Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 30 June 2004

Cornwall

Page refactored. Row about status Cornwall excised. sjc

Flag

I removed the reference to an Act of Parliament in 1908 approving names for the Union Jack, as I don't believe there has ever been such an Act. If there was such an Act, then what was it called? --Zundark, 2001 Oct 17

See: http://www.flaginst.demon.co.uk/fiunionflag.htm
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb.html

Neither of these mentions an Act of Parliament. As far as I can tell, they refer to a parliamentary answer (see under "Use and status of the flag" in the second of your links). --Zundark, 2001 Oct 17

More Cornwall

Is Cornwall a county of England, or what?

It is a county which some people (English) like to think is in England and others (Cornish) humour them about. Usually. Until they become to arrogant, that is. user:sjc

Okay, but how shall we describe it in the Misplaced Pages? If we list the countries of the UK, England is one of them. If we list the counties of England, is Cornwall one of them? Must we say that the UK consists of:

• Cornwall, a county
• England, Scotland, and Wales (countries)

Cornwall is in-between; neither a country nor a county; it is the last vestige of the Cornish Celtic nation that was joined with the Welsh until a major military defeat in the 5th century. It is in administrative terms an English county (this may yet change!) but is not technically in England since it is a duchy, with an autocthonous population which has its own language. I am content as a Cornishman for Cornwall to be listed as an English county since it describes the realpolitik of the situation, but the legal status of Cornwall may well be and probably is otherwise. user:sjc

Sort of like the Duchy of Benevento not really being part of Italy. What about the kingdom of Kent and the kingdom of Mercia? Is Kent also a county but not a shire? Neo-nationalism! Up with the Fen-men! Keep the ruddy Angles out! Wetman 14:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds more like Taiwan, which China calls a "province" but which nevertheless considers itself an independent nation. (I've never really understood the "one-China" policy.)

Anyway, will you now permit GrahamN to make his edits without ominous forebodings of reversion? --Ed Poor

Sorry to jump in this discussion at this point in time, but Taiwan Province does not call itself an independent nation. The Republic of China claims to be an independent nation, which the People's Republic of China claims does not exist or does not legitimately exist. Administratively, Taiwan is a province of the ROC. That's unless you call "Taiwan" the short form of the ROC. The analogy fails. --Jiang 21:02 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No I won't. We have an agreed form of words that works; I have spent enought time and effort brokering deals and compromises to make it acceptable. Please refrain from interfering in a debate you manifestly know little about. user:sjc

I still think of Massachusetts as a colony, so I'm all mixed up. --Ed Poor

No, Massachusetts is a commonwealth. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

What does that mean? Massachusetts doesn't mention it or explain. Province, country, commonwealth... It's at this point of the conversation that I usually misquote Giles from Buffy saying "we still think of you lot as bloody colonials" ... ;-) -- Tarquin 21:49 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

Massachusetts and the other three commonwealths are the same as states. (Just like the Principality of Asturias, the Generalitat of Catalunya, and the Region of Murcia are all autonomous communities of Spain.) Not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Or The Commonwealth. - Montréalais

Hey, nothing legitimate about "West" Virginia! Reclaim it I say! and Connecticut's charter ran to the Pacific Ocean!

• Cornwall is a county of England, although it was once an independant country, but this was many centuries ago. Some of the older generations like to think they are different from the rest of the English population, but in truth this isn't true at all. Cornwall in no way differs from any other English county. Also in response to one statement above, the UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Grunners 04:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

More flag

Can someone explain why the bit at the top about the English flag links to a page about the United Kingdom flag? Shouldn't that be a "See also" at the bottom? And the external link goes to a page which again describes the Union flag, which is confusing for a page which is supposed to be about England. Just curious... cferrero 10:12 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Coat-of-arms

I went to the Westminster Parliament yesterday. Among other things, I was looking for the coat-of-arms with the (Three) Lions of England. The building is replete with such, some even brilliantly coloured, but alas, the visitors were not allowed to photograph inside the building except in the St Stephen's Chapel, where I took a photograph of a plain (not coloured) English coat-of-arms -- I will upload this soon. I think Misplaced Pages would appreciate anyone providing a coloured example. (See ) --Kaihsu 10:03, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As promised: File:England smallCOA Copyright 20030922 Kaihsu Tai.jpg --Kaihsu 12:53, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Culture of England

Is there really no Culture of England? Surely there must an Englishman (Englishperson?) with some sense of what has been going on all these years. :) fvincent 17:30, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I am not English, but there appear to be a number of different cultures, all happy to ridicule the others. ( 17:34, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anti-English Bias Yet Again

Could anyone explain to me the purpose of placing a racist French insult so high on the England page and peppering the information which follows it with the negative anti-English and, usually incorrect, opinions of the neighbouring celtic nations?

 I have checked the pages for France, Ireland and Scotland and there is no abusive comment posted about those countries and the data is not composed in the same negative or critical tone.
 Yet again we see England being used as the world's whipping boy and it is unfair and silly.
 Do you want your online encyclopedia to be taken seriously?

If what you're referring to is this paragraph:

• The Marquis de Ximenés, an 18th century diplomat, is credited with coining the phrase La perfide Albion, or "perfidious Albion", which is still heard from the French -- also an affectionate term, in its own way. It is also used by the Irish about the English but in a less affectionate manner, suggesting a degree of untrustworthiness. The Irish also refer to England as "pagan England".

then I'd like to say I agree. This has no real place in an article on England. And I'm Irish. Bmills 17:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perfidious England

I have removed the gratuitous and racist insult because no-one has given me an explanation as to what useful purpose it served. Remarks such as that can only serve to heighten racial tension not ease it.

Well, there may be some small purpose to leaving the remarks in. I actually came upon this talk page specifically looking for the origins of the term "Perfidious Albion" which I've heard in quite a number of places. I appreciate the desire to remove hateful sentiments, but at the same time, please be wary of erasing history when doing so. I'd like to still be able to go to wikipedia and find out the background of this (in)famous phrase. If the explanation has to be couched in disclaimers, then so be it.

England's legal identity

"England's formal legal identity is that of the kingdom of England and Wales." Really? There has never been a Kingdom of England and Wales, and I have never seen this term used. "England and Wales" has some reality as an administrative, legal and statistical unit of the UK, though much less than it used to now that Wales has its own legislature. But it is absurd to say that "England's formal legal identity" (assuming there is such a thing) includes Wales. Unless someone can justify this sentence it shoule be deleted. Adam 13:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that historically there were three kingdoms, England, Scotland and Ireland and the Principality of Wales. With the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland, the kingdom of Great Britain, incorporating Wales, began to emerge. This kingdom was a fully fledged fact by the time of the 1800 act which brought about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, more recently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was never an official kingdom of Wales or of England and Wales.

England, as I understand it, has only a negative official identity: the bit of Britain not covered by the regional assemblies of Scotland and Wales would just about sum it up. Bmills 14:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's straightforward enough. Wales's identity as a separate legal domain was extinguished by its annexation in the Middle Ages, leading to the creation of a single legal entity called "England and Wales" in which a set of common laws applies. Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate legal entities. You'll notice, in virtually anything to do with legal matters, that a distinction is made between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. See the University of Leeds's summary at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/uklegsys.htm . -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

None of that answers my point that the "Kingdom of England and Wales" never existed and certainly doesn't now, and that therefore the sentence is wrong. Now that Wales has its own legislature I'd be surprised if the expression "England and Wales" any longer has much meaning or currency. Adam 14:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. But the article is better now without the "kingdom". Clearly the new assembly has changed the "weight" of "England and Wales". Bmills 14:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam has a fair point regarding the misleading use of the word "kingdom" - hopefully my clarifications of the article have cleared up this point. But the expression "England and Wales" definitely does still have a lot of validity. Devolution has simply given the Welsh Assembly powers to pass secondary legislation affecting the counties of Wales. It hasn't established a separate legal domain for Wales and the two countries continue to share a single legal system governed from Westminster, which retains the exclusive right to pass primary legislation affecting Wales. See http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/ukdev.htm for an explanation of the devolution settlement. -- ChrisO 14:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Kingdom was always merely England. Wales was ignored as a separate entity. In the 1960s when the Wales and Berwick Act was repealed that references to "England" were not to be taken to include "Wales". Pre Welsh Assembly most primary & secondary legislation affected England and Wales so the term grew in use, but there was no change in the subservience of Wales to England, whether that was justified or not garryq 18:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's true. Wales was legally and nominally part of England. Deb 18:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some school histories...

I'm English and certainly in England we don't start our histories at 1066 although it's the one year everyone knows in this country. I consider the statement "This may be because the English are proud of their long history of independence, and therefore like to start the clock after the last successful invasion." to be nothing more than another Mel Gibson inspired (see 'The Patriot' & 'Braveheart') dig at the English. It certainly adds absolutely nothing positive to an article about England. It may be that in other countries they start English history at 1066 but everyone in England is taught to be proud of both King Alfred (pre 1066) and the fact that William the Conqueror was the last person to successfully invade. We're certainly too proud of our long history to shorten it by 200 years! These are the reasons that I am deleting this line. I don't agree with the first line ("Some school histories of England...") either. This certainly is not true in England but I can't speak for other countries. That's why I'm not deleting that line. This is the first time I've posted anything on this excellent website so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. I'm eager to learn. I've read the NPOV description and I think this comes under that heading. STAN

Agree with you about the line in question. There is a sense in which the statement is true, but it is not the sense in which most people would read it, which I think justifes its removal.

History, technically speaking, is not "what happened" but rather "the record of what happened". The Normans were excellent documenters, and from 1066 onwards we have huge quantities of factual data about life in England upon which to base our analysis. Records of pre-conquest England, on the other hand, are extremely patchy at best. Much of what we are taught about Alfred, for example, seems to have been first documented long after his death, and very little about him can be established with certainty. Many (although not all) historians have believed that their job is to establish facts through the interpretation of historical documents, and they have no mandate to speculate about events that were not documented.

Turning now to the other sense of "history", there was a time when English public (ie. posh private) schools did teach history starting with the conqueror. This was mainly because they were run by and for the aristocracy, who claimed mostly Norman descent and didn't consider what had come before their arrival to be part of their own history. But you are quite correct that it is a long time since English schoolchildren have been taught that nothing happened before 1066, and very few English people today labour under this illusion!

Another reason to remove the line in question is that, despite what is still taught in English schools, the last successful invasion was not in 1066. There seems to be no doubt that William of Orange invaded 1688, but he used the old usurper's trick of pretending it had never happened and that he had acquired the throne by peaceful means.....

BTW, your approach to editing (to think carefully, consider points of view, edit confidently and explain why) is impeccable, and if you carry on like this you'll be a highly valued contributor. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Cambyses 16:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RE: William of Orange, he was invited over be the English parliament, so technically didn't invade. Also James fled wiothout a fight. Grunners 04:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Many invading forces in history have had the support of certain factions within the political system of the invaded country, but it doesn't negate the fact of the invasion. Parliament wasn't (and still isn't, for that matter) legally the sovereign body, and it had no legal authority to depose the monarch or choose a new one. The fact that James fled doesn't make it any less of an invasion, either. The Polish president fled the 1939 German invasion, but very few people deny that it was an invasion..... Best wishes, Cambyses 01:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Independent Nation?

"It is of interest to note that England is far from being an independent nation since it has no national government, has no currency of its own, has no armed forces, etc". Surely this is a confusing sentence to include. All the things mentioned represent Great Britain and seeing as England is part of Great Britain they must represent England too. True enough they are shared with the other British nations but to say England is far from independent is misleading as it is not ruled by any other country.

The thought also occurs that the sentence quoted above is equally applicable to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (except for the bit about national governments, although their power is limited) but if we were to say 'Scotland is far from being an independent nation' for the above reasons it would be deleted instantaniously and rightly so. Surely therefore it shouldn't be included on the England page? User:Pazzer 31 May 2004

Agree that deleting it is a good idea, since it confuses two distinct concepts - those of being a nation and of being independent. According to the definition in the nation article (which I think is reasonable, and which we should in any case try to be consistent with), being a nation is nothing to do with independence. Rather "a nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity". By this definition, England and Wales would seem to be nations. (Scotland and NI, for different reasons, could perhaps be described as two nations each, but that is another story!). I think it would, on the other hand, be both fair and accurate to make it clear that England is not an independent state, since it is governed as part of a larger state. Best wishes, Cambyses 00:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Official Languages

Since there seems to be a certain amount of disagreement about 'Official Languages', it might be good to post a reference or explain why it is not 'Official Languages: English and Welsh', which is what most people would assume. At the very least, if there is some bizarre reason why there are no official languages then an entry 'de facto English and Welsh' should be added. DJ Clayworth 19:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone assume that the national languages of England are English and Welsh? As far as I know, there are no official figures on the number of Welsh speakers in England (the Welsh language question wasn't asked outside Wales), but you hardly run into Welsh speakers everywhere you go in England.

As far as I'm aware, the closest thing that comes to an establishment of Welsh as an official language is the Welsh Language Act 1993 . This doesn't actually prescribe an official language; it only says that the two languages must be treated equally. Even if it did prescribe an official language, it only applies to Wales, and not England. Marnanel 19:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agree with all that Marnanel, there is little scope for disagreement and the anon adding welsh to the article is plainly wrong. As for "bizarre", it's not really not so bizarre - England is just that old.

Finally about listing "de facto" languages... rest assured that welsh would come a looong way down the list of languages spoken in England ordered by number of speakers! Pcb21| Pete 15:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Act requires public bodies to treat Welsh or English equally when providing services in Wales. Whether or not this makes any language official is irrelevant to this article. Asda and Cornwall County Council are promoting the use of Cornish but this does not make them official, even if my POV does want it to be so. No act of parliament has prescribed an offical language; but if it did it then it will need the Queen, whose title was officially proclaimed in Latin, to give her assent, which is given in Norman French. Anybody want to add these to the official language list ;) --garryq 21:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Anthem

I seperated "National Anthem" into de facto and unofficial because not only would God Save the Queen thought of by most people as the national anthem but is the one used whenever national anthem is specified to be played - military regulations don't refer to "God Save the Queen" or "Royal Anthem" --garryq 18:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But the military is the military of the UK; there is no English military. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My point concerned the style given to the anthem when its playing is prescribed. --garryq 22:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should not we be talking of a state song rather the a national anthem, which is an attribute of a sovereign state? --garryq 22:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Cornish Language in England

The Cornish Language is an Indo-European Celtic language originating in Cornwall, England. I have reasons to believe that it is now accorded equal status within the United Kingdom as Welsh (in Wales), Irish (in Northern Ireland) and Scottish Gaelic (in Scotland). I am not saying that Cornish is a language from all England, but just from Cornwall, and as Cornwall is an English county, I believe that it should be included in the article.
The Cornish language in England has a similar status to Gaelic in Scotland; they are both confined to a small area (in Scotland's case Gaelic is mostly found in the Highlands and on the Western Isles. You wouldn't find any Gaelic speakers in Aberdeen or on the Shetland Islands), they are both officially recognized by the British Government and in the areas where each language is spoken you will find that the road signs are in both languages.
You may want to check out the following WebSites:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2410383.stm (BBC: Cornish gains official recognition)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2144523.stm (BBC: Cornish language 'to be recognised)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206191.stm (BBC: Back from the dead: UK's new language)
http://www.cornish-language.org/ (The Cornish Language Online)
http://www.eurolang.net/State/uk.htm (6 lesser used languages are spoken on the territory of the United-Kingdom)
http://www.agantavas.org.uk/ (Agan Tavas/Our Tongue)
Thursday 3rd March 2004 
by Kjspahis, 
e-mail: kjspahis@yahoo.co.uk

Hi. I'm afraid there is a vast difference between an 'official' language, and a 'recognised' language. If you read our article about Official language this should make it quite clear. Certainly it has absolutely nothing like Welsh's special status in Wales - the Welsh Language Act specifically allows for example, the use of Welsh in courts. There is no such legislation allowing the use of Cornish in courts. Morwen 18:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Even so, that does not mean that it is not one of the national languages of England.
The Cornish language and Culture are an important part of English and British history, and ommiting the recognized Cornish language would be like ommiting the Gaelic language from the article Scotland.
Kjspahis

I think everyone seems to be agreed that Cornish is a significant language and deserves to be mentioned, but is not an official language. Hence, I have removed the (incorrect) reference to it as an official language, but created a short section on languages which discusses it amongst others. Feel free to add more detail about its status there, since my knowledge is very limited. I hope this compromise solves the problem and satisfies everyone. Best wishes, Cambyses 20:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, it is not the de facto official language of all England. In theory though, it is partly official alongside English in Cornwall.
I believe that even as a partly official in that particular county, it should be mentioned.
In response to Morwen's statement, nobody doubts Gaelic's status in Scotland as an official regional language, but the use of Gaelic before the Scottish courts is also not allowed.
I see that many of you believe that it should not be mentioned in the “Official Language” section so I have taken the liberty of inserting it after saying that English is de facto. I hope this solves the problem.
Kjspahis,

The reason why nobody doubts Gaelic's status is because there is statute law recognising it as such. There is no statute law at all that even mentions Cornish as a language, let alone declares it to be partly official. Morwen 13:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, there isn't, but there is a 'Gaelic Bill' before the Scottish Parliament. It hasn't been passed yet.
You may want to look at http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/cornish/charterfull.htm I find article 9 most interesting. Kjspahis

I thought I'd make the rather interesting point, (well I think so anyway!) that I live in a part of Herefordshire that had native Welsh speakers well into the 19th century. Should we therefore include Welsh as one of the native languages of England?! ;) User:Pazzer

From the Cornish Language Board:

http://www.cornish-language.org/english/faq.asp

• How many people speak Cornish these days?
  • No exact census has been taken of Cornish speakers. It is also difficult to say an number because it depends on the level of fluency. Estimates put the number of fluent speakers of Cornish at around three or four hundred people. The number grows if you wish to include those who can converse in Cornish, but would not consider themselves fluent. This figure could be put at a couple of thousand.

That makes it worth a note that one of the six celtic languages is based in England, but it certainly doesn't make it official or national. The are more people fluent in sylheti in one council ward of Sunderland than are fluent Cornish in all of Cornwall, does that deserve listing? --garryq 16:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Cornish language has been recognized as official in Cornwall, and because of that, it being an official language in an area within England’s borders, I believe that it should be included. Other languages, such as Polish, Urdu and Turkish are also spoken in England and they have more speakers than Cornish, but those languages have not been recognized by the Government as official in any area in England. Kjspahis

I thought declaring it a national language was exaggerating its status, but it seems it has been given regional language status – my apologies I believed the County Council had merely resolved to promote its use. I changed the references not to infer Cornish is not used but to show how little it is used. I also pointed out that it is regarded (in my POV unfairly) as a Cinderella language. I said that there were a few hundred speakers; the official studies seem to show even fewer. Any rewrite should show it as a regional language, after many years being discussed by the European regions committee, but leave its badly treated status, especially compared to Welsh and even Scots Gaelic. --garryq 18:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really object to this thing about Cornish being an official language, because it does not reflect the reality which is that people simply do not 'use' Cornish, as the page now states they do, in the sense that people use Welsh in their everyday lives. There are more Welsh speakers in England than Cornish speakers, and certainly many more of literally dozens of languages from overseas. Cornish nationalists: stop using Misplaced Pages for political axe-grinding.--XmarkX 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021105/text/21105w15.htm To paraphrase the above Hansard reference from 2002:

The government recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages, and will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.

This acknowledges the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.

Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages

Officials will discuss with Cornwall county council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter

My previous posts misunderstood Cornwall County Council's use of Cornish – they do so at national, not "merely" local, request. Even so, I do not think Cornish can be said to be an official national language. It is an important regional language, worthy of protection.

By the way, XmarkX says " literally dozens of languages from overseas. Cornish nationalists: stop using Misplaced Pages for political axe-grinding". But any Cornish nationalist who wanted to grind axes would doubtless point out English is the language from overseas, which has forced Cornish across the Tamar. --garryq 16:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...which would be a pretty silly thing to point out, because even Celtic languages are languages from overseas if you go back far enough (they originated in Central Europe). Marnanel 14:13, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

true, but many a cornish man will acknowledge themselves British, not English; adding to the problems of not acknowledging a recognised minority language. --garryq 15:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I object to this. Cornish is now an officially recognized language. It also originates in ENGLAND. Therefore, it requires treatment that reflects its status. I would also like to say that it is most misleading of you to imply that Cornish is not used is daily situations like Welsh is. Comparing Welsh to Cornish is also unfair, as the populations of Wales and Cornwall are considerably different. I will now ask you to explain, how is Gaelic a national and official language of Scotland, if it is only spoken in a small area of the country, just like Cornish is. In fact (in my opinion) the status of both Cornish and Gaelic are equal in both countries respectively. I would also like to say that this has nothing to do with Cornish Nationalism. This is about facts. Not nationalistic fantasies. Also bear in mind that I am not Cornish. I am from Durham, England. Kjspahis.

From the charter:

“regional or minority languages” means languages that are different from the official language(s) of that State;

So this charter actually DEFINES regional or minority languages as non-official, yet is the only evidence presented showing that it is official? Morwen 07:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. different from the official language(s) of that State means that it is not linked to the official language(s), for example as a local dialect, In England however there is no official language, even though English is de facto. Therefore even English can be included in the Charter. It is also worth noting that Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are included in the Charter and they are (de facto) official in Wales and Scotland. Kjspahis 10:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wading in a little way:

1. In England the only language which may be used in legal situations, in parliament, in official dealings of every description is English. Many other languages are in common day-to-day usage (and Urdu and Gujurati far more than Cornish, I would suggest) but they may *not* be used in such ways although councils will make attempts to publish and translate documents appropriate to the people living in their area, as is only reasonable.
2. As we 'invented' the language English it isn't specified as the 'legal language' otherwise (I suspect this may be the case in other countries too where the lanugage is based / sourced in that country).
3. Conrnish has a 'status' as a regional language of the 'EU' however this does not give it any status in 'England'.
4. There is another language which has a legal status in the country though - the four words of Norman French with which the Queen gives the Royal Assent to a Bill. Not Cornish, nor anything else regional. --VampWillow 17:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Languages can be recognised at different levels (I'm living in Canada, believeme, I know). It looks very much as if Cornish is recognised as an important language, one to be supported and nurtured, much the same as native languages are here. If so that is good, but it doesn't make Cornish and official language of England. Even if it was given official status in Cornwall that wouldn't make it an official language of England. About other languages, VampWillow has it pretty much right I believe. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really getting anywhere, as I find it unnecessary to repeat all my arguments, I am now just going to sum up. According to the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, any language included in it is entitled to special treatment from the State. This includes the use of the language in question (in this case Cornish) by administrative authorities, the right to use the language before the courts and more. In short the language is official in the area where it is autochthonous (in this case Cornwall). Also I am not saying that Cornish is equal with English, nor am I saying that it is official in all England. I am saying that it is official alongside English in Cornwall, and from the moment that Cornwall is an English county, England (in practice) has two languages being used as official within its borders (English and Cornish). I will now ask you again to explain How can the article Northern Ireland have the Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots listed as official languages when they are used officially even less than Cornish in Cornwall. And how can the article Scotland have Scots Gaelic listed as an official language when it is autochthonous only in the Highlands and the Western Isles, not the Lowlands or the Shetland and Orkney Islands (not all Scotland). Kjspahis 07:41, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will explain the differences: Scots Gaelic is a day-to-day language. Cornish is a dead language, like Latin or Anglo-Norman French. The best sources I've read confirm that Cornish died out from day-to-day use at least two hundred years ago. Ulster Scots is, as I understand it, a sop to the Protestants so that they have something comparable to the Republicans having Irish Gaelic. Ulster Scots is closely related to the English language, and as such segways into it - Ulstermen with broad accents and dialect usage are probably getting on for speaking Ulster Scots, just as in the case of Scots and English in Scotland. The claim for it to be a language is pretty tendentious, and I disagree with it - but that dispute is described on the Ulster Scots entry. Irish Gaelic is also still spoken, but the Ulster dialect is in fact a dead one, making this case similar to the case of Cornish, aside from the fact that it's only died out in living memory. Also, this is an absolutely crucial issue for the whole of Northern Ireland, not just for one county. What would be analogous to the inclusion of 'Irish' in the Northern Ireland page would be the inclusion of Cornish on the page about Cornwall, not about England, of which Cornwall is a very small part.--XmarkX 16:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cornish name for England

Why do we need to have the Cornish name for England in the article, considering that we don't have the Welsh or Gaelic names? -- ChrisO 17:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The current debate (see above) is over whether Cornish is an "official language" (or similar) of England. If it was, it would make sense to include Pow Sows in the list of names for the country. Marnanel 17:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In that case, it's easily resolved. English may not be defined as the official language of the country but "England" is very definitely its official name; "Pen Sows" has no official status whatsoever. -- ChrisO 17:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Flag

"The red cross acted as a symbol for Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries AD and was subsequently used as a national flag until 1606 when it became a component of the Union Flag for Great Britain. At that time period, the Republic of Guinea used it also."

I don't think there was a Republic of Guinea in 1606, and the modern flag of Guinea does not have any cross. Am I missing something here? Gzornenplatz 23:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference to Guinea at this time either, further the proclamation of 1606 onle defeined the flags to be worn by shipos at sea, --garryq 15:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found it, it was the Republic of Genoa that had the same flag! Gzornenplatz 16:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pow Sows

I try to recognise Cornish as one of the six officially designated minority languages in the British Isles, and the only one in England. I hope I made it clear that it not official in the sense that Ireland has two official languages. Sadly what I had assumed was a decent compromise between those who refuse to think Cornish exists and those who would have England bi-lingual so upset some that a flurry of reverts ensued.

Thus to summarise a la ChrisO (Cornish is an officially recognised minority language, how often does this need to be said??)

And yet again the great god google Try looking up "Pow Sows" in an on line dictionary

• Breton: Bro-Saoz
• Cornish: Pow Sows
• Irish: Sasana m

Or another site England - Pow Sows, English - Sowsnek

Not only does the language exists, a common thread with several Celtic languages is obvious

Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man. All wiki. Pages happy to recognise the Celtic name. Why can't that happen in England? Are we frightened that another language will bring the cosmos to a close? --garryq 20:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here.

The point that you're missing, I think, is that there is a difference between an official language and an officially recognised minority language. Let me give you a foreign example - the only official language in France is French. "Official" in this context means "used for administrative purposes." However, French government bodies also recognise as minority languages Alsatian, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish and Occitanian (and probably others). A few parts of France (I'm thinking of Alsace in particular) are officially bilingual. However, this does not mean that the state is bilingual or that those languages are given an equal status to French.

Here in England, no language is formally recognised as official, but English has a de facto official status throughout the UK. (Ironically, Welsh is the only language which is treated as official by UK-wide statute but the applicability of this is limited - a typical fudge.) Neither English nor Cornish are therefore official languages. Cornish is, however, an officially recognised minority language, as you point out. Therefore we can legitimately include Cornish in the "languages spoken in England" section but not as an "official language". It simply isn't one, and nor is English.

Having said that, I think there's an interesting point that could be made about the Celtic names for England, so I'll reintroduce "Pow Sows" in a more appropriate place in the article. -- ChrisO 21:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point, I went to great pains - even if duplicating some information in another section - to point out that officially recognised minority language is little more then protection and encouragement to learn. But what place is more appropriate than the head of the table? as happens with the Scotland and Wales pages.

And what do you mean by "official language" for Wales? The Welsh Language Act only applies to public bodies in Wales but not to individuals - unlike Quebec's forcing government and private businesses to use French. Is there additional legislation? --garryq 23:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you really aren't trying to promote Cornish specifically, I look forward to you adding France's many recognised minority languages to the article on France. Morwen - Talk 11:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we can't be consistent over the use of recognised minority languages in pages about the several areas of the British Isles why look at France.?

Should "Pow Sows" be in the summary box?

According to Misplaced Pages policy, it should not. The template for the summary box is defined at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries. Note that this states that the information required for the country name is "Official Country Name(s) (local)". Examples of this can be seen at Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland is given, not Germany) and France (République Française, not France). Both of these are the official names of the countries as defined by law. The name of England is not explicitly defined by law as far as I know, but the name "England" is the only name ever given to the country for official purposes. The name "Pow Sows" does not have any official status and is not used by government or the law (try this Google search to illustrate the point) so is clearly not appropriate for inclusion in this box. -- ChrisO 16:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your statements are very vague, as England does not have an Official Language specifically defined by law and England as a country is not administrated as a whole so the name England is hardly ever used, save for the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. I believe, as England is not an independent state that the Misplaced Pages Policy you mention does not apply in this case. If what you say is true, then the pages Scotland and Northern Ireland should not include the names of the countries that are not used officially, that is in (Ulster) Scots and Irish/Scottish Gaelic. Kjspahis 18:11, 11 Jun 2004 (GMT)

Please stop trying to evade the issue. Is Cornish an official language of England? No it's not, as you've admitted. The policy is clear: the Cornish name is not official and should not be used in the language box.

Also, why are you deleting the content under "naming" about the different between the Celtic and mainland European names for England? -- ChrisO 17:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

The article has now been protected, as required by the Misplaced Pages:Revert policy. I hope everyone takes the opportunity to work out the issue here now that reverting is off the agenda... -- ChrisO 17:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of "Pow Sows"?

Does Pow Sows mean England-including-Cornwall or England-which-starts-east-of-the-Tamar? Andy G 18:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing the latter. As it means "land of the Saxons", this would seem to differentiate it from "Kernow", Cornwall. It occurs to me that saying that England="Pow Sows" is rather a political statement, as it implies that Cornwall isn't part of England. -- ChrisO 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am now going to ask you to look at the following map
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/0/04/UKEngland.png
do you see Cornwall? Is it included in the red area which is England? But surely, how can the name "England" be derived from "Engla-lond" or "land of the Angles" if the Angles settled mostly on the Eastern Coast of England, the Saxons in the South and the Celts remained in Cornwall and Cumbria. In short the name omits the Saxons and Celts, but is a name for the red area on the map and Pow Sows is merely a translation of England, as is Anglaterre (in French). Again I will compare England to Scotland by pointing out that Scotland means land of the Scots, but it leaves out the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Norwegians and other people who also settled there. I think that you can now rest assured that Pow Sows is not a political statement.
I think that we should try to compromise now I would like to hear your suggestions.
Also why are you deleting the link I added to the page to the Latin translation at http://la.wikipedia.org/Anglia ? Kjspahis

There is an enormous difference between how a name is used now and its etymology. The fact that "England" derives from "land of the Angles" is a historical and linguistic fact. That doesn't alter the fact that nowadays it's used for a much wider area than that originally settled by the Angles. Similarly, the fact that "Pow Sows" derives from "Land of the Saxons" says nothing about the current meaning of the name. There's no reason at all to assume that it means "England east of the Tamar". However, the etymology is (to me, at least, and presumably to other readers) extremely interesting, and should definitely be included.

None of that bears any relation to whether Pow Sows should be included as a header to the table, which seems to be the main area of contention. My opinion is that it shouldn't: it's a minority language, spoken by less than 4000 people, and with no official status (as opposed to official support). The local name, in the de facto language used throughout the country (including Cornwall) is England. Cornish is interesting, as a language which developed within the borders of present day England, but it is more than adequately covered in the current revision (and in the article on Cornish language. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is Cornish Official?

I am beginning to believe not.
I e-mailed:
1. The Cornish Language Board,
2. Cornwall County Council
3. The Office of The Deputy Prime Minister
asking if Cornish is official and explaining the situation here about a week ago. So far no one has replied.
Also, given that no encyclopaedia article so far has included Corrnish as an official language in England. It is only mentioned in articles about Cornwall. Therefore I think that Cornish should not be listed in the official languages cell, but perhaps make its status clear in a separate paragraph about Official Languages.
Kjspahis 10:30 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Noting the appearance of Cornish on the United Kingdom page just now (which was reverted although, in that particular instance, I feel it may be justifed int hat section) it did dawn on me that there is no Cornish Misplaced Pages (and SFAIAA no accepted code for the language either but IMBW). I don't like how this seems to be becoming a "Cornish against the world" issue, but I do feel one has to face the test of whether Cornish (a) is an active language (ie. could you walk into a shop and find it being spoken as a matter of course) and it would appear (IME) to fail this test, (b) has any "official" status (seemingly not), (c) has a "recognised" status (seems to by the EU but not otherwise), (d) whether these 'discussions' are helping or hindering the work on WP. I've just received a questionnair from my local council (admittedly in London) which includes the question "Which languages are spoken regularly in your household?" There are 15 options listed; none of them 'Cornish'. I support the resurrection of the Cornish lanugage in the same way I do the Welsh language, but in no way can anyone say it is an actively-used 'official' language of England anymore. --VampWillow 11:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering what's left to resolve before this article can be unprotected. As there is a section on Cornish under languages, as Kjspahis suggests, the last remaining issue would appear to be whether the table should be headed just "England" or whether it should also say "Pow Sows". I strongly support the former - does anyone feel differently? -- ALargeElk | Talk 11:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since more people speak the now dead (as is Cornish) but formerly main languages used by the English, of Latin and Old English, and we don't have translations for those and also since we don't include the Cumbric. I see no reason for the use of Pow Sows. Mintguy (T) 11:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I now believe that if Cornish is not going to be included in the official languages cell, the name Pow Sows should not be included at the head of the table. I could be included in the NAMING section.
It is also worth noting that there is a Cornish Misplaced Pages at http://kw.wikipedia.org. Kjspahis 12:39 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well good luck with it. According to the Cornish Language Fellowship the number of fluent speakers of Cornish is around three or four hundred people. I suppose the Cornish Misplaced Pages will give it more exposure. but please don't try to mis-represent Cornish as being a language that is used in everyday situations. Mintguy (T)

Indeed, although as there is only a single page and that states "Welcome to the Cornish version of Misplaced Pages. Cornish (http://en.wikipedia.org/Cornish_language) is a language spoken in Cornwall (http://en.wikipedia.org/Cornwall)." rather than is a language spoken in England I think it rather proves the point under discussion here! ISTR a discussion elsewhere about wikipedias and 100 articles too. Time to resolve and move on I feel ... --VampWillow 13:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! I am assuming that everyone now agrees that Cornish should not be included in the Official language cell, nor should Pow Sows be included at the head of the table.
Those issues should be dealt with in the Naming and the Language sections. Kjspahis 13:20 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

And indeed they currently are discussed in both those sections. I would suggest that we are in agreement. Is there an admin around to unprotect the article? -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hope that you will not object if I now add the link to the Latin version. The one that was always being removed. Kjspahis 13:27 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

No objection here - other language wikipedias should always be linked. I notice that the Latin wikipedia, unlike this one, does include "Pow Sows" at the top of the table - but that's entirely a matter for discussion for the participants there. Each wikipedia will have slightly different policies, naming conventions, style guidelines, etc.-- ALargeElk | Talk 13:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll uprotect it on the understanding that the name "Pow Sows" that the name is already sufficiently discussed. Mintguy (T) 13:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think someone's already unprotected it, thanks. -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added Pow Sows to the Latin Misplaced Pages article Anglia, as I rewrote with Iustinus. If you think that it should be removed you should remove it. You might want to remove it from the other translation I have made, the Greek one (at Ελληνικά). Kjspahis 13:43 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not my place to remove it - apart from anything else, I certainly wouldn't have enough Latin to defend that removal on the talk page! Strictly English for me, I'm afraid (not something I'm proud of). -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CORNISH LANGUAGE TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL STATUS (by the ODPM)

I recently e-mailed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asking for information about the Cornish Language. Their response was as follows:

WW88 5 November 2002

CORNISH LANGUAGE TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL STATUS

The Cornish language is to be recognised by the Government under the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, Local Government and Regions Minister Nick Raynsford announced today.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question Nick Raynsford said:

"After careful consideration and with the help of the results of an independent academic study on the language commissioned by the Government, we have decided to recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Government will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.

"The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote the historical regional or minority languages of Europe. It recognises that some of these languages are in danger of extinction and that protection and encouragement of them contributes to Europe's cultural diversity and historical traditions.

"This is a positive step in acknowledging the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.

"Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages.

"Officials will be initiating discussion with Cornwall County Council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter."

Notes for Editors
1. The UK Government ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in March 2001

2. The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote regional or minority languages as expressions of cultural wealth. Part II of the Charter sets out the general principles and objectives of recognition and support for regional or minority languages. Part III contains provisions for the active promotion of specific regional or minority languages in public life. As a signatory to the Charter, the Government is bound to apply Part II to all languages that meet the Charter’s definition of a regional or minority language. Signatories are free to decide to which of the languages they have recognised they wish to specify for the application of Part III.

3. The Government has specified Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Irish under Part III.

4. The full text of the Charter and an Explanatory Report can be found as European Treaty Series document number 148 on the Council of Europe’s website at http://conventions.coe.int

ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BY GOVERNMENT NEWS NETWORK SOUTH WEST. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT WAILIM WONG ON 01752-635053 OR 07748-654468.

Kjspahis 15:23 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All of which is interesting, but it's already covered in the article. No-one disputes that Cornish is officially recognised as a minority language worth supporting - but it doesn't make it an official language of England and doesn't change my views on what should be in this article. I think we've got it just about right as it is now. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anything different. I just showed you the response I got from the ODPM. The responce I got from the Cornish Language Board is as follows:

Dear Mr Sanderson,'
Although Cornish has recently (March 2003) been specified by the UK government under Part II of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, it can in no way be described as 'official'. However, Cornish was never banned as were other autochthonous languages in the UK, so there is theoretically no legal let to its use. Cornwall County Council is working with the Government and language NGOs to produce a strategy for the development of Cornish and to identify funding sources (see CCC website).

Regards
GEORGE ANSELL
Kjspahis 15:55 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder whether, conversely, the fact that it wasn't banned contributed in some way to its dying out? Perhaps the fact that Welsh and Gaelic were banned encouraged people to see them as an important element of their identity, and so to work harder to keep them alive. I'll do some research on whether anyone's proposed that hypothesis and maybe add to the Cornish language article if I can find anything.-- ALargeElk | Talk 16:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National anthem

(18th June '04) I have removed the mention of "national anthem". I have been meaning to do this since I discovered Misplaced Pages many months ago, so I have not edited without thought. Please note this is a factual edit. England can have no national anthem as the countries of the U.K. are not nations. The nation is the U.K. and the national anthem is "God Save The Queen". This should be put on the U.K. page only. Also there can be no such thing as a recognised (or easily agreed on un-official anthem), so if people feel there are candidates for such a thing they should try putting this in a contribution to the main text. - WikiUser.

indeed. A good reference here is the Commonwealth Games where each of the 'home countries' (who compete separately) use a different anthem and none use GStQ. Don't recall what they do use though! --VampWillow 20:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the England national football team certainly do use God Save the Queen, at least the last time I checked... Morwen - Talk 20:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Scottish certainly don't though! CHecking about the Commonwealth Games, btw, I find Land of Hope and Glory for England para 5, & , Flower of Scotland for, uh, Scotland. Wales use "Hen wlad fy nhadau" (Land of my Fathers) and Northern Ireland "A Londonderry Air". --VampWillow 21:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Replaced "Anthems" (not "National Anthems")

England is not an independent state, but to claim that is not a nation is contrary to common sense. You are also denying the nationhood of the other peoples of the UK in doing this. This is very dodgy ground. By extension you are denying nationhood to Kurds, Palestinians, Tibetans (and a few years ago) to East Timorese, Latvians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians etc. A nation does not necessarily equate to a state, or vice versa. You need to understand that the UK is a mystical union: A Nation made up of Nations, and a Country made up of Countries. -- Simon Hedges

WikiUser 20:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) - You've got it completely the wrong way round. The U.K. is the real thing and the idea that England etc. are nations is the myth. But stop using the Misplaced Pages to call me racist. I'm not denying nationhood to anyone. If you don't like what I say get the British people and the government to change it.

The government seems to think that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries: . That page also uses the adjective "national" to describe something applying only to England, strongly implying that they think they are nations as well. So, whatever you do, don't call upon the British government to support your silly claims. Proteus (Talk) 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 16:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Hey cut the godamn abuse ok. I'm not your slave. If you can't use the Misplaced Pages without abusing people then don't use it. Hey! funny proteus abuses the guidelines and yet no group multi attack from ChrisO and all the other clique that own the "England" page? Curious. Had your "talk" page filled with abuse by the above WikiPedia owners yet? No! Funny!! And what makes you think that I; "called upon the British government to support my facts"? It's Simon Hedges that's wanting things changed not me.

Notice of request for arbitration against abuse by chrisO.

WikiUser 20:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I want to note that chrisO keeps erasing all my hard work when I have followed all guidelines, in removing factual innacuracies and racist comments against my country. I am applying for arbitration from his abusive behaviour, breaking all Misplaced Pages guidelines as he is obviously just indulging in vandalism and abuse.

"The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view (for some guidelines, see Wikiquette). "

WikiUser 20:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Removed factual error by vandle chrisO.

"England does not have an official anthem of its own but Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory are both widely regarded - unofficially - as English national hymns (although the latter more properly refers to Great Britain, not just England). "

They are in fact as any schoolchild knows regarded nationally as songs asssociated with Britain and The British Empire.

Eh ? The last two lines of Jerusalem are "Till we have built Jerusalem, In England's green and pleasant land." - sound's like it's about England to me. Mintguy (T) 21:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and Land of Hope and Glory is used as the English anthem at the Commonwealth Games (where the four British nations compete independently). Perhaps any schoolchild is ill-informed, and not a good source for compiling encyclopedia articles. - MykReeve 21:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and WikiUser was evidently asleep during the England-Croatia match (and all other English football internationals), where "God Save The Queen" is played as the de facto national anthem of England. Also, why on earth is s/he objecting to the assertion that "Blighty" is a term for England? Might I suggest a look in the Oxford English Dictionary? -- ChrisO 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) - FULL version from my last edit note. (See England "history" page.):

" Restored to more factual version before vandalism and breach of guidelines by chrisO and others, and removed some factual errors and racist comment -- Jwrosenzweig, you're cutting material that is factual and you haven't discussed it in talk. You are lying. You know full well that I HAVE discussed it on "talk" and included detailed records on each change. You are also breaking the Misplaced Pages guidelines by subjecting me to personal abuse: "- don't try to sneak it past by claiming Chris is a "vandle" " "

I wish to inform Misplaced Pages users that the following people are breaking the Misplaced Pages guidelines; MykReeve, ChrisO and Jwrosenzweig.

Also that I have applied for arbitration on the "England" page- despite the abusive message posted by ChrisO saying I was lying about that - and also users should note that sensible discussion on this page is being prevented because the above named are abusing me if I try to discuss my changes to the page.

I see no abuse, just disagreement. I think these deletions and changes are too extreme to leave in place without more discussion. This needs to be worked out here before these changes are made IMO -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser, I reject the assertion that I was lying -- I don't see any discussion preceding your edits, just a note announcing them. You haven't given anything that resembles detailed evidence that I can see -- you continue to assert that "any child knows" what you are asserting, a fact in serious dispute by several editors who have marshaled some evidence in support. I am sorry you feel I personally abused you -- I had no intention of doing so. However, you referred to a good editor (ChrisO) who was and is acting in good faith as a "vandle" in an edit summary -- this remains in public display permanently, and cannot be erased. I was upset by this, and may have spoken more harshly than I should have, for which I apologize. I will, however, continue to insist that serious and solid evidence be offered here to justify the changes you are making. Appeals to common sense are not enough, particularly since others have provided evidence which contradicts your claims. I look forward to seeing your evidence, and promise to remain open-minded as to the question of whether or not you are right. I simply need to see more evidence. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) - You haven't even bothered to read this page, with the relative material even though it's only a couple of inches above your "comment". The changes are minor and involve basic facts that all English people over 12 would be expected to know.

WikiUser and others: Before we start going to formal arbitration, lets see if we can sort this out by simple discussion. WikiUser, you seem to have deleted some chunks of text because you think they are wrong. Please explain what is wrong with them here. Be precise. For whoever added the text, please explain why you think it is right.

Please think about the possibility that rather than just deleting text because it contains some errors, maybe it could be replaced with something slightly different. Please also come up with references to back up what you say ("It's obvious" isn't going to be helpful.) If you have examples of when these songs, or these terms, were used, say so here. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Royal Motto is "Dieu et mon droit", right?

212.251.91.238 changed the motto section from:

Royal motto: Dieu et mon droit (God and my right)

into

Royal motto: Honi soit qui mal y pense (French: Shamed be he who thinks ill of it)

Now, as far as I can see, the latter is the motto of the Order of the Garter only, and the former is the motto of the monarch. As such, the former should be in the article, right? Am I wrong? —Gabbe 20:51, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think so, yes.

James F. (talk) 21:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"the City of London is small but the city of London is a city not a town"

Pcb21 said:

the City of London is small but the city of London is a city not a town

Is that true? Does London (in the sense of the place that Livingston is the mayor of) actually have city status? Marnanel 20:28, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. ;-) --VampWillow 20:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the sense of "a place with a Royal Charter making it a city", no, but it's certainly not a town (it contains many towns, and a couple of cities to boot). It's not a County, either (the County of London was, but that's been abolished). I'm not sure there really is a word to describe its official status. Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Its an 'administrative area'. It indeed doesn't have official city status, but that doesn't mean its not a city. However, if we were being pedantic, it doesn't have town status either, so say that is not really a city, but is just a large town, is pedantic and self-inconsistent. Morwen - Talk 11:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course, in terms of being 'self-inconsistent', the 'City' known worldwide as 'London' (ie.the conurbation) containing two 'Cities' ('of London' and 'of Westminster') is fully consistent with the country/nation 'United Kingdom' containing four countries/nations 'England', 'Scotland', 'Wales', (Northern) Ireland', so perfectly reasonable really for the UK! --VampWillow 15:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does London (in the sense of the place that Livingston is the mayor of) actually have city status?

No. The honour of "City" belongs to the square mile. But the conurbation has been known informally as a city for decades. Parliament considered the 19th century's "Great Stink" a London problem even though they are based in Westminster, and London County was some years in the future. --garryq 22:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)