Talk:North East England

The name Northumbria

Northumbria is the common name for the North East of England and is used daily in a miriad of ways. Someone had changed this fact to state that 'Bernicia' is the other name for the North East. Bernicia is not used, I dare say, at all to define the North East. Northumbria is the kingdom centred on Durham and Northumberland that was incorporated into England from the Heptarchy Enzedbrit 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The historical Northumbria included Yorkshire and at times Lothian. Many current uses cover smaller areas than North East England. --Henrygb 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Northumbria at its peak included these areas. Kingdoms' boundaries were wont to change. Austria today is still called Austria even though its boundaries were once far in excess of its current boundaries. Enzedbrit 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The north east is not often called Northumbria so stop saying this. No one calls it that, it is a utterly incorrect term. Northumbria isn't even part of the north east, its Northumberland. Most people probally aren't even aware of the old Anglish kingdom.--Josquius 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop telling me that the north east isn't called Northumbria! I know very well that it is! Visitors to Durham are first greeted at the train station by a map showing them where they are in "Northumbria". The local constabulary is the Northumbria police force. There is Northumbria University. The tourism authority is, or until recently was, Northumbria. Our Northumbrian pipers wear the Northumbrian tartan when they perform around Northumbria. There are also Northumbrian organisations around the world. I have no idea what you're trying to say when you say Northumbria isn't part of the North East, it's Northumberland. That's an incoherant sentence. Enzedbrit 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Josquius on this matter, I myself am from the old County Durham region of Tyne and Wear which is unquestionably the industrial and populous heart of the North-East in modern times and noone here would refer to the North-East as 'Northumbria', as the name is 'Northumberland Police' for example is the subject of much debate for our Police force. I am fairly sure this would be the case for all people south of here also. I would say that only people from either Newcastle or Northumberland would agree with 'Northumbria'. gazh 18:51, 24 Apr 2007 (UTC).

While it is true to say that some still refer to the region as Northumbria, they are in the main part people who live or work in the 'sub region' of Northumberland. Northumbria as a term has little (or ever decreasing) resonance, particularly in Tees Valley or County Durham. Indeed, the tourism body for the region was until a couple of years ago, the Northumbria Tourism Board, and used the 'brand' Northumbria to promote the whole region. However, that organisation no longer exists, and the area is marketed within the region, nationally and internationally as North East England, currently being promoted in a campaign called 'Passionate people. Passionate places' (which is now multi award winning and has been almost universally backed by residents and organisations across the North East). Interestingly, since North East England was introduced and promoted as the regional brand, awareness of this part of the world and visitor numbers to it have increased significantly. Northumbria is a very significant historical term and of course will always be very important to those who call themselves Northumbrians. North East England has in the main part been accepted as the correct description for the region today.

Haxed discussion forums.

Haxed is an online community with over 9000 members from the North East of England. It is a non-profit organisation which serves as an online repositry of information for people who are new to the area, often students, and members often organise events and trips to bring the community together and help people make new friends.

It has affiliation with most popular nightclub venues and live music promoters on Teesside and was recently a proud sponsor of the Stockton Riverside Fringe Festival 2006.

Haxed has every right to be included in the body of this article as an external link because it serves in exactly the same capacity as "The North East Forums" and is arguably more useful to the articles audience due to its huge userbase, history, and community links.

We could of course just remove the link to the other forums as well, a link to a forum isn't exactly encyclopaedic content. p.s. the forum that you wish to link to isn't even accessible currently. Fraslet 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe haxed is more than just a discussion forum though. It also has a home page with lots of information about nightlife in the area and extensive gallery listings from events and people from the North East of England. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for learning about new places. Helping people who are interested in the area for whatever reason meet and talk to an existing and established community about it is not a bad thing.

If content is notable it should be added to the appropriate articles themselves and not merely through links, forums are not in their very nature encyclopaedic content. Fraslet 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for the removal of purely forum links as there is no what you might call encyclopaedic content at all. Sites should at least contain information about the region which is not presented as purely a forum users opinion. As has been evident today, inappropriate use of the North East England Wiki has become evident. For example, one user enters details of a useful website appropriate to the Wiki page which is hours later removed by a Forum owner who believes they have an exclusive right to publicise their own forum but nothing similar may exist on the same page. Therefore the simplest thing to do is to remove forums from the page in its entirity.Consett 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not a links directory. The External Links should be directly related to information contained in the article. Simply pointing towards forums or even a business directory is not suitable content. Please do not place external links unless a portion of information from that site is used - copyrights excluded unless of course you are the copyright holder

Education

The education section is very poorly written. No source is provided for the list of top performing schools and its assertion that there are no selective schools in the region is just laughable. I would like to completely re-do it. However, as I don't have the time right now, I would suggest removing it completely. IT gives a completely false impresison. hedpeguyuk 14:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have re-done much of it. I will add my references tommorow, I can't now as my keyboard is breaking down and it's a bloody pain typing at th emo. I've also added a sectio about higher education. May I ask where the list of top schools came from? I'm not denying that they are good schools, but there are one or two schools I would expect to see there but aren't. Could a list of top-performing schools at GCSE also be added? hedpeguyuk 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern England devolution referendums, 2004

It seems astonishing to me that there is zero mention of the Northern England devolution referendums, 2004 in this article. Surely that is so significant it deserves a mention in the intro? Please note that this article is mentioned, and linked to, in the very first sentence of the referendum article. A reciprocally prominent link from this article is surely merited. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy Edit comments

Hello, all. I'm performing a requested copy edit on this page. When I spot things that need attention but are unrelated to the copy edit, I typically address them here on the talk page.

• Economic History:This section ends with two single-sentence paragraphs. When a sentence sits by itself as a paragraph, that implies a lot of weight, a lot of importance. It shouldn't happen often, much less twice in a row. What I see here are two "stub" paragraphs that need to be expanded. Neither sentence should stand alone, and neither fits another section well enough to be moved. Each contains the germ of a potentially interesting paragraph. The first has to do with the regional image campaign. It needs referenced, and it would be a good idea to dig up information on the effectiveness of the campaign, and other efforts to promote the region. The other sentence is about the invention of the match. I don't believe that's the only thing of note to come out of North East England, so it needs to be surrounded with additional information. If those sentences are not expanded on, then they need to be deleted, because they currently function as trivia. Dementia13 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Demographics: Try to make this something more than a list of unrelated facts. All of these need citations, and it's best to find reliable sources that point out a trend. For instance, instead of just listing "highest lung cancer rates" or "union membership", look for reliable sources that connect lung cancer rates and union membership to the region's industry. Take a "big picture" approach, and use the opportunity to tell more about the region than a list of facts can. Avoid statistical rankings, as they are not absolute, but can vary from year to year. Dementia13 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Social Deprivation: too much jargon quoted from statistical releases. I'm a University graduate, and if I can't understand that section, how is a schoolchild expected to? Those statistics require explanation. Dementia13 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Transport Policy: This entire section appears to be about something that involves the Regional Assembly, but the Regional Assemblies were abolished years ago. It appears that this is obsolete information. Dementia13 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Economy: The information on the local industries is overly detailed, to the point of practically giving street directions. I've thrown a lot of that out, because that's really not the kind of information that the vast majority of readers will be looking for in this type of article. It's also prone to get outdated, as leases expire and companies move around and go in and out of business. Dementia13 (talk)

Dementia13, I hope you don't mind me appending my own thoughts on the "Economy" section here. It's a problem that the other English Region articles suffer from too. I agree that there's too much detail, and also I'm not happy how it's subdivided county-by-county. That sort of detail, if it belongs anywhere, should really be in the individual county articles. This regional article, surely, ought to be summarising the economy of the region as a whole without subdivision into disjoint county sections. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and, as you imply, I'm not sure that level of detail belongs at all. The better approach would be to write about the big picture and provide an overview of the region's economy or economies, not just to give a roster of the local industries. A telephone directory could do that. Dementia13 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Secondary Education: There's far too much vague language in this section. The word "improving" is used a lot, with no mention of what kind of improvement is shown. The word "recently" is used, but could have been written ten years ago for all the reader knows. This section suffers from the same overly detailed nature as above sections: there's little need to single out individual schools by name, unless they're connected with a notable and referenced achievement such as the two that were listed among the nation's top 100 schools. Dementia13 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Tertiary Education: Over 50% of the region's students come from the region, and around 35% are from other regions. If I understand this correctly: 50% come from the region, 35% from other regions, and 15% come from...not here, but not from anywhere else, either? If there were any references provided, it would be easy enough to verify this, and then fix the wording. Dementia13 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• What is an "Ind"?: Firstly, I apologise that I'm not British, and neither is my spellchecker, which is suspicious of "apologise". That out of the way, there are a few place names like "Pennywell Ind Estate" in the article. I assumed that this was an abbreviation for "Industrial" and placed a period after some of them, but Pennywell's article seems to be about a housing complex. This is an example of the need to avoid jargon and local or national colloquialisms in articles, because people from all over the world read these, and there are no "Ind Estates" anywhere I've been. What is this talking about? If it's the shortened version of something, it's important to put the full version at its first occurrence. Dementia13 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Yes, it means "Industrial". The Pennywell article seems to be about a larger area of which the Industrial Estate is a (presumably small) part. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help re Northeast of England Page

August 23 2013 Help requested re the Northeast of England page how do I request that the verification comment from august 2011 be removed or updated? I am getting the 4 sub regional businesses sections up dated over the next week or two and that will be the vast majority of the site updated and verified but I request some help with the education sections. Gairderek (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Gairderek (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Gairderek (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on North East of England (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regional_Profile_of_the_North_East.png) would be of interest for North_East_England

FYI, the full gallery, updated weekly, is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorting parts of the region

Present authorities are very mixed up for the North East England region. I would like to clean it up (“...”=article): Option A, simple all entities have articles:

• Region: “North East England (region)”
• Historic counties: “Northumberland”, “Durham county” and “North Riding of Yorkshire” (part)
• Districts with historic county names: “Northumberland district”and “Durham county district”
• Present counties: “Northumberland”, “Tyne and Wear”, “County Durham” and “North Yorkshire” (part)
• combined authority divisions: “North of Tyne”, “North East England (division)” and “Tees Valley”

Option B, rational name by name:

• region and division: “North East England”
• districts and old counties in one:

“Durham county” and “Northumberland (historic)”

• current counties: “Northumberland”, “Tyne and Wear”, “County Durham” and “North Yorkshire” (part)
• combined authority divisions: “North of Tyne”, “North East England (division)” and “Tees Valley”
• ”Teesside”

Option C, radical long-standing is paramount:

• region: “North East England”
• Combined authorities, current counties, districts and old counties in one:

“County Durham” and “Northumberland”

• “Tyne and Wear” and “North Yorkshire” (part)
• “Teesside” (Tees Valley and county of Cleveland merged in)

Option D, harsh, present and leave old counties to be old:

• region: “North East England”
• Historic counties: “Northumberland”, “Durham county” and “North Riding of Yorkshire” (part)
• authority areas: “Northumberland”, “North of Tyne”, “Tyne and Wear”, “North East England (division)”, “County Durham” and “Tees Valley”

Note: County Durham for present and Durham county. Historic name will fall in line with Settlement+Shire system of old counties except adding a space. Note2: North East combined authority area article is not in existence, doesn’t have mayor yet and formed in November 2018. Note3: Councils/Authorities exist as well I am only looking for areas they cover only. Note4: going forward what should a combined authority area be called: sub-region, division, part or county even. Any official names, sub-region I think is used, division seems better and shorter. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also what should happen to conurbations. Tyneside and Wearside I think should merge with “Tyne and Wear” and Wearside article turned into the North East division with south of Tyneside. Teesside or Tees Valley into the other. Chocolateediter (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You are going to have to explain this in a clearer way for people to understand. Personally I would return things to the situation it was before you started to move things around. For example Cleveland, England should be returned to the county article and all of the information on the county removed from the Teesside article. Keith D (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

County Cleveland article now exists. It is much better than having a former president of the USA link to an article about a county that exist years after he dead and which other counties are named with “..., England” without county in the name.

Alright I’ll try to give an intro rather than diving straight in.

The topic about naming conventions with counties has been brought up before. With combined authorities in the mix now, a new method needs to be used with what goes where. I have thought of 4 options.

A. Each size of an area with the same names gets an article: County Durham and Durham county district (not to be confused with the former Durham District).

B.If a name is synonymous with both smaller and bigger areas, both have information about the separate areas in them. This is already the case with England’s North East being a geographical area that can include Yorkshire (not common due to Yorkshire’s ability to be it’s own geographical area) but also a political region and an area served by a combined authority.

C. Long standing information would trump new political entities: old area named articles would be long and with information of the area. Political entities get small articles about what it does/did. If is political entity has limited information it is temporarily placed in a section of the old county and tagged as needing expanding or placing in its own article.

D. Each time a new political entity is created, about the area is moved to it leaving old areas with minimal information.

Each option stands with wiki-policies. I can’t decide which to follow and each article might choose a different option. This might have been better on naming convention talk, I just went to this region since I live in it at is time whilst other regions have the same problem atleast this is a starting area. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to the combined effect of edits since 3Q20 this article does not even conform to the important article content guideline WP:LEAD. It is absolute rubbish. I'm really not clear where you are going with this. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is getting a mess - County Cleveland needs to be got rid of and the information merged back into the Cleveland, England article. We do not need 2 articles covering Cleveland. Keith D (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Leaky caldron and Keith D. A lot of the changes the last few months have been disruptive and make the articles harder to follow, never mind these changes being suggested here. I honestly think reverting many of the North East articles back to their state before these changes would be best the approach. --Inops (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

There have been a great many recent edits to the page by an IP (in Cornwall!!) - some of which are positive, others not. If they want their edits to remain, they are very strongly advised to register an account, and discuss their suggested changes on this talk page - something they have not yet attempted to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. The page is now semi-protected for a week meaning we can all work together cooperatively, as Wikipedia should be, to improve the article without any one person dominating it (WP:OWN). Hopefully in the meantime the IP will register an account and join as an editor with the shared purpose of taking this and other articles of interest forward. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not offering to help out here - I don't have the knowledge or (more importantly) the sources - but there is clearly a lot of work needed on this article. It would probably be best to start with the article text - such as the "Geography" section, which as it stands is almost worthless - and come back to the lead later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's of use, the IP-hopping edits are part of a recent uptick in activity of socks of User:Politialguru. They have targeted this article as User:SunriseUntilSunset and User:Ouseburnwarrior before but a multitude of other articles too. Many of their edits are pointless or neutral but such uncooperative flurries are a notable feature. To register an account they're going to have to appeal their indef, which seems an optimistic objective. Unless and until, WP:BE can be applied to their edits. Prior to their recent relocation to Cornwall (building sandcastles when not editing?), their IPs were indicating London or non-specific UK as a location, prior to that NE England, possibly specifically Newcastle, if I remember correctly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I see they've also prompted page protection to be applied at Northumbria Police. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, because he/she has just created an account. See edit history of Metropolitan Police. I'll do some digging and see if an SPI is warranted. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. It sounds like your insight into Politicalguru's past activities will be useful, so feel free to comment. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Northumbria (modern)

Multiple sections of the article are better suited to Northumbria (modern), for example:

• History: mainly concerns the two historic counties. Recent political history better serves as history for a region created in 1994
• Parts of Sport: apart from the Middlesbrough FC rivalries, which haven’t occurred for a short while now, sport is tied to the traditional county borders.

I think it is best having this article as politically aligned while Northumbria (modern) takes up the cultural content, simular to Yorkshire and the Humber with Yorkshire. Most landmarks existed before the political region was established: including a building like Gisborough Priory is like including a Durham Cathedral picture for Bernicia, quite anachronistic. I am not taking away the fact that the North East also refers to Northumbria (modern) so I have created a redirect called North East England (traditional). Does any other redirects also merit being created for it, Tyne-Wear derby would work well to be merged into Northumbria (modern). Chocolateediter (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging here. I definitely think there's an issue to be solved given the abolition by former minister Eric Pickles of the English regions a few years ago. A similar debate on the future of the South West England is taking place on that article's talk page, which you might want to take a look at. I really don't know yet if the answer is to move the majority of the content of this article over to Northumbria (modern), if that's what the region is or should be called. I objected to / reverted a couple of the deletions because right now we don't have consensus on what to do and I think it needs discussion. One option that I could support is an article about North East England that is separate from the North East England government and statistical region. The former would contain the history, culture, geography, etc. that @Chocolateediter started moving across; the latter would be a much smaller article simply about the NUTS statistical and English government region. Thus I would propose the following:

• North East England is the big article (instead of Northumbria (modern))
• North East England (government and statistical region) is the latter.

Another thought is to hold fire here, and get consensus at an English level so that the same process is applied to all the English region articles including the aforementioned South West England. Thoughts? Comments? --10mmsocket (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket:I think "North East, England" or "North East (England)" and "North East England" would do. The comma or brackets easily disambiguate the government region with the cultural region since North East England is the official region name while “the North East” is the most common wording. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I have split the sport section and moved the information to County Palatine of Durham#Sport and Northumberland#Sport. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sport be in County Durham? i.e. the current, not the ancient county 10mmsocket (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Hello, I would like to request you to fix the cite error shown at the end of this page according to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_group_refs_without_references Thanks. Hutah (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Which specific citation is it? The link you give is to the help page not to the actual incorrect citation. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I just fix the problem you were talking about? I added at {{notes}} section 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Official region name is wrong - should be "North East"

Moved to Talk:Regions of England § Some of the region titles are wrong

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Regions of England regarding the official name of the region, as I believe that it is actually "North East", not "North East England". The thread is Talk:Regions of England § Some of the region article titles are wrong.. Thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Business

I’m moving business information about Tyne and Wear to the Tyne and Wear article. I’m also moving Northumberland’s. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

North East England vs Yorkshire and Humber and its notability?

I have been to places in North East England (Durham, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear etc) but I am slightly confused with the coverage of NE. It takes also Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton's Borough coverage of North Yorkshire but does not include Whitby, Scarborough, York or Harrogate for instance? Is there a clear boundary definition of Yorkshire and Humber and North East England? As the places mentioned are in North Yorkshire as well but not under Yorkshire and Humber? Also are these regions still recognized since the recent census? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither the North East LEP, nor the government's own pages discussing North East Devolution include Middlesborough, Stockton & Redcar - so presumably they're included as part of Yorkshire and Humberside. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume (Personal opinion) that if Stockton and Hartlepool are included. Would that not then extend to the Yorkshire side of Stockton Borough and Teesside? It just seems a bit confusing if County Durham are involved but one of its towns coverage crosses into another county not included? DragonofBatley (talk)

It depends whether you are talking about the official statistical Regions of England or using some other definition. The official definitions are summarised at Regions of England#List of regions. The original definitions were in terms of the counties that existed in 1994. The regions haven't changed since then, but some county boundaries have changed, which is why there are some anomalies in that the regional boundaries don't always follow a present-day county boundary. See maps at File:North East England counties 2009 map.svg and File:Yorkshire and the Humber counties 2009 map.svg. Not everyone uses the official definitions. -- Dr Greg  talk  17:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)