Talk:United Kingdom

Climate

This article contains nothing on the UK's climate, for instance, how it could be placed in Köppen climate classification. --Barberio 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

mains voltage supplied at 240v

The 230 is only a specification, it is still supplied at 240v.

See http://www.answers.com/topic/mains-electricity

240V is within tolerance and it has not, therefore, been necessary to change all of the equipment to meet the harmonised standard yet. That doesn't alter the fact that the UK voltage is defined as 230 and this is what should be shown here.

BTW, Wikipedia articles are not usually considered satisfactory references Mucky Duck 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, 230v it is. All the EC members with 220v electricity had to raise it to 230v and those with 240v had to reduce it to 230v quite a few years ago. The result being that older 220v designs can now be used in the UK/Ireland without major problems (although their life will more than likely be shortened) and older 240v designs can be used elsewhere in the EC. Of course newer equipment is designed for 230v so it should be happy anywhere in the EC. The actual voltage supplied does fluctate -- I've seen it over 250v in the old days: that caused problems with electronic equipment although kettles and motors hardly noticed -- but the electricity suppliers are now aiming at 230v plus or minus, so it should be there or thereabouts. The old specs (240v +/- 6%) translated to anywhere between 225.6v and 254.4v whereas the new specs (230V +10%/-6%) translate to somewhere between 216.2v and 253v. Of course since 240v lies within both ranges it's quite true to say that 240v is still supplied but that doesn't change the fact that the allowable range is different. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps

I think we could do with a map showing the borders of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - perhaps with major cities marked too. It would also be useful on Politics of the United Kingdom Cheers Andeggs 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section, however this does not include state boundaries (although modification to include boundary lines probably wouldn't be too dificult). Maybe a map similar to this one which appears in France#Administrative divisions could work well; with the thicker, darker lines showing the state boundaries between Scotland, England and Wales and the thinner, lighter lines showing either regional boundaries (i.e. North-East, Midlands etc.) or county boundaries. State and County boundaries would probably be best although I fear the small size of counties might make the map unclear. Doesn't such a map already exist on Wikipedia somewhere? Canderra 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that sort of thing would be perfect. I can't find anything like it for the UK on wikipedia which is amazing really when you think we have maps for so much else (e.g. all constituencies!). Let me know if you find one or can make one.Andeggs 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section" This shows Felixstowe, but not Sheffield, Grangemouth, but not Dundee, Falmouth, but not Swansea, Coventry or Leicester. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's far from ideal. Rednaxela 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

UK

I've added a blank one to the commons if anyone wants to use it as a base. Kmusser 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a version, although I fear it won't be good enough. There are a few problems with the above map: Extra lochs have appeared in Scotland, there are two bubbles between England and Wales. The Welsh border seems to extend up the Severn estuary.... Which cities to include is a problem; text may clash if the cities are too close. Also which font to use, regular or bold, underlines for the four capitals etc etc Rednaxela 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid "county" boundaries as it is an ambiguous term. A popular definition includes all the unitary authorities as counties and that would look silly, other definitions split Yorkshire up into 5 or so separate "counties". Either stick with the constituent countries and capitals or use the Government Office Regions (which is what the map on England does. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

What's the archive policy on this page? Discussions from the last week (indeed from yesterday) seem to have been archived already. Mucky Duck 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I archived because the page had reached 100kb in length (well, 99!). There is no policy, as such - people (usually me) just archive when its fairly long. I archived all talk which I figured was 'dead' (I wanted to archive the Britain stuff above but as I'd been involved, felt I better not), but if you want to resurrect something just retrieve it from the archives. --Robdurbar 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I pulled conversations that were only a couple weeks old back out. Kmusser 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

removing sources

I just reverted an edit because I saw an unregistered user remove a source. Selmo

Demographics

I removed this: "The part of Ireland still under UK rule has been subject to invasion and migration from Britain-most notably in the Settlement of Ulster by Scottish Protestants. ". Not that I disagree with it, but the section is about demographics, not history. Also this is just one aspect of a hugely complex subject, namely the migration of different peoples between the different parts of the UK, by regular movement and by conquest and colonisation. It seems wrong to mention this one aspect without mentioning the huge migration of Irish to mainland Britain, the migration of English to Scotland, the conquest of the Welsh, and a whole host of other subjects. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The plantation of Ulster is significant historically but in a section on demographics it doesn't make sense to single it out amongst all the other instances of migration, invasion and colonisation. --Ryano 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It has an extremely high historical significance. The Troubles in NI have their root in that migration. (More accurately described as Colonisation).GiollaUidir 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute its historical significance, and I would hope it is adequately covered in the History of the United Kingdom article. However in the context of a section on the demographics of the UK it's hard to justify singling it out above the many other examples of migration and colonisation which have produced the current demographic mix. --Ryano 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the first part of that edit in. The rest of the demographics talked about various invaders. In an article about the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (that's the official title of your state, by the way: the meaning of the word and can be found here: www.m-w.com) there was not a single mention of the British as invaders. Why? Why were those particular invaders omitted? In that precise context, it was only correct that I mentioned that fact that British invaders came to Ireland and that is how this small part of Ireland (currently) remains part of the UK. It is only your nationalism which is denying these particular invaders of this (current) part of the United Kingdom. 193.1.172.163 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your knowledge of history and nationalism of my country appears to leave a lot to be desired, 193*. It wasn't "British invaders" to start with - it was Normans. The people of Ireland were already British at this time, and had been for more than 1,000 years. As for the meaning of the word and, I think most people with a modicum of intelligence can see the context in which it is used.

So, basically, your nationalism is preventing you from seeing a bigger picture and is convincing you that somehow "British invaders" arrived in Ireland at some point. --Mal 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those discuss external migrations to the current country (who's existence, rightly or wrongly, cannot be denied.) As a compromise, though, a sentence on 'the multiple immigrations between the constitutent countries' could be worthwhile, to emphasise that this happens. --Robdurbar 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support that too. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Illogical might-makes-right self-serving rhetoric. By the precise same train of thought, in 1919 you would not use the word invasion to describe how Galway, Cork and Dublin became part of the UK. The British held power so apparently that nullifies the entire invasion. Christ almighty, guys. Orwell would be inspired by you if he were rewriting the Newspeak part again. It was an invasion, and the native Irish nationalist community has remained subject to this British invasion in all its sectarian ignomy, an invasion/ status quo which has been supported to the teeth by the entire aparatus of the British state since 1969. You are not talking to a reader of The Sun here. 193.1.172.163 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting theory. Because a country I once lived in invaded another country, my views on editing articles should be ignored. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For the second time this anonymous user has refused to play by the rules and has violated 3RR. I have reported this violation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:193.1.172.163_reported_by_User:Gsd2000_.28Result:.29 Gsd2000 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:80.6.206.189 keeps changing the demographics section. I have rv twice but would like to get some consensus, I have changed it to

Immigration has come through interaction with continental Europe and international ties forged by the British Empire. Constant waves of immigration hit the UK, with Europe, Africa and South-East Asia being the biggest areas from where people emigrate. As of 2001, 7.9% of the UK's population identified themselves as an 'ethnic minority'.<ref> [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273 Ethnicity] National Statistics Online, Accessed [[June 3]] [[2006]] </ref>

as I much prefer the National Census than Matthew Lynn as a secondary source and the BBC as a secondary source of an estimated figure! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists

I have removed lots of names in lists. Can we please try to keep the names down. I have been very harsh but the section read very badly, would you pleases consider this if more names are to be added. The UK article is too long and overly long lists are the easiest things to go. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I did something similar to Scotland a few weeks ago. But I also linked a list, from an external source rather than a random list based on the personal favourites of whoever happens to have been editing Wikipedia. You might like to do the same. Viewfinder 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - unfortunately I seem remember that people (myself included) have done this before, and then lo and behold, the list grdually expands again. --Robdurbar 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it will regrow but we can but try! I'm not sure when you mean by, I also linked a list, from an external source. Do you mean external from Wikipedia or a category like ?Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For things like famous UK bands rather than a making up a list ourself we should reference an external source and use that. See Scotland's talk page for an example and in this page's archives about universities. Thanks/wangi 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Naming conventions are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll. Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy. Mammal4 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

4 constituent countries

On a point of information, UK is consitiuted of 5 countries technically (see Constitutional status of Cornwall). The point is pedantic certainly, but, it has to be said, valid, and should be mentioned. Cornwall has a parliament, if further proof were needed. (Graldensblud 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)).

The Cornwall argument is just a theory with plenty of holes in it. The Stannery parliment was for Cornish miners not Cornwall and has been suspended for several centuries. A parliament has been proposed for every English region but that wouldn't make them consitiuent countries. josh (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

josh is completely correct. The Cornwall 'parliament' has absolutely no standing at all. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Desuetude has relatively little legal standing in the UK, and it was stated in the Commons in ?1977? that the Charter of Pardon is still in effect. The Court of Chivalry sat in 1954 after several centuries of absence (and there was much official comment on how it still technically existed). The status of the current nationalists purporting to be a parliament certainly is a seperate issue, but the status of the Stannary Parliament as it stands suspended since 1752 (which holds right of veto on uk legislation) is set in law. Existed ergo exists. Not "proposed".

For cornish miners not cornwall; "jurisdiction of the Cornish Stannary Parliament covered the four Cornish stannary towns: Truro, Lostwithiel, Launceston and Helston. Since these four boroughs covered the whole of Cornwall, the Cornish Stannary Parliament acted as a legislative body for the whole county" [Wikipedia]. I'm looking for the wording of the 1508 treaty.

Laws were worded "England and Cornwall" prior to the union with Wales, just as they were later "England and Wales". I'll dig a source for that if needed but i've encountered several. Maps up until the c17th show it in a different colour and everything.

Present situation/revivalists notwithstanding, there are actually relatively few holes in the arguement. Comments?

[[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

Population

Is over 60 million now. I haven't changed it though. Troubleshooter 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The [BBC] quote it as 60.2 million, which I think must be rounded quite heavily. Can anybody find a reliable figure that's more accurate, or will we stick with 60,200,000? 195.224.127.180 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"60,200,000" suggests the population is no more than 60,199,199 and no less than 60,000,001: "60.2 million" makes no such claim. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ACtually 60,200,000 suggests the population is 60,200,000, 60.2 million suggests the population is anywhere between 60,150,000 and 60,249,999. 203.114.140.222 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The ONS say it is 60,209,500 [1]. It has been updated accordingly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Welsh

Could I suggest editors talk here instead of reverting over Welsh being included in official languages. Also why was Welsh and Scottish Gaelic not treated the same? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself but I know that Welsh is an official language in Wales (and thus the United Kingdom) but I don't know if the same is true of Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots or Cornish. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All those languages are official minority languages but no offical languages. The official language is the one used by the government and Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster. josh (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Government =/= Westminster: if you change your address to one in Wales the DVLA will supply a bilingual licence whether you want it or not. That's official government use, as was the way the information booklets about higher education issued when I was at school that were published jointly by the Home Office and Welsh Office included Welsh (and my school was in Yorkshire, not Wales!) Yorkshire Phoenix 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The DVLA are civil service not the government. The government are the 600+ MPs and the dusty lot in the House of Lords. josh (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the government are the few MPs and Lords with ministerial portfolios, their civil servants and the departments and agencies who deliver their services. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Semantics never was my strong point. However, official languages are a legislative issue. If one were to be reconised it would be done by an Act of Parliament. This has never been done but as every single Act of Parliament is published and debated over in English and no other language it becomes a no brainer.

Also one of the effects of making a language official is that every piece of government documentation has to be published in that language. While some documents are translated in to Welsh many aren't. It would be unthinkable to not publish a government document in English. Until such time as the government pass legistation stating that all documents must be published in Welsh as well it is not an official language of this country. josh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, may I suggest we compromise by stating that there is no official language for the UK, and list all British languages that are officially recognised? Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, AFAIK there are no official languages for the UK as a whole. Although I must add that Welsh has been uttered in Westminster whatever difference that makes. Owain (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The legal situation is, I believe, that services must be provided in Welsh, and documents translated into Welsh, in Wales. So you can go into a government office in Cardiff and expect to be served in Welsh, but not in London. We should probably explain the situation rather than just say is/is not an official language. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Welsh Language Act 1993, an obligation is placed on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales (direct.gov.uk). However, The Welsh Language Act 1967 guaranteed the right to use Welsh in court, and also provided for its use in public administration. (www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk - the Welsh Language Board). The upshot is that any Welsh speaker can access Government servies and documentation in Welsh in any part of the United Kingdom and not just Wales. christopherson78 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that one can access Welsh language services elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as the Welsh Language Acts were restricted to Wales. Furthermore, the right to use Welsh in court (in Wales alone) was established in the 1993 Act, not 1967. Notwithstanding those dry technicalities, Wales is unequivocally not an official language of the United Kingdom. Whilst we lack our own definition of an official language, the European Union does not, and they treat Welsh as a minority language, not an official language of the UK. This is also the position taken by the British government in everyday discourse. Thus, English is the only official language of the United Kingdom (as established by precedent), but Welsh is official in Wales (as, in fact, it was even before 1993). Bastin 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster" Lloyd George's first language was Welsh, for the record, so this statement is unlikely to be true. [[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

That BBC link is very interesting, and we should modify the statements about Welsh in this article to reflect it. Unless anyone has any counterexamples. DJ Clayworth 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Establishment

Does anyone know why 1801 has been shown as the date of establishment? Technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was established in the 1920s but it can clear trace its roots to the Acts of Union of 1707 and indeed the personal union of England and Scotland in 1606.

"Established 1801" just doesn't do the UK justice: it makes us look younger than some of our former colonies, including the United States! Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something that has been brought up before by users - including myself - who were unfamiliar with the situation. Apparently, the Kingdom of Great Britain that existed from 1707-1801 was never officially called the United Kingdom, and so the addition of Ireland to form the UK of GB and I in 1801 is seen as the beginning of the 'United Kingdom', with the removal of the Irish state in the 1920s as an 'adjustment'.

And as for seeming younger - well it is!! --Robdurbar 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a peculiar way of looking at it: "United Kingdom of" is actually part of the country's title (just like "Republic of"), not it's name. The name has been Great Britain ever since 1707 (this is why the ISO identifiers are GB and GBR, not UK). Whether it was officially a "Kingdom" or "United Kingdom" should be neither here nor there. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, the Act of Union 1707 created the model for the institutions of state as they are today. However, the Act of Union 1800 was not a document of amendment of the Union between England and Scotland, or one inviting Ireland to enter into the same agreement. The Act of Union 1800 makes it clear that the United Kingdom is a wholly new country, formed by the union of two equal predecessors; the Crown, Parliament, established church, armed forces, and so on were different to those that predeced them.

The 1800 Act is unlike the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and other relevant documents of the 1920s. All of these make it clear that the country and institutions remain the same, but under different names and jurisdictions. Thus, the analogy to the more recent change is false.

I agree that it is an unfortunate side-effect that, by acknowledging this, it seems that the United Kingdom is younger than would otherwise appear. Colonially, militarily, culturally, it is a mockery of actuality, but, politically and legally, it was actuality.

On the last point, that of its name, you are wrong. 'United Kingdom' has been an integral part of the name, since at least 1801 (some say 1707); 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is not the name of any state. By comparison, 'Republic of Ireland' has never been our neighbours' name, but a description (or, at least, so claims the Republic's constitution). The reason that the ISO codes are 'GB' and 'GBR' is stupidity, not deliberate commentary on the subtleties of centuries-old legislation. Bastin 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ISO's reasoning is that "United Kindom" is not country-specific (United Kindom of Denmark-Norway, United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway, United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve, United Kingdom of the Netherlands, etc) and the union of any two existing kingdom's could compromise its uniqueness, whereas Great Britain is very specific (even though it does exclude Northern Ireland). Suggesting Ireland was an equal partner in 1801 and that the United Kingdom was not a continuation of Great Britain is somewhat misleading, regardless of what the Act says!

I wasn't aware that ISO confided such things, but, if that's what they're saying, it can only be to cover their bureaucrats' lazy, incompotent arses. The reason that this article is titled 'United Kingdom' is that it's not confusing at all. I hardly find it credible that somebody would confuse the British Ambassador with the fellow from Denmark-Norway, think that Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve had a chance in hell of winning gold at the quadruple sculls, or imagine the TLD '.uk' means that Ancient Israel had made it to the computer age. Even ignoring their extinction, the fact is that, in those cases, 'United Kingdom' was a style, and not the name of the country. In our case, the short name of the country is 'United Kingdom'; it's not just a style.

I recognise that the Kingdom of Ireland, in actuality, was not an equal partner in 1801, or, indeed, at any point until Emancipation (some would say later or never; I wouldn't). However, the union prescribed under the Act of Union does make them equal partners.

Of course, just because the 1801 is undeniably the date on which the modern state was born doesn't mean that other dates can't be added. Germany and Spain each have four dates given, so why the UK can't have more than one (1603, 1707, 1801, 1921, I suggest) is quite beyond me. Bastin 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me, but the fact is that the 1800 act - as you state - notes that it is an entirely new country. I don't see why we couldn't also mention 1921. As for 1603 - plenty of states were in personal unions at various times in Medieval history and, though undoubtdly it made the later Union possible, legally and officially it has no bearing on the formation of the UK. --Robdurbar 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Spain and Saudi Arabia gives their personal unions; Germany, the creation of the Holy Roman Empire; Norway, its exit from personal union with Sweden; most former Commonwealth Realms, their date of becoming republics; Malta, the date of British military withdrawal, etc. Why can't the UK do the same by giving the date on which its component parts first came under the same rule? I'm not suggesting that it be given instead of the actual dates of consolidation, but a secondary note to the date that would explicitly be given as the date of establishment: 1 January 1801. Bastin 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if others do it then I don't see why we shouldnt. WP:BE BOLD and as long as its well written and clear... --Robdurbar 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How could one characterise the 1707 Act? 1603 is clearly a matter of 'Dynastic union' (as per Spain), 1801 is undoubtedly 'Establishment', and 1927 is 'Renaming', but 1707 is harder to describe so succinctly. Until one can be reached, I'm leaving it out (even though it was the trigger to change it in the first place). It may be for the best, because 1707 was probably the least relevant date anyway. If you object to any part of the addition, feel free to revert and discuss. Bastin 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox is a vast improvement: but lists a different set of events to the {{UKFormation}} template (to the right of this paragraph).

Do you think we could come up with a consistent list of establishment events for the UK for the infobox and the template?

Well we could leave out Rhuddlan and Wales from the article as these incorporated Wales into the Kingdom of England, and didn't really have much affect on creating the United Kingdom (the template is more detailed, I guess). The difference in the act of union date is that it was an 1800 act that came into affect in 1801 - semantics, really, but we can change the template there.

Though 1927 was the 'renaming', I think its fair to say that the important event was Ireland leaving and I'll change the article date to 1921, for the Anglo-Irish treaty, but add the renaming to the template. Robdurbar 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'new form' of the United Kingdom wasn't really redefined by Parliament until 1927. Only under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act did Parliament ultimately recognise the change in its territorial jurisdiction; Section 2 redefines the meaning of 'United Kingdom', which is as close as one can get under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The 1927 Act also marked the change in both parliamentary and sovereign styles. Bastin 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well its up to you; I agree wity Yorkshire that we should use the same in both and if your familiar with this subejct then thats fine. --Robdurbar 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the significance of the date of 12 April 1922 (I would have thought 6 December 1921 or 6 December 1922 appropriate). Notwithstanding that, I'd still rather go with 1927 than 1921/2. Whilst 1921/2 was obviously more important to the Republic of Ireland's historical formation, 1927 is (IMO) more important to the United Kingdom's current status. Furthermore, 1927 is of importance as the culmination of the events that preceded it, both in terms of the Irish Free State and the relationship with the Commonwealth. Territorially, of course, the date of the final expansion should be given as 1955 (annexation of Rockall)!

Assuming that I have understood the proper use of the template, I personally won't think that the lists of events need to be the same. The template must include every event mentioned in the infobox, but not vice versa. At the moment, I think that the template is roughly complete and perfectly adequate for the task that it's supposed to perform, whereas the infobox is probably not. Bastin 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Data

The article states that : "Thousands are separated (formal) by a comma: 10,000. (To avoid confusion with continental countries which use the comma as the decimal separator, a space may be used, e.g. 10 000.) ". We were always taught in highschool that it was now non-standard to use the comma separator for thousands and that the space, or even no marker at all was the correct format. Comments? Mike 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Commas are still in widespread use, especially with numbers over 9,999. The English (UK) locale setting in Microsoft Windows includes the comma separator, meaning the vast majority of computer-generated documentation in the UK will use it. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished A-levels and we were taught to use the comma. DJR (T) 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two meanings of standard, and both meanings are limited to a certain set or subset. One meaning of it is the norm, the thing most commonly used. The other meaning is the thing that is formally agreed on by some body as the way to go, even if most people who ought to be obeying that standard aren't doing it. (Comparison: the legal standard may be to drive at a certain speed on one road, while the standard in terms of the norm of reality may be that everyone drives faster.) Either way, because of how countries in which English is the biggest native language are, the question of 'standard', except in terms of the norm for actual use, is always really limited to some subset (a school curriculum, a publishing house's style guide, a government office's writing guidelines, &c.) not the nation as a whole. — President Lethe 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll On Suggestion To Qualify Shortening Of UKoGBaNI To "Britain" With "Informally"

Proposal: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or the UK; or informally Britain) is a country<ref> [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country], Number 10. Accessed [[29 May]] [[2006]] </ref> and sovereign state which lies off the northwest coast of mainland Europe.

• I vote Yes MarkThomas 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• No - Out! Out! Out!, as someone else said - because informally is inaccurate. And this is all about accuracy.--Shtove 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Marky-Son 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. It's not a weasel word, because one can empirically verify that "Britain" is not the UK's formal name [2], but that it is also so used informally to mean the UK. Simply open a newspaper and turn to the "Britain" section [3], turn on the TV and listen to the news, open the Visit Britain website and head over to Northern Ireland [4], or read a book [5]. Gsd2000 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, per Gsd2000. Yorkshire Phoenix God's own county 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, I'm sure the article has read similarly before. However, we could still keep the ref linking to British Isles terminology. Robdurbar 19:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Change to no re the various concerns Robdurbar 11:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. Obviously, saying a name is "informal" does not address, in any manner, the accuracy or otherwise of that name. As such, trying to pass "Britain" off as an "informal" name for the UK is profoundly dishonest. It is only British nationalism which is reaching to equate both. Rational, impartial thinkers wouldn't even attempt to do something so cerebrally challenged. No part of Ireland, be it Derry in 2006 or Glenmalure in 1906 is now, or ever has been, part of Britain. It is abject idiocy, and ultra nationalist British idiocy at that, to claim otherwise. El Gringo 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - obviously I'm gonna support my own proposal. DJR (T) 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia is about accuracy, and this is not a proposal that adds accuracy. Besides, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already has a correct and far more accurate abbreviation that not only follows convention but also is in common usuage - the United Kingdom. Crimsone
• No. Qualify it with "controversially", or leave the qualification to other sections or other articles. — President Lethe 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• No. No qualification is necessary in this, the first sentence of the article. It puts far too much prominence on what to most people is a minor point. "Controversially" would be still worse. Leave it unqualified; discuss the controversy later/elsewhere. Mucky Duck 10:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes commonly used and accepted term for UKoGBaNI. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "informally" is a compromise solution between the two opposing sides - those that think it is no big deal, and those that think it is a very big deal, so people voting "no" are either voting no because they want no qualification, or they want a stronger one. Should this vote end with the no's winning, then we are back where we started. Perhaps the vote needs to be restarted with the various options laid out, so everyone has to vote for a solution, rather than against a compromise. Gsd2000 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I personally voted 'no' because I think that the current version (with no qualification) is better than having a version that - although I kinda agree with - uses 'informally' because its the best we can come up with, even though we know its wrong. Once this vote has finsihed, your proposal may work. --Robdurbar 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And I voted "No" because I think "controversially" is a better compromise than "informally". In a single word, it takes care of the debate (the controversy) about precision and imprecision, accuracy and inaccuracy, and formality and informality. So my vote is not because I want no qualification, and it's not because I want a "stronger" qualification. I want a single qualification that takes care of the three main issues. The whole fact that not everyone agrees whether it's an inaccurate term speaks to the presence of a controversy—as does the fact that not everyone agrees whether it's an imprecise term—and the fact that not everyone agrees about what counts as formal and what counts as informal. Even the debate about whether there is controversy proves that there is something controversial going on. — President Lethe 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people dislike the term and will argue voluably about it. This does not make it a controversial term. To the majority there is no problem at all. This is not in any way to say that the majority view should be ignored, it should be discussed elsewhere in the article. But to promote it to be the most prominent issue in the article by putting it in the opening sentence is to blow it out of all proportion. This is not the place for any value judgement qualifications - here there should just be a neutral, factual statement as there currently is. Mucky Duck 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we clearly disagree about the meaning of controversially/controversy. And I must say I think the mainstream English dictionary denotations of controversy support the view that this a controversy—just as much as they support the view that Britain is (among other things) another name for the U.K. Saying that something is controversial isn't a value judgement. Saying something is incorrect or wrong or immoral or unethical or inaccurate or imprecise or informal is a value judgement. Anyway, Mucky Ducky, you and I at least partly agree—for I too would accept there being no qualifier about the usage of Britain stuck in the opening sentence. I just think that, if there is a qualifier, the qualifier should be "controversially". — President Lethe 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

American rule = apply generic truths where it supports the USA. Deny them where it suits antiqauted and racist notions of foreign nations. Plus, ignore basic facts. There is no debate, the Irish Republic declares it so - it is (as the Irish Republic freely declares it) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". See the Clause 4 referrendum as voted for by 90% of the Irish electorate. The Irish Republic makes no claim to the Six Counties. No more bullshit, no more "Wiki Consensus", just facts.Iamlondon 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what an "American rule" and "antiqauted and racist notions" have to do with this. All I'm advocating is that either (1) we don't put a qualification next to Britain in the opening, or (2), if we do include a qualification there, it be "controversially". People at this talk page and elsewhere in the world do argue about the appropriateness of Britain as a shorter name of the U.K. Even standard school/college textbooks written, published, and used on the island of Great Britain, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, take the time to clarify their own usage of the word Britain (e.g., whether they use it to mean the single island, whether they use it to mean the entire U.K., or what) specifically because there isn't just one meaning of the word and not everyone who thinks one of its meanings is appropriate does also think the other meanings are appropriate. — President Lethe 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. While British has a formal uses (such as British citizen), I am not aware that Britain does. I think informally Britain is the most accurate we are going to get for a while. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. josh (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Common enough used abreviation (especially in the US)to warrant a mention. Should be made clear though that although it is often used it is not technically correct Mammal4 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. I clearly misread the poll name. The UK is referred to as Britain in a popular sense by North Americans, to my knowledge. But let's put it a simpler way...if you were to ask anyone who lives in the British Isles, "Does 'UK' mean 'Britain' to you, or vice versa?" they would answer, "No". Everyone in this country knows what Britain is, and the difference between that place and the UK. The difference being Northern Ireland. The UK is never informally referred to as Britain by any Europeans I've met. "UK" is just the standard abbreviation. Britain is...well...not the word I've ever seen popularly used as an informal name by anyone other than North Americans.Iamlondon 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sweeping "anyone", "Everyone", "never", and "any Europeans" definitely contradict my experience with very many of the Britons and other Europeans (including ones from Ireland (the Republic), France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Russia, Estonia, &c.) with whom I've talked about the U.K., in addition to Americans, Canadians, Haitians, and others. Just turn on the TV or radio in the U.K. and listen; soon enough, a Briton will call the whole U.K. "Britain". — But there are two other issues to be understood: (1) We're talking about common, non-slang names for the U.K. in the English language, not just in your idea of what all Britons never call the U.K. (2) This poll is not about whether to mention Britain as another name for the U.K. in the opening sentence; it's about whether to include, in that mention, the qualifier "informally". — President Lethe 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Britain by Irish people can be a Shibboleth. So, if referring to the UK, but excluding the 6 counties of northern Ireland, the person betrays a republican/Irish nationalist view, which does not recognise a part of Ireland as part of the UK. If referring to the UK as such (the constitutional state), the person betrays a unionist/loyalist view and is prone to assert that the 26 counties of the south have no business being independent of the UK. Hence the sensitivity and the insistence on qualification of the usage. I think this split is at play here. It makes sense, but must look nuts to an outsider. When it comes to Americans, those conscious of their Irish backgrounds are likely to use it in the former sense too, while the rest are just content to use it to refer to the state without regard to the constitutional miasma that is Norn Iron. Europeans? Probably in the latter American sense, and both states are part of the EU anyway, and life is too short, and why does it rain so much?--Shtove 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. As with Mamma14 above, though while this is in common usage, it is not actually correct or accurate. It is very common in the USA that Americans use the word "England" to describe the United Kingdom. This is equally not correct. Certainly, some reference should be given because of the notability of usage of both the terms "England" and "Britain". The argument is that "Britain" is an informal usage (being that it is part of the full title of the country)". However, nobody uses the phrases "Great", "United", "Northern", "Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" as a shorthand for the UK. Stick to the facts. --Mal 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be that some voters in this section are misunderstanding the question. The question is not whether to list Britain as another name for the U.K. The question is whether to qualify that listing by adding the word informally. — President Lethe 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Britain" belongs in the same place with "England" in a note that tells the reader that these incorrect terms are often used when people mean "UK". Thus my no vote. See Netherlands for how I perceive a correct explaination should be presented. --Mal 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I am happy with calling the usage "informal". If we also wish to say that the UK is also called "England", then I would suggest a stronger qualifier such as "inaccurate". Whilst both "Britain" and "England" are certainly used as synonyms for the UK, it is significant the the former is freely used by the British themselves, but the latter almost never is. TharkunColl 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. 18 votes so far. 11 votes for yes (would be 10 if we assume that IAmLondon really wants something stronger, but he hasn't changed it yet so I am assuming yes for now). Of the 7 no votes, one wants "controversially" and another wants to leave as-is (ie with no qualification). That leaves only 5 no votes, out of 18, that wish to add stronger wording along the lines of inaccuracy or incorrectness, 13 out of 18 do not want stronger wording. This is the second time this debate has flared up, the first time it was resolved until El Gringo reopened it, having already participated in the original debate [6]. We should resolve it once and for all now. The compromise solution of "informally" has the most votes, I suggest we just go with it, leaving the footnote for the meat of the terminology discussion on the British Isles (terminology) page. What do others think? Gsd2000 12:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Two curious points about "British Isles (terminology)", which should and does treat the terminology in much more detail: (1) it has the word "informally" only once (as a qualifier for Britain as a shortening of the name of the island of Great Britain); and (2) where, at the beginning, it mentions the United Kingdom, the U.K., and Britain as shortenings of the full name of the modern political entity, it offers no judgement about accuracy, precision, formality, or even controversy.

Also, by the way, the Encyclopædia Britannica also says that the U.K. is also known as Britain and manages to convey this fact without putting next to it any of these qualifying words we've been discussing.

And, to get back to the Oxford dictionaries for a moment: they readily qualify certain definitions by calling them "colloquial", "informal", "slang", "vulgar slang", "American", "Australian", "obsolescent", "obsolete", &c., and/or by pointing out that the terms tend are technical jargon in certain fields (astronomy, botany, chemistry, economics, &c.)—but the definition of Britain as another name for the U.K. is not given such a qualifier.

President Lethe 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy leaving it as is. "Informally" is supposed to be a compromise solution. Gsd2000 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just Oxford and Britannica that don't offer qualifiers about Britain as another name for the U.K.

Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus (2006), under "United Kingdom", gives many synonyms, some clearly less formal than others, and even has a note ("technically, England is not a country and neither are Scotland or Wales; England and Scotland are kingdoms and Wales is a principality. All occupy Great Britain, the largest island of Europe. Add Northern Ireland and you've got the United Kingdom, which is a country."), but doesn't qualify Britain.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), under "United Kingdom", says "Commonly called Great Britain or Britain.. Abbr. UK", and describes the three sizes (U.K. of G.B., U.K. of G.B. and I., U.K. of G.B. and N.I.), but doesn't qualify Britain. Under "Britain", it says to "See United Kingdom".

Princeton University's WordNet (2003), under "United Kingdom" and "Britain", offers the two as each other's synonyms, but doesn't qualify Britain.

I've provided references illustrating controversy about usage of the word Britain. Of the first thirty Google.com results for "britain informal united kingdom" (without quotation marks), the only ones whose snippets call Britain an informal name for the U.K. are Wikipedia's own "Britain" and "Great Britain" articles.

Wikipedia is supposed to have citations for the information it conveys, and isn't supposed to cite itself.

President Lethe 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. Downing Street's own website, [7], says "On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.". We don't need a large Google hit count to "prove" that "Britain" is the non-legal and non-formal (therefore, by implication, informal) name of UKoGBaNI, much like we do not need Google to tell us that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are the informal names that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and William Jefferson Clinton respectively go by. Gsd2000 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Which bit isn't quite true? Also, just to clarify: I offered Google not as proof of anything but just as an example of the relative difficulty of finding (at least in the snippets, and excluding the two Wikipedia results) an explicit statement, from a reputable source, that Britain is informal. Downing Street's statement seems to me a reputable enough source to back up a statement that the use of Britain as a synonym for the U.K. is sometimes informal. — President Lethe 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: I think "less formally" is a better compromise than "informally". A jacket-and-tie is less formal than a top-hat-and-tails, but it's not informal. "Britain" is not informal in the way "Dear Old Blighty" is, but it is less formal than "the United Kingdom". jnestorius^(talk) 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good comparison, jnestorius. I would accept "less formally". I prefer it over "informally". — President Lethe 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. "Less formally" implies that it is still formal, when it's not. "Britain" would not be used in an international treaty, for example. An ambassador to the UK would not be introduced as the ambassador to "Britain". The UN Security Council would not place a nametag containing the word "Britain" in front of a British government speaker: [8]. Gsd2000 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the "less formal" implies "but still somewhat formal". Perhaps my jacket-and-tie analogy suggested that it does, but equally, a T-shirt and jeans is "less formal" than a jacket and tie (or top hat and tails). On the other hand, to use your own example, I don't think "Tony Blair" is "informal"; it's used happily by the dignified presenters of the BBC's serious current affairs programmes. "Tony" or "Tone" would be "informal". "Tony Blair" is relatively unmarked, but undeniably "less formal" than Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Comparatives are sometimes used absolutely rather than relatively (a fuller figure; a less developed country) but I don't think this is an example. jnestorius^(talk) 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of formality in this context. Informal does not mean slang. The dignified presenters of the BBC's serious current affairs programmes also call the UK "Britain". But it would not be used in a legal document such as a treaty, any more than "Tony Blair" would appear in his passport or marriage certificate. Gsd2000 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been said several times that a direct comparison to this situation can be made with "United States of America" vs. "America". So it comes down to this - would it be acceptable to say "The United States of America (often shortened to the United States, USA or US, or less formally America). I personally think that this is not okay. In contrast, "informally" would be much more appropriate, as it emphasises that the common term is not formal in any way. DJR (T) 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relativity is exactly the point I've been trying to make about degrees of formality.

(And to carry on with two points about the Tony Blair & Bill Clinton comparison: (1) it's much easier to find plenty of sources saying that "Tony Blair" is short for "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" than it is to find a source saying that Britain is specifically an informal name for the U.K.; and (2) how many formal sources that reveal that the Prime Minister's name is Tony Blair qualify it (e.g., "Two years ago, the British prime minister, informally called Tony Blair, suggested that [...]")?)

To the "America" comparison: Yes, I would indeed say "less formally", not "informally", about America for "the United States of America": when someone delivers a formal speech that took weeks in composition, is wearing formal clothes, delivers it before a prestigious body, and doesn't litter the presentation with jokes—and, in the midst of this presentation, calls the country "America"—, this is some kind of formality—as would be saying "Britain". This hard-line idea that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "the United Kingdom" are absolutely and totally the definition of formality, and everything else is completely informal, just seems much more black-and-white than the real world and real usage of these words.

President Lethe 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to say that UKoGBaNI is the only formal title that can be used. What is being said is that Britain is, simply put, informal. To say "less formal" suggests that it has a degree of formality that it simply does not have. It can't be compared to Tony Blair - it's completely different in many different ways. DJR (T) 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(I was carrying on the Blair comparison put forth by Gsd2000 and elaborated on by jnestorius.) Well, it does seem that you're saying that Britain is 'right out' as a "formal" name for the U.K. It seems that your idea of "formal" is what would be used in, say, an international treaty—and everything else is informal. Have a look at the first fourteen denotations of "formal" here; some uses of Britain as a name for the whole U.K. fit some of these denotations. Maybe I've misinterpreted, but it seems that some posters at this page are saying that there are only two formal names for the U.K.—"the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "the United Kingdom"—, with all other possibilities under the sun falling into the "informal" category. I don't subscribe to this restriction. — President Lethe 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change to "informally" in accordance with the voting results and be done with it. There are far more important things to be done at WP than haggle over this triviality. Gsd2000 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• No No, a thousand times no. All abbreviations (or shortenings, or whatever) are informal. The country has only one formal name, and 'Britain' is not more informal than 'United Kingdom'. DJ Clayworth 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. This [9] would never say "Britain". Gsd2000 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the U.N. At the website of U.K. Mission to the U.N., notice the links (near the top) to "Britain at the UN" and "About the UK". This website wouldn't include those words with those meanings if they weren't seen as having a certain level of formality. It describes the role of the U.K. Mission to the U.N. as, in part, "ensuring that Britain’s interests and views are taken into account by UN bodies and the other member states" (emphasis mine).

But let's get more formal than a website. Let's ask the Queen herself, as she speaks when delivering prepared remarks. (All boldface emphasis is mine.) • In her speech at the Italian state banquet on 15 March 2005, she said "We in Britain today are enthusiastic admirers of Italian culture, Italian fashion and Italian food." This was the first point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name in this speech. • In her speech at the state banquet in the Zeughaus, Berlin, during her state visit to Germany, on 2 November 2004, her first mention of the U.K. was worded thus: "Britain’s part in Berlin's re-emergence as one of the world's great cities is a source of pride for me." In the same speech, she said "As part of this young Germans may realize that one legacy of Britain’s history is our diversity; we regard it as a strength." And "Britain and Germany have long advocated enlargement of the Union, as vital for Europe's prosperity and security." And "I am pleased that Britain and Germany are leaders in Europe on this issue." • When she gave a speech at a lunch at the Hôtel de Ville, Toulouse, on 7 April 2004, her very first mention of the U.K. began "Links between Britain and Toulouse have existed over many centuries". • In her Christmas broadcast to the Commonwealth, 2004, the first point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name was when she spoke of "an overseas visitor to Britain". • In her speech at the Hotel de Matignon, during a state visit to France, on 6 April 2004, she said "United Kingdom" once before saying "In Britain we have also seen a devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"; in French, this was "En Grande-Bretagne aussi, nous avons décentralisé les pouvoirs, pour donner plus d'autonomie à l'Écosse, au pays de Galles et à l'Irlande du Nord". • In her speech at the state banquet at the Elysée Palace, Paris, on 5 April 2004, she said "Britain and France are two of the great nation states of Europe"; this was the only point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name. • In her speech at the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day, her only mention of the U.K. by name was in "Britain had been directly threatened by the enemy". • When she spoke at Potsdam during her state visit to Germany, she said, on 3 November 2004, "I am pleased that Britain continues to play an active role in promoting Brandenburg's prosperity." At the only other point at which she mentioned the U.K. by name in that speech, she again used "Britain". • I'm sure that, in every example in this is small sample, she didn't mean to exclude Northern Ireland. The person whose job is to be the United Kingdom's most formal representative to the world calls the U.K. "Britain" quite often—in her formal, prepared remarks in formal speeches during state banquets and state visits. Britain is a formal name for the U.K. — President Lethe 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sure that, in every example in this is small sample, she didn't mean to exclude Northern Ireland." - quite, we are not arguing about this. I agree 100% that Britain is a valid name for the UK. See my various posts above. But you're confusing the formality of the setting with the formality of the language. It is a fact that Britain is not the UK's legal name - it is an abbreviation. And as such, it is informal. Just like it would be if Lizzie started talking about "the UK". Gsd2000 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not call it what it is then (for the vast majority of people anyway!): an abbreviation for the sake of convenience. 'Incorrect' usage has become so prevalent that essentially both the meaning and formality of Britain depend on whatever the speaker or writer intends at the time, and have to be garnered from the context. If 'less formally' is replaced with a neutral term such as 'abbreviated to', then this whole debate about connotations etc can be sidestepped. EyeSerene 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems we're at a POV impasse on formality. In my view, whatever language the Queen uses in prepared speeches at state visits, unless she's specifically quoting someone else's informal usage, counts as formal. Ditto newsreaders, &c. So this is about trying to achieve a balance about points of view on the formality of Britain for the U.K. (The No. 10 source can be cited to support the statement that Britain is used informally at No. 10's website.) Often, at Wikipedia, the way to achieve balance in areas of POV is either to mention the points of view or to be silent on the matter. EyeSerene seems to agree that the formality of Britain as a name for the U.K. is variable with context.

I admit I have a harder time finding Britain as a the U.K. synonym in, say, Acts of Parliament. I find "unofficially" a more generally true qualifier than "informally". Even though it would be stating what's likely to be obvious (that Britain isn't the official name (even though it is part of the official name)), I would accept such a qualifier—as I would accept the qualifier "controversially"—as I would accept the absence of any qualifier.

"abbreviated to" is superfluous: Britain is obviously one of the words in the full name, and obviously shorter than the full name.

President Lethe 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a genuine question: Are you able to find "the UK" in Acts of Parliament? Mucky Duck 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was looking for Britain in some recent (2000s) Acts of Parliament, I didn't look for "the UK". I may look for that later today. You, too, can search; the texts of many Acts are linked from the Wikipedia articles about those Acts, which articles are linked from a Wikipedia list of some Acts. In case my last post was unclear: I wasn't implying that "the U.K." is found in such Acts; in my posts, I use "the U.K." to keep from writing out "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" where I figure others will understand that it's what I mean. Anyway, my search was brief; there may be some recent Acts that do sometimes use Britain for the whole U.K. (last night, when I was searching some of the Queen's recent speeches, I found that not every speech mentioned the U.K. by any name (and, of course, when it was mentioned, there was a mixture of names—though my recollection is that "Britain" was actually more common)). — President Lethe 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The point I am unclear about, though is whether "Britain" is any less formal than is "UK" (or even "United Kingdom"). Your Acts of Parliament comment seemed to suggest that it was (I accept that isn't what you were trying to make but that's the way it appeared) but I don't think this test works. Mucky Duck 18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes --Telex 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a word that is used so generally for different concepts is that it can only be understood by the context it is used in, and that will depend who the audience is as well. Someone determined to find offence (no names in mind!) will be offended by giving the word the worst possible spin, and there will be as many interpretations as people in the audience. I agree that explicitly stating that Britain is an abbreviation, or even used casually or less formally, is superfluous, but nevertheless it does seem to need highlighting. Googling a definition of 'British' comes up with similar results (1. Of or relating to Great Britain or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or relating to the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth of Nations.). Given the fact that this debate arose out of a politically-motivated attempt to change the text, and that agreement seems to be hard to reach, in the absence of a clear consensus can we not leave the text as it stands? EyeSerene 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The voice of reason. I wholeheartedly agree. Mucky Duck 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

archive/moving debates

for the sake of this discussion page, especially people who want to discuss matters unrelated to the first line of the article, I have undertaken a major sub-page/archiving of this page into three separate subsections all linking from Talk:United Kingdom/Terminology. I apologise for any inconvenience caused, but I honestly do not believe it to be fair that this one topic dominates this page in such a way. Furthermore, the length of the page(s) are now much shorter, making it easier to get to the latest changes.

Cheers, DJR (T) 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna move current discussions back to here - I'm not accusing you of anything, but in the past subpages have been operated for certain areas of discussion on this page and users have been accused of attempting to hide talk, in order to ensure that only their own voices were heard. Like I said, I'm sure that's not your intention, but all the same I think we should avoid such a situation again. --Robdurbar 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I'd would suggest that all of the above be archived as soon as some sort of resolution is reached. DJR (T) 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating

Hello everyone, there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location. It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom. If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time. Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

fifth largest GDP?

There is no reference for this claim, and I have heard others. Actually, here are three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 (6th) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 (5th) https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (8th)

There need to at least be one credible reference listed, but even better would be to list both nominal and PPP from two sources.

The media in the UK commonly use the phrase "the worlds's fourth largest economy", which when you inspect it and attempt to get figures turns out to be a puff of hot air - seems like it's probably about tenth or something. I believe this quote first arose from Alistair Campbell, spin doctor for Tony Blair and has been endlessly repeatef like a mantra by New Labour politicians ever since, and our baying mindless kneejerk pathetic "journalists" in London have brainlessly accepted it without checking. The "fifth" thing is just a slight adjustment on "fourth" - I think NL are scared of being found out on the fourth thing as even the laziest journalists on the planet sometimes check a factoid. Jeez, even Belgium probably produces more goods than Britain now. The last sentence is a joke by the way. MarkThomas 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any source that puts the UK tenth (by the way, it's not just goods that count towards GDP - services do too). As for the World Factbook reference above, it lists the UK as 8th, but the world and the EU are 1st and 3rd, and they don't count as countries, so the UK is the 6th placed country by that source. I think we should stick to nominal measures though, since that measures the actual size of the economy. Cordless Larry 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at the 'official exchange rate' GDP figures from the fact book make this easy to explain. Both India and China, who rate higher than the UK in PPP, are lower in official exchange rate, promoting the UK to fourth. So it's more than just 'hot air', but the PPP figure probably better reflects the truth. DJ Clayworth 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the extremely strange - and often non-sensical - world of economics. The problem basically boils down to the fact that it is extremely difficult to compare such statistics between nations. Not only are there many different 'versons' of GDP (nominal & PPP being the most famous), but each country has a different relationship between the public and private sectors, this combined with each countries unique strucuture of public/private debts, foreign ownership and public/private equity structure make any ranking purely "an estimate based purely on criteria X, Y & Z" rather than a 'true' GDP ranking. Canderra 02:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the reference to fifth may come from the World Bank's figures, which can be found here: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20399244~menuPK:1192694~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html Hobson 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Literature section

I propose that the large and randomly expanding list of names in this section should be deleted. The appropriate information can be found via the above links. Viewfinder 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cordless Larry 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also unsure why the removal of Irish writers from this list keeps being reverted. Cordless Larry 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I guess to me that's the whole point - the UK is wider than just England and Englishness. I know obviously that it does not incorporate Ireland or Irishness, but on the other hand, I think the boundaries can be blurred in cultural matters and that very many people would associate Oscar Wilde with Englishness - one only has to think of Lady Bracknell and handbags to have a picture of quintissential Englishness. Swift is perhaps less certain, but I think if you were to ask what country Robinson Crusoe came from most people would say "England" and of course Swift was part of the British Tory govt and in his time Ireland was part of the British Empire for good or ill. So I think you are taking rather a hair-splitting approach to it if you don't mind me saying so. The UK is home to many many international writers and many "English" writers have elements of foreign backgrounds. I am inclined to be relaxed about it. MarkThomas 09:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the words "from the United Kingdom" need to be changed in that case. To me, that suggests born in the UK, whereas I accept that you can be associated with Britain or be British, while still being born elsewhere. Cordless Larry 09:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surely nothing to do with "Englishness" - this is the UK, not England, article; and Wilde was just as much a UK author as was Dickens. I don't believe Ireland was ever "part of the British Empire" - it was part of Britain itself.

Having said all that, the proposal to remove the list (and all such similar lists) altogether makes very good sense. They are always subjective (which the encyclopaedia should strive not to be) and rarely helpful to readers (which it should). Mucky Duck 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have deleted the list. I hope I have done so correctly but correct it if I have not. Unfortunately I am not adequately qualified to make further edits to the literature sections, but I suggest that much of the relevant information is best found in the articles about the constituent countries and does not need to be duplicated in UK articles, although there are those with background from more than one "home" country, who may be hard to categorise. Viewfinder 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This as a strange view; as a user of WP I find such lists incredibly useful and I'm sad to see them go. I realise UK is duplicative of England and so forth but exactly because of the confusions around which page to go to, I think the UK page should cover this ground if only briefly; and it's one of the strongest parts of our cultural heritage. MarkThomas 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is just a mess now - we have big lists of Brit pop stars but not famous authors! What! MarkThomas 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agreed with removing the list, I think we need to replace it with something (preferably prose rather than another list). I've had a look at other country articles and there doesn't seem to be a constistent format for this. The Italy article might provide a good model though. Cordless Larry 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the list again, because the list reinstated by Mark Thomas was almost as long and random as the one I first deleted. I have also moved the comment by Mark Thomas to reflect the fact that it was posted after the move,and themove was made after earlier input from Mark Thomas, which dealt with the Irish inclusion question, not the main point. If further discussion shows up significant support for Mark Thomas's position then so be it, but Mark, please do not reinstate the list before allowing time for further comment. You are in the habit of making controversial edits without talk page discussion, see George Galloway. Perhaps the list of pop stars should be purged also. Viewfinder 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

English Lesson: 'informal' does not address the issue of 'accuracy'

This contrived attempt, of extremely recent vintage, to say that Britain is now merely an "informal" name for the UK does not address in any way, shape or form the issue of precision, of accuracy. The proposers of the motion know it, which of course is why they want to create such a chimera away from the accuracy issue. Equating Britain with the UK is just as wrong in 2006 as it was in 1801, and it was so wrong even in the heart of the British establishment in 1801 that they renamed the British state from Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The conjunction 'and' is, obviously, the key word there. Re-read. And re-read again. And again. Comprenez-vous? An dtuigeann sibh? If wikipedia wants to stand over such an inaccuracy, then it abnegates any right to term itself an encyclopedia on this issue. South Armagh is not in Britain, and it never has been. Have you people been asleep for the past few decades? And it doesn't really matter (in fact, it matters not a whit) if all 58.5 million people over in Britain jumped on screaming that a part of Ireland is in Britain- their nationalism will not change geography. When it comes to writing an encyclopedia, accuracy is everything. The entire wikipedia project is discredited by the triumph of British supranationalism over accuracy on this United Kingdom article. El Gringo 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus, for a second time, was for the opposing view. We've already had this debate twice now, let's move on. Gsd2000 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)