this question is now being debated on the London talk page. The Angel of Islington (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Triumphalism

The introductory paragraph seems idealised. One of the reasons the English legal system is the basis for some many others is a result of conquest, not any essential utility. English manufacturing and its growth was dependent on and created the slave trade. Within the living memory attempts were made to supress native languages in Wales as well as in what are now members of the Commonwealth. Some acknowledgement of the consequences (and responsbilities) of imperium should surely be there? --Snowded (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To what particular paragraph or sentence do you object, and on what precise basis? The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are aware, I hope, that England was one of the first nations to abolish slavery and contributed more than any other to rescuing slaves, buying slave freedom and forcing other countries to abolish the practice? (look up the West Africa Squadron). What a shame that history is currently so blurred by bitterness that the great moments of English history get so disgustingly underreported. (And as for the notion that England "created the slave trade" - no, it didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.244.202 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the UK was one of the first countries to pass a law against slavery (which is not the same thing as abolishing it). The law also made several people very rich through undeserved compensation and the de facto position on the estates in terms of poverty, power and exploitation did not change very much for some time. England built a large part of its empire on slavery, created (along with other European powers) much of the current conflict in Africa through imposing structures across tribal boundaries. The black hole of Calcutta is taught in British Schools in part as an example of barbarism overcome by the "enlightened" overcome through the imposition of British Justice - the barbaric suppressions after the Indian Mutiny are never mentioned. I could go on. Within Britain the Irish Famine, the Welsh tawse and the Highland clearances also provide evidence of the evil side of empire. My suggestion is for some balance in the introductory paragraphs --Snowded (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Old and Middle England

Ought the translations in the lead be removed? They are not official languages and thus shouldn't be there. I don't see what they add or what other encyclopedia would dream of having them. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Having had to revert multiple acts of vandalism, and after checking the history, I successfully applied for temporary semi-protection of this page. -- Fritzpoll (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I was thinking of suggesting this myself but didn't think it could be secured. This was a good decision. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll

A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is wrong. In 1603, the English crown succeeded under English law to the king of Scots. The result was not one kingdom but two kingdoms ruled by one person: precisely the same situation as exists with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and various other countries today. The United Kingdom (e.g. one kingdom, one king) was not formed until 1707, when the independent kingdoms of England and Scotland were abolished. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering...

What would happen if the United Kingdom were to dissolve just like the Soviet Union? Would England become the sole international succesor state of the UK and attain the UK's former seat in the UN Security council, as Russia did upon the collapse of the Soviet state?

I imagine, since the United Kingdom is a similar "union" entity as was the Soviet Union, they would share the same fate, were the UK to dissolve. --69.14.240.200 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article Talk pages are not internet forums or blogs. We do not indulge in idle chit-chat here: we discuss the content of, and external sources used for, the relevant article. Please read WP:TPG. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "commonly thought of"

It sounds rather weasly and insulting to say that England is "commonly thought of" as a nation. Scotland doesn't have any such ambiguity. TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. If Scotland is a nation? so is England, Wales and Northern Ireland, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Due to rather different histories rather more of england would view the nation as being the Uk with england simply being part of that.Geni 01:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. You have anything to back that up? It has nothing to do with 'rather different' histories - being a nation isn't about someones view. As England and Scotland were Kingdoms beforehand, they have equal status regardless of history. The nation is also the people. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nation

Seeing as Scotland has nation in its introduction? The same should be done here. I'd also include Northern Ireland and Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never see Northern Ireland referred to as a 'nation' - have you any sources to support such a description? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I please make clear my objections that England is categorically not a nation. A nation is a group of people, not a division of land. It adds no value at all to add this term and advocates of this poor English skill don't seem to appreciate what their implying.

There have been some (very poor quality) "news" sources added that use the term incorrectly. HM Government does not call England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales a "nation".

If England is a nation, then how are the English people a nation? Is the United Kingdom a nation ([10])?

Wikipedia is an international project. That some weak sources use the term "nation" incorrectly does not represent the true meaning of the word nor reflect international standards. England is a country. In this capacity, I plan to remove the claim. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me gentlemen. My suggestion of having 'nation' here (and Northern Ireland and Wales)? was to bring attention to the Scotland article. I feel all 4 articles should be treated similiarly, as they're all a part of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

England is both the country and its people - if the article 'England' is just about the geographical territory, how can the article have a section on culture? People have culture - not territory.

Anyway, if editors are happy to dismiss common usage of the word 'nation' as being 'wrong', so be it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

England is a country. The article is partly about the people in the country, which is what you would expect. The common usage of nation is that it refers to a group of people. The intro could potentially read that England is "home to the English nation" or something - I wouldn't really want this, but at least it would make sense. Writing that "England is a nation" is ungrammatical, regardless of what editors on other pages do.Hobson (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So the instigator of this discussion admits that he was just doing so to make a point. I only wish that he would put as one tenth as much effort into improving encyclopedia articles as he does into contributing to talk pages. Sadly his contributions demonstrate that this is not the case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of my edits to Wiki?, are minor edits (spelling corrections, date corrections etc). I would like to improve the Scotland article, but it's not so easy. PS- It's nice to know that I've a critic. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland article needs not just peer, but expert review. Lots of important history missing from middle age period. Nor not enough on Picts. 78.19.83.219 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

the Map

Seeing as Scotland doesn't shade the rest of the UK on its article map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I don't have a strong view either way on the question, but I do have a strong view that what is decided for this page should not be on the basis of what consensus happens to be reached for the Scotland page. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Doesn't England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 'make up' the United Kingdom? I've noticed this reluctance (by several editors) on all 'four' articles, over the months. I find the trend intriguing. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Are you really suggesting that editors of the England page should have to 'fall in line' with what editors of the other pages decide for their articles? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore. I've given up on the Scotland article - They've got ownership issues there, IMHO. But, as for your question - Yes, the four UK components should fall in line. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, GoodDay, but that's where we disagree! Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I like it, cool. PS- It's been adopted at Northern Ireland & Wales aswell (currently rejected at Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As a mapmaker, I don't really like it I have to say. I think the wider, "continental" version was much stronger and had much more context. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the map currently on the main page Image:Uk map england.png. I hope you all dont mind that I was WP:BOLD and added it myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice, but at that scale couldn't we show major cities or something? TharkunColl (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They probably could be, but then you're into the realms of what exactly are the major cities? And how do you measure them? Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given the declared aims of what the map is constructed to clearly and simply show (the relative locations of the three constituent countries of the United Kingdom in relation to each other and probably to the adjacent parts of Europe), I think adding cities would be cluttering it up unduly. It would certainly mean it would diverge even more from the kinds of displays used for similar reasons in other countries (see the discussion on Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll for more details.)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something in between the previous map (Image:Europe location ENG.png) and the new Image:Uk map england.png (and probably closer to the former). Not only is the Europe map beautiful, it has lots of useful context. The British Isles map is only meaningful to people familiar with UK geography, who have no use for it, as they all know where England is. It's important to show Ireland, Calais and Brittany, but it's also important to show the Netherlands, Denmark and (at least part of) Norway. Maybe Germany, Spain and Iceland too. Kanguole (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through wikipedia and checked every country on the planet and that just isn't done. The reason that a small countries like Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Grenada, Gabon, & Vanuatu (click on the links provided to see example) can get away with not even showing any other country near it is because if people have a question on the countries location on the planet they go to the country article for that info. This is specific about a major subdivision of that country. Heck when we talk about Suffolk we don't show how Suffolk fits in the entire world or even inside of the UK, only how it is a subdivision of England. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for Suffolk, but not for Herefordshire (on the west coast?). Common though that style is, it isn't very useful for countries with land borders or other close neighbours. Reading about Bavaria, I need to know where it is in Germany, but I also need to know what countries are near it. And by extension, a larger subdivision (like England) needs more context. Kanguole (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then your argument is for something like that has been done for Benin, Haiti, Ecuador, Laos, & Portugal. Is that not what is already given? If other countries believe that the reader is smart enough to go to the main countries page to see a wider geographic location of the country in question. Why are we to be believe that readers going to subdivisions of the UK would do no less? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that readers can do that, but wouldn't it be helpful if we could save them flipping pages while reading this article, by providing the context that is relevant to the article? If a subdivision is small and far from the frontier, like Rutland, little external context is needed. Herefordshire, being larger and on the edge, needs more, and England, with over half the land area of the state, needs more still. It's quite unusual in that respect; the only other cases I can think of are Flanders and Wallonia, themselves very special cases. Kanguole (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually neither Flanders or the Wallonia article are not about the region or about subdivisions of the region. Flanders is a old state that is now a pert of the Flemish Region and it shows Image:Vlaams GewestLocatie.png. It is now West Flanders Image:BelgiumWestFlanders.png and East Flanders Image:BelgiumEastFlanders.png inside the Flemish Region. While Wallonia is a part of the Walloon Region that shows Image:Wallonia (Belgium).png. There is a 3rd region in Belgium#Communities and regions and that is the tiny Brussels-Capital Region that shows a close up map Image:BelgiumBrussels.png but it kinda has too doesn't it. I told you I checked every region in wikipedia! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Flanders and Wallonia articles are related and closer to the nature of the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. Subdivisions of other states are not of the same nature of the constituent countries/parts of the UK. Just look at the difficulty that we have in deciding what to call a person from the UK: are the British or English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish? These are commonly understood as being countries and not just administrative regions that can be shunted and changed at will. Counties and other administrative divisions are usually shown in the same was as the new maps, but it is inappropriate for the constituent countries/parts of the UK. Just as it would be inappropriate for Flanders or Wallonia. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But it must be remembered that we actually are talking about a subdivision of a country and as such it should be treated as such. Other things such as culture or naming issues are not what this discussion is about. If it was then using the Image:Celtic Nations1.svg would be a suggestion for Scotland. Bavaria has a long and proud history but its map doesnt how it as an independent state, why? Well its a part of Germany! Everything else, while important, is secondary to that nominal fact. This is an article about a major subdivision of the United Kingdom is it not? If it is then we should treat it as such. if your looking for the past history about england then the Kingdom of England is where you should start. If your looking for the people then go to English people. This article will talk about those subjects, it has too. But thats not its prime focus. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation (2)

According to a selection of dictionary definitions here [11], the term "nation" can refer to both the people and its territory - just as common usage indicates. I shall restore it to the lead. TharkunColl (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe, someone has just called for the removal of 'nation' from Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They will never allow that to happen. TharkunColl (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have uniformity in the England and Scotland articles it makes sense to leave the term nation in both!--Jack forbes (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No I absolutely object to this through and through. What uniformity??? What about Wales, Northern Ireland? Cornwall even? Not only that, there are several thousand articles and templates that use "consistuent country" throughout Wikipedia, not "nation"; there is zero uniformity! What's the point in describing England as a nation when it has a contentious, unclear meaning that geographers and informed linguists object to? What value does it add to the article? How is England a nation and Cornwall the UK, United States or the EU not? Why are the English people a nation? Is constituent country not adequate? No other encyclopedia or any government source uses the term.

This source makes it clear there is a difference, properly. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About.com does not trump dictionary definitions I'm afraid. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.... two of those do say that. The rest don't, though - explicitly not, if you see what I mean. Here is the OED entry:

nation ME. [(O)Fr. f. L natio(n-) birth, race, f. nat- pa. ppl stem of nasci be born: see -ION.]

1 A large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a distinct people, esp. when organized or potentially organizable as a political State. ME.

b A number of people belonging to a particular nation; a group of people representating a nation. Now rare. LME.

c In medieval and some Scottish universities, a body of students from a particular district, country, etc., forming a more or less distinct community. M17.

d A country, a kingdom. rare. Only in M17.

2 Nationality. LME–M17.

3 a A family, one’s kindred. rare. LME–E16.

b An Irish clan. LME–L16.c A N. American Indian people. M17.

4 A particular class or kind of person or animal. LME–L18.

Nothing about territory there. Mucky Duck (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the Scotland and England articles, and if Scotland has the right to call itself a nation(as shown in the article) then I will stick up for the right of English people to call themselves a nation! (which I'm sure they do anyway.)--Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the articles are supposed to be political statements. The edit you have made seems to be an attempt to make a point about the rights of the English people, which is not appropriate. And your edit does not actually state that the English people are a nation - you have stated that England is a nation, which is not the same. I an going to make one revert - revert back if you want, I won't revert it again! One edit war a year is more then enough for me, and I've already had one. But I will say that as far as I can make out, this article has done fine without including a claim that "England is a nation" for a long time, and there is clearly no concensus for adding the claim in, so I appeal in the name of England, Harry and St George for no more nationism unless concensus is achieved! Hobson (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions state quite clearly that a "nation" can be a territory as well as its people. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to distinguish in the article which version of "nation" you're talking about? --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly makes it clear what England is. TharkunColl (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And can do so without using the word "nation." Why, then, add in the word without clarification of its meaning in this context? --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, none of the UK constituent countries are 'nations'. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They are certainly more nations than artificial constructs like Canada that were only invented last week or whatever. TharkunColl (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl in the source you've provided, only one in about ten of the dictionaries state a "nation" is territory. Can you explain why the others do not, or why your preferred one takes preference? I'd also like to know if the UK or US is a nation and why that is or isn't so. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the UK isn't. I also know that England is, just like Scotland. TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked why. "Knowing" isn't helpful; we need verifiability. You also omitted answers for my question on the dictionary definition. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many dictionaries give the definition (though your figures also happen to be wrong). Dictionaries give it. Therefore it is correct. And it conforms to normal usage as well. TharkunColl (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I hate to point out the obvious here, but 1 in 10 shows usage, not normal usage. Regardless, the term is ambiguous unless given grounding context. Do you plan to give it such in this article? --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Thats a very unsatisfactory answer I'm afraid; there's very little depth in your argument here. Again, why does one online dictionary take preference over several others, as well as governmental material and other encyclopedias? If this is so "normal", you should be able to provide a convincing and substantial justification. So far you have not. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Go and remove it from Scotland then, and see what happens. Don't try and push your POV onto England first. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a separate matter that parallels, but has little relevance to, this matter. Accusing people of pushing POV is a weak retort with little value. Either you mean to use "nation" as describing a people, or you want to use it to refer to the geo-political area; you need to clarify which, and if it is the former you'll need a supporting cite, and if its the latter then its redundant as "constituent country" says the same thing and more. --G2bambino (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume therefore you cannot justify its inclusion from hereon. I'll restore the article to the earlier version. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And that will be your third revert. Go and vandalise Scotland and try and tell them they aren't a nation. TharkunColl (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, do you also want 'nation' at Wales and Northern Ireland articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales certainly. Northern Ireland I'm not so sure, since it only constitutes about one quater of a nation. Best call it a province, as everyone else does. TharkunColl (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Scotland talk page ,they use the same arguments there!--Jack forbes (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, if nation was removed from Scotland? would you then agree to 'nation' being omitted from this article? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. England is a nation and it is extremely offensive to state otherwise. TharkunColl (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have citation for that assertion? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For England being a nation or for how offensive it is to say otherwise? ;) --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not both!? ;) Certainly the "extremely offensive" bit, I mean unless I've missed a huge part of English culture, then that's just not a helpful remark. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We should also have a 'tag' placed at Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PS- Which would be difficult, as the Scotland article is currently locked. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Where? The term "nation" isn't used there, as far as I can see.

I think the first thing we need to do for all these situations is have it made clear what meaning of the word "nation" the pro-nation editors want to convey - a people, or a geo-political area. Then we can decide on how, or even whether or not, to insert the term. --G2bambino (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)That article is (or at least was) protected (for discussion). Another point that nullifies part of Tharkun's contentions ("go vandalise that article"). I think at this point the strength of consensus and arguement here is for "nation" to be removed. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes that England is a home nation, so it stands to reason that it's a nation. Why are you so opposed to this, Jza84? TharkunColl (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested Home Nation for each of the 4 countries within the UK before (it has a specific meaning). However, it was opposed, of course, at Talk:Scotland. I think I have made my objections clear for nation - it means a group of people. That "England is a group of people" reads, well, stupidly for want of a better word. Surely you can appreciate that I don't want that wording for that reason. For some reason, people in the UK seem to have confused this term of late, but Wikipedia is an international project that should use proper language skills. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point you see, because according to numerous dictionary entries which I linked above, nation can also mean a territory. And the word is indeed so used by English speakers. It is therefore simply untrue to state that nation can only ever refer to people. And you cannot use another Wikipedia article, i.e. nation, as a basis for your argument. TharkunColl (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, according to one (American??) online dictionary it means a territory (though that particular dictionary also states it means a people). The others do not. So, let's go for British print. According to Chambers "School" Dictionary (sorry it's my son's):

nation noun 1. the people living in the same country, or under the same government 2. a race of people: the Jewish nation.

According to Newnes Pocket Thesaurus of English Words:

nation: n. mankind, humanity, human race, human beings, populace, population, flesh, person, man, human being, indivdual, creature, mortal body, earthling, homo sapiens, Adam, anthopoid, people, public, folk, society, community, civilization, politcs, nationality, statehood, chauvinism, nationalism, imperialism, anthropology, social anthropology, ethnology, sociology.

Do you see my point? Don't blame me that this is the proper meaning of the word. It's not about denying "English nationhood" ([12]), it's about using proper scholarly English on an international 21st century text. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many quotations you can find, because no one is disputing that a nation can be a people. Here are some quotations that state that a nation can also be a territory:

• Dictionary.com Unabridged - "2. the territory or country itself"
• American Heritage Dictionary - "b. The territory occupied by such a group of people"

Do you see my point? TharkunColl (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a very strong one. However, a new trump card: England uses British English. You're sources (online American examples) are not standard British English. :)

Also, can you tell me what value this term "nation" adds to the article, what other encyclopedias use it for England and what official governmental material use this? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's been watching this amusing and interesting debate from afar, can I object to the use of the term "home nation" in the intro para of the England article? In my opinion, the term is only ever used in a sporting context - is there any verification of its use in other contexts? In my mind its use as a fundamental description of England in a wider context is quite wrong. I don't have a problem with "nation", "constituent country", "nation and constituent country", or "nation or constituent country" though. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise suitably amused from afar, I think the suitable solution for this day of amusement might be to follow the "divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles" and proclaim this realm of England to be an empire. (Or maybe that's just silly, archaic, and legalistic...) 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This section hasn't been touched for a couple of days. Have we agreed on an outcome? I think nation should go at this stage, but then I would :). I think the England article was it had existed without the term was quite suffient. I'll hang back a while and then if nobody comes back I'll take it out. Hope that's OK. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the dictionaries make it quite clear that nation can refer to a territory as well as a people. TharkunColl (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reputable, reliable British English dictionary you're talking about? Also, what governmental material do you have to sustain this word? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

They are all reputable dictionaries and to state that any of them aren't is POV and OR. And we don't need a government cite if we've got the dictionaries, because governments don't make language. TharkunColl (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So to clarify, you have no reputable, reliable British English dictionary, and you have no government source. You see, to me, they'd be the first things I'd go for. I wouldn't be trying to convince the editting community with dictionary.com (!), I'd be looking at the most reliable sources I could. Let's look at some evidence:

• England is the predominant partner of the United Kingdom (1911 Britannica)
• A nation is formed of a large group of people closely associated with one another "by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory" (Oxford Dictionary - you can't get any better than Oxford).
• England is a country on an island that makes up most of the United Kingdom (Mind Alive Encyclopedia).
• The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (Number-10.gov.uk)
• England: predominant constituent unit of the United Kingdom (2008 Britannica)
• England: largest constituent unit of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (2008 Britannica Concise)
• England: most populated part of the United Kingdom (2008 Britannica Student)
• Google search:
  • "England is a nation" - 1,500 results.
  • "England is a country" - 14,500 results (note the tenfold increase).
  • "England is a part" - 27,300 results.
• "The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. 'The UK' is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." (Key facts about Britain)

