Talk:England Historical Overview
This article seems to go beyond the needs of most people tracing thier English family history. I'm not convinced the early information has any value to 80% of people researching English ancestry. Would it be acceptable to restrict the date range to something close to the Norman conquest?
James L. Tanner 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I would think that the whole article is misleading, it states as facts fictions and unsubstantiated fables. If there are portions of the information that have legitimate sources, then let's see the sources.
Darris G. Williams 05:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I expected that the later dates like 1834 and the content there would be ok but even that one could be improved. The entry for 1858 could also be improved. My knowledge on the early entries on the page is only enough to make me question the accuracey there. I don't agree that the whole article is misleading unless you refer to the lack of sources. 1841 is generally accepted as the year when the first genealogically useful census was taken and 1837 is when civil registration began. I completely agree with adding sources for each event including these later events.
If the early entries can't be substantiated how do you propose they be flagged or tagged for removal? Can we set a cutoff date and not include anything before the Roman invasion? That should clear out a lot of conjecture.