Talk:East Anglia

Just putting in a request for someone to find a map of East Anglia for this page. I'd like to see where it is in the UK geographically b/c many English emigrants (esp. those that came to the US) were from EA. Thank you. jengod 08:24, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I always like to describe East Anglia as the bobbly bit on the right of England. There's a fairly distintive, almost circular bulge towards the south east. (This doesn't mean a map wouldn't be useful, though) --Darac 09:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a clear definition of East Anglia, although a lot of people and organisations use the term to mean something close to the East of England region (there is one school of thought that believes the term should have been used for the government region since it's more than just points on the compass). But a historic map of the kingdom and/or any well known set of boundaries might at least give an idea. --Timrollpickering 12:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Popular wisdom tends to point towards East Anglia consisting exclusively of Norfolk and Suffolk; Essex, occasionally included, is usually locally dismissed as "the south east".

Just to further confuse the issue, King's Lynn is home to the College Of West Anglia! Kinitawowi 14:53, 02 Aug 2004 (BST)

I've rewritten the intro to include the notion of it being somewhat undefined as a region, and also to incorporate the point about it not being flat (having cycled round Suffolk all through my childhood I can confirm that!) --ALargeElk | Talk 14:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning that the area is publicly conceived as being flat; ask the average layman (read: non-East Anglian) what they know about East Anglia and they'll say it's flat. It's clearly developed a notoriety for it, accurate or otherwise. --Kinitawowi 14:34, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

lincinshire and cambridgeshire and a little bit of norfolk are flat but the rest is rolling hills! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.187.11 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2004 (UTC)Reply

True. The Bedfordshire Plain is a lot flatter: perhaps some people mistake that for or extrapolate that to East Anglia. It was Noel Coward who may have begun the myth with a line in Blyth Spirit I think "Very flat Norfolk". The East Anglian Heights appear in old school geography textbooks, but now seem to have been forgotten.

The other myth is that its all almost at sea level. I expect that many people believe that if sea levels rise half an inch then East Anlia will be submerged. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although North Norfolk has some hills that were pushed up by glaciers in the last ice age, Norfolk still has the lowest high point of any traditional English county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt100 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

hey guys, giving a Colchester (Essex) lad's point of view; when in other parts of britain I always think how hilly it is, the rest of GB really is rather consistently rolling. I know that's no help as far as making a positive edit goes, but seriously, don't ever get rid of shit about flatness, its fucking flat around here. I live in Norfolk atm and it is silly flat, but other parts of the uk that i've been to (everywhere) are far more vertiginous than the rest of EA. just to let editors know not to assume its all Norfolk-based bullshit, the ground is flat as fuck around here (and i prefer it that way, I wanna be able to see shit!) also see jeremy clarkson's irreverent view on EA, which though unflattering IS true. mostly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.74.3 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions some 'gentle undulations' and then mentions the 'supposed flatness of Norfolk. The most cursory examinatin of any relief map of the UK confirms the general knwoledge that it is indeed the flattest part of the UK, there's nothing supposed about it! Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is the first I've heard that East Anglia is semi-autonomous or has it's own regional assembly. Perhaps it's refering to the East of England regional assembly [1], which includes more than just East Anglia, has very little (if any) power, and isn't elected (and probably won't be for the forseeable future). -- Joolz 17:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

>The East of England Development Agency, on the other hand, is unelected and has a great deal of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've lived in East Anglia for 25 years but this is the first time I've seen a flag of East Anglia! Who are these regionalist parties who have proposed it? Come to think of it, I don't think I've heard of any "regionalist parties" in East Anglia. If they exist, they are doing a very poor job of promoting their cause! Bluewave 18:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I see the flag is back! If someone can quote an authoritative source, I will believe that there is a recognised flag of East Anglia but, so far, I have seen only a vague reference to an idea by a handful of "ex pat" east anglians around 1900. I have quite a few books on east Anglia and none of them mentions a flag. Two UK flag companies (www.HampshireFlag.co.uk and www.midland-flags.com) have good online catalogues, but no mention of an East Anglian flag. Bluewave 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

>The flag you mention was invented around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was promoted in Norfolk, but never really took off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

THE FLAG OF EAST ANGLIA

Was designed in the early 1900’s by George Henry Langham for the London Society of East Anglians. It is the Cross of St George of England with the banner of St Edmund, a blue shield with three gold crowns in the centre of the cross. The arms are effectively identical to the small arms of Sweden, from where the East Anglian royal dynasty, the Wuffingas, were supposed to have originated. It also appears in the arms of the borough of Bury St. Edmunds, Coat of arms of the municipality of Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden, and the University of East Anglia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt100 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is hadly the Swedish flag in the centre but the Swedish The Swedish Lesser Coat of Arms, representing the United Kingdom of Sweden, today the Kingsdom of Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.200.222 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit speaks of a "candidate for arms of East Anglia". The use of arms in England is strictly controlled by the College of Arms: it is not sufficient for some people to identify a likely candidate and adopt it. As far as I am aware, arms are granted (for a large fee) to individuals, establishments such as universities, corporations and similar bodies. I am not sure that arms can be granted to a vaguely-defined geographical area. If that did happen, it would be very unclear who had the right to use the arms. Bluewave 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was born in East Anglia and have lived here almost all my life. I would like to make some comments regarding which counties are in East Anglia, and those not.

I have always believed that Suffolk Norfolk and Cambridgeshire are what East Anglia consists of, and nothing else.

However many people who live in areas bordering East Anglia would like to share the prestige and fashionability of being within EA. So people in North Essex for example like to pretend they are in EA.

Also, because the television trasmitters extend into several counties, the regional news programmes try to pretend that EA consists of several very alien counties.

So ignore all the would-bes - East Anglia consists only of Norfolk Suffolk (and usually by most East Anglians reckoning) Cambridgeshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.44.92 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

---

"Some people include Essex—sometimes only the northern part—and a small part of southern Lincolnshire bordering The Wash."

Regarding the comment above and this quote, I must be 'some people' as I am constantly told I live in East Anglia (Coggeshall, Essex) - however, can we have some references please, rather than 'some people this and some people that'?

East Anglian Pretender 12th September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yyem (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the above comment also..

I'm born and bred East Anglian and have travelled the world many times over always encountering East Angles on my journeys - common conception has always been North Essex is part of EA also.

East Anglian Protectorate, Feb, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.126.149 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The traditional borders of the Kingdom of East Anglia were everything North of the Stour and eveything East of the Nene. The border ran from the mouth of the River Stour to near its source where dykes or fortified ditches were built by the East Angles in the 6th and 7th centuries. There were 4 - Brent, Bran, Fleam, and Devil's Dykes of which the latter two are still quite impressive. These dykes just East of Cambridge, ran into the Fens, which at this time were an impenetrable morass. The River Nene (old course)ran through the Fens and out to its mouth in the Wash, and this formed the Northern border. If you are discussing the Kingdom of East Anglia, then it was bigger than Norfolk and Suffolk as it took in what are now parts of Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt100 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you are referring to the borders of the ancient kingdom then it depends on the date to which you are referring, as kingdoms expanded and contracted over the course of time. If you are referring to anything else then there has never been any official definition. (Various bodies have made definitions for their own purposes, such as the statistical regions mentioned in the article, but these definitions have no official status outside their own spheres of use.) Consequently the expression "East Anglia" is defined only by how people use it, and there is considerable variation in that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article describes Norwich as being the only city and largest settlement in East Anglia whilst also referring to Cambridge and Peterborough as being in within East Anglia. This seems to be a contradiction as both are cities and and Peterborough is larger than Norwich.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich

Caractacusrex 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I live in the Boston area (that's Boston, Massachusetts), and we have a very distinctive 'Boston' accent that includes among other things dropping the '-er' at the end of words and replacing it with '-a', so that for example 'father' is pronounced like 'fatha'. I have been told that the accent persists locally because the original settlers to the region came from East Anglia.

Do East Anglians have this same accent?

By the way, there are some very familiar locality names here e.g. Norfolk and Suffolk counties, Cambridge, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.155.199 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

King Edmund was killed by the Danes in 869 according to the King Edmund article, but in 870 according to the present article. Which is it? I believe the correct date is 869. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle regularly places the New Year in September, so the entry for A.D. 870, which describes Edmund's death, probably refers to the winter of 869. Eroica (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A new project Wikiproject Norfolk & Suffolk has been proposed. If interested please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Norfolk_.26_Suffolk and show your support. Thank you. MortimerCat (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've lived in Essex, and I've lived in Suffolk, but nobody I know has considered Essex to be in East Anglia. You could not say that Ilford or Romford are in East Anglian. I think its mostly eastate agents who would like the northern end of Essex to be in East Anglia. The character of people in Essex is different - more abrasive and outgoing, more Eastender. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ilford and Romford are East London NOT Essex so this is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This seems to come up quite often! The problem we have, I think, is that there simply isn't a settled formal definition - government uses East of England rather than East Anglia. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for including northern Essex - for example, the East Anglian Daily Times circulates at least as far as Colchester. And (although personal experience is not an admissible basis for saying something in Wikipedia, I add this to balance your contrary assertion) I live in the very northernmost part of Essex (I can see Suffolk from the window) and nobody around here would say they weren't in East Anglia, I believe; they look to Ipswich as the local "big town" every bit as much as to Colchester and far more than they do to Chelmsford, say.

If we had to be precise, I'd say the border (where people cease identifying as East Anglian) is probably something like a line running from Haverhill to Clacton. But we don't need to, and indeed shouldn't, decide that ourselves for the article.

What we should do is ensure that the article comments on the vagueness of the definition (it already does) and also, I suggest, change Essex in the lead to parts of Essex. As you say, nobody would seriously propose Ilford to be part of East Anglia, even if further north the debate is very real. Barnabypage (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ilford is as East London as Bethnal Green. Hasn't been Essex for 50 years, get with the times! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You admit that you live in North East Essex. People from that area would love to share in the prestige of being in East Anglian. The circulation of the East Anglian Daily times is no indication of any boundary since you can buy copies of newspapers from neighbouring counties in many places. I used to be a householder in that part of Essex but it still wasnt in East Anglia. If however the border with East Anglia could have magically have been moved south to include me then I would have got a large capital gain - which I think motivates much of the discussion regarding Essex. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone has changed "sometimes Essex" to "sometimes parts of North Essex" in the last few minutes. I would agree with that change, since it at least excludes the Eastend. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The someone was me, and please don't be ad hominem as to my motives in editing Wikipedia.

The point about the East Anglian Daily Times is that there isn't a clear-cut boundary like a county boundary. It is a region without a universally-accepted official definition and in usage the meaning of the term spills over county boundaries.

Here is a bit of a source for a definition, not perfect but a lot better than nothing for now. The Centre [of East Anglian Studies] was established at UEA in 1967 to develop and encourage the study of all aspects of the archaeology and history of Norfolk, Suffolk and the adjacent areas of Lincolnshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire. Barnabypage (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have now amended the lead to accurately reflect what seems to be the usage situation: that Norfolk and Suffolk are the "core" counties nobody disagrees on, that Cambridgeshire may be included in whole or in part by some users of the term, and that parts of Essex and/or Lincolnshire (but never the whole of those counties) may also be included by some users. I've sourced it to the CEAS Website, which will have to do until someone comes along with a better source; the books I have on East Anglia all contradict one another on the definition, but only give it in passing, so I think what we need to look out for is a good source which actively discusses the nomenclature issue. Barnabypage (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Coming from Suffolk I have never thought of Cambridgeshire as being a part of East Anglia, but they seam to be more proud of being East Anglian than most people in Suffolk! -- Phoenix (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here are some better sources - "better" in that unlike the CEAS source they are overtly definitions, not "better" in that they make things any clearer!

SOED: Norfolk and Suffolk

Britannica: Norfolk and Suffolk; "loosely" Cambridgeshire and Essex

Encarta: Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Essex Barnabypage (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some guide books, such as AA touring guides for example, have included Norfolk and Suffolk in the midlands, which is blatantly untue. So they are not to be trusted. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) The "definition" is supported by the first reference. Would you now like to contribute towards actually improving the article—maybe even getting it to GA status? Chrisieboy (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

But why do you propose ignoring Britannica, Encarta, the Centre of East Anglian Studies and huge amounts of usage? Nobody disagrees (as far as I can see) that Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire is the only official definition but that is for a fairly narrow statistical purpose. Our job here isn't to arbitrate the varying definitions; it's to reflect what reliable sources have to say about that definition.

The fact is that the reader who comes here to be told that East Anglia undisputably encompasses all three of those counties and ends at their borders is being misled, and it makes it a less good article, not a better one, to imply that. The honest thing to do is to acknowledge the vagueness of the term.

On consensus - I agree there was no consensus for my precise rewording. But there is no consensus for the summary removal of Essex from the definition, either; it looks like it's been there quite a while without howls of dissent.

So can I suggest something along these lines (in haste, so I am sure somebody can phrase it more elegantly):

Although the only governmental definition of the region is as comprising the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, the term is frequently used to also include parts of northern Essex, and occasionally southern Lincolnshire. Its extent into Cambridgeshire is also debated.'

How about that? Barnabypage (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Sometimes" would be far more accurate than "frequently". 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)'Reply

 

Doesn't the map already show that Suffolk & Norfolk are the core of East Anglia with Peterborough, Cambridgeshire and Essex sometimes included? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are parts of north Essex and Lincolnshire that look like nearby East Anglia, but that dosnt mean they are in East Aglia. I bet parts of France look like neighbouring Germany or vice versa. And they have each others newspapers available for sale in the border regions. 92.29.32.229 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed the newspaper issue was a bit of a distraction! But the discussion has now moved on to the fact that reliable sources define East Anglia in different ways. They don't, as far as I know, disagree on where the border of France and Germany lies. That's the problem here - it's not a clearly-defined area which people with agendas are trying to extend through Wikipedia, it simply doesn't have a universally accepted definition. (I've even seem some definitions including Bedfordshire! But since that seems the least common addition of them all, maybe it's one we can ignore for now...) Barnabypage (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The definition is a historical one and is not really supported in todays boundary splits. The real problem is the date at which you consider the area definition.

 

There have been many definitions to date which have spread the area. The general accepted 700-800 AD regional definition would have been North folk and Suouth folk (of the East Angles) down to the river Stour boundaries and along the Ouse the boundaries in the West following the (now diverted) river. At this time the areas you are concerned about, namely Essex, would have been part of the East Saxon's kingdom (Essex - "East Sax").

The region of east anglia is the area that was controlled by the east angles, and that is fairly well defined ... the usage of the counties in various maps showing cambridgeshire and others is normally because these counties are shown in full rather than the small parts of them that lie within East Anglia.

Post 1900 there has been a tendency to include parts of Essex, but that is normally down to regional wants as government voting maps show Norfolk and Suffolk in the midlands

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is this map which shows it in basic detail from 800 AD - the real problem is what is East Anglia now ? If we accept that one of the historical areas is the crrent one (and not something arbritary such as "the one from East Anglian TV News showed it covered North London" etc)...Chaosdruid (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. The article is East Anglia, not Historic definitions of East Anglia. It is only sensible that it reflects the current variation in definitions. We are, after all, here for the reader who might come along wanting to know what East Anglia means... Barnabypage (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly I found this obscurity - the Roman Catholic Diocese of East Anglia is pretty close to the smaller more compact version...Chaosdruid (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you want to move North Essex from East Anglia, you'll have to assume that the well known paintings of Constable and Gainsborough are not set in East Anglia. [Special:Contributions/90.206.116.233|90.206.116.233]] (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Its absurd to say "move it from East Anglia", as it's never been in East Anglia. 92.24.191.1 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2010 (

Some would be in East Anglia, some not. Both Constable and Gainsborough lived in Suffolk. Near the border. Constable was only a few feet north, in fact the machinery part of Flatford Mill which belonged to his family either straddles the border or is inches to the north, as its been a while since I've been there but I recall there is a river lock to the south where I believe the border is. Gainsborough lived in Sudbury, Suffolk, where Gainsborough's House is. Sudbury is in Suffolk, but near the border. Constables painting The Hay Wain is painted from the Suffolk side of the river. Essex can be seen over the other side of the river. Willy Lott's Cottage seen on the left is still there, so it is easy to identify the exact viewpoint. 92.28.242.150 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite. But the article is still a mess in this respect: Essex is highlighted in the map but not mentioned anywhere in the text, although Colchester is. The poor reader is going to be very confused. Can we try to come to some consensus on how we refer to the "arguable East Anglian-ness" of parts of Essex in the lead para? Any suggestions? Barnabypage (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph seems OK. Why mention Essex at all? Only people who live in north-east Essex would desperately like it thought that where they live is in East Anglia, but nobody who lives in Suffolk or Norfolk thinks that it is. The pink Essex ought to be removed from the map. An analogy would be if a lot of vocal people in Britain tried to persuade Americans that Britain was actually the 51st state and went on and on about it, tweeked a map, did a lot of would-be-crafty insinuation and implication etc in Wikipedia to lobby to that end that end as a slippery-slope tactic. But that would still not make Britain part of America. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Essex has got more in common with the Eastend than with Suffolk. I propose renaming Essex "Greater Eastend" to reflect the character of its inhabitants. Lol. 92.28.242.150 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)UTC)Reply

It's quite worrying that some "contributors" believe there's "prestige" in being East Anglian, especially if it only encompasses the 2 counties of inbred farmers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the article, it says that parts of East Anglia are semi-arid. I have seen two contenders for the title of "driest place in the UK", St. Osyth and Clacton-on-Sea, and neither of those places are even close to being semi-arid. For now, I will not remove the statement in question, but I would love some examples of places classified as semi-arid, with climate data. If I don't see any within a reasonable amount of time (at least 1 week), I will remove the statement, as looking at what are called the driest places in the UK, seeing as they're not close to being semi-arid, this statement seems patently ridiculous. 1brettsnyder (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Statement removed 1brettsnyder (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Last time I was around St Osyth, I recall walking though a lot of lush knee-high grass. So not semi-arid. Edit: although on second thoughts maybe that was just because it was near water. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe much of the confusion about which counties are or are not in East Anglia comes from people thinking that Eastern England is the same as East Anglia. 92.24.191.1 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice there are various institutions, such as universities and railway organisations, which use the phrase "West Anglia" in their name. Is this a formally defined region of East Anglia, or a bordering region? Or is it just local authority publicity jargon (like "1066 Country" for Hastings)? I think the article could benefit from a brief paragraph explaining the difference between the terms "East Anglia" and "West Anglia", for the benefit of most of us Brits who grew up believing there was 'no such place' as West Anglia! :-) Butcherscross (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

I know it may sound a little idiotic, but it seems to me that most of them are using it to get back at East Anglia (EA) for not including them lol. West Anglia, for these strangely named companies etc., seems to be the area to the west of East Anglia down to the outskirts of London. For example the College of West Anglia has a campus in King's Lynn (in EA) and one is Cambridge (not EA), the West Anglia line (of the railways) is a Cambridge and Stansted from London service and the West Anglia battalion of the boy's brigade is Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes.

I suppose they all sound better than they would otherwise be called ("The Middle & East Saxony and South & Middle Anglia Railway line" or the "South Anglia and East Saxony College") and it's competition for East Anglia.

Maybe we should invade them and make one great big Anglian empire, oh, hang on, isn't that what England is? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware that the whole Essex-in-East-Anglia issue raises strong feelings. However, I really think we do need to revisit it: the article is currently very confused on this matter, with Essex omitted from the lede but mentioned in several places elsewhere as if it were the part of the region. Can anyone think of a constructive way forward with this, bearing in mind the long discussions above? Barnabypage (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've suggested creating WikiProject East of England and merging the current 3 projects in this area : Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bedfordshire and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hertfordshire. The discussion can be found here.Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 21:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Essex is part of the East of England governmental region, but it certainly isn't part of East Anglia, either culturally or historically, and it isn't mentioned in the article. The map needs to be changed.Gymnophoria (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I recall the article used to have a reasoned and good discussion of the different opinions about what is and what is not in East Anglia, but looking at the article today I cannot see anything about this. I was indeed shocked to see "Large sections of East Anglia (including parts of Lincolnshire)....". That's the first time in my life I can recall seeing or hearing that Lincolnshire is in East Anglia! Could also include mention of confusion with East Of England region.

As East Anglia has a lot of prestige, then people in areas bordering East Anglia are motivated to include their area within East Anglia.

Everyone agrees that both Norfolk and Suffolk are indisputably in East Anglia. Most people would agree that Cambridgeshire is in East Anglia. People living in northern Essex like to claim that it is in East Anglia, although I personally would not agree, and without doing a survey I would expect that everyone living in Norfolk and Suffolk would say that northern Essex is not in East Anglia. I've never heard of any group of people claiming that any other area is in East Anglia.

The claim that Lincolnshire is in East Anglia must be due either to someone confusing East Anglia with the Eastern Region, or someone doing some soapboxing. 2.101.13.8 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean this section:

It includes the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, with part (or all of the pre-1974) Cambridgeshire. Some people include Essex—sometimes only the northern part—and a small part of southern Lincolnshire bordering The Wash.

which I found in an edit from about 2008. It's not referenced - I seem to recall there was more about what the region is and so on as well but I can't find it by picking out odd edits every now and again.

I did, however, look for some definitions. I can find Oxford dictionaries, Meriam-Webster, Collins and Enc Britannica all of which seem to suggest that Norfolk and Suffolk are the core of the region but that it also contains parts of Cambridgeshire and Essex. This would, perhaps, support the pre-1974 Cambridgeshire element from the section above. It would also be sensible to include northern areas of Essex - the area south to Colchester certainly.

This is all a bit unfortunate as it would seem that we have the "wrong" definition here - the inclusion of Peterborough might be spurious and the exclusion of northern Essex almost certainly has - which ends up having all sorts of impacts on other pages in the project.

There is, obviously, some cross over between the idea of East Anglia and the East of England, but this is confused by government statistical areas changing - the old Economic planning regions, Standard statistical regions and Civil defence areas would seem to be closer to the current definition we have here - although that's obviously been arbitrarily decided by someone at some point in the past - whereas Redcliffe-Maud provinces would seem to be where the idea of including bits of Lincolnshire have come from (for all of this (and more) see Historical and alternative regions of England).

I've no idea how to deal with this, although a section about the definitions and so on would seem to be a good idea and we have a number of sources there which are clearly suitable to use. It's reasonable to assume that it's going to be debatable and that there's no clear and obvious defining line that can be drawn on a map outside of the clear inclusion of Norfolk and Suffolk. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Our goal here should be to give due coverage to the lack of a single, clear-cut definition, rather than trying to achieve one ourselves. Barnabypage (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although it creates an issue for us. Do we, for example, include the University of Essex and Stansted in this article (and others dealing with similar coverage such as Transport in East Anglia)? And if we do, where do we draw the line within Essex and Cambridgeshire? Is the M1 in East Anglia or not?

My gut feeling says to include all of Cambs and Peterborough in such articles and to specifically include north-east Essex locations, but you just know that's going to cause issues! It would be helpful if we could get some sort of working criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe for Talk page purposes we could achieve some kind of consensus on dividing the world into three parts: 1. definitely EA (Norfolk/Suffolk), 2. EA by some definitions but not all (e.g. parts of Cambs and Essex), 3. not EA by any sane or mainstream definition (for example, I don't think anybody seriously contends that southern Essex, or northern Lincolnshire, would be part of EA).

Then the article could focus on 1., cover aspects of 2. in a little less detail, and not bother with 3.?

Not an ideal solution, I know, but in the absence of a real-world consensus on what EA actually encompasses, it might be better than nothing and at least allow us to move forward with making the article reflect the real world a bit better. Barnabypage (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

BTW it's interesting to see how the editors at Central Europe handle this and also to read some of the talk page discussion at Midwestern United States. Doubtless there are other examples of regions with less-than-clear-cut definitions, these are just two that sprang to mind. Barnabypage (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Similarly to Essex, Cambridge should not be included as generally people do not consider Southern Cambridge and, without a doubt, Huntingdonshire as being part of EA. As with Northern Essex, only the Fenland and parts of East Cambridge are historically considered part of East Anglia which is the minority of the county. Therefore this page and map should be revised to the true boundaries. 87.115.182.153 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article is mis-named. East Anglia, in normal English usage, refers to Norfolk and Suffolk, or to the ancient kingdom, not to statistical region that most people will never have heard of. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply