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.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 May 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  1. September 2001 – August 2004
  2. August 2004 – April 2005
  3. April 2005 – November 2005
  4. November 2005 – February 2006
  5. February 2006 – May 2006
  6. May 2006 – July 2006
  7. July 2006 – November 2006
  8. November 2006 – April 2007
  9. April 2007 – July 2007
  10. August – December 2007, part 1
  11. August – December 2007, part 2
  12. August – December 2007, part 3
  13. August – December 2007, part 4
  14. August – December 2007, part 5
  15. December 2007 – May 2008
  16. June 2008 – October 2008
  17. October 2008 – March 2009
  18. March 2009 – October 2009
  19. November 2009 – August 2010
  20. August 2010 – December 2010
  21. December 2010 – January 2011
  22. January 2011 – March 2011
  23. March 2011 – May 2011
  24. May 2011
  25. May 2011 – August 2011
  26. August 2011 – August 2012
  27. August 2012 – September 2013
  28. September 2013 –

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

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

Subdivision name debate archives
  1. April 2008 – June 2008


Constitutionally the United Kingdom is a direct continuation of the Kingdom of England, I do not see why the formation of it (and the Kingdom of Scotland) should not be included. The act of union 1707 didn't create a new nation, as in the United States.

Now Rob984 says: "Why England? Why not Wessex? Or Great Britain and Ireland? Undue weight on two predecessors" - Great Britain is there, Act of Union 1707 incase you hadn't noticed. Ireland constitutionally isn't that important - as it was a English client state. You say why 'England' - it was the direct predecessor state.... it existed for a great deal longer than either United Kingdoms have thus far. Undue weight would be including Act of Union 1707 and Act of Union 1801, or us joining the EU, and not the formation of the countries that formed the union, your logic makes no sense - and certainly does not constitute a reasonable argument for reverting my edit.

If you want to add Wessex - add it. The French article for example, has the Kingdom of France and it's various predecessor states - despite each constitutionally differing to a far greater degree than England/UK. Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you've been reverted by 2 different editors so please don't try to reinstate until you have consensus supporting your edit per WP:BRD. Secondly, your view that the UK is a continuation of England and 1707 didn't create a "new nation" is at best contentious and at worst plain wrong - either way you need to provide sources for it. Thirdly, the state was formed in 1707/1801, the infobox could be cluttered up with any number of predecessor states - it should be kept clear and straightforward. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Alexsau, my view is that the UK is, in reality, a continuation of the state established by the Saxons in the 6th century; however this is original research. Unless a very reliable source is provided that claims that the Acts of union are simply constitutional nonsense which in reality annexed Scotland and Ireland into the English kingdom, or similar, then you're wasting your time. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

6th century, Hengist and Horsa, or even established state? You're having a laugh! Aethelstan was the first king of all the English in the 10th c. Now, onto the constitution, of which there is no such thing in the UK, how could you describe the Court of Session or the General Assembly (still very evidently on the go) as Saxon institutions? Brendandh (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. No such thing as the constitution of the United Kingdom? Of course there is one... how do you think this country has been governed so stably for so many centuries? As for the Court of Session and the General Assembly... these are Scottish institutions which exist only in Scotland, ie they are not institutions of the United Kingdom. Argovian (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. Yes they certainly are, insofar that they are institutions of the Northern third of it, and enshrined in the acts of Union. Brendandh (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"This country", says it all really....Which country? Would that happen to be England (with a bit of Wales thrown in) perchance? The spiritual or legal Lords of the English judiciary and church may sit in the Palace of Westminster, but they are certainly not the religious/legal omsbudsmen of the northern third of this island. "Centuries"?, s'pose 304 years could be counted as "centuries", not that 'many' and not particularly 'stable' either though! Brendandh (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
307 years, mea culpa. Brendandh (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
268 years really do not count as many centuries of being governed so stably. NebY (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should add the unification of England, because it's an important event in the history of the United Kingdom. It's not necessarily constitutionally important event, but it's definitely important, as England is the largest part of the UK by far (population). If articles like Russia have informal events like the arrival of Rurik - what is definitely not a constitutional event - I don't see why we shouldn't add the unification of England as it is seriously important event for the later unification of UK. Ransewiki (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
English unification simply started the process of unification of the UK. Kingdom of England covered 2/3 of UK´s current area so it is a significant predecessor state. Most other WP articles of countries have multiple predecessor states, and you cannot argue that adding the unification of England would make the infobox too crowded. We currently have only three formation dates (2 Acts of Union and the Anglo-Irish Treaty), while most European countries have 6-7. Few examples are: Russia (they have actually 9), Spain (7), Portugal (11 really....), Poland (They have also 11), Germany (6).... I could go on with the list. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Aye, but Athelstan's (very shaky) union of the heptarchy didn't create the United Kingdom, it created 'a' united kingdom of the English, but not 'the' United Kingdom. England, Ireland and especially Scotland were sovereign states for far longer than the period since 1707/1801, Ireland was admittedly at times subordinate to England, but also on occasion to the Scots. Wales was an earlier incorporation to the English state. We might as well put Kenneth MacAlpine's unification of the Picts and Scots, a couple of hundred years earlier than Athelstan in there. His descendant did become the first King of Scotland, England and Ireland after all. Read your books mun! Brendandh (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The United Kingdom isn't merely an expanded England but tracking only one part of the UK in the infobox would carry that message. We could go back and back in recording what existed before the UK, we could look to Roman unification of much of Great Britain and add a note that there followed a period of division before re-unification, but we don't. We keep to a much more straightforward scope in the infobox and touch on the complex earlier history of Britain in brief sections of the article. Of course such things will remain contentious - it's striking that your list began with Russia, a state which did dominate a wide territory as a nominal union of states and whose borders are in question once again. NebY (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat related...
If England, after Welsh incorporation, was merely an expanded England. But Great Britain isn't merely an expanded England. What is the United Kingdom? Merely an expanded Great Britain, or the result of a union of two states? This article is about a country, today made up of 4 countries. But when was this country founded? 1542? 1707? 1801? What is the difference between Welsh incorporation into England, and Irish incorporation into the British state? The union of a colony of Great Britain, with Great Britain, decided by Great Britain, is surely annexation? The Irish Parliament was not democratic. It was elected by powerful British people in Ireland.
My point? The 'country of countries' started in 1542, regardless of whether it was 'the British state'. Is this article about the 'country of countries' (founded in 1542), or 'the British state' (founded in 1707)? Because if the former, then we should mention the Laws in Wales Acts and Commonwealth in the infobox.
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever happened in 1536 (I'm surprised at your choice of 1542) did not create anything that was then called a United Kingdom, nor do moderns apply that term to it. This article is about the United Kingdom. It's in a hyper-linked encyclopedia. That means we link to information about related subjects; we don't rehash those subjects in every article. We don't give the date of birth of Henry VII in our article on Henry VIII, or that of Henry VII's predecessor as King of England, or that of Henry VII's progenitor and predecessor as Earl of Richmond. We don't give them in the body of the article and we certainly don't give them in the infobox. We give them in their own articles and then we link. Same here. NebY (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
But the current British state was legally created in 1801, not 1707. Why do we not simply link to Kingdom of Great Britain? There's a blurry distinction being made between the 1707 and 1801 unions. Although Scotland decided to unify with England, it was still in reality Scotland joining an existing state. England's institutions were simply extended across the addition territory in most instances. Scotland retained some local institutions, but so did Wales and Ireland. Additionally, the infobox shows the 'formation' of the United Kingdom, the unification of two, of it's four parts is significant to this. I don't think the body of the article should be changed at all. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this article has a clear 'scope'. It's a summary of the different aspects of the current state including its history, even before it's existence. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said, most countries have their PREDECESSOR states listed in Wikipedia, and UK should have England at least, not because UK would be somehow an expanded England, but because England is a very very important predecessor state for the current UK and the formation of UK. --Ransewiki (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
'very very important predecessor state' is your POV. I agree, but it's still original research. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The distinction of 'before and after' 1707 is offensively idiotic. The UK is comprised of four nations, Wales and Ireland are two of them. It is POV to actually privilege the union with Scotland over that of Wales and Ireland. And make no mistake, the 'before and after' 1707 section does precisely that. And for that reason, this article is currently absurd and ahistorical. Indeed, as it currently stands, the 'before 1707' section doesn't even mention the Acts of Union with Wales. Put simply, this article is laughable. (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 did not create anything that was then called a United Kingdom, nor do moderns apply that term to it. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, if the English state was named the 'United Kingdom of England', the scope of this article would cover that state too, simply based on the name. Are names really that significant? The argument is that this article should be about the country of countries, not the use of the term 'United Kingdom'. And the country of countries began with the English annexation of Wales. The Kingdom of England was a British state compromised of two countries. Great Britain was a British state compromised of three countries. Why include the unification of one but not the other? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union did not create a polity called 'a United Kingdom' either, it created 'Great Britain'. This has already been mentioned above by others. I'm also unclear as to precisely what you mean by the word 'moderns'. On a broader note, I think it would be extremely difficult to find an historian today, following the emergence of the New British History school of historiographical discourse, who would anchor discussion of the emergence of the modern United Kingdom polity around 1707 at the expense of the other Acts of Union from 1535 onwards.
In fact, it makes more sense, if there is to be a chronological 'before and after' break down to frame that discussion around the first act of union between two of the four constituant nations in the modern United Kingdom. That actually has a chronological, as opposed to entirely arbitrary, basis. As it stands the article implicity devalues the position of Wales and Northern Ireland. (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the text of the 1706 Act here and the 1707 Act here you'll find it is repeatedly called the United Kingdom of Great Britain or simply the United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That is as maybe, but it remains a fact that there was no polity with the title 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' until 1801, and there has not been one since 1927. The 1706 document also states, explicity, 'That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain'. So the argument that it is the name which is significant here is clearly without foundation. If that is to be your argument then surely the division, if there is to be one, should focus on 1801. (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The Acts of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom. Wales was assimilated into, not united with, the Kingdom of England. The formal union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England created the modern sovereign state. Ireland was added on a century later. The fact that Scotland has always had distinct institutions and a separate legal system from England and Wales (or "England" before the 1950s) shows the special importance of the 1707 union. So tell me how the 1707 date is arbitrary? Out of curiosity, how do editors propose we divide the history section, if not "pre- and post- 1707"? --HazhkTalk 16:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
When you state that Wales was 'assimilated into' as opposed to 'united with', the 1535 Act explicity states that England and Wales were 'united, annexed and joined' together. Annexed in late-middle English meaning to be 'connected'. But this is all a semantic dispute obfuscating the central issue, which is that if you want to trace the history of the current United Kingdom, which now consists of four acknowledged constituent countries, it is rather more than faintly ridiculous to frame the unification, annexation or joining (which ever term you prefer) of one of those constituent countries into/with England as mere prologue. (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I created the 1707 split in 2011 when I expanded the pre-UK material. Until then it was just a history of the UK, literally. FWIW, in my mind it was a fairly arbitrary split to divide up the history section. Since then I have found it to be justified on the basis that the balance of legal opinion is that the UK was created in 1707 (and Ireland joined the state in 1801). I can post a good legal source of that if anyone's interested. But it's incorrect to say thatthat is because of the name. (It's for other reasons of substance). The UK name was officially put in place by the 1801 Act not the 1706/7 Acts. This has been debated here many times before. The capitalisation of the "U" in the 1707/6 Acts is not significant - that's the way 18th century orthography works (or doesn't work). The "united" is descriptive" rather than a matter of nomenclature. The sections 1 of both acts are quite clear: the 1707 act created a kingdom called simply "Great Britain". The 1801 act named that kingdom "United Kingdom of Great... etc" DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose this boils down to what the purpose of an historical entry into a modern encyclopedia should be. If it is to be grounded purely in a legal, as opposed to being formulated in the current reigning historiographical consensus, then sure. However, since the 1970s the historiographical consensus has indeed shifted away from a 'three kingdoms' view of the collective 'British' past. I would direct you to J.G.A. Pocock's seminal 1975 article 'British History: A Plea for a New Subject' in which the problems of taking the tack you seem to be employing are outlined in the opening page. (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Pocock's article contradicts what I've said. Pocock posits simply the interconnectedness of British history and that it forms a single strand. That's what the history section aims to do (though no doubt it could always be improved). An "anti-Pocock" section would have separate sections for each country. The 1707 divide merely signals probably the single most significant development of that single strand of history in the last 1000 years (I.e. the legal establishment of the current state, which also happens to be the subject of this article). DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously if you think logically it tells something that this country was founded by Acts of Union in two different parliaments, Parliament of England and Parliament of Scotland. It means that those parliaments are responsible for the creation of UK and therefor they are clearly predecessor states. The fact that you cant find an official source about UK´s predecessors is because there is no constitution in the UK. And that makes almost everything unofficial. Even the existence of UK is dependent on two acts of two different parliaments, which can be any time repealed by the current UK parliament. The only stable part keeping this country together is the monarchy, and the Union of the Crowns in 1603 united us under a single monarch. In 1603 the monarch was still almost absolute ruler, so therefor we we in 1603 de facto united. We also adopted the first design of the Union Flag after the Union of the Crowns. James VI of Scotland/James I of England & Ireland quartered the arms of England with those of Scotland. There was no position of a prime minister back then, and the monarch was clearly the most important person in the his/her governments. So the policies of our government were directed by a single person and therefor the policies of both kingdom were nearly same. And how about the Tender of Union and the Protectorate era?? Then all of these isles were united under a single government. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What a lot of...WP:OR. Not sure exactly what the edit you want to make is, but I would point out that lack of a written constitution (or more acurately a wholly written constitution, since some of it is in fact written) doesn't make "everything unofficial", whatever that may mean. What we look for is a reliable source and there are shelf loads of that for tye constution and constitutional history. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, seriously the constitution part wasn't the most important in my post. And you understood it completely wrong! Seriously don't you understand that when I put some text in bold, that means that part is the most important part of the post? And what original research?? Do you claim the fact that the Acts of Union 1707 were two Acts of Parliament passed by the English Parliament and Scottish Parliament is my original research?? Do you claim that the fact that there was no position of a Prime Minister in neither Scotland or England, is my original research?? Do you claim that the fact that the first design of the Union flag was adopted in 1606 is my original research?? Please specify what is my "original research" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:SHOUT, I ignored your overuse of bolding. I have no idea what edit you propose making to the article. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You're original research is your use of various verifiable information to come to a conclusion. De jure, personal unions ≠ states. Rob984 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I never meant to say that personal union of England and Scotland is the same as if they were a united country. What I mean is that the Acts of Union being passed by the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland clearly mean that England and Scotland were predecessor states of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and currently the UK), and all countries list their predecessor states in Wikipedia (some of them say it indirectly if they say that country X gained independence from country Z). Ransewiki (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean in the infobox? No they don't. I've just looked through several of the other European country articles and none of them do. DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, what countries have you been looking at? Because I don't have time to look at every single country in the world, but for example in Germany-article they mention Holy Roman Empire, which is clearly a predecessor, or Italy, France, and Austria, which include the predecessor monarchies, empires and republics (France as an example includes the Ancien Regime/Kingdom of France), or Spain which includes the personal union of Castile and Aragon as a date (the Dynastic union), or Iceland page which traces all the predecessor states from the current republic through the unions with Norway and Denmark, back to the Viking settlement. Or Russia which has even the older predecessor states Kievan Rus and Duchy of Moscow in the foundation infobox, or Serbia which has its medieval state and its comquest by Ottoman Empire, or Bulgaria which has the Bulgarian Empires and its occupation by the Ottoman Empire. So there are lots of predecessor states in Europe mentioned, but so are in outside Europe: for example Mexico which includes all of its constitutions (some of them Empires), or Egypt which has its unification in 3150 BC and the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, and its independence (as a kingdom) from the UK, and the foundation of the Republic. So there are many pages with predecessor states, so I'm curious which ones you looked?? Of course for some states there doesn't even exist predecessor states, because they can trace their roots back to tribes, and some states became independent from an other states rule (well you could say the occupation/being part of the other state period is indirectly the predecessor state). Regards Ransewiki (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked at most of the European ones you mentioned, and you have misreprsented what they say. They have a "Formation" parameter and mark the major formation events, not predecessor states, just as this article does. The first formation event mentioned in this infobox is the Act of Union. What's the problem with that? What is the edit you want to make? DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, they include the formation of their predecessors. You can't argue that Holy Roman Empire is the same state as Germany, or even its direct continuation. I want to add the formation of the UK's predecessors as that is important for forming the UK. Ransewiki (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No they don't. Does the the Formation parameter in the infobox of the Germany article refer to Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia etc.? No. It's a linear list of what the editors working on that article regard as the main formation events. It's a chronology not a list of predecessor states. The point raised in this thread was that the chronology of Formation events should extend to events prior to the union of England and Scotland and include the formation events of the UK's constituent parts. Consensus is not to do that. One of the reasons not to do that is where do you stop? Formation of Wessex, Kingdom of Strathclyde etc? DeCausa (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes its a chronology, but it also includes the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, and that is a predecessor state. --Ransewiki (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But why is that relevant? The equivalent of what you want for this article would be a list of the pre-unification of Germany states (Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia etc) and they're not there. As far as the HRE is concerned (I think it's dubious that that should be in the chronology in that way, but leaving that observation aside for the sake of argument), the equivalent of what you want to do there would be for that article to list the German Stem duchies, and they're not there either. DeCausa (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As I earlier said there would be no UK if England and Scotland wouldn't have formed in the first place. No acts of Union without the Parliaments of England and Scotland. Could Germany have been formed without some of the German stem duchies, the answer is yes. Could UK have been formed without either England or Scotland, the answer is NO. English parliament couldn't have passed the acts of union if there was no Scotland. And vice versa. Ransewiki (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone know how we got back to a situation when the only two named universities are Oxford and Cambridge? It would be nice to represent changes since the fifteenth century.--SabreBD (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Two people, including myself, have tried but our additions and citations have been removed Hayek79 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Territories and dependencies[edit]

Given that there is at present a section in the article about Crown Dependencies and overseas territories, I do not see why the map is inappropriate, especially when you consider that the UK is sovereign over British Overseas Territories. Hayek79 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me that the map should not be contained in the infobox, as the article (and infobox) is about the UK, and not its dependent territories. Unlike in France, Denmark, etc., the dependent territories are not part of the UK - they are separate. There is (quite appropriately) a section in the article explaining the UK's relationship with its dependent territories, and the map could be included there, were it not for the fact that there is already an image in that section (of the Cayman Islands). A map might, in my view, be of greater encyclopedic value, but including it there as a second image would squeeze the text unacceptably. Do other editors agree (1) that the map should be moved out of the infobox, and (2) be placed in the Dependencies section in place of the Cayman Islands image? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with your suggestions Ghmyrtle. In addition to the map being clearly unnecessary in the infobox, it also looks poor and out of place.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes and Yes. I agree with both of your suggestions, Ghmyrtle. Move the map into the Dependencies section in place of the Cayman Islands image. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Further to Ghmyrtle's comments, it is quite excessive to insert such a map in the infobox. We already need to resist the urge to keep adding just one more item, just one more map, to the infobox. This large map, showing virtually invisible pink pixels and a distorted block for the contested slice of Antarctica, and representing as it does but a small part of the UK's external relations, merely prevents the infobox from functioning for the reader. We could include such a map in the relevant section of the article, but this particular one conveys very little and does that poorly. NebY (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear - I support the view that the inclusion of the map, as it stands, is unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I included it in the relevent section, for which I was accused of edit warring, so I'm evidently wasting my time. It would appear from what's written here that most people do not "oppose inclusion of this map" Hayek79 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You were edit warring to include the map, regardless of which section it was in. There is no consensus to include the map at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the map is unneeded, and conveys little practical information: as NebY says almost invisible pink dots, and that's when you view the map at full scale: at thumbnail size it is impossible to see anything. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hayek79:, you were indeed edit-warring. You reverted three times against three different users. You should have stopped at the first revert and left it to discussion here per WP:BRD. As noted above, the map is inappropriate for the userbox - or for that matter for the whole article. Apart from anything else, it's not a helpful map: it leaves the casual reader with the impression it's a map of part of Antarctica. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working in Brazil with intermittent and poor internet access so apologies for not responding earlier when my revert to the previous stable state was reverted by Hayek79 in violation of WP:BRD. I tried to comment twice but the line kept dropping! Just to be clear I agree with Ghmyrtle ----Snowded TALK 17:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since they are not part of the UK they should be excluded. Incidentally, the UK is not sovereign over these territories, the sovereign is. And modern legal thinking is that she acts on the advice of her ministers for these territories, not on the advice of her ministers for the UK (although in the case of uninhabited territories they may be the same people). The UK is responsible for their defence and they have the right of self-determination. TFD (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That's incorrect, please read page 24 of the 2012 White Paper "continue to ensure that our sovereignty over the Territories is defended" and also Hayek79 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If you consider that the status of British overseas territories is in fact little different to those of France for instance, which too are self-governing and not part of metropolitan France (it is, logically speaking, no better than arguing that British colonies were never part of British Empire due to pooled sovereignty), and that similar maps, of a similar size and legibility appear on similar pages, I cannot understand the resistance to this change. And if DeCausa is interested, I moved the picture elsewhere in the article which is not the same a reversion, but I guess it doesn't matter if the three-revert rule is flexible whilst WP:BRD is apparently not. @The Four Deuces: any territory can claim to have the right to "self-determination", it's not a legal status. They have "self-government", sure. Hayek79 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Re sovereignty, if I understand it correctly, TFD is right about the Crown dependencies and Hayek79 about the Territories. Re inclusion of the map, it is used in the extensive article British Overseas Territories but we're not going to include everything in that article in this more general overview. Re similar maps, as the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS points out, there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. Re edit-warring, as the policy document WP:EDITWAR points out, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so, to which I'd add that it's much better to be warned in time than to cross the line and be blocked. NebY (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict), Hayek79, you're wrong on a couple of points. Firstly, 3RR is not as "flexible" as you think. For the purposes of that policy "a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Secondly, Metropolitan France has no equivalence with the "United Kingdom". It is closer to saying "mainland Britain". The key point is that the French Overseas departments and teritories are part of the French Republic, whereas the British overseas territories are not part of the united Kingdom. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I will concede that I was wrong about reversion, but I'd like to focus on dependencies and territories now. By Metropolitan France, I was referring to territory that is part of the French Republic, such as Algeria before 1962, whereas other colonies were not, perhaps I used the wrong word. For instance while French Guiana and Martinique are French territory with voting rights in the National Assembly etc, New Caledonia and collectivities such as French Polynesia have an entirely different status. Hayek79 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: I still think that it would be useful in the article somewhere, I equally would still argue that it's inclusion in the infobox does not increase it's length or complexity to too great a degree, and British sovereignty over these territories is still significant (given the presence of air and naval installations, and the enormous quantity of sterling held there). Is the difference between the inclusion of a territory within a country and the sovereignty of a country over a territory any more than a technicality? Hayek79 (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No, this is your fundamental misunderstanding. French Guiana, Martinique and French Polynesia are all within the French Republic. Gibraltar, st Helena etc are not within the United Kingdom. DeCausa (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggested nothing else, please read again what I have written Hayek79 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I see you suggesting the opposite. But if you say you understand that the French teritories are part of the state which is the subject of the article, whereas the British ones are not, then we can close this discussion. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hayek79, the map does not indicate whatever economic significance the places marked have and it is far too indistinct to indicate their somewhat arguable strategic significance. But that's just part of the problem; many other arguments against that map's inclusion in the body of this article or in the infobox have been expressed here. There's a point at which it's not merely collegial but required on Wikipedia to stop saying "I still think" and "I would still argue" and accept consensus. I think we've reached it. NebY (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hayek79, tertiary source are often unhelpful because they are unsourced and often inexact. See the 2005 Lords decision that explains the position.[1] The significance of the law is explained in the submission of the Gibraltar government in "Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Vol. 2, pp. 296 ff.)"[2] Sources frequently refer to the UK when the more precise term would be the Crown. I dio not even think that the UK has legal personhood under UK law, unlike the U.S. under U.S. law, hence it could not legally have sovereignty over a territory, although in everyday non-pedantic speech we would say it did. TFD (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formation dates for UK[edit]

Currently the article's info box lists several dates as the formation dates for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These include the England Scotland Act of Union, the Britain Ireland Act of Union and the Anglo Irish Treaty. I added in the Government of Ireland Act because that is how Northern Ireland was established. This was deleted. See my edit: [3]. Shouldn't the establishment of Northern Ireland, one of the 3 UK jurisdictions be marked on the list of dates? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to only list events which changed the territorial extent of the state. I don't think we should start listing events concerning devolution within the UK. Rob984 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
We do not want too much detail in the info-box. Currently it shows the union between England and Wales and Scotland, the subsequent union with Ireland and the later independence of Southern Ireland. I suppose all these dates are useful because each substantially altered the territory led to a name change. OTOH, some opinion holds that the UK was not a new country, merely a continuation of England and Wales. TFD (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The GoI Act 1920's only significance is that it set up the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972. It didn't alter the UK's territory. It's not relevant to the "Formation" parameter and actually not significant enough for the Infobox at all. We don't for instance include the legislation setting up the current NI devolved institutions, or those for Scotland and Wales. DeCausa (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept that Rob has made a coherent argument - He feels that only events which changed the territorial extent of the state should be listed. It is not the approach I would take because I think when listing dates relevant to the formation of UKGBNI, the creation of NI is an integral part of that story. But I accept Rob's is at least coherent and a defensible editorial take.
I think DeCausa's views are confused and not persuasive at all. The "legislation setting up the current NI devolved institutions, or those for Scotland and Wales" did not, in any of those cases, involve the formation of a new jurisdiction. The Government of Ireland Act did. It established Northern Ireland. That establishment is even reflected in the full name of the UK (UKGBNI) today.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if true (citation needed) it's nothing to do with "formation". I think this can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, how you can say it has nothing to do with formation! It "formed" NI. Without it, NI which is 1 of the 3 remainingf UK jurisdictions would not exist! You seem to have a doubt about about the truth of all this too. I suggest you read the Government of Ireland Act. For the exact date it was and thereby NI "formed", you can see it is referenced with the source on the NI page. Obviously, I would like it to be referenced on the UK page too but it isn't at present which is what this discussion was basically about, albeit it could be referenced elsewhere in the article but isn't. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

All the Government of Ireland Act 1920 did was divide Ireland into two parts. Neither part had sovereignty and their administrations were no different from various municipalities - we would not mention creation of the GLC as a milestone in this article. The event significant event was the departure of Southern Ireland from the UK. TFD (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. Prior to the act, there were two jurisdictions in the UK: *England, Wales and Ireland*, and *Scotland*. After there were four: *England and Wales*, *Scotland*, *Northern Ireland*, and *Southern Ireland*. Undoubtedly more significant then devolution. That said, I stand by my first comment. Rob984 (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that?DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT, Ireland remained a division of the UK, but it was sub-divided. The act declared that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would continue to represent the king and there would be a Council of Ireland. Each division of Ireland would in addition have its own house of commons.
But other divisions of the UK were subdivided as well. England for example had counties, each with a lord lieutenant. Yorkshire was divided into three ridings. Counties were divided into municipalities. TFD (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

England's annexation of Wales[edit]

The amendment of “The Principality of Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England in 1536.” to “Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543.” in the Lead was reverted with the edit summary “Powys was annexed in the 13th century”, which is news to me. Following the defeat of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the Kingdom of Powys became one of the Marcher Lordships - until the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. To single out the Principality of Wales, which comprised only about 2/3 of Wales, as being incorporated into England is misleading. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 state: “That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his Realm of England” i.e. “Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543”, whether or not any other parts of Wales were under English control before the Acts. I have re-instated the statement. Daicaregos (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you. I guess we can forgive people's confusion over this, as the story is a little complicated. As you say, 2/3 of Wales was more or less annexed to England in 1284. But small parts of Wales had already become direct possessions of the Crown earlier in the same century, and the Marcher Lordships remained as semi-independent entities (which were not by any means unambiguously Norman or English in law or custom). In fact, John Davies points out that the Laws in Wales Acts were really more about incorporating the Welsh Marches into England than the Principality, although they also smoothed out some wrinkles in the incorporation of the Principality too. To complicate things further, it's not even the case that the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 exactly annexed the Principality to England. It was an annexation to the English Crown, which is not quite the same thing. And while it did introduce English Common Law into the Principality, the introduction wasn't complete. The annexation of Wales to England is indeed much better described as occurring with the Laws in Wales Acts 1532–1542. That might have been the culmination of a long process, but if we want to go back to the origins of that process, we might as well start with the oath of fealty of the Prince of Wales to the King of England (and then we'd have to say that Scotland joined England in the Middle Ages too). Garik (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It may be even more complex. Wales remained a separate entity, with its own courts, which were considered "foreign" to English courts even as late as the end of the 18th century. See for example Otway v. Ramsay (1736), Walker v. Witter (1778), and Galbraith v. Neville (1789). TFD (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As Garik says, the Laws in Wales Acts were the culmination of a process. "Annexed" slightly gives the wrong impression of a single dramatic event. It may be better to use a phrase such as "finally incorporated into the Kingdom of England" rather than "annexed". DeCausa (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Wales was incorporated into England and Wales. Both remained separate but within the same country, which was the continuator state of England, while Wales as a separate country was extinguished. At some point parliament said that "England" meant England and Wales. TFD (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Year for United Kingdom have been a country since[edit]

Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in "<any year>"" for United Kingdom?

I do not know how long United Kingdom have been a country for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)