Talk:United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article United Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
UK Legislatures.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-Class)
BlankMap-World6.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
WP0.5 Icon.png This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject UK geography (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
UK-icon.png This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for United Kingdom:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Large parts of article are completely uncited - i.e. need inline citations - the last half of Football for instance, and almost all of the Culture, Geography and Christianity sections. There are many unattributed expressions of opinion in culture section. Publishers and last access dates need to be shown for all of the citations.
WikiProject Echo      (Yiddish)
Other languages square icon.svg United Kingdom is a featured article on the Yiddish Wikipedia. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from that article. To get involved with featured articles in other languages, visit WikiProject Echo or its discussion page.
The article United Kingdom has been mentioned by a media organization:
"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html. 


Archive
Archives
  1. Sept. 2001 – August 2004
  2. August 2004 – April 2005
  3. April 2005 – November 2005
  4. November 2005 – Feb. 2006
  5. February 2006 – May 2006
  6. Mid May 2006 - July 2006
  7. July 2006 - November 2006
  8. November 2006 - April 2007
  9. April 2007 - July 2007
  10. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 1
  11. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 2
  12. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 3
  13. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 4
  14. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 5
  15. Dec 2007 - May 2008
  16. June 2008

Country/State debate archives
  1. June 2005-March 2006
  2. April 2006-May 2006

Terminology debate archives
  1. July - September 2006
  2. September 2006-October 2006

Subdivision name debate archives
  1. April - June 2008


Contents


[edit] Poll on Ireland article names

[edit] Muslim population

The muslim population is said in this article to be 2.8% based on a correct, but 8 years old (2001) source. In 2008 the muslim population was 4%[1]. -GabaG (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good source. I would edit it in. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It's actually already in the article, a but further down in the other religions section. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the figures only apply to Great Britain, not the whole of the UK. That's what it says if you scroll down to the bottom of the source article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've checked and they do. The source for the data is the Labour Force Survey and according to the user guide, the religion question used in Northern Ireland is different and Muslims are subsumed in an 'other' category. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The ONS journal Population Trends Winter 2009 edition will feature an article on changes in religion, 2005-2008. The paper will be published next month.--Pondle (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That's good to know although it may also rely on the LFS, in which case it will only cover Great Britain. I'm not aware of any other UK-wide surveys that could be used to generate such a statistic. Probably best to wait and see before updating the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the current issue, the title of the forthcoming article is 'Changes in religion of the population of Great Britain, 2005–2008'. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I support using these reliable sources to mention the most up to date figure for the muslim population. We should continue mention the 2001 census figures but highlight trends and new figures / estimates. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with that as long as we note that the new figures are not for the whole of the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think the 2001 census is pretty faulty as a source for religion. According to this[2], almost 400,000 people (0.8%) said in the census their religion was "Jedi" from Star Wars based on some sort of chain letter joke. I think this really makes the "religion"-section of the census come into question for reliability, and should as agreed on, anyways be updated by newer material. -GabaG (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, these 0.8% were probably irreligious anyways so it probably don't really matter for the numbers. But as my main point was, I think the information is outdated and should be replaced. -GabaG (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe so but, as the above discussion indicates, there may not be another UK-wide source to replace it with. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that we are now using the British Social Attitudes Survey for the religion statistics. The problem is that this also only covers England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has its own attitudes survey. See here. Since the census seems to be the only UK-wide source, can't we mention the census statistics first and then use the BSA and other sources to give a qualified but more up-to-date picture? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense line about the BBC

With reference to this line (in context)- "The British Empire expanded to its maximum size by 1921, gaining the League of Nations mandate over former German and Ottoman colonies after World War I. One year later, the BBC, the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created."

The BBC was NOT created in 1922 as "the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network." In fact the BBC as we know it - a Crown chartered and non-commercial broadcasting corporation - was not created until the year 1927. What existed from 1922 to 1926 was a commercial company called the "British Broadcasting Company, Ltd.," which held a monopoly license from the British General Post Office because it was a consortium of mainly American dominated electrical manufacturing companies doing business in Britain.

Since this is an article about the United Kingdom and not about broadcasting or the BBC I suggest that this silly and totally incorrect line of nonsense is removed immediately. I would have done so but the article is locked. 70.247.124.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Well I see that Red King edited the original BBC comment to imply that the BBC was still created in 1922 and that it went on to become a worldwide institution. The editor laughingly dismisses the matter by saying that the BBC just "growed and growed". Well, maybe that is okay for someone speaking up in class but it is not okay for something claiming to be a world class encyclopedia of knowledge based upon documented NPOV using existing facts with no original work!
The fact of the matter is that the BBC to which you refer did not start one year later - it started in 1927 because there was another entity, a commercial company that existed between 1922 and 1926 that was legally wound up - put out of business - ceased to be as in "dead parrot". This is not an article about the BBC and Wikipedia has two different and distinct entries for the BBC as a broadcasting operation. One is about the BBC company and the other is about the Crown corporation.
I trust that some editor out there understands that if Wikipedia is to have standards of factual editing, then they should be abided by all editors - especially editors who are editing locked articles! 70.247.124.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
BBC#History makes it quite clear that the BBC founded in 1927 very much had its roots in the BBC founded in 1922. Personally, I don't see a problem here and think your objections are pedantic. If people want the nitty gritty of the BBC's history, they should go to the BBC article, not here. However, I agree the sentence in question should probably be changed to avoid the implication that the BBC immediately became a "large-scale international broadcasting network" overnight. Perhaps:
One year later, the BBC, which would become the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created. TastyCakes (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Or, One year later, the British Broadcasting Company, which would subsequently become the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That seems ok, although it seems to suggest the BBC of 1927 immediately became a large scale international broadcasting network, which I'm not sure is true either... TastyCakes (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
One year later, the British Broadcasting Company, which subsequently became the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and went on to be the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, seems ok to me. Getting a little wordy but I guess that's the problem with removing ambiguity... TastyCakes (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures do not represent.

Where is Northern Ireland and Wales' representation in terms of pictures? The millennium stadium is the only thing I can see and none whatsoever for Northern Ireland, this should definitely be fixed Flappychappy (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign state

In the lead it says the UK is a sovereign state. However, with the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, does the UK still fall under that classification? It's merely an argument, but some are claiming the UK has become a province of the EU. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK is still sovereign because the UK Parliament has the power to leave the EU at any time by repealing the law. As long as Parliament has this power (which would make anything that the EU declares null and void) then Parliament, and the UK, is still sovereign.--Willski72 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As are all other countries in the EU --Snowded TALK 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there not now an EU imposed formula through which secession must take place? (Akin to how a province may split from Canada; and Canadian provinces are not considered fully sovereign states.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the process, if the UK can leave unilaterally then they are still sovereign. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well apparently the Treaty of Lisbon "explicitly recognises for the first time the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union".[3] As for the broader question, the UK is a member of the UN, has diplomatic recognition from other states, and also meets all the criteria for a sovereign state as defined by the Montevideo Convention. See here.--Pondle (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. I suppose I'm not clear on what makes a sovereign state cease to be sovereign; as the EU now has a full presidency, foreign service, and, I believe, the beginnings of a military, as well as requirements to be met for withdrawal, it appears that its members are no longer themselves sovereign, which is what the author of the piece I pointed to was arguing, and where I see more than one parallel between the EU and Canada. However, it also seems true that the UK - and other EU members/states/whatever - are still internationally considered sovereign. Confusing! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out that the EU doesn't have a president. The new post is President of the European Council. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There may be a 'process' for withdrawal, but a state can still withdraw unilaterally. The other states do not have to approve it. That means that the states are still sovereign - just like if you sign up for college, or a country club, there are procedures to go through to withdraw. They don't mean that you have suddenly become a slave to the college.
That is not the case with Canada. No province can withdraw from Canada unless certain conditions are met, and that (among other things) is why the provinces are not considered sovereign states. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
We also probably shouldn't be using Daniel Hannan as a source for this type of argument because he has a clear political agenda. Best to leave it to constitutional experts. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)