The evidence is rather stark. It is you, with a single online American dictionary that is stopping the whole wealth of material that indicates England is just not a "nation". Even if you found a source that defines nation as a territory, there is still a gap in knowledge: no other Encyclopedia, gazetteer or atlas uses this term "nation", nor does any government literature. Is it not time to rethink this? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to go with Jza84 on this. In particular. TharkunColl replied with "They are all reputable dictionaries and to state that any of them aren't is POV and OR. And we don't need a government cite if we've got the dictionaries, because governments don't make language." when he was specifically asked about British English Dictionaries, which doesn't answer the question. And as for not needing government sources when one has dictionaries, because "governments don't make language", well dictionaries don't make language either. Furthermore, dictionaries can only summarize sources in a general way, unless they are specialized dictionaries, and often raid other dictionaries to get their own definitions. Thus errors can sometimes accumulate (as illustrated by Frederick Bartlett's now old, yet classic studies into Human Memory and what used to be called a written analogue of "Chinese whispers", though this term is probably not a good one to use now.) That is why government sources are probably much better than generalist dictionaries.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being stomped on by everyone, has the use of WP:FN been considered? That would allow the intro para to read cleanly, while those wanting to read more about whether it is or isn't a "nation" under different definitions could read a fuller explanation at the bottom of the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anoter proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sony-youth, is there a centralised discussion about this? If so, where? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

100KB +

I believe you should delete the message about the size of the article, 'cause oit is unsightly. It is pretty long and bla-bla, but United States is even bigger and there seems to be no problem. I believe that this encyclopedia is somehow better in many ways then the written ones, but partly because of the size of the articles, that are virtually unlimited if we consider the discussion page (that I really consider as part of the article, when the disussions are good or, at least, disputed). And, indeed, I've never had any problem with the visualization of an 200KB page on the wikipedia. 189.31.124.24 (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

well, I've removed it. As you say, most countries have similar sized articles. If someone wants to summarise 1200 Years of history in 100KB, then good luck.Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Square miles

I tried to edit the info box to put square miles first and it won't even let me do it. No matter where I put it, square kilometers always shows up first. There are two issues here. Firstly, virtually everyone in England uses miles, so this is the appropriate measurement. Secondly, why is the template designed so that we have no choice but to use European units? TharkunColl (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you need to ask your question elsewhere. i would suggest going to the technical part oft eh Village Pump, WP:Village Pump (technical) as I would be surprised if such a thing could be answered here, or ask a user like Grutness, he might know. And certainly miles dominate throughout the English speaking world and we are an English speaking encyclopedia. it isn't even controversial like pounds and kilos or centimetres and inches. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [13]) --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

• http://www.internationalgiftitems.com/european_countries.htm
• http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/geo/countrylist.php
• http://www.timberhunt.com/timber_trade/europe.html
• http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/regions#table1_europe
• http://www.yourchildlearns.com/europe_map.htm
• http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm
• http://www.obs.coe.int/db/persky/ 122.105.220.129 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tom, I strongly suggest you look through the archives of this talk page, and (importantly) look at the mediation link at the top of this page. This is not a simple change you seek. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree that consistency seems impossible. However Tom Green does have a point about "country" linking to "constituent country". I suggest that it return to "constituent country" linking to "constituent country", as it was until the consistency-driven changes that led to the failed mediation. Kanguole (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the first source that is cited - it clearly shows that England is a country within the country that is the United Kingdom. Trying to suggest that England is not a country is just plain silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.131.187 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is probably a unique situation, that does not mean however that the countries that make up this united kingdom are not indeed countries. If one reads the history beind it then it is all apparent. I can see why non British people might get confused if they don't have the knowledge of the situation but that shouldn't be a factor, it's not hard to read up on it. (195.171.106.3 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

My God. You guys need to get out more. Does it really matter on the technicalities? Why is everyone being so snotty and pompous? It's like listening to school children argue. I would be inclined to say that England is a country. We do have a parliament, it just so happens that it rules over the rest of the UK, or at least it did do until devolved governments started to spring up. I think you guys need to relax, find a nice hobby, and start being nicer to one another. Dharma6662000 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Close discussion on England as country

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

• http://www.spike.com/video/england-is-province/2796320?cmpnid=800&lkdes=VID_2796320
• http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/englandnot.htm
• http://geography.about.com/b/2006/06/08/england-is-not-a-country.htm
• http://in-ger-land.blogspot.com/2007/05/england-is-not-country.html

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.

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)

You know, the one time Snowded commented on my references is also the one time they were not reliable. big coincidence, don't you think? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

You have never said anything about my reliable references, you just mention the ones that are unreliable. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowded is trying to win this debate by disrupting me, so I suggest everyone should ignore him. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

If a few non British read this debate they would be sure that England is not a country. My gess as at why they havn't commented is that mostly British try to improve the article and any non British who do would be put of by the British, who are clearly in denial. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not British and I know that England is a country. Arnoutf (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There would still be a couple of non British who are still in denial, but most probably wouldn't be. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And it is quite possible you are convinced, but like annoying me as you often call me "troll" and, like Snowded, keep telling everyone to stop the debate. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It should at least be mentioned in the intro that England has no government. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

England does have a government though. The Parliament in Westminster is the English parliament, it merely passed acts making Scotland and so on part of the Kingdom and renaming itself. At any time it wants the parliament in London has the power to repeal these acts, and it would return to just governing England. It may be "dormant" as such but the power of the English parliament is still there and can do what it wants vis a vis the acts of union. So I don't think you can really say England doesn't have a government, as such. (92.18.76.144 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

If it undid those acts England would have a government. If you look at English law you'll see that all laws in England also apply to Wales, so right now England has no more government than the square meter of ground below me. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

You clearly have a case of WP:truth, as indicated by the fact that you continuously ignore the countless references I have given and change the subject whenever I bring this up. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're ignoring you actually. This isn't a case of WP:TRUTH, but rather WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have no consensus, and you're not likely to ever get one. Move along - we have. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it happened again. When I bring my massive support up, you avoid responding to it. Snowded has said what you just said countless times, so you are the one with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Any reasonable open minded person can see that I have won this debate. Just bring a few non-English here and you'll see the support I will have. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you are going to get an admin could they please be non-English? 122.105.217.62 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

assume good faith please. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I want a non-British admin to prevent bias in the ruling, in the same way a Judge can not know the people in court. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

For your third point, I do have a problem with the other provinces being called countries, as you would have seen if you had read through the argument. Because it is so long, I forgive you. The reason I focus on England is because it has no government. For your second point, you give no evidence whatsoever for a logical point that I have explained many times. 122.105.217.62 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Poorly sourced? That would be funny if I was not so tired of hearing it. I have never seen an argument where someone has had more backing up than me.

Some of us did you the courtesy of going through your sources to point out their weakness, and attempted to help you learn how to edit the wikipedia (I see you still have not learnt how to indent text, so I did it for you, again). As everyone is telling you the item is closed. If you object to that then you raise it on the administrators page and see if you can get anyone to take it up. That is the process, follow it. Further comments here or direct edits are either trolling or vandalism given the prior history. --Snowded TALK 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You looked at four of my references, and just happened to do it when they were unreliable. You are cherry-picking data. Also, could you stop acting like it as a terrible crime to sometimes forget to indent. 122.105.218.20 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the references you provided, and if you submit unreliable sources (what an admission) that will reduce your credibility. Forgetting formatting from time to time is something we all do, but you do it all the time! Look, its over here as several editors have told you. If you are not happy put it up on the admin pages, take it all the way on appeal if you want but from now on, unless you are abusive in some way I am going to consider further comments here as trolling. --Snowded TALK 11:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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

As this discussion has been going around in ever smaller circles, and no new arguments are appearing in the last few months. Hence, it is time to stop and close this.
The conclusion can only be that there is no consensus; nor will there be a consensus in the near future to change the article (which does not say anything about who is right). Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, you are the one who started it "going in smaller and smaller circles". 122.105.218.20 (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just leave. (Butters x (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC))