Talk:England

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the England article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

		This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

		This article was nominated for deletion on Jaunary 3, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[[Category:Deletion survivor/]]

Editing

Why is the editing function not selectable for the England page? Perhaps a Little Englander does not anyone to play with his ball?

Yes so many wonderful stereotypes not really touched upon like: They are Ugly as hell Sneaky cheap bastards horrible lovers bad in the sack British empire=theives, rapiest. how the British acumulated there wealth??? Suck at soccer except the clubs the list goes on

Maybe if editing was allowed this unfunny article could be changed into one that was funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.8.138.168 (talk • contribs)

12:01, October 14, 2006 Elvis (Talk | contribs) protected "England" ‎ (semi-protect to defend against racist trolls [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) --Andorin Kato 05:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

That's a feeble excuse Andorin Kato. It's just plain sophistry to use an argument about defending against racist trolls. There are a lot of pages on this site that are full of racist comments, e.g. the pages on Asian Chicks, the USA, Wales, Scotland, and Africa to name but a few. The fact that editing is not allowed for the England page only confirms that this site is ran by a bunch of racist little Englanders.

The pages titled Asian Chicks, and Africa are very racist, it is pathetic that they are on this site; they are not even remotely funny, unless you are a Nazi dimwit.

Cool story, bro. --Andorin Kato 07:49, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

So I see you edited your comment. Again, cool story bro. --Andorin Kato 07:55, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

If you think this page is racist, blah blah blah, then you totally need to recheck where you are, this is the UNcyclopedia, its just a site to poke fun at anything and everything. If you don't like it, go to Wikipedia, the place where if you use it as a source, your professor will fail you, but at least you can feel "comfortable".

Whoever wrote: "this site is ran by a bunch of racist little Englanders." is wrong. This site abuses the English in numerous ways. Both the Scotland page and the England page, and many others are write-protected, though some people, like sycamore have an immoral privilige to edit them. What's wrong is the policy on write-protecting and the refusal to deal with anyone who asks about sorting this problem out sensibly. Ungaje 15:25, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

i hate america, they dont put the u in colour

Could someone please change the quote from soccer to football.. we don't say soccer..ever..in fact it was outlawed in the Defamation Act [1947], many thanks, Nick the Englishman

Yes. If you create an account here and wait a few days you will be able to edit the whole article yourself. :-) MrN  Fork you! 14:59, Mar 15

Climate?

I suggest make a small section called "Climate" that just says "It rains. Alot." and that's it xD Tnttodda 23:56, 21 December 2009 (GMT)

Could you not add, if you were to, a section that mentions that England closes when any weather presents itself?

Small re-write

This page really was a bit toss, whichever way you look at it. I've altered it to make it make sense and at least provoke a smile but whatever I do is only really shoving a lolly stick into a pile of dogshit- a pointless exercise in aesthetics. I'll come back to it and have another go soon. Any moans? At least it's now gramatically correct and spelled properly. Thanks Codeye 13:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

boreing

well it might have been in poor taste before but at least some bits were funny, now its just plain boreing!!!!

anyways iv fixed it now

our not or?

why does it say our not or all the time. Am I missing something?

Reference to colour, humour, etc, I believe.

Citing sources

Please cite sources as to the existence of England. Have looked all over and cannot find it - not in shoe, not under Scotland as I had been led to believe (three hous with a shovel reveals no England or treasure)

Frog raids!

Very funny article, but the English Military History bit seems to have been written by a Frenchman in the mood for some Brit-Bashing. If it was, then all the references to Britain not winning wars themselves are incredibly hypocritical... considering Frances' past!

Are you kidding, this is incredibly pro-Brit, much like the whole of uncyclopaedia. I bet you read the Grauniad you asylum-seeker-loving chav hating wannabe toff. Yeah that's right I said it. You're so middle class that your dislike of the lower class is only a culturally based kneejerk reaction and not founded on reason. Why don't you go back trying to impress some people so you can wear a silly hat at Henley!!! Also if you've ever been to France you would know they can't write. Death to the Observer on Sunday! 82.194.62.230 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sick

I think this page is sick, I dont find the humour in it.

Who ever wrote it needs to be hanged, drawn and quartered and their bobdy parts sent to the four corners of the Kingdom.

I've only read a bit of it, but personally, I find just those bits funny already. Now either they are a few specks of sweetcorn in a whole pile of shit, or the rest of the article is like that as well. Presumably most people think this as well, or it would've been changed completely - but we'll see...--scaley1234 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

English Military History

I`ve read the page about France. Now here comes revenge!

Well, I have to admit, I originally thought that it would just be a section of Brit-bashing, but I do actually find it quite funny. However, I've corrected the few spelling mistakes you made (some of which may be because you're American (if you are), in which case, I apologise), changed the grammar a bit, and removed a few that didn't seem to make good sense (as in couldn't even be argued to be correct from a satirical/humourous point of view because of simple Historical Laws...or something like that). Also, some of them really ought to come under Britain or the United Kingdom (as in the ones which would've been after the ascension of James I of England (James VI of Scotland) to the throne), and the last two on the Gulf Wars don't really make sense either (unless you're suggesting that the USA is still a colony of Britain). However, before I begin to sound too Wikipediary, I'll leave them to someone else :P. --scaley1234 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

U don`t consider this a Brit bashing? Try telling that to Mel Gibson :-)! And btw. the Glorious revolution WAS a Dutch invasion of England. The aftermath was simmilar to battle of Hastings. The description of this particular event inspired me to compare the English history textbook neutrality to the Japanese ones.

Do you have a website or anything that I can read that on, because assuming everything I've ever been told about invasions of England is correct, then the last time it was invaded was the Battle of Hastings. That said, I won't take it out this time, as I've not got any proof it didn't happen, I only did last time because of what I mentioned above, and therefore it just didn't sound right. --scaley1234 12:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK here`s a little something from the Wikipedia article about The Glorious Revolution that inspired me:

William was also stadtholder of the Netherlands, then in the early stages of the War of the Grand Alliance against France. Jumping at the chance to ally with England, William and Mary laid careful plans over a number of months for an invasion. Landing with a large army at Brixham, Devon on November 5, 1688, William was greeted with much popular support, and local men joined his army. William's army totalled approximately 15,000—12,000 on foot and 3,000 cavalry. It was comprised mainly by mercenaries recruited from various countries abroad; Dutch, German, Swiss and Scandinavian along with a substantial Huguenot element in the cavalry and Guards as well as 200 blacks from plantations in America.[1] Many of the mercenaries were Catholic.

PS if U liked my add on Mel Gibson ("English public enemy NO1" at the bottom of the page) please make the necesarry corrections it as I`m new around here.

Ahh, OK, well as I said, I was unaware of it, but yeah, according to that, it does appear to have happened. And sure, I'll go take a look at the Mel Gibson article :-). --scaley1234 12:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no fighting in the glorious revolution. Everyone wanted William as King so he just marched in. 81.156.254.216 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know - but technically it was an invasion. I`m not sure weather James wanted William for king, though:-)

It was an invasion but it wasn't a military conquest, it was an invite by the majority of English people only a few Catholics didn't want a protestant king.

Racist, in poor taste and not funny

I don't find the first part of this page (with the Islamic and Londonistan references) funny at all - it's been hijacked by racists, it seems.

How could it have been racist - it acknowledges England as a multicultural society, in the way Uncyclopedia does things. To claim it as racist, would be to say the last (approximately) 125 edits were racist. And in the same way, it could be claimed that your changes are racist and stereotypical towards those of a White-English ethnicity.
Plus, everybody knows there are no callcentres left in England :P. --scaley1234 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make it funny...quite the opposite

That's an opinion - and similarly, in my opinion, your introduction isn't funny. However, like I said before, I'm too lazy to change it...

It is true about call centres though. Whenever I answer the phone or out it is always someone who does not sound like they come from this coutry.

Hm...what about this person who keeps trying to add 'islamic republic' and suchlike? doesn't sound funny to me.

Somebody who preferred it the old way, maybe...
Like I said before, what is racist and what is not is usually a matter of opinion - they clearly felt it was not, where you think it is. If you're really that bothered, go talk to that individual user, or in this case (I think), do some hacking, and find out the email address associated with that IP, and complain about it to them that way - I mean, it's not as if they can edit the article now anyway... --scaley1234 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourism

Hey, the statement that the whole England attracts less then 100 tourists/year is not funny, just plainly and simply untrue. Actually, an Englishman has become an endangered species in London due to all the tourists and immigrants. The statement fits just fine with the English seaside, though.

Call centres

Er... all the call centre staff have moved to India, last time I checked :?

On no redeeming qualities

There are a few redeeming qualities to England such as:

• Not Scotland
• Exceptionally high proportions of Jedi and Atheists
• Not France
• Manchester
• Not US
• Blair is marginally less of an idiot than Bush

You forgot soggy pie and chips. -- Hindleyite Converse 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

England (made in China)

Wouldn't that be a better title 80.42.77.238 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

much better, CHANGE IT

Being funny and not just stupid

Wasn't that the policy? A lot of this is bereft of any thought, almost every section deteriorates to expletives in a desperate bid to seem even vaguely humorous. Also, the superfluous 'u' joke doesn't work well - 'our' when it's meant to be 'or' just looks like someone is illiterate.

Add

de:England pt:Inglaterra

interwiki

Please add these interwiki: ja:イギリス zh-tw:英國 pt:Inglaterra Remove the Arab interwiki ar:بريطانيا , which is about United Kingdom, and is already there.

Guys, you NEED to mention the riots

Just saying. You could make a LOT of jokes about it. I mean... the Brits aren't trying to become independent from Britain are they? *Hint* (That was rubbish)

Just plain sad

Really, it is. It's unfunny, dull in places, and at points just downright vitriolic. I've shown it to several people, all of whom felt it to be rather weak compared with some of the quality articles about other countries on Uncylcopedia.

I agree with the person above. My family is proud to be British, and I dae not agree at all with this article of offence. My grandfather was a proud squaddie in World War II, while his da was a squaddie chuffed to serve his country during World War I. My entire family and I find this article an unpleasant one. Dae change it at the earliest chance.

Dear 70.162.64.105 and whoever that other guy is,

Uncyclopedia might not be for you. You might want to stop reading before you give yourself a heart attack. I am sorry if you are offended. Perhaps there is some British equivalent to Conservapedia you might enjoy more.

--monika 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To 70.162.64.105 You're not supposed to agree with it. You're supposed laugh because of it. If that is not the case, maybe you could try making it funny. But don't just put in patriotism. In any case, this is called England, not Britain. Munci 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I am just saying that I find this article offensive to the whole of Britains who hae any relations to England. I can say that I am 1/4 pommy, but I still find this article in need of some sophistication, to put it into the correct terms. I am not trying to sound cheeky, and I dae hae a sense of smashing humour, but I just dae not fancy people taking the slash of the country I live in, but it is the purpose of Uncyclopedia (to be funny and humorous), which I fully understand. 70.162.64.105

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills.

A large percentage of the users of the site are British. I am. If you can't laugh at yourself you will have a bad time on this site. MrN  Fork you! 23:42, Mar 24

British suck. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Britain sucks. Rather like your mom actually. MrN  Fork you! 23:52, Mar 24

Ireland sucks. North and the Republic. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland only sucks because England is gay and wants its cock sucked. Munci 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Address:What exactly would be offensive about this article to Scottish people? Can you point to anything in particular? Munci 04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A Good Re-write

I believe that the best thing that this article can have is just a good general overall re-write. Even now I myself don't find much about it that is funny nor really that interesting. It would be a good place for anyone here on Uncyclopedia to show some real ability by writing the entire thing over again and making it funny and in line with the rest of the wiki.

-St. Fenix (User•Talk) 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this page offensive. This is not funny.

Well...

Most of that talk above appears to be rather pointless. Anyway... I'm going to sort this bastard out. If anyone wants to help please do so. I'm going with the theme of the author being from an unknown generally impartial country who does not really know that much about England other than the typical prejudices he acquired from his local media, and a few conversations which he had with English people when visiting. That should give scope to take the piss out of all the necessary things, but also allow some typical English prejudices to sneak in when they are funny enough. Probably the most useful thing which anyone can do to help would be to have a trawl through the history of this page. It's been edited a heck of a lot over time, and I'm sure there is some good stuff in there which could be merged into the finished product of this article. Cheers. MrN  Fork you! 01:30, Apr 5

All your efforts have come to naught

Endless attempts to fix this article have killed it stone dead and come across as various egos pasted on top of one another. Somebody comes along and says "this would be much funnier to me if it was re-written by me", which is what they do, gutting the article and missing the point completely. A few months ago this article was a mess, certainly, but at least it had some funny elements, now its just fucking boring and slightly racist. It's ended up as an absolute peice of shit. If you want things to make a vague stab at being concise I believe there is a little known website out there called Wikipedia. Dead celeb

So... Fix it. Look in the history, find the bit you liked and re-add them. This page had so much crap it needed a trim, and some gud stuff will be lost sometimes. Edit the article. MrN  Fork you! 16:29, Jul 17

Yeah, Ive tried it fixing it before, then I come back a few months later and its been butchered and I haven't got the energy to even attempt to fix it a second time. I suppose I could always just remove all of the text and paste in a picture of a giant turd, it would make the article easier and quicker to read at least. Dead celeb

Alternatively, you could find your fixed version in the history and revert to it. --monika 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Small Qualm

Um, not to ask a question on an unrelated topic but what is the deal with the; "This article or section may be Overly British. Americans may not understand humour, only humor. Canadians and Australians may not understand anything at all. Don't change a thing to remedy this."? I understand the Irony of this question, yet, if someone would please explain what the beef is with Canadians and Australians is in this. I should think that these two nations would be the best to follow the stereotypical British sense of humor. Thanks... 207.61.101.2 17:53, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypical British humour is self-loathing. If Canadians and Australians were really British in their humour, they'd find the thing funny. --monika 18:44, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that template's mention of Aussies and Americans always irked me somewhat. I suppose it's a bit of an exclusivist jibe by some bitter British person that's somehow survived for this long. -- Hindleyite Converse 12:55, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

This isn't self-loathing. If the English really could laugh at themselves then they'd be able to take actual, real criticism of their country and their culture instead of Criticism Lite like this page. 99.234.182.107 23:34, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Humor?

You guys have some serious mental problems if you call this garbage humor. Nobody likes your jokes, except for, say, Mr.Bean. You are the only people who laugh with this crap. You don't have no humor. You're completely, totally, utterly devoid of humor.--AnotherD++ 15:20, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

More on the English

I'm English and I loved it

Please add:

Horrible lovers because most of the population is gay and don't want to tell their partners

British empire was more like the criminal empire stole from other countries to obtain their wealth and treated people like crap in the process. now they act like they are so noble. They are the reason why many countries hate Europeans nad British.

Really suck at soccer, best players are from other countries who play for English clubs

English are Ugly, fair to say maybe the ugliest people in Europe

dirty!!! london especially, not very clean people

English are cheap as hell and most certainly two-faced

English National Pastimes

The English cannot let a day go by without shooting someone. Of course you are only allowed to shoot foreigners. It is considered bad form to shoot someone in England, unless of course he is Brazilian and taking the London Underground.

It was after the great "Peter's Loo" massacre when many of the Queen's subjects were murdered on their thrones, that the English sought out targets further afield. Currently the English are shooting people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the people back home seem very pleased about this. Of course they are not pleased when the foreigners shoot back! That is certainly not cricket.

Standards...

No. Ok? Just no. The article's now been massacred by someone who does not know when to use plurals, someone who does not understand grammar and someone whose spelling is the only thing worse than their typo-filled typing. Even here on the talk page the illiteracy (illegitimacy?!) shines through only too clearly. These cretins cannot fulfill the basic requirements of communicating the simplest of ideas clearly and coherently. How can we expect them to actually be funny as well? I give up. This used to be a great page but it's deteriorated into an unfunny, unintelligent, irredeemably God-awful redneck free-for-all. Codeye 16:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Someone please change

The page for Scotland has the St. Andrew's flag but on England's page the cross Of St. George is not allowed. I've asked for it to be changed, see Scotland's Talk page, but it hasn't been.

Will someone make an appropriate change please?

___ Re "This article or section may be Overly British. Americans may not understand humour, only humor. Canadians and Australians may not understand anything at all. Don't change a thing to remedy this."

How on earth could we, when we are banned from changing anything on this page? - Notregisteredyet.

Kingdom of Loathing

i heard there was a rad page on the Kingdom of Loathing here, but now i just get redirected to this, and see nothing... wtf...? --68.49.224.155 18:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

The former article "Kingdom of Loathing" acquired a {{Fix}} tag on 15-Nov-11 (from Zombiebaron). No one saw to it, and the article was automatically deleted. It was a very listy article that portrayed England as a role-playing game. Whoever told you it was a rad page probably did so because his name was in it, and that was a large piece of the reason the article was deleted. And before it was deleted, a note was added, to no avail, stating:

If you add someone who is not notable to this list, it will be removed per
Uncyclopedia Vanity Policy (UN:VAIN). So if people /IN-GAME/ do not know
who the hell you are, then you stand about a snowball's chance in Hey Deze
of staying listed here.

On 29-Aug-12, a redirect was installed at that name to England. Hope that helps.

Also, we recently featured a great article on History of Great Britain. Spıke Ѧ 19:15 23-Feb-13 19:15, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

War of Indian independence

Here is a bit inaccuracy,Pakistani and Bangladeshis did not fight against Britain.Pakistan was created as partition of India and Bangladesh from Pakistan,please correct it.117.227.56.194 08:23, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed but this isn't Wikipedia. You could argue that it was unfunny inaccurate which is a more valid reason for improving it. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 11:06, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

People who are not British

You should add Field Marshall Montgomery (Irish) and The Duke of Wellington (Irish)

Perhaps you mean people who are not English? British and English mean two completely different things. If you did mean British then:

Wellington was Irish at the time when Britain owned all of Ireland and hence was counted as part of the United Kingdom. He is therefore British. Montgomery was son of an Anglo-Irish priest, who was descended from English immigrants in Ireland and when you trace his ancestory back you will find him to be very British.

Thanks for your comment. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 08:00, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Not Right Article

please remove Indonesian Interwiki

Thank you for that pointer. I will remove it. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 07:52, December 23, 2013 (UTC)