Talk:United Kingdom

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Foremost power, great power, superpower

An anonymous editor is continuously engaged in changing the opener to read that Britain was a superpower during the 19th century (and also that it is now one of "the eight" great powers - both claims unsourced). I have changed the article to read how it used to, which was that Britain was the world's foremost power during this time. I believe it was changed at some point because an editor suggested it was unsourced, so I have also provided a reference. Hopefully "foremost power" negates the need for the contentious use of the term "superpower". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The term superpower wasn't invented until the 1940s. And the UK didn't stay a superpower much beyond the end of WW2. But I think it's accurate to call the UK a Great Power during the time of its Empire. Just needs a source. But it is also often used to describe the UK today due to its combination of economic and military power alongside others including the US, France, Russia and China. Italy and Germany are most often discounted because while their economies are very powerful they don't have much military projection capability. --AJKGordon 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The new term "hyperpower" is now used when talking about the UK in a hisotorical sense, and when talking about the Unites States currently. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it has been used recently in this manner. But it is by no stretch of the imagination a standard term. (Has anyone except Ferguson used it to describe the British Empire?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did! Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The term Great Power is evidently continuing to divide editors; there is clearly no consensus in favour of including this unsourced and peacock term. If a clear majority of editors insist on its inclusion then so be it, but please let us debate the issue and not add it back unless or until such a majority emerges. Viewfinder 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Today, the UK IS a Great Power, really. No longer a Superpower, obviously, but Great Power is the actual correct term here. It describes nations like the UK, France, Russia, China and the US (also a Superpower, but still counted). I think it is a worthwhile inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me Great power is a term looking for a definition. The term definitely had context in the pre WWI and to a lesser extent pre WWII worlds. Is Britain still a great power today? Do great powers still exist? (Other than of course the USA) The Wikipedia article on the subject, which is very poorly referenced, defines a great power as a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale. Does this really apply to Britain? The article does mention Britain as a global power, but does not reference it. I would suggest the use of this term in the article requires a significant contemporary reference. Otherwise it reads like a bit of patriotic puffery. --Michael Johnson 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page FOR Great Power, you can see the criteria, and Britain fills them, including things like a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and other such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not in themselves to be used as references for other Wikipedia articles. And the UK's presence on the Security Council dates from a time when indeed it was a foremost power. The question is would it get a permanent seat today? --Michael Johnson 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would. Being one of the five main nuclear powers, having the second largest defence spending, operating the most aircraft carriers outside of the US (that alone is a trait of global power projection), and having one of the highest economies, GDP etc. It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that, and both the UK and France are Great Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of course it would" - who says so? You? According to the article Great Power, Germany and Italy are considered "middle powers", despite having similar populations, GDP and defence speding to the UK. "It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that", again who says so? Germany has a higher population and GDP and Russia has a higher population and considerably more land and natural resources. Besides which, until an authoritative external source can be found in support of the claim that the UK is today a Great Power, the claim should not be reinstated in the article. Viewfinder 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia's not part of Europe though, strictly speaking. Militarily, France and the UK are more powerful than any other nation in Europe. They are, that's fact. If you want to look at every individual piece of military information on the countries (and you probably will), then you will see that is true. Besides, you can't use the article Great Power, we've established that. Many scholars have said it (particularly from Cambridge University) and you can again spend your time looking them up if you so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your edits using four tildes, as instructed. "They are, that's fact" - no, it's POV. Russia has many more military personnel and considerably more European territory. "Many scholars have said it": before you use that claim to reinstate the claim on Wikipedia, you need to provide verifiable evidence in support of it. Viewfinder 23:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most things are POV. The very idea of powers are POV. See the middle powers. See certain notable exceptions, the five main nuclear states. They therefore have to be great powers. Are you saying the UK is not a power at all? It is, and it is, by definition, a great power. And if you want to see patriotic puffery, look at the United States, it's full of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the UK and France wield more international clout than Germany because of their permanent UN seats and nuclear weapons. I am sure you will have more to contribute to this discussion, but Wikipedia policy demands that you provide reliable sources in support of your claims. And please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: the UK's nuclear, UN and G8 facts are all quite properly mentioned in the lead section. Whether or not they makes the UK a Great Power is a matter which we should leave readers to judge for themselves. We at Wikipedia are about verifiable fact, not the POV opinions of one, a minority or even a majority of editors. Viewfinder 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Currency

on the weblink it say 57% not 55% Against the euro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked that out - if you carry on reading it will say that, if the Government recommended that the UK join the euro, how would you vote? There it clearly shows 30% for, 55% against. The 57% one is if the UK voted now (2005), who would support/not support. 86.142.110.249 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag.

Why is there no flag for Northern Ireland displayed where the other flags are?

Ahsc 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Northern Ireland dosen't have a flag, the Ulster banner was the flag of the Former Government of N Ireland, abolished in 1973, under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.--padraig 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because people with grudges and nothing better to do make it their goal in life to remove the it. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No because WP is about presenting facts, Northern Ireland never had a civic flag, the Ulster Banner was the Banner of the former government abolished 34 years ago.--padraig 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the de facto flag of Northern Ireland. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that it is an de facto flag, as the British Government don't recognise it as such, nor does the Northern Ireland Assembly or its Executive.--padraig 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can prove that it is used a lot to represent Northern Ireland at international events. The British Government doesn't recognise the flag of St George. What does that have to do with the price of fish? Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Its use in some sports event dosent give it de facto status, the flag would need to be used generally by the population of Northern Ireland, which in the case of the Ulster Banner isn't true as only some members of Unionist community use it and the flag is rejected by the nationalist community. Also the infoboxes in this article are for the Administrative authorities in each part of the UK, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive are the parliament and government of the area and neither of these use or recognise this flag, and under British government legisation it cannot even be flown from any government building in Northern Ireland.--padraig 08:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

England doesn't have its own assembly, so by that logic that flag shouldn't be on either? It's not flown from Government buildings in England. Some people may not like a flag, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have de facto status. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Padraig is correct. Scarian^Talk 11:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Padraig has a good point, but it is just as applicable to the other three flags. I believe we should have all four of them or none at all. None is more or less official than the others. --John 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. All or none. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been recurring all over Wikipedia for at least six months. Can I suggest that we move the issue to a formal mediation request rather than arguing on dozens of disparate talk pages? — ras52 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would support. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the flag with a footnote explaining the situation (although please change the wording). I hope this would be an acceptable compromise to both sides. The flag is certainly still in use, so should probably be noted; but is not the official flag and this should definitely be mentioned too. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is not a de facto flag for Northern ireland, it is not recognised by either the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or it government the Northern Ireland Executive.--padraig 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, hows the new one --h2g2bob (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Northern Ireland flags issue.--padraig 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this insistance to remove this flag at all costs, even with a fully-explaining footnote, just shows that those removing it do not actually care about representing encyclopaedic fact! Biofoundationsoflanguage 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's encyclopeadic fact that its not the flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact that it doesn't have *official* status as a flag. Neither does the flag of England, Scotland or many other national flags. You don't recognise Northern Ireland's right to have its own identity (ie, different to Irish and/or British), that is clear. But wikipedia is not the place to push a few people's POV. Biofoundationsoflanguage 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Biofoundationoflanguage, When or where have I ever said that Northern Ireland dosen't exist, I said there is no such nationality as northern Irish which you and others are trying to claim, and I have yet to see a reliable source to support such a claim. But we are not discussing nationality here but the lack of a flag for Northern Ireland. The British government does recognise the existance of the Flags of England, Scotland and Wales, it just dosen't recognise the Ulster Banner.--padraig 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never said there is such a nationality as Northern Irish! Because there isn't. Northern Ireland is not simply either British or Irish. Northern Ireland is separate in the same way England, Wales or Scotland are. Where's your source about what flags the British government recognises? If it really did recognise them, it would give them that 'official status' you keep rambling on about. Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what the British Government says about the Ulster Banner:

Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:

What legislation covers the definition of the form, shape and design, and any rules about the permitted use, of (a) the union flag; (b) the English flag (cross of St George); (c) the Scottish flag(St Andrew's saltire) (d) the Scottish royal lion flag (e) the Welsh flag (dragon); (f) the flag of Northern Ireland. [HL1099]

18 Jan 2007 : Column WA181

Lord Davies of Oldham: (a & b) There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross). There are no rules about the permitted use of the union flag or English flag (cross of St George) on non-government buildings, provided the flag is flown on a single vertical flagstaff and neither the flag nor the flagstaff display any advertisement additional to the design of the flag as explained under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Government departments are restricted to flying flags on 18 fixed days a year in compliance with rules issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which considers it improper to fly the union flag upside down and requires that the flag should not be defaced by text or symbols and should be treated with respect.

(c & d) There is also no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the Royal Arms of Scotland (here referred to as The Scottish royal lion flag) or the St Andrew's cross, but the design is firmly specified in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. The Royal Arms of Scotland can only be used by the Sovereign or Her Great Lieutenants when acting in their official capacity. The Scottish flag(St Andrew's cross) may be flown by Scots and to represent Scotland on all occasions; however, under The Act of Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, cap. 47 individuals may not deface the flag by placing a symbol on top of the flag or use it in such a way that suggests it is his/her personal property.

(e) There is no specific legislation about the Welsh flag design or rules about permitted use.

(f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.

For all flags, consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which requires flags to be treated with respect, not to be defaced by text or symbols or flown upside down. [1]

So ask you can see the British government recognises the flags of England, Scotland and Wales, it just dosen't legislate on there use, contrast that to the answer on Northern Ireland were the Ulster Banner is not even mentioned and it is stated the Union Flag is the only flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now c'mon guys you really gotta just sort this out, I don't think this - discussion (of sorts)- has led to any clear cut consensus... Thus, I believe, it would be more advantageous if the disagreement was mediated as per Ras52's suggestion. Thoughts? Scarian^Talk 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Official long name

This may sound like a silly question but I'll ask it all the same. Is it: 1) The (United Kingdom of Great Britain) AND (Northern Ireland); or 2) The United Kingdom of (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)? While these are the same in English there is subtle difference in meaning that can make a difference when translated into other languages. I'm thinking about Icelandic here and whether the Northern Ireland part should be in the nominative case (as in example 1) or the genitive case (as in example 2). Does anyone get what I'm trying to ask here? :) --Bjarki 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I get your point :). It's (2). The United Kingdom was created when The Kingdom of Great Britain was united with Ireland in 1801. -- Arwel (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Then we've got it right already. :) --Bjarki 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long

The current article is 121KB long. Anyone who doubts that this is too high should check out WP:SIZE. Apart from being less readable, long articles are more subject to annoying server lag. I have halved the size of the climate section. and suggest that we should try to halve the size of most of the other sections. (Sorry about the date link removals, I was not aware of the preferences issue).

There is a pervasive quantity of detail that belongs in subsidiary articles. The main problem seems to be the addition of good faith material which, although correct, is not always properly blended in. This creates unstructured prose which is fuelling criticism of Wikipedia by academics and damaging its reputation. For a clear example of this, see United_Kingdom#Christianity; the first part of paragraph two has been randomly inserted. I don't think that this is good English: Economically costly wartime loans, loans taken in 1945 from the United States and from Canada, combined with post-war Marshall Plan aid from the United States started the United Kingdom on the road to recovery.

Lists that have been lengthened by random additions do not make good prose. This, from the science section, looks ridiculous: (The UK) has produced innumerable scholars, scientists and engineers including Sir Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, Adam Smith (ed: he was a writer and philospher, not a scientist), James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Sir Humphry Davy, Joseph John Thomson, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, Alexander Fleming, Francis Crick and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Most of these belong on formal list subsections; two or three prime examples is enough for prose.

Before making further edits, I will await comment from other editors. Viewfinder 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Just a brief reading shows many sections could be tightened up, and less critical information moved to daughter articles. --Michael Johnson 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you commented on is exactly what I noticed when reading this article. Excellent idea - 121KB is pushing it, even for a country article. Rossenglish 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be made a bit smaller. The United States article is bigger, so I suppose lots of countries are gonna have their articles shortened now, so they're all equal.. File:Jacks personal flag2.png Jackrm (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2007

Is there not an article which has a list of the famous scientists (writers, engineers, economists, philosophers, etc...)from the UK?

See also: list of famous inventors from the UK and list of famous scientists from the UK

Londium 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the US article, the majority view seems to be that it is too long. Also, the US article seems to be better structured, with fewer randomly inserted edits, randomly evolving prose lists and obvious duplication of material. Articles about other countries are shorter. I estimated the UK article's prose size (see WP:SIZE again) and it is about 65KB, which puts it in the "probably too long" category. Imo a prose size of about 40-50KB would be about right for this article. Further to what I have already cut, the Inventions and Science sections appear to be candidates for merger and rationalisation, and the education section could also be rationalised. Viewfinder 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear all I have a suggestion in regards to the length of the article. I think it would be more appropriate for this article to be less content heavy and have more wikilinks placed on this article linking to information on other more specific articles on the UK. An example would be the history section which we all know could be the size of an encyclopaedia in its self! For the history section a brief mention about the tribes of Briton before the Roman invasions plus a brief mention of the incorporation of kingdoms into one i.e the the establishment of a united England with the later incorporations of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Then a brief bit about the British Empire. Then a brief section on recent modern history should suffice. It doesn't have to be done in that way at all but I suggest linking like my example below should be used. In short keep the sections short and concise and link to the more indepth articles. Also there is a box with most UK history aspects on it. Why doesnt someone add this to the main article?

Main articles: Timeline of British history, Prehistoric Britain, Early history of Ireland, British Iron Age, and Roman Britain

Why dont you guys place this on the article?

Londium 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List of poets

The list of poets in the literature section was too long, I trimmed it from 19 to 4. Maybe I picked the wrong ones but I hope editors will not re-lengthen this list, at least not without contributing some sort of structure. Viewfinder 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sport

In Para 12 it states: "World famous horse races include the Grand National, the Epsom Derby and Royal Ascot".

I'm no expert, but I thought Royal Ascot was a meeting.84.130.246.201 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right, Royal Ascot is the name of a horse-race meeting (comprising of numerous horse races over the duration) and not the name of a specific individual race. Ergo, the Grand National (or John Smith's Grand National as it is currently called) is a race held at a meeting that takes place at Aintree; the Gold Cup is a race which takes place during Royal Ascot and so on. Mtoreilly 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Popular Music

In accordance with the need to cut the article length per WP:SIZE, I am substantially cutting the length of material about pop music. Imo this has been evolving into inner city bill sticker material. If anyone wants to read more about UK pop then I recommend the daughter articles, which have fewer random authors and are better structured. Viewfinder 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Official Languages

The infobox states that English is the official language of the UK. While this is is true, Welsh is an official language in Wales. This should be made clearer.Valiant Son 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is English really an official language? Aaker 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically it isn't, no. There is no legal standing for the English language. However, it is a de facto language as the article states. The language is officially required to be taught in all state schools.Valiant Son 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then it was as I thought. Aaker 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

However, [2] seems to disagree with some of your comments. This site, which I believe should be considered authoratative as it is a British Government site clearly states:

English is the official language of the United Kingdom and that The Welsh Language Act 1993 establishes in law the equality of the Welsh and English languages in Wales. It places an obligation on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales. There is also info on Gaelic on the page.

So, I think there is a legal standing for the english Language and also one for Welsh in Wales. Helps? Candy 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the act of parliament which made English the official language of the United Kingdom? I'd be very surprised if you could because there isn't one! English is the de facto language of the state as it is the language in which legal and parliamentary proceedings occur, as well as being the common laguage of all native populations and the requisite language for teaching in all state schools (In Wales schools may teach in the medium of Welsh and must teach Welsh as a language, but must also teach the English language). However, it has no standing as an official language in law, unlike Welsh. You could, if you so chose, stand for election in England and not print any of your election materials in English. The same could not happen in a country where there is a legaly defined official language. A government website saying something does not make it the legal situation. To assert otherwise is to misrepresent (or misunderstand) the difference between executive and legislature.Valiant Son 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion below at Official Languages II. GoodDay 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Names of the Country

The name of the country is not abbreviated to Britain. Britain is very specifically the union of England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland is not, and never has been, part of Britain. That's the very reason why the official name of the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is a link to usage of the term Britain, but the initial statement is factually incorrect.

• But if you look at this [3] you will see that the Guardian says otherwise and a citation to that effect can be found by following the links in the article. Abtract 05:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is not the repository of truth! It is a newspaper that can be just as wrong as any other. Britain is the short form of Great Britain. Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland, which is not in Britain. Some of the population of Northern Ireland are British, but equally a lot of them are Irish. Northern Ireland is, as the name suggests, in Ireland. My point stands. Valiant Son 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. This point has been done to death. How can any people born in Northern Ireland be British if it isn't part of Britain? Some people in Great Britain don't consider themselves British either, does this mean Britain doesn't exist? I've seen no official documentation that Britain is shorthand for Great Britain. Britain is merely a nickname, and it widest use is shorthand for the U.K. Britain can be short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just as it can Great Britain. Marky-Son 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness is only surpassed by your ignorance! Being born in a country is not the defining factor in nationality. Furthermore your complete ignoring of the difficult issues of nationality in the province of Northern Ireland suggests that, assuming you are British, you have been ignoring the news for the last century! Ask anybody from the nationalist community what their nationality is and they will tell you that they are Irish, while those from the loyalist community will tell you that they are British. The two are perfectly acceptable answers depending upon identity. National identity is an extremely complex issue, but the feo-political situation of Northern Ireland is not. The Treaty of 1922 is pretty clear as is the consitutional origins of British control in the whole of Ireland. Ireland was not part of Britain - EVER! Ireland was a separate kingdom from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Acts of Union had combined both the crowns and the governance of England, Scotland and Wales, but never Ireland.

As to your comments about no official documentation referring to Britain as a short form of Great Britain that would be because countries don't issue documents saying, "This is the short version of our name." The idea is, frankly, ridiculous. UK is not the "official" short name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and neither is the United Kingdom! All of these names are colloquial and have no legal position. However, you cannot reasonably use the name Britain to describe the United Kingdom because it is WRONG! Britain refers to England, Scotland and Wales and not any part of Ireland whatsoever. It can only be used, "as shorthand" by those who are ignorant of the political and historical situations of the two countries. You might not have noticed, but there has been an armed struggle over this issue for rather a long time. Your apparent disregard for this does not change the facts. Valiant Son 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's wrong because of what? Oh yes, your (not so humble) opinion. Your reason for not calling the U.K., Britain, because it's WRONG. Wow, you've really thought that one through. The Prime Minister calls this country Britain, I'm sure he knows a lot more about these matters than you. Many generations have called this country Britain, now political correctness dictates they're wrong. All you're doing is bringing up irrelevant information about Northern Ireland. You've avoided the fact that English, Scottish and Welsh nationalists also don't regard themselves as British. The "facts" are already clear to see on Wikipedia, nothing you've said hasn't already been said before so there's no need to change anything. The way I see it, you're calling Northern Irish loyalists WRONG for regarding themselves as British. If your facts have no grounding, I don't know what you expect to achieve. Marky-Son 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I'll add to that, I've never heard of anyone speaking of Britain and meaning Great Britain. See [[4]] for more details. Marky-Son 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm. I've gotten used to that kind of immaturity previous to your dalliance with it. Despite your assertion to the contrary I actually explained why Britain is not an alternative for the United Kingdom. If you can't identify that then it's your problem not mine.

The Prime Minister calls what Britain? He refers to Britain frequently, but how do you know whether he is talking about the United Kingdom or Great Britain. Even if he is talking about the former does not make him right. He is Prime Minister because he is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. There is no requirement for holders of the office to have constitutional expertise. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. On the other hand I hold a degree in History and my subsidiary subject was in Politics, including the constitution of the United Kingdom. Therefore I have verifiable qualifications in this area so don't try and suggest that I know nothing.

Irrelevant information about Northern Ireland? Have you been drinking the Kool-aid? The issue of Northern Ireland is fundamental to the issue. I have presented an outline of the situation within the province. You haven't addressed that point in any way, shape or form. I have avoided nothing about what nationalists from other parts of the United Kingdom believe. The issue is however irrelevant because there is a different constitutional and historical position in those nations. BTW you'd be hard pressed to find an English person who did not consider themselves British (the two terms have erroneously become synonymous).

Wikipedia is a living project. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that is wrong. That's why people edit. You seem willing to accept what you read at face value. Not the best critical skills I've seen.

They "way [you] see it" is wrong then! If you could be bothered (or were able to comprehend perhaps?) what I had previously written, then you would notice that I actually said both nationalities were valid. Here, I'll quote it for you verbatim, "Some of the population of Northern Ireland are British, but equally a lot of them are Irish.". Do try and actually read things before you pass comment on them. With a following wind it might help with your studies.

Here's a gem from you, "If your facts have no grounding, I don't know what you expect to achieve." What in the name of God is this supposed to mean. It bears no relation to the previous sentence. You ought to learn a little about how to construct paragraphs and then how to construct arguments. So far you appear to be unable to do either. You haven't proved your point because you haven't argued a case. You have come across as rather petulant however.

You made this a personal attack.Valiant Son 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Britain" is not the official short form but it is widely used and understood. For example, from number10.gov.uk: "On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." From the Oxford dictionary: "... now also used for the British state or empire as a whole." This is not new, even while all of Ireland was part of the UK the state was widely called Great Britain e.g. during WW1. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Valiant Son. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I don't have to prove my as the article is on my side, other people have already proven my point in the past. You're the one with something to prove, and you've done nothing of the sort. There are a lot of things wrong on Wikipedia, but those things are mainly on the minor articles. I really couldn't give a toss if you think I'm petulant, rude, ignorant, etc. Oh, but I'M the one that made this a personal attack, boo hoo. You must say the same thing to anyone that disagrees with your (unfounded) opinions. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a political agenda. Still, you avoid the subject of Scottish nationalists and the like. I wouldn't be hard-pressed to find an English person who doesn't consider themself British, at all, and how many of them there are doesn't matter. Ireland was never part of Great Britain, but it was part of Britain, and Northern Ireland still is, get over it. Marky-Son 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no point discussing things with people like you. You are small minded and offensive. It's sad that at the age of 19 you still haven't grown out of your juvenile ways. I can't be bothered continuing as you blithely ignore everything put in front of you. You know nothing of what you speak and you don't attempt to argue the point in any kind of substabtiated manner. By the way, I do hope, for your sake, that the university course you're doing doesn't involve any kind of critical argument work. Then again it is a poly so it probably doesn't matter. Valiant Son 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marky-son. The official name (in the UN) of the country is United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. "Ireland was never part of Great Britain, but it was part of Britain" How can that be? I just wonder how Northern Ireland cannot be part of the long name, but be part of the short version of the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.26.61 (talk) 09:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Religion

In the religion section, it says that only 38% of the population belive in a God, then it says 53% of the population is Christian.

How can only 38% belive in a God and 53% be Christian?

There's a mistake there.Opinoso 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article also points out that "for cultural reasons, some non believers still identify themselves with a religion". All the claims are cited. Viewfinder 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"National" Anthem

I notice that throughout this article, "God Save the King" is mentioned as the National Anthem. But, to my knowledge, the UK does not have an official national anthem. "God Save the King" is the official Royal Anthem, and is used in place of a national anthem.

I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.

I've noticed someone with nothing better to do has changed the national anthem from 'God save the Queen' to a distasteful joke. I would rectify this but I can't find what to edit in the editor. The problem is in the fact box on the right of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.128.187 (talk) 15:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed it too but I can't fix it either... Solidus469 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. You can edit the page and rollback to a previous edition. Check out the vandalism pages for wikipedia, and join the crowd in protecting this from the vandals. docboat 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, God Save the King/Queen is the National Anthem in the United Kingdom and commonly referred to as such. --Breadandcheese 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

<Flag> United Kingdom

Is there any reason the above has suddenly popped up all over the article, even in places it doesn't make sense - like suggesting the land mass of the United Kingdom and not its population was opposed to the Euro? RHB - Talk 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see here, WP:FLAG, it is general consensus that flag icons should not be used in general article prose; thus, the the flag icons in this article probably should be removed. Britney-Boy 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them (there were even a couple of flags in the references!) Bluap 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned article

I just ran across Social effects of United States military forces based in the United Kingdom and don't have the slightest idea what to do with it. Any ideas would be appreciated. 24.6.65.83 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good material, but I think that most of it belongs in the daughter article. Would anyone object if I left a summary, and a "see also" link to re-parent the daughter article, whose name should perhaps be shortened.

Why mention Head of the Commonwealth...

This article is about the United Kingdom not Elizabeth II (we have an article called Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which mentions Head of the Commonwealth). PS- the 'Head of Commonwealth' isn't mentioned this way at Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc. GoodDay 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a raging monarchist or Anglocentric, but I do think that that statement helps in providing context to the reader. Afterall, Elizabeth II is verifiably Head of the Commonwealth, and the UK is not only where she resides and is broadly indigenous, but the UK is the traditional centre of the Commonwealth too. I think that's why it's probably appropriate here and not, say, Jamaica. Jza84 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But this article is about the 'country', not the 'monarchy' or the 'monarch'. GoodDay 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are somewhat interlinked. Jza84 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. However, I've no intentions of 'omiting' the entry. Anyways, thanks for responding. GoodDay 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with GoodDay here, and I also question why it's mentioned that the British Monarch is also head of state of other countries, esp. in the article lead. EIIR's role as, say, Monarch of Jamaica, has little to nothing to do with the United Kingdom itself. --G2bambino 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It does have a good deal to do with the UK's role as a colonial power. Having said that it possibly should be in the history section, rather than the lead. --Michael Johnson 06:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat of a product of the UK's former colonial power, but that's not to say EIIR is monarch of those other countries by force or mere happenstance. But, yes, it is the location of this "information" that's the most glaring anomoly. Actual wording can be worked out once it's decided if and where it should be moved to. --G2bambino 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat" seems somewhat understated. EIIR is only monarch of these countries because of Britain's role as their colonial masters. I am yet to come across any nation that adopted EIIR as monarch without being a former colony. As an "effect" of Britain's colonial history (and one of the the most enduring) it deserves to be noted, but as we are all agreed in the History section. --Michael Johnson 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the case because the present countries under EIIR, besides the UK, chose by their own free will to enter into a personal union relationship upon becoming fully independent states; each made the monarch who was previously their "colonial ruler" the monarch of their country, fully separately from that same person's position as Monarch of the UK. Thus, yes, there's a lineage there, but to imply the current personal union amongst the Realms is some kind of colonial hangover is quite mistaken.

Regardless, I do think the history section is a better place to mention such details. --G2bambino 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to agree with that. I think any other encyclopedia would mention this type of infomation within this framework as part of an article about the UK however, so yes I would urge it to be mentioned somewhere within the text. Jza84 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Official Languages II

English? of course. Welsh? and for that matter Scottish? Irish? what's the view on this subject? GoodDay 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's pretty clear ... English allover, with English and Welsh in Wales only, that's it. Abtract 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soo for the United Kingdom (as a whole) it's English (only)? GoodDay 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No there are two official languages, but one is applicable in Wales only. Abtract 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But what about Scottish and Irish (Scotland and Northern Ireland are a part of the UK)? GoodDay 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't official languages. Marky-Son 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Abtract 09:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one official language: English. This has been discussed ad infinitum before. Whilst there is no statutory definition of an official language passed by the British Parliament, there are definitions used by the European Union. Under these, Welsh is NOT an official language. See this decision, etc. Or alternatively, just read the past debates. Bastin 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense too. Holy smokes, now I'm really confused -- perhaps 'English & Welsh' belongs only in England and Wales, I don't know anymore. GoodDay 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since Welsh is recognised, even by the EU, to be a language of equal status to English and English is as official a language as you are likely to get, then Welsh is also the official language in wales. This was clearly the intention of the Welsh Language Act [5] Abtract 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about the United Kingdom. GoodDay 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and Wales is a significant part of the UK ... I have said all I intend to on this subject. Abtract 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Scotland & Northern Ireland. English is the lone 'Official Language' of the 'whole' United Kingdom. Please respect that fact (and don't edit war). GoodDay 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been battled to and throw so many times before its getting unreal. In wales the official language is english AND welsh, that seems pretty straight forward. But this isn't the article on wales, we must remember this is the UK we're talking about. Heres a thought arguement, something to consider, there are roughly 3 million people in wales right? well estimates suggest there are between 1 and 3 million indians and pakistanis in the UK... does that make punjabi or hindi an official language of the UK? no, it doesn't. Therefore the arguement that wales is a large part of the UK becomes redundant. Equally, it has been suggested that in wales it would be extremely unusual (if even possible) that anyone speaks welsh but not english... so in effect english IS the de facto language of the UK as everyone speaks english but not everyone speaks welsh and not all legal documents are available in welsh but all legal documents (even those affectign just wales) must still also be in english.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, an end to this dispute. As WiProlific said, this article is about the whole nation. GoodDay 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Where's this 'agreement' to include 'Welsh' (it's not in the above Official Languages discussion)? The Official Language of the United Kingdom (the entire country, the national level) is English (only). Welsh is 'correctly' mentioned at Wales, like Gaelic is mentioned at Scotland, Irish is mentioned at Northern Ireland & English is mentioned at England. GoodDay 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, we all agree that Welsh is one of two 'official' languages in Wales and that elsewhere in the UK only English is 'official' yet this should not be mentioned at the relevant place in the info box because the article is 'about the whole nation'. If this was so then presumably we should all be out there cutting out the many references to parts of the UK. This really is a nonsense ... Welsh has special status as is well known, a status not afforded (rightly or wrongly) to Punjabi etc ... this should be made clear at the outset. Abtract 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Level (ie the UK) - English is the whole nation's official language; Secondary Level - Welsh/English in Wales, Gaelic/Scottish/English in Scotland, Irish/Ulster Scottish/English in Northern Ireland & English in England. That's the way it is. GoodDay 20:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But only Welsh has official status and thus it should be mentioned in the info box. There are many mentions of facts which concern only one or more parts of the UK; Welsh is important and should be included at the appropriate place. Abtract 20:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion would have Welsh as the official language in -England, Scotland & Northern Ireland, aswell. GoodDay 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The suggestion that the entire article can have no facts about parts of the UK is absurd. However, that's not what has been said. The purpose of the infobox fields is to provide quick information that is applicable to the UK in its entirety. The field 'largest city' doesn't state "London, except in Wales, where the largest city is Cardiff". That would be ridiculous, yet is effectively what you are suggesting should happen with language.

There are two correct places to note that Welsh is a language of equal standing to English in Wales. The first is in the body of the article. The second is as a footnote in the infobox. Since both of these options have been taken, it's actually being given all the prominence that it can really be afforded. Bastin 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At last a reasoned response. Abtract 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more like it, the footnote also explains that Gaelic is equal with English in Scotland & Irish is equal with English in Northern Ireland. It's good to see the UK's four sections treaded equally. GoodDay 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to check the 'history' of the article, to find out who removed the Official Languages from the Infobox. However, it's the best move (removing a 'lightning rod'). GoodDay 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some extremely important legal documents pertaining to the United Kingdom are written in Norman French, Gaelic, Welsh, and all kinds of odd languages that existed long before the current most popular language. Moreover in the UK it's quite normal for local and central government to go to great efforts to improve the enfranchisement of the whole community by consulting people in their own tongue: obviously you cannot conduct a proper population census if you just walk away when the person who answers the door doesn't speak a language you, personally, happen to understand, so you show them a chart containing written languages and ask them t point, and the next week a specialist in the chosen language visits the household.

There are perhaps some rules that pertain in the courts and legislatures, which will vary from place to place: an Irish MP could probably not give a speech in Irish at Westminster but in Stormont the same person, as a delegate to the Northen Irish assembly, might legitimately refuse to give it in any other language. A parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Sparkbrook would be foolish not to distribute at least some election literature in Urdu. If you're running for MP in the Western Isles, your choice of whether or not to publish your literature in English as well as Gaelic might affect your chance of election. We don't really have any "official" British language. --Tony Sidaway

In the absence of consensus here, I have added a phrase including other languages. Abtract 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There's already a footnote about the regional and minority languages, and their use is mentioned in the body of the article. To mention them, and, even more laughably, languages used in migrant communities, as OFFICIAL languages of the United Kingdom is absurd, POV, and runs counter to the consensus that has been reached time and time again before. Bastin 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but how do I remove the word "official"? As you will see I have removed it by edit but it still appears in the box.I'm not sure where you see consensus, as all the above comments come at it from a different angle, which is why I put the phrase in that covers all languages and seems to me to be quite helpfully indicative of the actual situation on the ground rather than fiddling around with what is or isnt "official" ... indeed "de facto" as a previous version had it Abtract 14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove the word 'official', because it's an infobox. It's supposed to name the official language(s) of a country. In this case, the official language of the United Kingdom is English, so that ought to be stated. The use of Urdu in the election literature of Sparkbrook, Bangla on the streets of Bow, or Polish in the pages of the Polska Gazeta are a million miles away from what the purpose of this infobox field is. It is to display the official language of the United Kingdom - not unofficial languages, not in one part of the United Kingdom - and that's English and English alone.

The consensus is in previous discussions, most notably Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 7#Three official languages and Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 5#Official languages. If there's not one here, you should abide by the decisions of the previous consensus, i.e. that only English should be stated, but that a footnote should explain the position of the officially-recognised Regional and Minority Languages. Bastin 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree in two counts, first info boxes are for imparting info and the complex language situation in the UK deserves an airing at this early stage in the article (IMHO). Second, past consensus does not set a ruling for ever, new ideas, new thoughts can produce a new consensus. I am seeking a new consensus around my inserted phrase which takes a distillation of the above discussion. Abtract 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the field for 'official languages' isn't for unofficial languages, surprisingly enough. It is not to reflect your interpretation of the language situation, but the fact of what the official language is: English. The language situation in the UK is no more complicated than in other European countries in having minority immigrant communities. For a cue, look at France, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. Despite having proportionately larger immigrant communities than the UK, they don't mention Arabic, Serbo-Croat, or Urdu in the infobox, since they aren't official languages. Why are you insisting on doing that here? If you can find an academic that has stated "Polish is effectively an official language of the United Kingdom", you can do that. Otherwise, be sensible and follow what the field says: "Official language = ..."

You fundamentally misunderstand the process of consensus-building. Above, you state 'I'm not sure where you see consensus, as all the above comments come at it from a different angle', hence you recognise there's no consensus formed in this discussion. If you disagree with the current consensus, you have to find a new one on the talk page. You cannot do it by just writing whatever you want and demanding that no-one change it because consensus doesn't exist, because there was never consensus to make your change. See WP:CONS for the flowchart. Two users have rejected your revision, so you have no right to force it through. Bastin 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am demanding anything, I am simply trying to make the info box more informative; there are several indigenous minority languages with official status and several immigrant minority languages with "de facto" status - I believe this needs to be mentioned in the info box. Who is the other editor who rejected my most recent edit? You might like to consider whether you use the revert tool a little too readily - it should be used mainly to counter vandalism. A more polite way might be to build on previous edits to produce a more rounded article.Abtract 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the fields in the infobox template ... I should have looked earlier. Regional languages are catered for and I have input welsh and gaelic. Abtract 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that (the current version) is what I call 'a compromise', Well done folks. GoodDay 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit of a discussion on the Scotland article regarding these Recognised Regional Languages. A briefing note from the Scottish Executive sums it up nicely. I have added Scots, Ulster Scots and Cornish to the info box. I have not included Manx Gaelic as although the U.K. Govt. has included it, the responsibilities for the implementation of associated policies fall to the IOM Govt. and outwith the realms of this article. Rab-k 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

At present the religion section states that "the Church of England ... acts as the 'mother' and senior branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion" and that "The Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion ... it is not a 'daughter church' of the Church of England". Which is correct? Greenshed 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is so much a contradiction in as much as its a poorly sequenced sentence. Heres the score: The anglican communion is a worldwide organisation of anglican churches, the 'head' of these organisations is the chuch of england. The Scottish Episcopal Church is a member of the anglican communion but not as a branch of the church of england but rather as a church in its own right. So, despite being in full communion with the church of england the Scottish Episcopal Church had its own history and origins. It did not sprout or break away from the church of england. That at least is my understanding of it, I dont really see a contradiction in that sentence, just its not hugely clear? I think tagging the article as contradictory may have been a slightly big step for such a small phrase. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although, I'm not going to, I wouldn't deeply object if you removed the contradict notice - although it would be better if we had a "sect-contradict" template - a bit like the sect-stub one. As regards the issue, I still think that "This article appears to contradict itself". It might be that a CofE editor wrote the first part and a SEC editor wrote the second part. Anyway, I fail to see how the CofE can be a "mother" to the SEC without the SEC being a "daughter" to the CofE. Perhaps it would be better to remove the mother / daughter terminology unless it can be cited. Greenshed 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think your right, best to remove the whole mother daugter thing altogether. The same thing has also been said on the SEC article so that needs cleaning to. I'm not really bothered enough to check the edit histories but i'm sure your right, this is almost certainly a later addition by a SEC supporting editor, keen to distance the organisation from the CofE as it reads through like an after thought. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother daugter stuff removed. Greenshed 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The map

The map is currently Image:Uk-map.svg

Not one single city in Yorkshire is shown, there are apparently no towns in East Anglia at all, The Wash goes unmarked, yet somehow Portsmouth and Southampton are both marked clearly. Hull also exercises an odd fascination over the cartographer. Very strange. --Tony Sidaway

There's nothing from Lancashire, Cumbria, Gloustershire, Leicestershire, Rutland, north Wales, or many other places, but I really don't think there needs to be. It's not going to have everybody's city/town listed - it's rather like BBC weather national forcasts, which shows (from memory) nothing between Birmingham and Newcastle. It doesn't mean they're not there. I think its a good map. Jza84 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hull's in Yorkshire, isn't it?--Elfbadger 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Middlesbrough josh (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It leaves a lot to be desired graphically and has massive discrepencies in labelling, like including both portsmouth and southampton (which are practically the same place) but not bournemouth or brighton. Virtually no cities in middle england including Leicester, the 10th largest city in the UK and the larget in middle england! I think the best way to do this is to choose an arbitrary number of cities that will fit on the map (maybe around 15-20) and then mark them on according to size. So only the top 15-30 sized towns are marked, then maybe just one or two extra labels for places like dover which are not nessessarily very big but are of importance for transport/historic links. Font size of the labels is massively to big in my opinion. I generally dont like the diagram as I think its been drawn quickly with not enough detail. The coastal outlines are sketchy at best and not very accurate to the true geography of the UK. Its more of a general diagram than a real map. I dont like the marking of the channel tunnel in a solid line, its very suggestive of more than just a tunnel and not a proper cartographic convention. England, scotland and wales are labelled but its not clear what exactly they each refer to (I know its obvious to the British but not nessessarily to say an american). Why a mountain is marked on it but the 10th largest city isn't beats me. Isle of mann is noted but the isle of wight isn't... the list is endless. Personally i'd just start from scratch and redraw the whole thing. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Channel Tunnel's shown on the wrong side of Dover, anyway... -- Arwel (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience in drawing maps for Wikipedia. I may be able to aid in a redraw, but I'd like some consensus on what should, and shouldn't be included. Jza84 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a go a while back and came up with Image:Uk-map-edited.jpg. My editing wasn't that good, but it shows my opinion of what should be included. Rednaxela 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a good place to start would be to use the top dozen or so cities on List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. The four constituent country capitals should definitely be on there too. Rossenglish 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say as general criteria:

The image should ideally be SVG but theres no point using SVG if we arent going to draw the coast very accurately so if thats the case stick to a raster format, ideally png. I'd suggest labelling the following. Watch out for the list of cities by size as some are erroneous. For example brighton is listed at 51st as its counting just the town of brighton, not hove, saltdean, rottingdean etc. whilst stoke-on-trent is counted as 16th because it includes suburban areas well outside the city. The following are based on size or importance, those of importance have their reason in brackets. Suggestions anyone?

• London
• Birmingham
• Glasgow
• Liverpool
• Leeds
• Sheffield
• Edinburgh
• Bristol
• Manchester
• Leicester
• Cardiff (Welsh captial)
• Belfast (N.I. Captial)
• Truro (major cornish city)
• Brighton (larger than the statistic suggests as its really Brighton & Hove, eastbourne etc.)
• Portsmouth/Southampton (effectively the same place, i'd choose one or the other and mark it)
• Bournemouth (major south coast city)
• Nottingham (major middlands area)
• Reading (major south east region with a large suburban sprawl between reading and guildford, e.g. fleet, farnborough, camberley etc.)
• Guildford (major south east area same reason as above)
• Dover (important travel hub --> channel tunnel)

I'm pretty sure these should all fit on the map, if space is tight some of the less important ones could be removed? E.g. Glasgow (after all edinburg just down the road is marked) or Reading if guildford is marked. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can do this (including SVG format), it'll be nicely vectorised too, but it will take me a little bit of time mind. I have a backlog of maps to produce but will make this a priority! Nudge me if it's not ready within 7 to 10 days. Jza84 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with the list. I would say though that if the Chunnel isn't marked than Dover could possibly be omitted as it is only a small town (30,000 people), unless there is room for it, then by all means include it as it is justified for its importance. If space is tight than I agree that minor ones could be removed. Rossenglish 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some very odd suggestions above - especially Truro (approx pop. 20,000) and Guildford (approx pop. 66,000). WikipedianProlific suggests that the ONS data is "erroneous" because Brighton is really some other towns as well as Brighton, whilst other, larger towns (such as Stoke-on-Trent) don't count simply because the borough boundaries are drawn more narrowly. The area of Stoke-on-Trent that's outside the borough is only really Blythe Bridge, which is functionally part of the city anyway. The largest 20 cities in the UK as at List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population should be used. That will prevent arguments over which city is "more important" than another, whether Dover is more important than Folkestone and the like. It will also ensure that large boroughs that are agglomerations of towns such as Kirklees, East Riding of Yorkshire, Wakefield or Wigan (all of which are much larger than Brighton & Hove) don't end up on the map.

The only issue is that I think that Bradford won't fit on the map - as it is surrounded by Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, a label would be difficult to fit on. In which case, Reading (21st) should make it on there and so on for the next awkward city. Alternatively, a case could be made for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as it is the only one of the English Core Cities group not to make it in the population listings. Either way, it should be based on fact, not any POV regarding "importance". Fingerpuppet 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When we talked about what would go on instead at the start of the discussion we did note that size isn't everything, that some places like dover have a big logisitical, tourist, economic, regional etc. role where as say somewhere like bradford isn't so much so. I do agree we should use the list but only as a rough guide, because its hugely subjective (the list is just as POV as our ideas on importance) as its based depending on how strict the boundaries of the city are. In some places its just wrong. Stoke for example is basically counting the entire borough and then some, when in reality stoke is actually more like a set of medium sized towns which have grown to meet each others borders. Then its counting Brighton as a lone city, which it isn't. There is a city of Brighton & Hove (note the ampersand) but not just Brighton. Truro is important in my opinion as the capital and only city in cornwall. Its also the smallest city in the UK I think (plus theres nothing else in that region so a label can be slipped in easily). St. Austell is a town which is actually bigger than truro in cornwall but truro has many of the regions medical/police/administrative HQs. Just some thoughts. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Being the capital of a county does not make a city/town important. Plymouth is the largest and most important city in the area. St David's is the smallest city in the UK. josh (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:WikipedianProlific is complaining about Stoke-on-Trent not being a single city, whilst "Brighton" is "really Brighton and a load of other towns". Let's look at the facts:

• The local authority of Stoke-on-Trent was created as a federation of towns in 1910. It is part of a conurbation along with other towns such Newcastle under Lyme.
• The local authority of Brighton & Hove was created as a federation of towns in 1997. Its consitutent towns are part of a conurbation along with other towns such as Littlehampton.

User:WikipedianProlific's arguments for the one city and against the other are inconsistent. The list given is not subjective, nor POV as it is published by the Office for National Statistics and measures Urban Areas, not local authorities.

Local authorities are not the same as towns and cities, otherwise the map would need to mark places like "East Riding of Yorkshire", "MB of Wigan" and "City of Wakefield". If User:WikipedianProlific insists that Stoke-on-Trent is simply a collection of towns (despite almost 100 years of history suggesting otherwise), then I must insist that consistency is maintained and that the local authority of Brighton & Hove (which has a history stretching back only 10 years) is also a collection of towns. I would also be interested in User:WikipedianProlific's views on whether Sandwell, Kirkless, Trafford and Tameside are a single town. Fingerpuppet 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should Cornwall get special treatment? Swansea, Aberdeen, Hull and Middlesbrough are all much bigger and important regional centres. Besides, Plymouth is the centre of employment and entertainment for most people in Cornwall anyway. Marky-Son 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer, people are approaching this with the NPOV they would bring to an article, but its a map not an article! Practically is an issue and we have plenty of room for a label in the cornwall region of the map as there is very little down there, labels for wolverhampton, birmingham, coventry and nottingham though are all in an area potentially packed with labels and so we will have to reduce how many we use. I appreciate people are now arguing the basis of the statistics, what i'm saying is the literal size of cities does not confer any real importance or meaning on a map. Some cities are of strategic, historic, administrative, economic or logistical importance. Equally, labelling some cities which are in close proximity will be mecessaru, i.e. if southampton is labelled portsmouth is effectively covered and if birmingham is labelled wolverhampton is covered as there is not room for both, however big or small their population. Population is only one factor in determining the importance of a city, hence why just making a map of the top 10 cities or whatever will not make a great diagram. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox map

It stikes me as absolutely potty to have a map of Europe, the EU, with the UK highlighted. It would be infinitely preferable, in my view, to have a more detailed map of the United Kingdom (or British Isles). This article is about the UK! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the infobox map is there to focus on the position of the UK in the world, i.e. where it is in relation to larger features in the world. This is in a similar situation to other country articles around the world, so when people see a world map, they can say which country the UK is and where about it is.

A map focused on the UK would only show where it is in relation to close countries, such as France or Ireland. A more detailed map of the country (cities and natural features etc) is still in the Geography section, where a description of the geography of the country can lie alongside. I would say such a map is more useful there than in an infobox, which is usually just an overview. Rossenglish 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point. But surely then the United Kingdom should be centred on the map? Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually what most infobox country maps do, but for countries which are on the edge of a land-mass (like the UK), a map centred directly on the country would mostly show ocean, so more land being shown gives a better context - it is easier to see the UK on the edge of Europe than on the edge of the North Atlantic Ocean.

Also, the image used currently is derived from one that is standard across European country articles (like Germany's infobox etc), unlike the older map that picks the country out from the world (like the USA infobox). Rossenglish 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a UK centered image would place it in the centre of mostly the atlantic ocean which isn't very helpful, its useful to be able to scale the UK against other european neighbours. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Education in Scotland

The article says

"Universal state education was introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900 (except in Scotland where it was introduced in 1696, see Education in Scotland).[82]"

following the Education in Scotland link leads us to Education Act 1696 which says

"it allowed Church of Scotland presbyteries to set up a school, funded by a tax on the landowner ... if the landowner failed to do so. ... This law remained the basis of Scottish education until 1872, when education became the responsibility of the state."

To me this doesn't quite equate to "universal state education" but rather to Church regulated schooling (albeit it with the funding possibly coming from the landowner). Now I presume that in England and Wales at this time there were plenty of Church schools funded by the Church of England and others (although I'm sure not one in every parish). It seems to me that the implication from the sentence in this article 'that Scotland had a fully functioning state school system way in advance of the rest of Britain and that it was a secular state school system is perhaps misleading. Jooler 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the rest of Britain, Scotland had a fully functioning universal primary education system way in advance of the rest of Europe. The Scottish government (and by implication its UK successor) mandated the universal school system in the 1696 act -- and also mandated that it be provided by the Kirk -- so it's not unreasonable to state that it was a state system even though the state tasked a designated NGO with making the provision rather than doing so itself. However, if you think it misleading I would have no objection to the removal of the word "state". To me the important point is that it was a "universal system", not that it was a "state system". -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder on the accuracy of this whole paragraph. It seems to be a comparison of apples and oranges. The provision of education is one thing, compulsory attendance is another. Here it states that the 1833 Factory Act introduced compulsory 2 hours education for 9-13 yr olds (confirmed on the Wikipedia article) - thus there must have been schools (of one sort or another) provided to educate them which would amount to the provision of some form of "universal education" in advance of the 1870 date given above. The page states that the 1870 Elementary Education Act allowed school boards to insist on the attendance of children between the ages of five and 13, thus the compulsory attendance was in effect if the there was an established board and it had obliged itself of the right to compel a child to attend. The Scottish act of makes no mention of compulsory attendance, perhaps someone can locate information on this subject for Scottish schools. As for England and Wales - it is stated here that in England a survey of "12,000 parishes in 1816, found that 3,500 had no school, 3,000 had endowed schools of varying quality, and 5,500 had unendowed schools of even more variable quality." - a sorry state to be sure. It also states "In 1816, 875,000 of the country's 1.5m children 'attended a school of some kind for some period'. By 1835 (after the Factory Act) the figure was 1.45m out of 1.75m. If this sounds fairly impressive, it should be noted that by 1835 the average duration of school attendance was just one year." - are there any figures to compare this with the Scottish education system of the time? (as an aside does a superior Scottish education system explain the large number of Scottish engineers of the period?) Jooler 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the parishes in Scotland had the obligation to provide a minimal education and promising, but poor, students were offered scholarships to further education. Hence many offspring of poor families later became engineers and doctors. docboat 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative subdivisions table

This table seems faintly ridiculous to me and gives unofficial terminology far too much precedence - NI as a 'province' or Scotland as a 'kingdom' is inaccurate and reflects nothing. I'd personally advocate removing the entire 'status' column there.--Breadandcheese 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I added "status" column according to [6]. If the explanation of the source is not correct, please delete the column. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Country

I was just wondering why the opening line has been recently changed from saying the UK is a country, to just saying its a Kingdom, Can someone just clarify this for me cheers. (INsalford 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Stating that the United Kingdom is a kingdom is ridiculous. What next? The Republic of Ireland is a republic? I changed it back to country. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible. "Kingdom" doesn't describe the modern political entity of the UK well anyway, better to stick with country. Deus Ex 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion revisited

Most of the material in the lead paragraph was removed, without edit summary or explanation, by an anonymous editor on August 24. The material was sourced and relevant, and I don't think the secularization material should have been removed. Viewfinder 18:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the recent edits to the religion section by User:Vexorg, which remove all mention of Christianity from the lead paragraph. The calendar is still dominated by Christan festivals and Christianity retains a dominating influence, even among non-belivers and non-church goers. Any other comments? Viewfinder 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and to describe the UK as a Secular state is just plain wrong. I reverted. Jooler 07:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin words are meaningless to 90% of readers

For this reason I am replacing them with english words but am being reverted. If others agree with me now is the time to say so.Abtract 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find 'de facto' in any English dictionary. Now that reminds me I must update my curriculum vitae and I have to fill out this pro forma invoice. My bona fide earnings in toto make for a sorry tale. "nil desperandum". Oh I could go on ad nauseam about it. Jooler 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no doubt you could and so could I but you don't answer my point. I accept that you are a clever well educated person but most readers are not. It is our duty to make wp accessible to the majority of readers not just to a minority. And you might bear in mind that rv is a tool to be used against vandals. Abtract 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point is that you don't like the use of a particular word because it is Latin. But we have plenty of words in English that are borrowed from foreign languages, like restaurant and knapsack and karaoke. 'De facto' is in common usage and appropriate in this context. You will find the word in even the most concise of English dictionaries. More than that it was also wiki-linked on this page. If you want simpler language then perhaps you should be editing at Simple:UK. Also 'rv' means revert 'rvv' means revert vandalism. Jooler 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As for "Latin words are meaningless to 90% of readers" - well so you say. That would depend on who you surveyed, you can prove anything with statistics. Perhaps 90% of people don't even know who the Prime Minister is. But ignorance has never been a good argument for anything other than education. Your edits should be reverted but I'm past my quota of reverts. Oh and BTW please stop swapping the title around. This page is at United Kingdom as a convenience. The same as the BBC article which begins "The British Broadcasting Corporation, which is usually known as the BBC ...". There are plenty of similar examples. Jooler 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The usage of a number of foreign words should not be promoted and encouraged, anyway, the main point here is that Latin is a dead language, and it is highly regarded as such in Italy. In Italy, Latin words are obsoete in every kind of speech and every kind of knowledge and such usage is also regarded as pretentious. Exceptions admitted: lawyers and trials. Doktor Who 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's great for the Italians. Bravo and Amen to that I say. I repeat "de facto" can be found in any ENGLISH dictionary as can the "curriculum vitae" example above. Almost every word in English is "foreign" in one way or another. Almost all words ending ..ble and ..ion are French. This is not a "foreign" word in the sense of being alien. It is in common usage and especially in this context which was declaring (perhaps ironically given this argument) that the English language is a de facto official language rather than one ordained in statue law. Which I think falls within your exception criteria (that's Greek that is). Jooler 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. 'De facto' is a bona fide (it's spreading: mea culpa) English phrase. It performs a role that is not performed by any comparably and acceptably brief phrase. Look up in a dictionary what the definition of 'de facto' is. The first observation is that 'de facto' will have an entry, proving its validity in English. The second observation is that the definition will be longer than the entry word. Hence, the entry word ought to be used itself to avoid circumlocution.

Even if 'curriculum vitae' is considered 'foreign', what do we use instead? 'Résumé'? Yeah, that sounds really English. Bastin 01:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why we should not use English words asuch as actual, factual, present, current, effective" instead of that pretentious "de facto"? And btw, "resumé" (not curriculum vitae") is used in USA and in multinational enterprises. Doktor Who 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And commenting my "opinions" as ridicolous is proving that "de facto" is a term supported by pretentious ppl. :P --Doktor Who 02:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Abtract and Docktor Who should go and contribute to Simple Wikipedia [7] where contributors are encouraged to "Use easy words and shorter sentences so people who read little English may easily read them." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the above users should be reminded that English is an Anglo-Saxon (that means Germanic) language, and that the usage of terms borrowed from dead languages with a different cultural background is useless, inconsistent (or incoherent, if you like this word), mis-placed and snobbish, in other words a full waste of time, energy and life. Doktor Who 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Er.. English is a mish-mash of foreign languages. It has Germanic structure but a large part of the vocabulary is borrowed from French (Thanks [Normans]). I think it was Victor Hugo or Alexandre Dumas or some other French author who is supposed to have picked up a book written in English one day and said "English is just French but badly pronounced". Jooler 09:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin may not be as prominent in school curricula now as it was when I was at school in the 1960s and 70s, but some expressions borrowed from Latin and other languages, e.g. de facto, have passed into common use in English text and I do not think that we should reject them as "pretentious". De facto and de jure are more concise, and carry clearer meanings, than any purely English expressions, and the great thing about Wikipedia, as opposed to printed encyclopedias, is that anyone who is not sure about their meaning can click on them. I don't think that such expressions are meaningless to 90% of us; I sincerely hope not. Viewfinder 02:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to dare anyone that is going to use "de facto" and "de jure" in a text: I can find quickly the "all-English wording" of such sentences, and turn them into same-lenght-ones (btw, I studied for 5 years latin at highn school).--Doktor Who 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW Latin is a dead language in the sense that there are no native speakers, that does not mean that latin terms are extinct in usage , any lawyer, botanist, biologist, doctor or catholic priest will tell you that. Jooler 09:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your text may be more open to conflicting interpretations. "De facto" after "Language: English" imparts clearer and more specific additional information than "in fact" or suchlike. As far as I am aware there is no guideline in English Wikipedia that discourages the use of expressions borrowed from other languages. You might like to start a movement for such a guideline, but until there is one, I oppose the attempts by some of the above editors to delete borrowed expressions. Viewfinder 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Care must be taken not to introduce too technical terms. However de facto is one term that is commonly understood, with the precise meaning of "not legally recognised, but in fact". Here in Australia the word is widely used in common speech, mostly in reference to someone's partner where no marriage contract exists. As in "meet my de facto". --Michael Johnson 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Simple English Wikipedia was created for this precise reason, there is no need to "dumb down" the language here. aliasd·U·T 06:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

However this suggests that English is preferable to Latin where possible. Abtract 07:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It also suggests we should not alter pre-existant Latin terms in an article. Probably for the reason that it sparks edit wars and lost time in discussion such as this case. aliasd·U·T 08:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly this is a misreading ... it refers specifically to changing initials to the full Latin phrase and vice versa. It clearly states that "articles will be more easily understood if English phrases are used"Abtract 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, along last 20 years I have read magazines and books (also at a university level) in English, met native speakers from almost everywhere: I can witness that only this site (and its Army of Google bombers) shows such obsession for the over-use of Latin terms. Doktor Who 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with keeping Latin terms in the text. It may not be from English, and you could find English synonymous phrases, but these would not have the concise meaning that de facto does. Anyone who knows what it means can instantly gather the situation with de facto, but saying something like 'in practice' could be applied to several situations. Anyway, replacing an English phrase derived from Latin to another English phrase is pointless if the new phrase was derived from a French or Germanic word. Almost all English words are derived from something else, most don't just pop into existence - for example, the word 'Abstract' is from the Latin 'abstractus' meaning to draw away. I don't think it is right to pick word usage on etymology - you pick a word to use because it means what you want to say. If you want a simpler synonym, than that is what Simple English is for. Rossenglish 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please read again my previous comments. Pretending to ignore my arguments will not help your lack of logic and consistency. I have nothing else to say. --Doktor Who 11:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

De facto is used in every other situation where something is not in law but in practice; country, politics, law and language articles use it where needed, as is shown on de facto: What links here. Perhaps the issue should be discussed somewhere with a broader influence, like WikiProject Countries or WP:MOS, because if the consensus does swing towards removing the wording, then the UK article shouldn't be the odd one out. But if no other article would change, then the UK article shouldn't either. Rossenglish 12:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, when used in an English context, de facto is an English loanword. All the same as if one would use café, or should we remove that from articles too? After all, French might also be meaningless to 90% of readers. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 12:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! (referring to the above). Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 12:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

re this argument, am happy with the status quo and willing to let this RIP. aliasd·U·T 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abtract - de jure/de facto for the regional langugages: these qualifications are unnecessary because there is no suggestion that the regional langugages are "official", just that they are "recognised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This bizarre discussion seems to be spiralling into ever more bizarre realms. As others have noted: de facto and de jure are English words, of a Latin origin. Just as is doctor, which is exactly the same as the Latin word for teacher.Likewise senator is an English word which is exactly the same in Latin. The English apostle = L., apostolus, etc, etc. If we wished to use purist English words we would have to use pre-Norman English. Th words in question are used in all standard English texts. It is ridiculous to suggest that the terms should be dummied down for the sake of those who might not be able to understand them. In that casem, we should have to substitute countless words in Wikipedia: evolution, episcopal, DNA, Quantum theory, , organic, cranial, etc, etc, etc.--Gazzster 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely de facto or de jure (my bet) must be correct for welsh irish etc? Abtract 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

De jure and de facto (usually italicised to indicate that they are another language, no?) are widely understood phrases. Replacing them would be a nonsensical dumbing down - and an insulting dumming down at that. Why stop there and let's just make this the Simple English Wikipedia all together? They should however be italicised as they are not actual English, but a Latin phrase. See the same phrases being used in French, German, Spanish, ... hell, even Irish. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously right, what's next, remove all words with more than 5 characters? :-) MarkThomas 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky sod ;-) --Asterion^talk 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those latin words are commonly used (see the 'succession boxes' of articles about royal pretenders. GoodDay 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no linguist, but I am puzzled. I would guess that around 90% of modern English words are imported, whether from Greek, Latin, German, French or whatever. If we ban them what do we have left? Thunderbird2 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Abtract. You have either had some kind of Damascene Conversion and now believe that 90% of people DO understand Latin, or are trying to make a point re: WP:Point. In either case the section you are editing is "recognised regional languages" and de jure is redundant in this context. Jooler 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it redundant?Abtract 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the very fact that it is recognised means it has a basis in law. Jooler 01:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - to the editors above, we've moved on from the to-Latin-or-not-to-Latin debate. Abtract does seem to now be (disruptively) making a WP:POINT by first adding de jure and then de facto to the regional languages bit, when it does not require it. (behaviour along the lines of: "if you're going to insist that Latin words are OK, then I'm bloody well going to add them everywhere") The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All this bickering would have been avoided, if those 'regional languages' hadn't been applied in the first place. Mentioning the UK official language only, wasn't so bad (when I look back). 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's intersting to learn that I am being disruptive ... I would have preferred someone to explain how de facto is helpful in explaining the status of English but de jure is disruptive in explaining the status of Welsh. Abtract 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If 'de facto' is used, then 'de jure' must be used. One neccesitates the other. GoodDay 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To repeat my original statement, these qualifications are unnecessary because there is no suggestion that the regional langugages are "official", just that they are "recognised". The de facto qualification for English is important because whilst English is used for all official purposes, there is no law stating that it has to be used. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Howabout this, remove the 'regional languages' and you remove the dispute. Let's go back to listing only the Official Language - English. GoodDay 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

official and recognised is bandying with words ... I could equally say that there is no suggestion that English is "recognised" so de facto is not needed. The simply fact remains that if it is helpful to note that english is the official language de facto, then it must be useful to note that welsh is a recognised language de jure. Abtract 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, you're willing to remove 'de jure' from the other regional languages, as long as it's kept next to Welsh? GoodDay 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I used Welsh as an example ... de jure applies to all the languages gaining recognition by law, whether uk law, european law or any other applicable law. Abtract 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The de facto/de jure distinction is an important one for an official language, because its official status may be enshrined in law (e.g. French in France), or not (e.g. English in the UK or USA). A language can be recognised (and hence protected) without being official (in the sense that it's not used for government purposes) but how can a state recognise a language without doing so in legislation somewhere? How would that recognition manifest itself? Please supply an example of a de facto recognised language (which would be a reason for writing that English regional languages are recognised de jure.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my laziness for not reviewing all of the discussion. What's the consensus on this topic? Whatever it is, we should abide by it. GoodDay 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: it seems to me that the "de jure" claim is cited here and that these minority and regional languages do have some official status as such. But the repetition of the words "de jure" is untidy. How about this? (de jure^[8]) Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish. But please can we try to get consensus here before editing the main article infobox again. Viewfinder 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Abtract 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, again, if an example can be supplied of a "recognised" language that is recognised de facto then the de jure qualification is warranted. Otherwise the fact that it is recognised at all makes it superfluous. Either that or get rid of the regional bit altogether like Goodday suggested (Spain doesn't have it). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of a paradox here. English is not enshrined in law as the principal language, but the other languages are enshrined in law as regional and minority languages. I will give the matter some more thought. Viewfinder 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Howabout, describing English as the majority language; the rest as minority languages? GoodDay 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about... leaving it the way it was before Abtract decided to disrupt the page, when it was stable and made perfect sense. 'Official (de facto), recognised (no qualification required) Jooler 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On re-examining the present version, I find it to be clear enough; if we cannot achieve consensus on anything different then it should stand. But I don't agree with any implication that Abtract has been editing other than in good faith. Viewfinder 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You might very well think that but, Abtract has edited and ignored the consensus on several issues on this page as can be seen from this talk page and attempted to edit WP:Lead section away from the consensus and towards his own view as expressed on this page. Jooler 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jooler. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Abtract and myself accepted a compromise concerning 'languages' weeks ago. In my opinon, we should go back to it (remove the 'de facto' & 'de jure' descirptives). GoodDay 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=157114359 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=157032846 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=BBC&diff=prev&oldid=155125446 - edit against WP guidelines
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=155183158&oldid=154385084 - edit of WP:guideline without consensus, in support of view view expressed on Talk:United Kingdom
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157113610 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157033808 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=154021522 - edit against guideline for article lead.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155103156 - another against guideline for article lead.
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155115864 - repeat of edit against guideline for article lead.
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155090200 - removal of 'de facto'
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155094338 - repeat removal of 'de facto'
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155095242 - another removal of 'de facto'
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155102166 - yet another removal of 'de facto'
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155116219 - and yet another removal of 'de facto'
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155061783 - Erroneous description of the UK as a Secular state

Note that the edits to Tony Blair, BBC, United States and Margaret Thatcher were only made after I pointed them out as pages that followed the Wikipedia guideline. Jooler 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that this long accusatory edit was made by someone himself blocked several times. I just hope this diatribe against an editor who is clearly acting in good faith is not simply an attempt to get his own back against someone (anyone). I will let others decide if I have been disruptive or simply bold. I have certainly always been polite Abtract 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me so I will ignore any further references to to my record except to say that close examination will show that nearly all of those blocks were overturned. Jooler 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing 'guidelines' to suite oneself (without being backed by a consensus) is certainly bold. The problem is, such an action causes negative reactions from other Wikipedians. It's not a good way to help ones arguments. GoodDay 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

After reporting the above - we now have:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207 - change of lead against consensus.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=157172986&oldid=157136589 - change of guideline without consensus.

Jooler 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

and still he continues:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=157226644 - repeat of change of lead against consensus. Jooler 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He's gotten out of hand now, at United States article. GoodDay 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I got a little carried away. Abtract 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment above about first line

"Oh and BTW please stop swapping the title around. This page is at United Kingdom as a convenience. The same as the BBC article which begins "The British Broadcasting Corporation, which is usually known as the BBC ...". There are plenty of similar examples." - this is a copy of Jooler's statement above

I don't understand "convenience" in this context. The article is about the United Kingdon so the first line should start "the United Kingdom is .... " - this is the wp way.Abtract 01:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No the article is about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as opposed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or even other uses. United Kingdom is the short form and BBC is the short form of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The articles should begin with the long form names Look up any bio and you will see (or should see) the article open with the full name (e.g. Tony Blair) THAT is the WP way. Jooler 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

look here to see that the opposite is true.Abtract 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and look there where it points to Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title as the main article on the policy and gives this very page as an example of using the long form. Jooler 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in WP:Manual of style#Article titles says "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given."

The long form (UKoGBaNI) should be given in bold, then the abbreviation(s) should be bolded in brackets afterwards. Rossenglish 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case the article should have the title of the long form. Abtract 05:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice a very sensible edit to change the name to the long form has been reverted ... how can this have been wrong?Abtract 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This must be some strange usage of the word 'sensible' that I've not come across before. No. Like previous examples BBC, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, United States etc. articles are posited at their common unambiguous names where possible, or where that name is overwhelmingly associated. Jooler 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also just noticed your attempt to change Wikipedia:Lead_section (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALead_section&diff=155183158&oldid=154385084) to your way of thinking without discussion. Jooler 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is not required before an edit ... wp would take a long time to improve if it were. Abtract 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That page is in the WP namespace, not article namespace. Please see Category:Wikipedia guidelines "Guidelines are a set of rules and recommendations that are supported by consensus" You cannot change policy on your own without discussion. Jooler 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Can someone answer a UK-related question for me? I've noticed an anonymous user whose only contributions seem to be changing the nationality of people and companies from "British" to "English", and instances of the Union flag to the English flag. Which is correct? Miremare 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a consensus among British(/English) people themselves. Personally I consider myself British, just like my passport says - but I have friends who are adamantly English. I believe British companies can either register in Scotland, or register with Companies House in 'England & Wales' (which actually is in Wales). Dmn € Դմն 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). I would have to insist that a company that operates throughout the UK is British, regardless of birthplace or HQ. People in my view should be British per the reasons I've outlined at the Manual of Style talk page. Jza84 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a very debatable question. People are unquestionably British citizens, but in nationality terms, people can be described as "British", "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Irish"/"Northern Irish". Neither is really correct, and neither is really incorrect either! Some people do feel strongly about such terms - someone from the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland or members of the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru would never describe themselves as "British". Fingerpuppet 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It should stay at British; the anon-user who keeps changing to English may be doing so via political PoV (as suggested above). GoodDay 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I thought it was probably something like that too. Anyway, I left a note on the user's talk page requesting that such changes should be explained in the edit summary, else they are likely to be reverted (as many of them were). Cheers, Miremare 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations inclusion

I've notice a dispute gowing over this issue. Simply mentioning that the UK is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations (as the current edit shows), is good enough. Remember folks, this article is about the 'nation' not the 'Head of state'. GoodDay 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. Trying to think of a similar example. I looked at France, because the President of France is also one of the two the heads of state (or princes) of Andorra. The article on France doesn't mention this, but it's more significant here where we are talking about so many more countries. Also I'm sure that the Crown's constitutional relevance to these countries is more signficant. I'm also wondering whether the House of Lords sill has a constitutional role in some countries outside of the UK. Jooler 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what people are thinking the issue is here. The fact that EIIR is also head of state of a number of other countries hasn't been removed from the article, it's merely been shifted down to the government and politics section; it was too much detailed information for the lead (which remains overburdened as it is now).

I believe some Commonwealth Realms may still have the British Privy Council as their highest court of appeal, but is that worthy of mention in an article about the UK as opposed to in the article on the PC itself? --G2bambino 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed now. Jooler 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've removed Elizabeth II's Commonwealth role, it's not needed at this article; it's correctly placed at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The only way it should be re-added? If & when the 15 other Commonwealth realms have it mentioned (and the non-realms, if more accurate). GoodDay 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't get it. Because some other articles lack facts relevant to their status within the Queen's realm, this article should also? It's on a par to saying, because some other articles about European countries don't mention some fact (like say their levels of immigration) then neither should this article. Jooler 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Commonwealth role isn't neeeded here. This article is about the 'country', not the 'head of state'. As for the comparisons with the 15 other? It ties in with the discussion at Canada. GoodDay 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is resident in the UK and not the other commonwealth realms. The monarch's role as head of state of those countries in which she is not resident is of consequence and worthy of mention in this article. Jooler 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Commonwealth members are of equal status, where Elizabeth II resides is irrelevant. But more importantly, her 'Commonwealth role' is correctly placed at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This article is about the 'country', which concerns only the UK head of state role. GoodDay 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that the constitutional role was different. Merely that the fact that she lives here in this country AND is head of state of other countries is relevant to this article. I cannot off the top of my head (apart from the Andorra example given above) think of any other example. The uniqueness of that situation if nothing else is worthy of mention. Jooler 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-add it then (though I still think it's not needed). Hopefully, the commonwealth role will be included on the other commonwealth members articles. GoodDay 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The really unusual thing about the UK is that it doesn't have a Governor-General whereas every other Commonwealth Realm does. Now that is worthy of mention. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wish the 'Commonwealth role' was applied to the other Commonwealth realm articles. But as I've said, that dispute belongs on those articles. See Canada discussion, concerning this subject. GoodDay 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there are no guidelines that state all country articles must be identical in format and structure, but it would seem that as the Realms do mirror each other in a number of aspects, if certain information is justifiably included in one Realm article, and said information applies equally to other Realms, then there would be little argument against including it in the other articles. --G2bambino 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)