Talk:United Kingdom

Smacks of Vandalism

hi there, i don't edit wikipedia and thus have no account and can't be bothered with creating one. but anyhow, i think the article's heading naming the article "united kingdom of great britain and northern ICELAND" should be changed to "... northern IRELAND", don't you think? i hope, someone does it for me, since i'm so lazy (see above).

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)

The British Empire (although of course not the UK alone) was one of the entities designated as superpower when that term was invented in 1942. FWIW. laddiebuck 06:11, 16 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)

British Isles = The islands of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales), Ireland (NI and Republic of Ireland), Man, Wight, Hebrides, Orkneys, etc etc. UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ie England, Scotland, Wales, NI)

"British" has two definitions: 1) Pertaining to the whole of the British Isles (despite what some in the ROI would say!); 2) Pertaining to the island of Great Britain alone. Neither definition is the synonymous with the UK, though confusion is understandable. 82.44.82.167 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)catiline63

I like cheese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.7.146 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you call a citizen of the United Kingdom then? United Kingdomer? No the official name for a citizen of the UK is British. The Northern Irish nationalists, by denying British nationality, are making a comment that they think none of Ireland should be in the British State. They are not making a comment on whether Britain and the UK are synonymous. In their opinion I'd imagine it would be synonymous, as it is seen as an occupying state not a union of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland. Scroggie 08:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're at cross-purposes here. My post isn't a political one but was to point out that the correct abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is "UK" (an exact term), not "(Great) Britain" (which is the debate that started this thread). As for what is the demonym for UK residents: British, Britons, or UK citizens. 82.44.82.167 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

I can't believe this same fucking debate comes up again and again and again on Wikipedia. The name Britain is commonly (and correctly) used to refer to the UK. There is plenty of evidence for this.

Just look at how often Gordon Brown uses the word Britain when he's talking about this country. Or are you suggesting that even the Prime Minister continually gets the name of the country wrong? Malcolm Starkey 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Britain should stay, why? British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, British monarch Elizabeth II and (for musical history) British Invasion. GoodDay 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to swear. The use of "Britian" as shorthand for "UK" may be common but coloquial terminology does not equate with correct terminology - which is what an encyclopaedia entry should use - regardless of what Gordon Brown says. I suggest you type British Isles (Terminolgy) into your wiki browser, read the piece, and then come back and try and argue that you're still right. Since you cited her as an example, you may also wish to look at the Queen's wiki page, where she is never refered to as the queen of Britian (always UK). They even supply her proper title - "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" 82.44.82.167 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Tell you what. You find me a reputable citation proving that it is wrong to call the UK "Britain". The Guardian style guide (written, like most newspaper style guides, by professional sub-editors who make a living being precise with words) maintains that the term is correct. All other British (yes, British) newspaper style guides do the same, but regrettably they are not published on the internet for all to see.

All you have to do is find a reliable source saying that your opinion is actually a fact. Something along the lines of "The word Britain should not be used to refer to the United Kingdom, according to The Made Up Guide for Writers and Editors." Examples by omission are not good enough, I'm afraid, to counter the overwhelming evidence that Britain is a viable (and correct) synonym for UK. 80.254.147.52 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, you trumped be there by citing the Grauniad! I concede. Seriously though, even the most cursory of look in that paper's daily corrections column is enough to show anyone that it's journalists and subs exhibit far less diligence in their work that you credit them with. "Britian" may well be used as a synonym for the UK. However its a synonym only insofar that its a colloqualism - much the same way that "America(n)" is commonly understood to mean the US or of the US, while the exact definition is very different. The British Isles (Terminology) site I refered to quotes both the offical British Government website (direct.gov) and the OAD. Thus:

Directgov: "The term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; OAD: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit." OAD: "Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."

Thus while "Britian" may "informally", "broadly", or "loosely" be used to refer to the UK, the synonym is inexact and far from the "correct" that you'd contend.82.44.82.167 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Where is the citation saying it is incorrect? I don't see one.

Moreover, the British Isles (Terminology) page to which you refer specifically says that Britain is a synonym, and does not say it should not be used. I quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sovereign state occupying the island of Great Britain, the small nearby islands (but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands), and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland. Usually, it is shortened to United Kingdom, UK or Britain."

I have no idea what the OAD is - I assume it's probably an American dictionary - but my Collins Dictionary defines Britain as: "another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom". No mention of it being informal, colloquial, loose or in any way wrong.

PS Re: The Guardian subs. There's no apostrophe in the word "its" when it is possessive. There is, however, one when it's an abbreviation of "it is". Pot/kettle etc. 80.254.147.52 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to the wiki BI(T) page is invalid because all it does is link to the erroneous Grauniad footnote which I've dealt with above. (Hey, your whole arguement isn't based on the Guardian is it???)

OAD = Oxford American Dictionary. I don't have access to the OED, but I guess - seeing that the Univ. of Oxford controls the publication of both - that the entries would be similar. Webster's online defines the UK as England, Scotland, Wales and NI, while it defines Britian as England, Scotland, and Wales. Is there is difference? Yes, the exclusion of NI. If there's a difference they can't be synonymous. Similar, yes. Synonymous, no. The terms are not interchangable.

From Directgov again: "'UK' or 'Britain'?: The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. 'The UK' is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 'Great Britain' (or just 'Britain') does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK." Mmmm... seems that the Government is aware of a difference too...

Nor does the CIA World Factbook list "Britian" as a the correct abbreviated form, listing only United Kingdom or UK.

"Ah" I hear you say "but neither the British or US Governments say that the terms are not synonymous, do they". No they don't. But then it's not their job to point out that asynonymous terms are asynonymous.

BTW nice pointing out of the apostrophe use. I knew that would be tempting. 82.44.82.167 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Its interesting to note that even the last edit refers to the gov of the UK as the "Britsh Government" Abtract 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

here is the page. Although it says that Great Britain can be referred to as Britain it doesn't say that the UK can't. Interestingly, it is in the section called "About Britain" (see the URL). josh (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! This debate is inane! Shut up! Malcolm Starkey 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the second criticism in my last post. Just because the government (or anyone else) doesn't say that Britain doesn't equate with UK is NOT a tacit admission that the terms are equivalent. The arguement is specious. Using the same logic I could argue any point on Earth simply by stating "well they don't say it isn't". Nor should Direct.gov's colloquial use of Britian be cited as supportive to your arguement - I've never said that the term Britain cannot be used colloquially to refer to the UK, just that it shouldn't be considered as either a proper abbreviation or synonymous. The example of using "America" to mean the United States it just as technically and geographically inaccurate, although the usage is common. As for the first criticism - I was assuming the character of the opposition when refering to the British government. The inverted commas were a tell-tale sign that I wasn't writing in the first person. 82.44.82.167 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Face facts, mate. You are in the minority. You can huff and puff here as much as you like, but you won't convince anyone with your badly typed and rather obdurate line of argument. So why not run along now and find another page to troll. Malcolm Starkey 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah finally, the ad hominem response. Since when has being in the minority made one wrong? 82.44.82.167 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Since we were talking about language. What ever is common usage is correct. Ten years ago the word muddle didn't exist. Now it has even made it into the dictionary. A hundred years ago England was used to refer to the UK. Language is in the ownership of the majority, which in this case use Britain as a common term for the UK. Get over it. josh (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that the muddle that the Online Etymology Dictionary records as first being used in English in 1697? Maybe there's a newer definition on the street that I'm unaware of. I'm well aware that languages change but once again my point has been entirely missed. As I stress, I've never said that "(Great) Britain" isn't a commonly used and commonly recognised euphemism for the UK, but my point is that the terms are not synonymous and shouldn't be intimated as such in an encyclopaedia entry. The former is the island of England, Scotland and Wales; the latter is the political union between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That distinction may well be too subtle for those who use the terms as if they're interchangable, but the distinction is there nonetheless. My suggestion is that the wording in the opening paragraph should be changed to reflect this - from "also known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain" to "also known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or, commonly, Britain". For any who are confused there's already a link after this sentence which takes the reader to the British Isles (Terminology) site. There at least they seem to have things more or less in order. There's even a nice diagram to explain things. 82.44.82.167 12:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Since Britain isn't going to be removed from the article (due to majority opinon/consensus), there's little to discuss. Your constant protestations are merely 'bloggings'. But then, we're guilty of responding to your complaints (thus encouraging you to continue complaining). I'd suggest this discussion be considered ended. GoodDay 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made no such suggestion to remove Britain from the page - have you not read any of my posts? Nor do juvenile attempts to close down counter-arguments by saying "discussion ended", "get over it", or "shut up" lend any weight to the argument against me. In fact, while in the past 2 days I've cited UK and US governmental sources and the Oxford and Webster's English dictionaries to support my point (hell, even other wiki pages agree with me! - not only the aforementioned Terminology page, but Wiktionary agrees with my contention that Britian is only loosely the UK), I've yet to read a single considered, cogent response from anyone who's opposed my views - apart from the poster who claimed the Guardian as evidence.

I might be outnumbered, but you fellas are putting up a damned poor effort to argue your point - beyond the continual, abysmal, amateurish utterances of "because it is".82.44.82.167 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

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)

Don't see the problem with having Southampton and Portsmouth as they both already fit onto the map without any problem. I don't see how Southampton covers Portsmouth, yet Plymouth isn't good enough to cover all the small towns in Cornwall. Southampton is an inland industrial port and Portsmouth is a naval port, both are distict now and historically. I don't see the problem with using the biggest cities, unless there is no more room, so maybe Wolverhampton could be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marky-Son (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where you stick the labels, obviously - there's an awful lot of Mid-Wales for a Wolverhampton label to go into, whilst Birmingham fits nicely underneath its "dot"! Seriously, that was my point entirely - try to fit them in by population size, but if there's no way they fit, or if it makes it look particularly messy, then the "next" one in the list could be added. Southampton could fit to the left of the "dot", whilst Portsmouth could easily fit to the right or beneath its "dot". However, Portsmouth's down at number 26, so it may well not get on anyway. Fingerpuppet 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with the right software please be bold and add Leeds, Sheffield to the map? It is quite obvious we need some more Yorkshire dots in there, even if it means removing Middlebrough. --Asterion^talk 20:40, 15 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)

It's not wrong at all to describe the UK as being "today a predominantly secular state" as that is exactly what the UK is. Further there is source/citation for this. Christianity is the traditional religion for sure, and this highlighted in the Christianity section.Vexorg 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Vexorg, but I think that you are trying to impose your version as though you owned the page. Given the opposition to your version among other editors, you should have raised the issue here and allowed time for discussion before editing the article again. Viewfinder 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was a fair compromise between the Christian and the secular, and I cannot see any evidence that it is opposed by any other editors except Vexorg. Therefore I have restored it. Viewfinder 01:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg. Until The Church of England is dis-established, the Head of State is no longer also the Head of the Church of England, the Lords Spiritual are removed from the House of Lords, and the Prime Minister is no longer involved in Appointment of Church of England bishops, Britain cannot be described as a secular state. Far from it. What the populace practise is an entirely different matter. Jooler 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes your right. It could haev been worded better. Sorted.Vexorg 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Vexorg has heavily edited the Religion in the UK article which leads with - the UK is today a predominantly secular state with only 38%[1] of the population believing in a God. Conflating the issues of secularity and the levels of belief in God. Jooler 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not just the wording but the content that I am not happy about. There is room for compromise, but please can we agree on the wording here before editing the main article again. Thank you. Viewfinder 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What in the content are you not happy about? My edits improved the opening paragraph to reflect the current religious climate in the UK. Something which is important for a reader not familiar with the UK. Further you say opposition "among other editors". Just one ( Jooler ) who made a good point about the description of "secular state" which I subsequently improved. There seems to be a more balanced debate here .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Misuse_of_.27secular.27 I shall not immediately fix your hasty reversions just yet. Vexorg 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate you direct me to is about the term "secular state" and Vexorg appears to have conceded that this was not an appropriate term, so I am continuing the discussion on this page. But I still disagree with Vexorg's edits; the term "Christian" was removed from the lead paragraph, and, apart from the spelling, grammar and typographical errors (which I will not correct as that would condone the edits), the edits removed sourced, appropriate and relevant material about the state of Christianity in the UK and created pro-secular bias. I am also not sure about the term "minor theocratic aspect"; this does not sound right at all to me. Many "non-believers" in the literal sense are still Christians in the sense that they still hold with Christian values. If majority support emerges on this talk page for Vexorg's version then I will accept it, but so far it would appear that there is no support. Viewfinder 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see it looks like you have an issue with showing the current secularity of the UK. Vexorg's improvements did not water down the extent of Christianity in the UK at all, but introduced the articles to show how things are in 2007. In both this and the Religion in the UK article, even after Vexorg's edits, Christianity still takes thje starring role. As it should do, given that it's the majority religion. Vexorg's additions were appropriate IMO81.77.54.242 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The words "the UK has become increasingly secular" have been retained and I agree with that retention. Vexorg specifically removed Christianity from the lead paragraph. Viewfinder 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vexorg specifically removed Christianity from the lead paragraph" - I can see you're specifically upset with that judging by your hasty reverts. But why is that such a problem? As 81.77.54.242 has said, Christianity is the major religion and in both wiki pages it rightly takes up the majority of copy. Your reversion simply starts the article with a description of those identifying themselves as Christian based upon a census that's nearly 7 years old. My wording and content in the opening paragraph is much more accurately descriptive as it tells the reader both of the 'theocratic aspect' of the Church of England/Monarch relationship and also tells of the prodominently secular society in the UK today. The is no 'pro-secular bias from a political point of view. It's simply a fact that UK society today is mainly secular and it's important to put that across when describing the extent of religion in the UK. Your reversion also removed some important info regarding the dynamics of religious adherence in the UK. My edits described the Christian adherency in the 2001 census and how things were changing/declining by citing the Tearfund aurvey. I put this in the Christian section becuase that's where it belongs. The opening paragraphs of the articles should talk about religion in the UK in general including secularity and breifly decribe the connection between church and state and the brioadly secular nature of society. And that's exactly what I did.Vexorg 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "hasty reverts" were of controversial material similar to what you had added before and been reverted by another editor. In such situations you should seek consensus on the talk page before reinstating. Fortunately the discussion has now moved onto the talk page where your version can be considered by other editors before it is reinstated. Please allow more time for this before you reinstate your version again. Viewfinder 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that much of what I 'inserted' recently was material that was in the article many months ago that someone had deleted. While I agree this should be discussed with any interested parties, 'hasty reverts' don't help the matter either. Anyway, in view of your comments I have made some adjsutmentsm but will allow more time for comment. Thanks Vexorg 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, what was in the article many months ago was edited by a pro-Christian editor. I then tried to strike a fair balance which I hoped would stick. See also my opening contribution to this section. You then introduced what I considered to be pro-secular bias. I did not revert you, I raised the matter here and another editor reverted. My version then stood for another four weeks. You then reintroduced yours, when you should have taken your case to the talk page, and invited a discussion first, per WP:BRD. That is why I reverted. Still, we are on the right track now. Let us see if we get further comments from other editors. Viewfinder 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left this for a few days as requested and there doesnt' appear to be any urgency from anyoen else. I've now made some edits for the reasons I've outlined above and also added a mention for Christianity in the first paragraph.Vexorg 02:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could avoid the word secular and say something like, 'Freedom of conscience in regard to matters of religion is garanteed by UK law. Christianity is the dominant religion. The sovereign remains head of the Church of England and appoints bishops and other clerical officers upon the advice of the prime minister.' I suspect that the UK is a paradoxical creature: a secular state with an established church. After all, government ministers are not obliged to be members of the C of E. Neither are the Lords Spiritual. The state does not promote the C of E to the prejudice of other Christian denominations. In fact it takes pains to avoid doing so. --Gazzster 23:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word secular? It descrbes UK society perfectly. i.e one that is largely non-religous in the practising sense and one that is equally accepting of all faiths and non faiths. On the contrary to being a word to avoid it's the most fitting description of UK society.Vexorg 23:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think the word secular should be avoided. BTW I say this as an atheist. So no axe to grind here. Jooler 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no valid reason to avoid the word secular. It's the best term for the UK populace.Vexorg 21:10, 10 October 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/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=157114359 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=157032846 - misleading edit summary (actually an edit against WP guidelines).
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC&diff=prev&oldid=155125446 - edit against WP guidelines
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157113610 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Lead_section&diff=prev&oldid=157033808 - repeat of edit of WP:guideline without consensus.
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=154021522 - edit against guideline for article lead.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155103156 - another against guideline for article lead.
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155115864 - repeat of edit against guideline for article lead.
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155090200 - removal of 'de facto'
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155094338 - repeat removal of 'de facto'
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155095242 - another removal of 'de facto'
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155102166 - yet another removal of 'de facto'
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=155116219 - and yet another removal of 'de facto'
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/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/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207 - change of lead against consensus.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/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/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/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)

the UK, a country or countries?

Howabout a compromise - union of constituent countries, let's try that. GoodDay 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen or heard any source describe the UK in such terms before - what was wrong exactly with "a country"? - it's verifiable. Jza84 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Country is fine (and consistant with the other country articles); however there's some editors out who have a problem with it. GoodDay 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've heard it all now - amazing! - I've just Googled it ([9]), you get 33,800 results, including [10] [11] [12]... need I really go on and Google "political union of constituent countries" or other such new definitions? Jza84 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This minority of users should really think about accepting what is published in the long-established reference, what is taken as a precedent from other articles, and what has been the consensus position in previous discussions before applying their POVs on this very fundamental issue. The UK is a country, and anything stated to the contrary is laughable. Bastin 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In agreement, it's one country (the one monarch, one prime minister and one Parliament, gave the clues). The consensus seals the deal. GoodDay 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo I'm not so sure - should we take it to a straw poll??? Jza84 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you and your fellow dissenting minority should abide by the text of the reference and the consensus. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we're all in agreemtn, one country. GoodDay 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jza84 (and Bastun), even with quite a restrictive search string you can find 5,420, so hardly a new definition. Hell, even Downing Street is getting in on it ("The United Kingdom is made up of four countries ..."). Probably has something to do with 1801, 1707, separate and distinct judicial areas, no national football team, etc. ... --sony-youth^pléigh 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the "source". Again to quote it, "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries ..." --sony-youth^pléigh 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also made up of mountains, islands, urban areas, boroughs, counties etc etc, but it is, by definiation, a country! Different districts (named divisions of land for political purposes) have different sports teams, but they are united. And sorry, when exactly did the Welsh Olympic team win a medal? I'm sorry, but the citation and consensus really is too strong here. Jza84 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are referring to the citation that directly contradicts your argument here? Please don't obfuscate discussion by referring to other definitions of "country", otherwise we'll end up writing articles describing London as a country. My point is not to push one view or the other, but to ask that valid perspectives not be dismissed out of hand just because we don't like them - and that if a source is to be cited that we read more than just its title. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know from both your user page and personal experience that you have a dislikeing for the adjective "British", you're an Irish Republican, and are for the total dissolution of the UK - you obviously want to weaken the status of UK by any means possible. I think it's fair to say you're perspective is going to be somewhat distorted here, but I'll play along... so tell me Sony, if you're for the break up of the UK, what is it you're breaking up? Is a "Kingdom" a country? Are the 33,000 sources lying to us? Are the users who agree the UK is a country totally wrong and purposely spreading lies? Why does the UK have an olympic team, a shared monarch, a shared prime minister, entry into the EU, entry into the UN, foreign consulates, sovereignty etc, etc, etc, etc? I'll even give you an answer to your point - London isn't a country, because neither citation or a mainstream view takes that stance, and the UK is a country made up of four countries - countaining countries within its boundaries doen't stop it being a country itself by any means at all. Jza84 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First, please see the second bullet point for what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." (On the last point, although irrevelent, you should be aware that in UK and Irish terminology a common distinction is drawn between Irish nationalists and republicans - and certainly so when capitalised - the latter denoting the physical force/terrorism side of affairs.) You'll no doubt withdraw anything about it being fair to say that my "perspective is going to be somewhat distorted" and so forth in you next post, so there's little reason for me retort with similarly immature speculations about you from what little I can draw from your user page or our few exchanges before.

Second, the attributes you describe are those given to sovereign states. "Country", today at least, draws in connotations of the nation state. While these (in Europe at least) generally coincide with each other, they are not always so. The UK is an example where things become confusing. The sovereign state is quite clear. Its the United Kingdom. But is the nation/country British? Or ENG/SCO/WAL/NI? I would say both, as, I suppose, you would too. And we both know that there are plenty of sources to back both cases up.

Are 33,000 sources lying to us? No, I doubt it. Could you cite one that doesn't (at least appear to) contradict the statement it is supposed to support, like the current one does? I doubt that, too. What might help is a more mature treatment of the issue rather than banding words around that have very complex meanings in this context as if the matter was straight cut and dry. Let's get it clear, I'm not saying that the UK is not a country, nor do I have any issue with it being called one, but you're going run into many people who are going to say that it is better to say it another way. One such person was our colleague GoodDay, who said, quite correctly, that the UK is a union of constituent countries. If this is unpalatable to you, as compromise might be to include both ways in the lede e.g. "... is a country and sovereign state to the north-west of mainland Europe comprised of the union of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

(On the matter of London being a country, there was really no need to 'answer my point'. I was asking you to cut out the obfuscation. You can 'answer' that request just by doing it.) --sony-youth^pléigh 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear the word "country" has several meanings. One of them, and a very common usage, is for sovereign states. Thus both the French and German articles say "a country". Therefore the usage is quite correct. In fact most entities we regard as "countries" consist of what in the past were also regarded as "countries". --Michael Johnson 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The word 'country' is commonly understood to mean a sovereign enitity. But true, it is also ambiguous. Are Scotland, Wales and Ireland 'countries"? Are Yorkshire, Cornwall or Essex 'countries'? To avoid ambiguities, perhaps 'nation' is the word to use. It has the advantage of being precise, meaning a sovereign entity.--Gazzster 10:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation is surely going to cause more controversy than county (see the recent issue on Talk:Scotland on just that issue). If we are going to take country to mean "sovereign state" then can we drop the tautology ("country and sovereign state")? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No it's not. "Nation" is just as ambiguous as "country" in a UK context. -- Arwel (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

::I was just wondering (not looking for an argument), if the UK is a union of four countries (as Tharky and Sony argue), would the UK be called the United Kingdoms? Anyways, as long as the articles on countries use country as an opening discriptive; then the UK must go along with that. GoodDay 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the country is called United Kingdom & not United Kingdoms, that proves further 'one country'. But I think I understand the historical pride in the four components (which I feel is occuring in this discussion). I have to be careful not to look at this from strictly a Canadian PoV - If I did, I'd be treating England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as British provinces. Therefore (to avoid political PoV disputes), I've chosen to go along with the consensus here (and keeping in mind that, other country articles use country as an opening discriptive). GoodDay 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since the country is called United Kingdom & not United Kingdoms, that proves further 'one country'." Is this looking from a North American POV i.e. its the United States not United State? Remember that a kingdom is only a form of government - think of state vs. country, these need not be the same thing, whether the state be sovereign or not. In 1800 there were two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, both of which had the same king but which were run separately (distinct states). In 1801, one unified kingdom was made from both: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In the example of the United States, one united state was never created, hence plural. But yet the United States, despite being a plural, is called one country, whereas the United Kingdom, despite being called singular, continues to contains four countries - as the current reference supports.

I don't think that this is any reason for not describing the UK as a country but it is something that needs to be made clear. As the current source backs up, describing the UK as a country and not saying that it is a 'country of countries' is misleading. I am also more convinced that ever that if we are going to use "country" in the sense of a sovereign state then we need to remove the tautology of "... is a country and a sovereign state ..." is simply meaningless unless what you are mean by "country" is not what is captured by the phrase "sovereign state" . --sony-youth^pléigh 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, United Kingdoms was a terrible example (also it's a contradictive title). Oh well, my (above) proposal union of constituent countries is still an option. GoodDay 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The UK is one country, made up of four former countries, which in turn in many cases were themselves amalgams of former countries. Contrast Australia, Canada and the US. These are federations where the respective constitutions divide sovereignty between the federal and state governments. Constituent former countries in the UK do not even have as much sovereignty as an Australian state. The current arrangements for self government in Scotland, for instance, can be removed or amended by the Parliament in Westminster. Ambassadors are appointed to the UK, not to England or Scotland. It is the UK defence forces that fight in Iraq, and it is through UK immigration that you must go to enter an part of the UK. Further thoughts: Tanzania is a country that includes the former country of Zanzibar, Texas is a former country now part of the US. The United Kingdom, for better or worse, is a country. --Michael Johnson 04:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpick: The United Republic of Tanzania includes two former countries, Tanganyika (formerly German East Africa), and Zanzibar. -- Arwel (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then devolution kinda complicates things, doesn't it? Has the UK Parliament surrendered some of its sovereign rights to Scotland and Wales? Do those countries (nations, states, whatever) possess a measure of sovereignty? The UK is a state in transition. Who knows? Perhaps in time Scotland will move to complete independence. --Gazzster 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, who knows? But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For the present the UK is a country, and Scotland is part of it. --Michael Johnson 07:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point mate. Yes, the UK is a country. But Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, perhaps Cornwall might have a claim to be called countries in a broader sense. After all, they have a tradition and an identity distinct (though interwined) with England's. The UK is perhaps restoring part of their sovereignty. But I'm just making intellectual banter, I don't care which word is used.--Gazzster 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone ever notice that England, has never sought independance from the UK. Back to the topic - the United Kingdom is one country. GoodDay 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/ & http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/ - btw I'm not advocating or dismissing this, just providing the links. Jooler 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, there are English who desire independance (and I thought it was just an Irish, Scottish, Welsh thing). Oh well, back to the topic. GoodDay 15:45, 16 September 2007 (

Oh come on, it is one country and four countries - both are applicable and all the points you have made are valid. 4 football teams, one Prime Minister. The whole thing is subjective, I for one see myself as both -I am English and British, as well as a bit Scottish and European- and considering the usage of such terms in both contexts you won't get anywhere trying to say one is above the other - the term doesn't allow for it. So I suggest you get around the issue by saying it is a "State" - that word actually has a proper definition and isn't subject to the same divisions that country or nation is. - J Logan ^t: 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean drop the word "country" all together (can also drop sov. at the same time, problematic but that is another issue) - J Logan ^t: 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this - it had previous said "country and soveriegn state". I edited out "sovereign state" because it made no sense having both, if what was meant by each was the same thing. I'd side with putting "soveriegn state" back in and taking "country" out.

Republic of Ireland is another example of one where "country" and "soveriegn state" collide. Which is the "country": the whole island or the sovereign state? Which is the soverign state is clear-cut, but "country" mean both. The current method exploits the blurriness of the word "country": "Ireland is a country in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned in 1921." (The proper name for the Republic is "Ireland".)

Maybe a similar "trick" could work here? --sony-youth^pléigh 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree too: we can call the UK a country. But then, we can call its constituent parts countries too. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct traditions, and they are countries. 'Country' is an ambiguous term: it can mean a sovereign state; it can mean a geographical or cultural area.We can talk about the country of Wales, the country of Somerset, the Lake country. As with many words in English, the sense of the word is taken from the context.--Gazzster 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. The "state" is the body politic of a country, not its totality. While it is undeniably true to say that the UK is a state that is an incomplete and insufficient description. Mucky Duck 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"A state", Mucky, not the euphemism "the state". The concept of a state includes territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty etc. What do you feel is lacking that can only be captured by the word "country" in this case? --sony-youth^pléigh 10:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that this problem can be solved by using reliable, verifiable, citation rather than conjecturalising and spinning. Certainly the "Number 10" webspace satisfies Wikipedia's standards of quality citation, but perhaps something from the published, printed realm may strengthen the lead here too? Jza84 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. So you can quote a positive statement from the No.10 web site that verifies the one included here. Good. Now, can you cite it for me? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to check out your own reference, Sony:

A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

Of your list the concepts of tertory, population and resources are missing from the concept of state. Mucky Duck 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's re-examine your quote, Mucky (though Wiki is not a good source as you know, I only linked to it, didn't mean it as a reference). I'll highlight the relevent words for you:

A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it.

The resources of the terriroty are not mentioned in the Wiki, IMO they really should be added - I cannot think of any sovereign state that does not claim to have sovereignty over the air, land, sea (as resources) of its territory.

I'd like to see Weber's definition in full, the bit that's there only mentions territory, as you can see. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it says that a state is the political association with effective dominion over a geographic area, not the geographical are itself. It says that it is the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society - not those people themselves. The resources of the territory are not part of the state - the state has sovereignty over them. All these things come under the meaning of country but not of state - very different things. Mucky Duck 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That is why I wrote that "The concept of a state includes territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty etc." Or maybe you can think of a state that does not have territory, populous, administration, resources, soverignty (not necessarilty complete) etc. Any chance that you'll now answer my question to you? Or are you still hung up on the fact that states have territory, people, administrations, resources, sovereignty, etc.? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Found the Weber quote in full:

"Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state."

I hope you'll take Weber's word for it that the state is a "human community" and that "'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state." There are of couse more characteristics of the state (what I called sovereignty, Webers describes as a "monopoly" etc.). Further on he deals with administration, resources, etc. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course a state is a human community - that's what I've been saying. A country is rather more than that. By "characteristic" he is not say that territory is part of the state - he is saying that to be a state it has to be able to claim legitimate use of physical force over it the legitimate use of force over territory - ie territory is a characteristic of a state as opposed, for example, to a resistance movement. Territory is not part of a "human community" - it is, however, part of a country. Mucky Duck 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the man speak for himself: "... a state is a human community ... 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And "a state is the political association with effective dominion over a geographic area" etc. etc. He is perfectly clear that "state" refers to the political institutions of a country: Not the country itself. Mucky Duck 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add a suggestion I've made before, but was rejected. "The UK is a sovereign country." Sovereign has most of the implications of the word state and the word country is kept, thereby eliminating the tautology. This contrasts it with constituent country, used for Scotland, England, Wales and NI. A criticism of this before was that the term sovereign country is not used, but I'm not using it as a term in itself, just a normal adjective with a noun.AlexOUK 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even muckier, I'm sorry - but I applaud the direction. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why that's a problem - it certainly is a sovereign country, and that is not an unusual phrase. Mucky Duck 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For sure, there's 310,000 hits for the phrase from Google. My issue is that if the territory currently occupied by the UK could be called a country if the state of the UK ceased to exist or indeed never did. The adjective "sovereign" presupposes that we are talking about a original "country". The close tie between sovereignty and statehood implies that the "country" we are talking has achieved statehood (thus the adjective). The UK goes the other way around surely, first state, then country rather than the two arising together or fist being a country, then being a state. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You can't have a state without a country for that state to have dominion over. That's what your quotation from Weber above was explaining. Mucky Duck 09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the Irish example: the 26 counties never constitued a "country" in any sense before the formation of the Free State. It was formation of the "state" started a process whereby the 26 counties could begin to be thought of as a the "country" in some small sense. None the less, even without thinking of politics, the "country" is still thought of as the 32 counties (e.g cricket, rugby, cycling, hockey teams etc.) The territory of the state, however, is unequivically the 26 counties.

In precise terms, it is not that you cannot have a state without a country, it is that you cannot have a state without territory. But territory and country are two different things. Take the Netherlands as another example, the country is entirly based in Europe, but the territory of the state inclues the Antilles and Aruba.

A country is not equal to the territory of a state (although they do quite often overlap). My question was if the UK ceased to be a state, or before it ever became one, would the territory of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be thuoght of as a "country." --sony-youth^pléigh 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irish example: Yes, the territory of the state, not the state.

I don't disagree with you that territory and country are not coterminous terms. Apart from the differences that you point out country refers to much more than territory - people, culture, history. I do not think that is the discussion, though. Neither of us, I think, would claim that "The UK is a territory..." would be satisfactory. The point is that this article is about much more than the state - pretty much all of the article except section 2 in fact. Mucky Duck 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I missed your question, apologies. A country can certainly get its countryship through being the dominion of a single state. In fact that's probably the normal case. But it's not relevant; it doesn't make it into a state, just administered by one. This article is not about the state but about the country. Mucky Duck 11:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK we're a loggerheads and we're not going to agree. Semantic arguments about the territory/people/etc. of a state, I think are about a meaningful as arguments about the territory/people/etc. of a country. That the UK is a country, in my view, is solely so because it is a state first-and-foremost. The current set-up doesn't really bother me so much (I made the edit) as it did when it was described as a "country and sovereign state" (tautology in this case). However, the current reference is woeful, there are surely better ones out there.

I've two suggestions for compromise:

Compromise #1: Described first as a "state" then in all other instances refer to it as a "country."

Compromise #2: Keeping country as the word but linking to "state." (The country article is essentially a long-form disambiguation page anyway between state, nation and constituent country - of which state is clearly the choice here.

(Incidentally, I only just looked at the country article, it discusses exactly what we've been arguing here, and even refers to the UK directly.) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else you think discussion about the meaning of a word is going to be other than semantic! ;-)

Your first suggestion doesn't serve. It is fine to use the term state when actually talking about the state (in section 2, primarily) but that would be incorrect as the defintion for the entire article which discusses much more than that. Your second suggestion just seems rather odd. I agree that "country and sovereign state" is ugly and unnecessary. Personally I think it should read exactly as it does now, no reference should really be needed here - other articles don't use one. But if we must have one I'm sure we could find one we can agree on - I'll have a dig when I get a chance. Mucky Duck 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucky Duck (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unarch your back - I've never denied that the UK is a country (though you are intent on denying that it is a state) - remember I made the current edit call it such - all I want is accuracy and helfullness to our readers. So the follow the country link - then what - what kind of country did we mean? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"semantics" - touché!

Mucky, "the state" (maning soley the administration of a state) is a euphimism. From the Oxford dictionary:

State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government

Government: the system by which a state or community is governed

It is only the fifth definition of state that says that it can mean "the civil government of a country." Please stop obfuscating these two. You will surely agree that the United Kingdom is a nation or a territory that is organized politically under one government.

Calling it a "country" (OED: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.") fine - I'm not going to go near the argument about whether the UK is a "nation" - but could we 1) have accuracy and helpfullness for our readers so as to link to the most appropriate article, since in this case we are clearly talking about a state 2) have a little curtesy from you so as to not to deny that the UK is a state. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done it again: The quotation explains it perfectly. "State" is the political aspect of the country - "considered as an organized political community". Of course the UK is that, I don't for one moment deny it. But it is more as the whole of sections 3, 4 and 8 (at least) demonstrate. Mucky Duck 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both definitions bring in questions of government. But, I would answer that it is you that has done it again - like the straight-forward Weber quote that you paraphrased and rewrote until it resembled nothing of its original form.

If what the word "state" means only "the political aspect of the country" why is the 5th definition of "state" ("the civil government of a country" i.e. what you would call "the political aspect of the country") a seperate definition to the one that I am dealing with i.e. definition 2? Pause. Take a breath. Unarch the back. Then re-read it. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not call the "civil government of a country" the political aspect of that country. There is more to politics than that. That is why we have the concept of state and it's why OED has a number of defintions all surroinding that political entity.

I paraphrased the Weber quote, I didn't rewrite it. I was trying to demonstrate that your assertion that "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area" should be read as "a state is a geographic area" was erroneous where Weber is actually explaining that territory is an important characteristic of a state (as opposed to an insurrection, for example). I think perhaps you should unarch your back and reread your Weber who is quite clear on this subject. Mucky Duck 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I lament, Mucky. And really, I am asking myself why I should care if the UK article is NPOV and accurate. I've watched many times before as British editors were beaten off this talk page for rasing the same issues. If its something that a section of UK editors want to surpress. Then so be it. There is a river in Sweden. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous! It's full of original research, and appears to be purely for the benefit of the article writers rather than for the benefit of readers. What value does the country/state/nation/territory distinction have at the opening paragraph of the United Kingdom article? The UK is referred to as a country often enough (and demonstrably so, e.g. via the No. 10 reference) that using this term in the opener is fine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, and its about the 10th time this argument or something similar has appeared on this talk page. Jooler 12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then take it as a sign that there is an issue that needs to be solved. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"... and demonstrably so, e.g. via the No. 10 reference ..." - as with the last person to claim this, I'm sure you an quote that source positively saying so? I'll mark the citation with {{Citequote}} in the mean time. I'm sure you'll be able to do so, so it won't be there long.

What do you mean? The quotation is already cited (actually, better still, it's directly referred). Mucky Duck 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite the quatation from the source e.g. if a source is used to back up a statement that the UK is in Europe then there will be a statement in the source saying something akin to, "The UK is in Europe". In this case a source is being used to back up a statement that the UK is a country. Please quote a section of the sources that positively says so. (Actually I know that there is none. Really my point is to hurry up the process of getting a better reference).

The clinging onto this pawltry reference - that does not even say what it is being used to support - is more evidience to me of the neurotic attitude of some editors here to any suggestion that the "country" issue of the UK be dealt with in a decent fashion. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reference is there because, despite your assertion, some editors were insisting that, virtually uniquely, the UK is not a country. This was probably before your time which is why you are unaware. At one point we had about half a dozen references there, most of which have been deleted over time - sometimes fraudulently with dishonest edit summaries to try to hide the fact. It isn't a brilliant reference and there are plenty of better ones (Britannica, for example, as I suggested earlier). Mucky Duck 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it out again - honestly, point to where it says that the UK is a country and I'll be happy with it. Just quote the source, that's all. Let the source speak for itself.

I can imagine that there were lots of people going on about the UK not being a "country" - its a thing that can be argued and any half-way meaningful discussion about the UK and nation/state/country will arrive at it very quickly. But surely alarm bells rang in your head and you thought - "Hmmm, for the sake of NPOV we better explain the UK situation better than just writing 'The UK is a country and a sovereign state PERIOD'." No? Shame. That needs improvement.

The EU 2005 reference is particularly weak and should be replaced ASAP. Britannica is something better, at least is makes a positive statement. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to say the UK is a country and had a wodge of references to that effect (because a small number of people denied that). The "and sovereign state" bit was added as a bit of a sulk by one of those editors but by that time noone was in any mood to tidy it up - it was at least true. Removal of that phrase would do the article no harm at all - it would be an improvement. There is no way you could discuss all the political and cultural ambiguities in the United Kingdom in an introductory sentence, to try to do so would make it completely useless so the period must be there. Discussion on the UK's special circumstances has to come later. But to exclude everything bar the politics in that first sentence by defining it as a state is equally unhelpful.

One of the objections raised to describing the UK as a country was that it is made up of countries. The reference that you don't like was there to explain that a country of countries is a perfectly valid concept. It says, quite clearly, that the UK is a country in the title, which is the bit that is quoted. Mucky Duck 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't appear to like Weber or OED's explanation that state refers to the body politic of a country. How about Britannica? Or here? Mucky Duck 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As for OR, well, as the only person who cited any published material throughout the discussion, I have to agree. It has sense moved on - e.g. removing the tautology - since it stated though.

For all else see the the style guide regarding the lead section. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Hat, I'd have to disagree with you on this: The distinction is an important one. To call a country a state is a bit like saying "such and such a school is is a group of teachers".

Jooler is right, we have had this argument out often before, with the answer being that the UK should be described as a country. That doesn't make the argument ridiculous.

Sony, you published material which shows that state <> country. That material was fine for me, no extra references required. Mucky Duck 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mucky Duck on that one - it's simillar to the Scotland article describing the territory as a group of people.... However, I have to ask Sony here, by what criteria is the UK NOT a country? What source material are you basing this on?.... and yes we know it is made of four constituent countries (although one could argue it is made of two when looking at successive legistlation - the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - hense the title), but I'm looking for a source that explicitly prooves the UK is not a country. Jza84 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the UK is a country (like Canada, USA, Australia etc). Those English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish prideful PoV's are getting annoying. GoodDay 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read below Goodday - please no personal attacks. It is this assumption of bad faith that has these issues locked up. It has nothing to do with any "prideful PoV's". And nobody is denying that the UK is a country. If more time was spent trying to understand the issue, rather than attacking it blindly then we would all be in a better place (both those of us who enjoy accurate and informative encyclopedias, and those of us who assume bad faith and make personal attacks). --sony-youth^pléigh 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord! I feel like crying! This is why this argument keeps popping up on this page. If anyone questions the way things are written then it is automatticly assumed that they are denying that the UK is a country. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE UK IS NOT A COUNTRY AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE WHO BRINGS THIS ISSUE UP. Understand?

If people are tired of this issue constantly cropping up then is might be time to LISTEN to what the issue rather than assuming what the other person is saying and trying to beat them off the page with a knee-jerk reactions. At least this time the tautology has been gotten rid of - but if any more progess is to be made then people must stop leaping in and assuming its some mad argument that they have to fight off with all their might.

Jza82, please take a break, find a blackboard and write "EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE UK IS A COUNTRY" 100 times. That should be starting starting exercise for anyone who want to join in on this discussion. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I sense that the editting community here would much rather you take a break, but that's another issue. So Sony, is that an admission of baseless original research that you've been pushing? I.E. there is no sourse that the UK is not a country??... and Sony, you're not making yourself clear as to what your side of the dispute is now about, so what exactly is the problem here? Why are you requesting a citation in the lead for the word country? Where is the problem with the article? Jza84 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"original research that you've been pushing? I.E. there is no sourse that the UK is not a country??" - I see your trip to the blackboard done you no good. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote far above - right after you presonally attacked me, I had assume then that you were going to apologies for that but hadn't seen you sense - : "Let's get it clear, I'm not saying that the UK is not a country, nor do I have any issue with it being called one, but you're going run into many people who are going to say that it is better to say it another way." Just before you attacked me, I wrote, "My point is not to push one view or the other, but to ask that valid perspectives not be dismissed out of hand just because we don't like them - and that if a source is to be cited that we read more than just its title." These probably aren't sentiments that you would share. I can live with that, as I wrote above to Mucky, it's lamentable that the UK article cannot reflecta similar maturity. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a shame you've had to get personal about this. I'm not sure why you're "mad" at me - it's not my fault that multiple citation and scholarly definition supports that the UK is a country. If it didn't, I'd be on your side, as I just follow source material, policy and consensus. And Sony, the length of this disscussion and your edit history demonstrates you are/were ideologically opposed to describing the UK as a "country", including spinning it in any way you could to disprove it is so. I'm sorry you feel the need to try and make a mockery of my attempts to engage with you, but I really feel you are mistaken about this issue, and do not have the article's best interests at heart. Jza84 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sony, you should put your suggestion up for 'peer review'. PS- Sorry about my emotionalism, I'm usually mild-mannered. I'm certain you're also frustrated (given this continous logjam). GoodDay 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, Goodday - if I understand what you mean - I've seen before where actual examples of rewrites are understood far quicker than trying to discuss a making one, and make better starting ponits for discussion. And sorry too - I'm very frustrated at this discussion - it's like banging my head of a brick wall. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm frustrated at he how the discussion is going on. It's like a pitched battle!

"your edit history demonstrates you are/were ideologically opposed to describing the UK as a 'country'," - Wikipedia is not a war. I told you before not to make such assumptions about people. Few editors fall neatly into black or white. If were were all to take this line then the it would be easy to say that you would be ideologically oppose to describing the UK as anything other than a country, no? Seriously, I am still waiting for an apology for before. Describing any editor here as an Irish Repubublican is not on - especially when you know very well that it means terrorist - it's a plain personal attack.

"I really feel you ... do not have the article's best interests at heart." Assume good faith, okay? As I've already said, if this issue is cropping up again and again then there must be good reason for it. Don't beat people away just because you assume that they must have some crazed ideology pushing them to mollest this article. That's not the way to achieve NPOV. Don't you agree?

"... it's not my fault that multiple citation and scholarly definition supports that the UK is a country" - Then can we please quote them instead of the Micky Mouse citations we have at present, this is just a request to improve the article. However, you know as well as I do that any scholarly discussion of the UK's country-ness is going to describe that it's not a straight forward as other places i.e. the "country withing a country" aspect of the UK, as 10 Downing St. describes it. That needs to come across more, not wanting it to, is just as POV'd as only wanting only that aspect shown.

And seriously, apologies for the accusations before and this time around, would be appreciated. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me folks, if I seem out of touch with the discussion. The description of 'four constituent countries' is shown on the 2nd paragraph of this article. Why isn't that a good enough compromise? GoodDay 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That second paragraph is quite insane (and yes, it's all part of the same issue of not dealing adaqutely with the UK's "country-ness" - or in fact even "state-ness"in this case). It slings the countries - see the 10 Downing St. ref if that word doesn't sit happily with some people - that form the UK alongside a bunch of places that are not even in the UK. Clarity would be to deal with the constituent counties in one go, when introducing the UK and deal with the dependencies and over-seas territories seperately (maybe not even in the lede) so that people know that they are two different things.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing false writtent there, but it's just all balled up together. To me anyway, at least. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the paragraph over again. I find it quite clear & understandable - mentioning the 'four constituent countries there is fine; it's in a seperate sentence from the British dependencies and over seas territories. I honestly fail to see what's so alarming. GoodDay 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, GoodDay, some basic questions then. The manual of style for the lede section says that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article ... briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." So, from the lede section alone (no sneaking at the rest of the article or other articles!), what can you tell me about the UK:

1. To what extent do you surmise that the Isle of Man and the UK share common or mutually agreed law?
2. Do you imagine that the UK comprises a single legal jurisdiction?
3. Is there anything unusual about how people from the UK describe their nationality? Anything unusual about how national allegiance is expressed compared to other countries?
4. Are there any areas of the UK governed separately from the rest?
5. The UK is in the EU. Are the Channel Islands? Its over-seas territories?
6. How long has the UK existed? Are there any parts of it that seceded? Joined? Basically, where did the UK come from? Has it always existed?
7. Is there any part of the UK were there is political instability of international note?
8. Are there any serious questions regarding the future of the UK as an entity?

These are fairly basic questions that any other county articles would cover very briefly. If there is nothing alarming about the lede to this article, you will be able to answer most of them. (Even if you can only answer one or two then that's fine.) However, I suspect that you will not be able to answer any and that is what is alarming.

There have been much accusations of "nationalist POVs" (or "prideful POVs", as you called them). You should know that in the current political climate of the UK, these nationalist nasties come with equally nasty opposite numbers who want to emphasise the unity of the United Kingdom above all else. As I'm sure you're aware, an NPOV is what is called for on Wikipedia. Let's see how NPOV this lede is. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I must confess (as a Canadian), I do tend to view the UK as a country (which it is) and its four components as something like provinces (which they're not called). More frustratingly, world medias (including the BBC) tend to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as countries, yet at other times descibe the UK as a country. There's only 'two' ways to end this logjam -- adopt my compromise (see beginning of discussion -Sept.14-) and/or see what the consensus is concerning this topic. GoodDay 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to inform. Give a go to answering the questions. Maybe they will explain a few things for you. If you can't, I can answer them for you and you can judge if the lede is NPOV or not. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quiz respose: First five questions are above my head; Answer #6-UK cam into existance in 1801, formerly Great Britain and Ireland (GB came into existants in 1707, England and Scotland united). Answer #7-Instability in Northern Ireland (IRA want N.Ireland to break from the UK and joins the Irish Republic) and Answer #8-UK's future? that depends on the Scottish independance movement (not to mention how things turn out in Northern Ireland). GoodDay 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - well done, but that was general knowledge not from the lede which "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article ... and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Full answers as follows:

1. A common passport (UK), UK is responsible for Man's military defense and high-level international represenations. No common or mutually agreed laws.
2. The United Kingdom has never comprised a single jurisdiction for law: England and Wales (together), Scotland and Northern Ireland (formerly Ireland) are completely separate legal jurisdictions with separate laws, courts, legal systems, etc.
3. Majority of UK citizens identify themselves as "English"/"Scottish"/etc. to the exclusion of British (a minority identify as both or British only). National sporting teams represent England/Scotland/etc. separately and rivalry is intense (epitomized best by the attitude in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland to support the opposing team when England plays someone else)
4. Northern Ireland was autonomous until 1972. Today Scotland has an great degree of home rule, Wales less so. Scotland is expected to support greater home rule, effectively autonomy, and there is a possibility that they may favour complete independence. Self-rule has returned to Northern Ireland, the plan is to roll out ever increasing autonomy over several years and in parallel to this to develop joint areas of governance between Northern Ireland and the Republic, several key elements are these are up and running. The Republic must be consulted on all matters of governance originating from London that realate to Northern Ireland.
5. Neither the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the over-seas territories are members of the EU.
6. A single monarch as ruled all of the current territory of the UK since 1604. Ireland and England have had a common monarch since 1172, Wales since 1284, Scotland since 1604. The English parliament legislated for Ireland since 1494, Wales since 1535 and Scotland since 1707. The 1801 date is for the formal creation of a single Kingdom between Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland and England (including Wales) formed a single Kingdom called Great Britain in 1707.
7. Northern Ireland, as you said.
8. Scotland, as you said.

Okay, so that's just a taster. Does it challenge any impression you got from the lede? Do you feel that there is anything absent lede after hearing it? Given the current political climate in the UK - where one POV wants to emphasize the internal differences in the UK and another the emphasize the unity of the UK - are you any more alarmed that the lede may be a little biased to one side or the other? I said, I'd leave it to you to judge. What ever you decide, I'll go with. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, internally Brits view themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish. Externally (international PoV), the UK is viewed as a single country - membership in the United Nations, British PM, British monarchy, British MPs (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish). I'd say, let's get a consensus on this topic & follow that consensus - since the UK seems to be both a country and a union of four countries. PS- England and Scotland were independant of each other 'til 1707 (despite sharing a monarch since 1603). GoodDay 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, what a lot of hot air has been expended here since my last visit. Is it worth it? No. Jooler 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Only at Wikipedia can so many get so worked up about so little. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is mainetain 'status quo', I'm following the consensus (and the United Nations recognition). GoodDay 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

UN recognises "states" not "countries" :P but I ain't going near this one without without consensus either, and it looks like the consensus ain't gonna change it's mind. OK. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

UK divisions

A map showing the relative locations of Scotland, Wales and England is needed on here, in addition to ones which do not show the internal boundaries --MacRusgail 14:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Sony, I have no objection at all to Britannica as a reference to the fact that the UK is a country - if you look back you'll see that it was I who proposed it. The reference that you dislike most certainly does state that the the UK is a country - one containing countries "countries within a country" - and since this goes to the heart of, and is explaining some people's problem with the term then this is a useful reference. Mucky Duck 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies it in the title, I can see that, but doesn't actually say it. If the point is to say that ENG/SCO/WAL/NI are also countries then it's a nice straight forward reference, but if the point is to support that the UK is a country end-of-story then, at best, it's weak as hell (like the "Member States" document as a source) for something that consensus says should be straight forward.

(To be honest many of those opening sources are weak, not just that one, and a few of the links no-longer work - esp. "federacy".) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point of it. People have problems with saying that the UK is a country because it is equally true that the constituents are also countries - without this reference it keeps being changed to less satisfactory alternatives. Perhaps the first sentence needs to be rephrased to say something like "the UK is a country -ref the Britannica reference- of Northern Europe made up of the four constituent countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland -ref the Downing St reference-". The problem with going down this sort of road is that it becomes cluttered, and consequently less useful. The immediate problem I can see with that sentence, for example, is that some would want to explore the exact consitutional position of NI at this level and squeeze all of that into the first sentence too. Mucky Duck 09:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguments here could be applied to practically every country in Europe, and many beyond. The word country has a number of meanings, one of which is a sovereign nation state internationally recognised. Calling the UK a country does not diminish the meaning in other contexts. --Michael Johnson 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs a rephrasing. Michael you wrote: " Calling the UK a country does not diminish the meaning in other contexts." True, if it did then we wouldn't really have this problem. It's meaning in other contexts remain, and we need to explain in what context we mean it. I think you are over-estimating how uncontroversial it is to call the UK a "country" without explanation. Finding refs that out-right deny it isn't such a difficult job, for example:

"Together, Scotland, Wales, and England are the largest British island. With Northern Ireland they for the United Kingdom, which is a kingdom, not a country." - Simons, G.F., 2002 EuroDiversity: A Business Guide to Managing Difference, Elsevier: London

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a country or a geographical entity of any kind. It is a political entity, a unions of people living in the countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..." - von Waldheim, G. et al., 1957, Participación alemana en el cultivo y comercio del azúcar de caña, Ministério da Educação e Cultura: Mozambique

And bearing in mind the OED definition of a 'country' being a "nation with its own govenment":

"The United Kingdom is a state rather than a nation, a set of political arrangements rather than a culture. England, Scotland and Wales on the other hand are nations with distinct cultural differences." - Cochrane, F., 1994, Any Takers? The Isolation of Northern Ireland, Political Studies, Volume 42 Issue 3 Page 378-395, September 1994

"British as a word, and certainly as an object of affection, is riddled with ruling-class and imperial attributes. Britain is a state, rather than a nation." - Cole, M., The Politics of Multiracial Education, 1987, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 291-292

My preference is still for state and I'm unconvinced by the way you keep with the narrowest definition - exactly what does the word lose compared to country, except the ambiguity of "nation"? See more definitions:

• "Combination of people, territory, and sovereign government.
• "A group of people occupying a particular region and organized under a single government; a nation or a subunit of a nation."

I cannot help but feel that when the subject of this article has the word "kingdom" in it's name, when it has a national anthem, an elected government, a flag and coat or arms, a standing army, citizens, an economy and it's own currency, that it should be quite plain to say that we are talking about a state. Arguments like "it's not just a state, it's more than that", I feel, need to get a little perspective. None the less, a re-write at least would take the edge of this.

There are also other smaller problems. The "federacy" formed between the CI's, IoM and the UK for example - the ref is dead and a Google search only brings up mirrors of this page and very abstract discussion of federal governments (none of which put "federacy" in the same sentence as the CI/IoM and the UK, only on the same page). I, personally, have never seen it described like that before - and, like "country", maybe using "federacy" in that context doesn't diminish it meaning in other contexts, but requires that you make clear that this is not a federacy like the reader might imagine when the hear the word. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus above, is for the UK to be describe as a country. The references ought to reflect that fact. GoodDay 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus above, Jza84 16:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

'*sobs quietly into drink*' AJKGordon 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner

I noticed the back-and-forth over this but cannot see any discussion here since the last one in August, so I am opening this as a discussion of whether we should include this here. It seems to me that we should either have all four (equally unofficial) flags or none at all here, but the main thing is to discuss rationally rather than edit warring. If the edit war continues I shall have to consider my options. Please let's discuss here instead. Thank you. --John 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this, which may be relevant if it gets anywhere. --John 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles were supposed to remain at the same position when mediation began- unfortuantly two editors (Padraig and Fennesey) continued to edit war on this issue after agreeing to mediation. I think they should be changed back, and then let mediation begin. Astrotrain 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There was never any agreement on that, also if that was the case explain your attempts to add a image of a montage of flags to this article.--Padraig 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I havn't made any edits on the Northern Flag issue in the mainspace since agreeing to mediation. Unfortunatly you have not and continue to edit war on this issue. Why enter mediation if you continue to edit war on this issue. It is disruptive. Astrotrain 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John its not a edit war as such, the Ulster banner dosent represent Northern Ireland today as a state/country neither the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly even recognise the flag, therefore it shouldn't be used.--Padraig 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we should cut to the chase and hold a straw poll. Jza84 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We could do, but I would prefer to revert to the position at the begining of mediation and then continue with that process. Astrotrain 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If persuing this, all relevant notice boards and wikiprojects should be contacted to ensure this is as representative a result as possible. Jza84 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What would this strawpoll achieve, the use of the Ulster Banner as a symbol/flag to represent Northern Ireland today is breaches WP:POV and WP:OR, the flag ceased to officially exist in 1973 when the government which it was the governmental banner of was dissolved under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The British Government and Northern Ireland Executive which is the current Northern Ireland government don't recognise it.--Padraig 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the heading of this section is a bit misleading it is the UB flag being used as the flag of NI that causes conflict not the flag itself when used properly. BigDunc 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree then that all four images should be removed? After all they are all unofficial. Perhaps a better solution will emerge but at the moment I am not seeing it. --John 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John that has been tried already, they keep restoring them.--Padraig 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, a straw poll would achieve a lasting quantifiable consensus. Granted the Ulster Banner as a symbol/flag to represent Northern Ireland today is officially redundant, but there was a footnote explaining this, and users may (or may not) have found that useful. The straw poll allows editors to express (based on all the factors in the dispute) which option that believe will be most useful for our readers. For the record I'm not condoning either side or approach. "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making," and in this capacity, I see this as the most obvious, fair approach to settling this. There could/would of course be an option of no flags. Jza84 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You say a straw poll would achieve a lasting quantifiable consensus. your wrong read WP:CONSENSUS and you will see:

So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.

This poll has no binding effect, as WP:V is the policy involved here and the inclusion of the Ulster Banner in a table relating to Northern Ireland today is in breach of that and can be removed.--Padraig 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is about symbols. All four symbols are unofficial, and all four symbols are used for sporting events, representing the home nations of the United Kingdom. Either we have all four symbols, with the note about the Ulster Banner being notably 'unofficial', or we just scrap the entire section. Frankly I think the latter would be a bit sad. Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if my recent edit ruffled any feathers (didn't know about the dispute). I wasn't aware that Northern Ireland had no flag - guess a fella learns something new everday. GoodDay 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg for the flag- look here its being used by FIFA [13] Astrotrain 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a article on sport in the UK, who cares if FIFA uses it that has nothing to do with this issue.--Padraig 22:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You said " the Ulster banner dosent represent Northern Ireland today as a state/country " above- clearly it is being used to represent Northern Ireland by this international body. Astrotrain 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FIFA like the Commonwealth games use the symbols provided by the sports body of that state provided, they pass no judgement on these or does their use by them imply any status to the symbol.--Padraig 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They use the internationally recognised flag Astrotrain 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Astrotrain I emailed them months ago on this and they use the symbols provided by the local sport body in each country.--Padraig

And the use the Northern Ireland flag not a map outline. Astrotrain 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner Straw Poll

Please note that contributors of dubious usership (such as sockpuppets) are likely to have their votes dis-counted by the editting community. Jza84 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• What should we do about the table of symbols regarding Northern Ireland and the Ulster Banner?
• Please select from the following options and sign your comments:

• • A Depict the Ulster Banner as the flag of NI with a footnote about its status.
  • B Depict no flag for NI with a footnote about its status.
  • C Depict the Union Flag as the flag of NI with a footnote about its status.
  • D Depict no flags for any of the home nations.
  • E Depict a map of NI (currently used) with a footnote about its status.

**F Use the Irish Tricolour

Please sign below:

• A seems the most useful.Abtract 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• A agreed, it's the next best thing to an official flag. GoodDay 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• B or C, Northern Ireland has no official flag of it's own, it uses the Union Jack. GoodDay 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This issue is being dealt with here and is also part of a ongoing arbcom, so this strawpoll is a waste of time.--Padraig 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • This general topic (edit warring over NI issues) is currently the subject of an Arbitration Committee investigation. Hence it is not a good time to start organising polls over those same issues. It would be better to wait for the outcome of the investigation so that we can form a clearer opinion over how we should deal with disagreements on NI topics. So please hold on. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • This straw poll relates to this article's circumstances only. That dispute pertains to a handful of users. "Parties should have made an attempt at some form of initial, informal resolution" - I believe there is no harm in gathering the results from here and does not infringe upon the proceedings of that case or the user's dignity. I've contacted about 10 WikiProjects to pass comment - something those users have never bothered to do. I maintain that the poll continue- there should be no fear from any party in gathering such data. Jza84 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• A is the only one that is useful Keith D 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• A, or D, I don't mind which. Definitely not E. --John 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC) amended --John 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A, if it's good enough for Britannica [14] it's good enough for me. Under no circumstances E.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did you read what Britannica says [15].--Padraig 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment yes, unofficial flag of a unit of the United Kingdom... says it all really. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• E. Also agree with Padraig that this straw poll is disruptive and unnecessary.(Sarah777 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)) - voted twice

Comment Adding in an extra option after discussion had started without discussing or making it clear what you were doing was not helpful. Neither is suggesting we make up a symbol; that would breach WP:NOR. I'm amending my !vote in the light of your change. --John 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Completely agree with that sentiment, amended my vote too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well John, this straw poll is not helpful; and it is failing to give the appropriate range of options without the symbol. Remember; NI has no specific official flag because the British Government refuses to allow the restoration of an offensive sectarian symbol - which is what the UB is. (Sarah777 10:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

• A- if it says "flag" in the table heading, and then has a footnote to explain the flag is not official, then what is the problem? Astrotrain 08:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as you well know, that the UB is not the flag of NI. I could agree with leaving the location blank with a footnote to explain that NI has no specific flag. What is the problem then? (Sarah777 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

It is not the official flag (taking the definition of official in this context to be as approved by the central government)- it is an unofficial and defacto flag used to represent Northern Ireland. It is used, it exists therefore we can show it in Wikipedia given we have a free use image for it. It is rather silly to have a heading for flag and then show nothing. Astrotrain 10:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is used to represent NI in the same way the tricolour is used by Nationalists to represent NI. We have free images of that too? Should I add an option "F" here? (Sarah777 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

What is the point of this straw poll this matter is being discussed elsewhere so a waste of time. BigDunc 11:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." In what way will the results of this infringe upon the dignity of the arbcom between a handful of sectarian editors who never took the step to engage with the wider community and get hold of a representative view on how to tackle it? This poll doesn't effect the flag's use in other situations, just in this article. If those who have a strong view not to include a flag would be so kind as to allow others to pass comment freely??? - we might learn what the mainstream take on this is, and hell, they may even know about the status of the flag, but want it shown in what they think is the most useful way here. Jza84 11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• E Its the only one that really works. A is factually inaccurate. Therefore it will be reverted regardless of whether or not people have voted for it. B and D both look bad on aesthetic grounds- and D could also be seen as petty and disruptive. C is technically accurate, but in this context would confuse most readers. Lurker (said · done) 12:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

E is factually inaccurate as a map outline is not a flag! A shows the unofficial defacto flag as used by many other sources. Look at the World Flag Database [16] which shows all 4 flags and has a note on Northern Ireland. That is what is proposed here. Astrotrain 12:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - E is factually incorrect but also is A and you "voted" for that. There is no flag of Northern Ireland so one shouldnt be used. The Welsh Assembly uses the Welsh flag, so does the Scottish - but the Northern Irish ones doesnt - there is a reason for this. I also consider this a very devisive straw poll to start with especially as there has been 1.000's of words written about this subject on the Northern Ireland talk page and the concensus there was not to us this offensive sectarian flag and also because there is an ongoing mediation about the subject which you are invloved in.--Vintagekits 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We are following sources (World Flag Database, Britannica etc), so A is not incorrect as the flag image is shown and then discussed. The flag is also a free use image and can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. The Northern Ireland Assembly does not use the flag, but then the table doesn't say "Flags used by assemblies and parliaments", as flag use in the modern day is decided by the population as a whole. The Assembly has only existed for a few years (the bulk of that time it was suspended due to spying by Sinn Fein) while the flag has existed and been used for over 50 years. Also Wikipedia does not follow what governments do, for instance the article on Burma is at Burma and not the official government name. Astrotrain 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• A Bluap 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To me, the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland. It is used regularly in various forms in many places to indicate N Ireland (both on and off WP). There is, though, a serious issue of the political nature of the flag and we must give due regard to this. Whilst my first position would be A, I think we need to consider how this would work carefully. May I suggest its inclusion with a note saying "This is a former official flag for Northern Ireland which has sectarian connotations and has not been adopted by the current NI Assembly. The flag continues to be used by several non governmental organisations." Regan123 12:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good Regan. It shows editors the flag in question and provides information on its background. Astrotrain 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• A - it may not be the official flag, but it's probably the most widely recognised - so going along similar lines as WP:NAME, we should use the most popularly recognised flag. A Google image search produces fairly conclusive results. Waggers 13:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A The section is about symbols. All four unofficial flags are used at sporting events. They are all symbols of the United Kingdom's 'home nations'. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• A - we should treat the 'symbol', or flag, that represents Northern Ireland in exactly the same way we treat the 'symbols', or flags, of the other constituent countries of the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no good reason to make Wikipedia look stupid and petty by treating Northern Ireland differently. --Mal 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • --Comment: there is no option for F; could you clarify what you mean exactly? Choosing an option from the list as it currently exists may be a more worthwhile choice anyway. Jza84 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to question: I thought my comment was pretty self-explanitory and detailed. I believe that the flag of Northern Ireland should not be treated any differently to that of the flag of Scotland, the flag of England or the flag of Wales (or indeed any of the other flags of the region, such as the Cornish flag etc. Wikipedia is censored. Treating the flag of Northern Ireland differently to the other flags which represent similar UK territory types amounts to censorship and inconsistency. --Mal 00:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment what is option "F" though? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What flag of Northern Ireland, it dosen't have a flag unless your refering to the Union Flag.--Padraig 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the flag of Northern Ireland does have a flag: the flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland. I'm pretty sure I've informed you of this before. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, the Saddam Hussein defence. You can't try me because this court isn't legal. We can't have a straw poll on the flag of Northern Ireland because it doesn't have a flag. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's not forget that it is quite verifiable that the status of Ulster Banner as the flag of Northern Ireland is, at very least, complicated, if not, dubious. It is also the approach of other major encyclopedias to include it, but make it explicit that it should not be used in an official capacity. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your vote? - I can't see F polling well. -- Jza84 · ^(talk) 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Other major encyclopedias do include the flag of Northern Ireland. I have access to a couple of printed ones, notably printed well after 1972, that include the flag in the intro to the article subsection on Northern Ireland.. being consistent with the fact that they also include the flags of Scotland, England and Wales on those article subsections, and the Union Jack on the main United Kingdom article page. So, as a matter of fact, it is Original Research for Wikipedia to suddenly suggest that the flag of Northern Ireland has winked out of existence. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Option 'f' would perhaps be a bit idealistic. Ultimately the Ulster Banner is no different to any other of the constituent countries: unofficial, primarily sporting, stopped being official either 300 or 30 years ago, etc. The footnote to go with the flag is MORE than generous to those who would rather the flag didn't exist. In fact, it's bordering on unencyclopaedic because it implies that the other flags do have this magical 'official' status. Maybe there ought to be a footnote for the flag of england saying that it stopped being official in 1707? Hmm? Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Jza84 I have reconsidered my vote (I am free to edit now, after having been needlessly blocked over a related issue), and I therefore have amended it. I stress though that, while option A is effectively the same as my option F suggestion, we need to be consistent in Wikipedia. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• A - The Ulster Banner is the unofficial but de facto flag used to represent Northern Ireland. Why we should compromise its use on the basis of being unofficial or, I daresay, having "sectarian connotations", defies reason. -- Chris B • talk 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do yu have a source to support your claim of de facto status, because unless you can provide one then that is WP:OR, the banner is not recognised by the nationalist population or the Northern Ireland government/British government.--Padraig 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here's evidence. [17] Here's some more from Britannica "unofficial flag of a unit of the United Kingdom" [18] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• E— But this strawpoll really is a waste of time as even if most people vote A, it can't possibly be used as it's not the flag of N Ireland; after all, wikipedia isn't a democracy. D is just plain unhelpful to people new to the subject. Whats more, saying that using a useful and neutral symbol is WP:NOR(the territory of an area is hardly bias in any way) is a gross misinterpretation of that policy. Fennessy 13:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not only can the flag of Northern Ireland be used to represent Northern Ireland, but the flag of Northern Ireland is used to represent Northern Ireland. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fennessy and Padraig, where is the WP policy that states "all flags used in Wikipedia articles must have official status in law"? Your position relies on this assumption being true, or at the very least, it relies on the assumption that the presence of a flag in a WP article implies it is true. The latter case can be dispensed with via a footnote, and if the former were true (which it is not), none of the other UK constituent countries' flags would be allowed either, as has oft been pointed out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• E If the two executive bodies that run Northern Ireland do not recognize the Ulster Banner as its flag I fail to see why wikipedia should --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: A little mischievious of my part, but I'll remember that one for the British nationality debate. -- Jza84 · (talk)

• • • Comment: How so ? im pretty sure one of the of the executive bodies in the UK recognize something other than British :P --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• E, failing that F. As the argument for the unofficial, unrecognised sectarian UB seems to consist of endless repetition of "the UB is the unofficial flag on NI" then it is time to cut the bull and proclaim the truth, which manifestly is that the Irish Tricolour is the unofficial flag of NI. (Sarah777 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment: It is my view that that's a little unhelpful; by the same logic the flag of Pakistan is also the unofficial flag of parts of northern England, but it is not an encyclopedic approach. The tricolor clearly isn't going to be in the article about the UK - it's a flag of another country. Option F was not an original option, and in this capacity I've striken it with this sig. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Option F emerges organically from the arguments to defend the unofficial, sectarian Ulster Banner, which is not a British flag but the favoured flag of some British people in NI; just like the tricolour. Please restore the option I added as I don't wish to engage in edit-warring. But obviously your nationalistic abitrary non-encyclopedic partisan editing cannot stand. (Sarah777 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
    • Reply: It's just not going to happen. Firstly the tricolor won't appear in an article about the UK, or a divison of the UK in the same way the flag of France, Italy, or any other different country won't appear; neither by citation, debate or consensus, we've got to be real here. Secondly, Mal has already asserted that "F" means something different (the antithesis of your point of view), which I've also noted as unsuitable. Thirdly my "nationalistic etc" editting?... not a very accurate or engaging comment about someone who's neither voted, or editted this or indeed any article about the Ulster Banner - infact you'd be surprised what my viewpoint is on the matter. So, would you be so kind as to strike that sentence, as it is somewhat unfounded, unhelpful and un-necessary? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• A, an encyclopaedia reports things as they are. The UB is often used, has no offical standing, is seen by some as an affront, and is seen by others as a rallying symbol. The article should report all of that and show us an image of the object being reported on. The article should not support either side, but it should report that there are sides. Sources should be given. It would be helpful if everyone could agree on the article, we need not agree on the politics - merely mention the points of view. --Chris Jefferies 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• A Until such time as a new official flag is created for Northern Ireland, I think this option is the best. The Ulster banner is no more or less "official" than any other flag used to represent the constituent countries of the united Kingdom.Claudia 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: On the issue of National flags of Britain, some editors point to this flags.net as an Authority to support their arguement, so they may be interested in this, they have produced a book on 'British Flags & Emblems' which shows a number of sample pages from the book click on the first sample page image and it shows the National flags and displays images of the flags of England, Scotland and Wales with discriptions, for Northern Ireland it shows NO Flag, and has this discription where it states Northern Ireland is currently without a National flag, pending a new design to mark the resumpation of self-rule. So according to this claimed authoritive source, the Ulster Banner is not included as a British National flag, and no National flag exists for Northern Ireland.--Padraig 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Note: The flags.net website was quite different until after a Wikipedia editor contacted the editor of the site, citing government policy. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment:: The subdivision page [19] clearly shows the Northern Ireland flag, noting its unofficial status and use by Unionists and sport. We have already established the lack of central government use, and it may well be likely that the Nothern Ireland Assembly design a new national flag. However, since they have not, the current unofficial flag is still used in international situations and when a Northern Irish flag is needed. Astrotrain 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• A With a footnote about it's contested status. Wikipedia needs to report things as they currently are, but can also report strongly held or minority views to the contrary, where they are referenced. MarkThomas 15:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• A It seems that an image of the flag with a footnote on status is a good compromise and alerts the reader to the issues surrounding the status and use of the flag in the current day. Thunderwing 08:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I count 13 to A and 4 to E at the time of this time stamped signature; I think a consensus is pretty clear at this moment in time that regardless of status (and I think an emphasis should be made on that point) there is a consensus among users who agree that the most helpful approach in depicting "a" (not necessarily "the") flag of Northern Ireland in the symbol box on this article, should be one that has the Ulster Banner with a footnote on its status. Unless there is a significant wave of votes in the next few hours, I propose this straw poll be closed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: there is currently no other flag that represents Northern Ireland. The flag of Northern Ireland is the only flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm counting only the minutes until the pizza arrives, to be eaten while Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage (hopefully) resolves the issue. Suggest all here do similar.--Alf ^melmac 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And if it doesn't resolve it?? And how inclusive has that arbcom been? Did those users attempt to engage all relevant WikiProjects? Do those users show a sectarian affinity? "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.". Granted polls are gernerally discouraged, but they do help in gauging support (and conversely - lack of), and form the basis of how the community should go about tackling thorny issues. It seems to me that, looking at the factors, the overwhelming majority of contributors insist the Ulster Banner be depicted in this article's circumstances. W

What I'm concerned about is those who were against A are those who are somehow trying to nullify/disregard the status of the results, even though had the poll turned out differently, would be shouting a that they had scored resounding successful consensus. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, the Arbcom (50 participants) is "not inclusive" but this process of "forced majority" is? This ain't concensus - this is simply an illustration of the obvious; there are more British than Irish editors and they can use the numbers to say that black is white; as in this case. (Sarah777 06:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

I have closed the straw poll with this signature. One can count 14 to A and 4 to E. This should now form the basis of a way forwards here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There were 14 A votes at the time you made this entry Jza84. I have edited your entry accordingly. --Mal 16:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've reopened it. It was closed after 4 days, for crying out loud. Lurker (said · done) 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So when do you propose it be closed? I'm assuming good faith that re-opening the poll is not an act of protest or distruption; you have already asserted that the poll was a waste of time, yet having failed to secure simillar votes with your sentiments are now extending it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that your closing the poll was an act of protest or distruption, seeing as you clearly aren't an objective observer and have some kind of a misguided intrested in promoting the use of this defunct flag. Fennessy 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And where did I assert that the poll was a waste of time, Jza84? Lurker (said · done) 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise Lurker - I misread your contribution and I was totally wrong about that. Though there still have been no votes, and given I made a proposal to close it and there were no objections, I think I made the right decision. I assure you that A will poll the highest... though of course the poll only counts if "your" side wins ;). I propose that if there are no votes in the next 24 hours we re-close the poll. And, Fennessy, really, no need for such comments; it's just not plesant. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jza84 you should read the section below.--Padraig 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strawpoll result

You cannot close a strawpoll after only four days and claim consensus, many editors didn't take part in this poll because the issue in subject to an ongoing mediation discussion, and is also subject as part of a ongoing arbcom, which was made clear when this strawpoll was started. Also consensus dosen't overrule WP:V and any inclusion of the Ulster Banner can be removed as it is WP:OR to include it without proper references to support the claim that is the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Had the result been one that matches your point of view, would you have been so keen to disregard the overwhelming desire from the editing community? Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making; even a majority of a limited group of editors (as in that arbcom case) will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. WP:OR is a policy used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, and one that you're misappropriating now in protest to not my standpoint, but the community's shared sentiments. Nobody is saying the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland - the community has stated that they think it is the most helpful approach to include it on this article (with what could be seen as a generous footnote on its status) as "a" symbol of Northern Ireland.

Padraig, the straw poll now needs to be used as a reference to a way forwards - you're in the minority. What can you bring to the table as a means of compromise to the majority who want this symbol included? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very extensive use of the phrase "the community". So how come the Arbcom (50 participants) is less representative of "the editing community" than this poll, with 16 participants (and stated to be invalid)? I would argue that when we have two competing views from two specific sections of "the community" and where one has a huge built-in numerical advantage then a forum such as Arbcom is the only way to resolve things. This silly poll is a simply an expression of the fact of the numerical advantage British pov enjoys; it has nothing to do with consensus. (Sarah777 07:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

By edit warring, Padraig has also removed the image from List of British flags, Template:UKFlags and even the Northern Ireland article itself. The results here clearly show community consensus to include the unofficial Northern Ireland where appropiate and explain the situation- and we can now add it back to those articles. We can now move forward and discuss usage in other situations such as navigational templates in the mediation. Astrotrain 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a "strawpoll" or "consensus" type issue. The use of the flag violates multiple Wikipedia policies, as well as three of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Just following this strawpoll would set a disturbing president and is a blow to Wikipedia's credibility. Fennessy 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So, are those editors who voted; who, having reviewed the debate and come to a decision on what they think is the right way forwards; those who are the vast majority; are they acting in bad faith? Are they totally wrong and don't have a valid opinion? Again, what can you bring as a minority view holder to the table as a compromise to the majority who want this flag? I see nothing of a compromise still. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The table is for Symbols for each nation/state, but some editors seem to be confusing Flags with Symbols, I have added the table below:

Flag	Country	Patron saint	Flower
	England	St. George	Red and White Rose
	Scotland	St. Andrew	Cotton Thistle
	Wales	St. David	Leek/Daffodil
1	Northern Ireland	St. Patrick	Shamrock/Flax

_{^1 There is no official flag of Northern Ireland following the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. However, the Ulster Banner is often used for sporting events. See Northern Ireland flags issue.}

The Fourth column shows the symbols used by each nation/state, not the flags, therefore to use the Ulster Banner in this table fails WP:V as it has been shown that it is not the flag of Northern Ireland.--Padraig 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think the footnote is a reasonable compromise? -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would if its is used on its own without the flag image, as most people see the image and will ignore the fotnote or not see it, with the footnote on its own they will see it and can link to Northern Ireland flag issue where they see the reason why there is no current flag.--Padraig 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No because the Ulster banner is a devicive and secterian symbol, as well as not even being the flag of N Ireland. A reasonable compromise would be to only use the Ulster banner where it is vaild, and not to misuse it. Talking of misuse... Misuse of statistics Fennessy 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, if (as some suggest) the straw poll is invalid (poll a waste of time), why the dispute over closing it? PS- howabout we have in the template first column Flag/Symbol? GoodDay 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No we are disputing their claim of consensus by closing an invalid poll after only four days.--Padraig 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you (plural) view the poll as invalid, why dispute when it's being closed? Why bother voting in? By voting in it and saying it should remain open, you (plural) are treating it as valid. Please explain. GoodDay 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When the poll was started it was pointed out the issue was subject to mediation and also part of a ongoing arbcom therefore any poll would be invalid, they then closed the poll after only four days claiming consensus, but if they read WP:CONSENSUS they would see:

So in summary, wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.

This poll has no binding effect, as WP:V is the policy involved here and the inclusion of the Ulster Banner in a table relating to Northern Ireland today is in breach of that and can be removed.--Padraig 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the proposal to create a flag to use for Northern Ireland, that is a non-runner. See here, for example. While the counting aspect of this strawpoll cannot be regarded as binding, the arguments advanced so far seem to indicate a consensus for using the flag with its footnote. Simply repeating over and over again that in your view the flag should not be used is not helpful. Is there a compromise you could live with? --John 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

John I answered that above in my rely to Jza84 timestamped 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC) below the table.--Padraig 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who dispute the validity of the straw poll, should not be concerned if/when that poll closes. Nor should they have voted in it (in the first place) if that was their attitude about the validity of it. It's like they're saying -I don't want that barn built and please don't paint it blue. GoodDay 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I came here to add to the discussion, only to find that a "consensus" had been reached. But I'll add my tuppence worth anyway. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins specifically forbids invented flags. The Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland: using it as such offends against policy. The fact that one section of the community continues to use it despite its disestablishment 35 years ago (and despite the wishes of the other segment) does not give it legitimacy - indeed the contrary. --Red King 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland Red King. FYI, it was 'invented' around 1924 (as far as I remember reading). Despite your assertion to the contrary, Northern Ireland did not undergo a disestablishment - it still exists, and it still has a flag. The fact that it exists and has a flag gives it all the legitimacy it needs. --Mal 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NI does not have a flag. (Sarah777 07:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

To add to Red King comment above Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations also deals with the Ulster Banner.--Padraig 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All flags have politicised connotations. --Mal 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags), where there is an active proposal to remove all flags from infoboxes unless they are critically important to the article. (And I agree with the editor who argues that he has yet to see one). --Red King 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was at University (I did go honestly), on Irish-British relations my lecturer said "the trouble with the Irish is they never forget; the British never remember". It's absolutely crystal clear that there is deadlock, and citation and arguements for and against using the Ulser Banner - most worryingly along sectarian lines. We need a lasting compromise. How about users from opposing camps each consider putting one forwards along the lines of WP:ENEMY??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest for a compromise - Add to the first column title of the template Flag/Symbol or Flag/Banner. That may make the Ulster Banner more acceptable to everyone. GoodDay 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a ongoing mediation on the use of the Ulster Banner. Where I have put forward a compromise suggestion.--Padraig 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

In Case anyone is confused as to the Status of Flags in the UK read this:

• The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.--Padraig 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Celsius along with Fahrenheit

I feel that within the climate portion of this article all temperatures (which are currently in °C) should also be presented in °F. A simple parenthetical presentation of the temperature converted to the Fahrenheit scale would make this article more easily understood by persons who are unfamiliar with the Celsius scale and who do not have access to a unit converter.

-Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.228.83 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has access to google and can type in "32 centigrade to fahrenheit" - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power

I have read that the UK nuclear weapons cannot be fired without US enablement. Is this true? If so, obviously the sections referring to the UK being a "nuclear power" would need significant modification. (Sarah777 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

You are referring to the US weapons stationed on British soil (which also, incidentally, need British permission to be used). The independent British nuclear deterrent, based in submarines, is just that - independent. TharkunColl 10:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support that claim? (Sarah777 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Do you? TharkunColl 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

None. That is precisely why I question the inclusion of such statements in the article. It now appears I was correct to do so as you have de facto conceded that you have no such evidence of independence. (Sarah777 11:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

And I have read that if the UK wishes to fire its nuclear weapons, Gordon Brown must first drop his trousers, skip - still in his underpants - from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace, and then dance in the style of five farmyard animals whilst the Queen guesses what animals they are. The weapons can only be fired if she gets three right. As noone here has provided no evidence to the contrary, they have de facto conceded that this must be true and I shall therefore be adding it to the article forthwith. Bonkers. Totally bonkers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your scenario and mine are analogous. In fact, I might be able to find some reliable sources to support my contention whereas I doubt that would be the case re Gordon Brown's lapdance for the Queen. I like to tee these issues up in discussion before dropping them into an article - less shock effect. I only wish more folk would follow my example. (Sarah777 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

You're missing my point - your position seems to be that because noone has provided evidence that it isn't true, therefore it is true. I hope you can see that this is - to put it politely - a rather impractical burden of proof you are placing on your fellow contributors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read that, Sarah? Badgerpatrol 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember - maybe the Independent; it was in the context of the anti-war stuff around the time they decided to renew Trident - along the lines of "what's the point, the US controls the trigger". I made no edits on this issue as I have no refs to hand; I thought someone else might. I reckon there are some out there. (Sarah777 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The weapons are operationally independent in the sense that they do not require the permission, satellites or codes of the USA. However, the missiles are manufactured and serviced by the USA, so they are not fully independent in that sense (if the US refused to service them, they would be useless). See BBC [20] Astrotrain 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's more in line with what I thought. I'd certainly be interested in reading that article though if you ever come across it again, it's a subject I've often thought about. Badgerpatrol 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Nevis

Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. True, but it hardly does it justice. And the pictures of skyscrapers are there specifically to illustrate the UK's economic growth. TharkunColl 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the United Kingdom; dragging in the RoI to boost the status of Nevis is aggravated trivialisation. Skyscrapers are often constructed during recessions so their existence in wherever the photo was taken is not a testament to anything. Maybe a potential "indicator" but a testament is way to strong and non-Wiki in terms presentation. The fact that the UK Government has a Defence Ministry means nothing; every country has, and every country calls their military "defence". But you will note that Wiki does not have to validate this euphemism; the term that avoids pov is "military expenditure"; which it is actually the term used in the actual link which appears as "defence spending" (Sarah777 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I would have to agree that "military expenditure" is a better term going forwards. I think citation would solve the other issues. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the statement about skyscrapers being a testament to the economic growth of the UK is an odd one, and very unencyclopaedic. The building of skyscrapers is actively regulated and discouraged in London to protect its skyline. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NI not a Nation

While I'm here, Tarkuncoll also reverted fixing the caption which referred to NI as a "Nation". How is NI a nation? (Sarah777 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree, it isn't (and for exactly the same reason, nor is the RoI). But England, Scotland, and Wales are, and to call them "entities", as you did, is just insulting. TharkunColl 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A nation is a group of people, not a division of land (though granted they are referred to as the home nations). I believe that they are all each constituent countries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A nation, whilst it is certainly a group of people, usually also possesses a specific area of land. So it is not incorrect to refer to countries as nations. TharkunColl 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is really! They're not the same thing at a scholarly level or below. It's this kind of sloppy English that confuses other terms, like race and ethnic group, which are also not the same. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kurds are a nation, though spread over 4 countries. Country is definitely not = nation. (Sarah777 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

If it's the people, not the land, then NI is TWO nations; each belonging to part of a different bigger nation. Can't agree RoI isn't a nation; it might not encompass all those who consider themselves part of it but is is a nation; and a sovereign one; unlike Scotland or Wales. So how do we improve the caption; "Three Nations and an Entity"? Sounds good to me. (Sarah777 13:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Well Northern Ireland as a territory, or division of land, is very much a constituent country, and citation supports this. The "Northern Irish" could be described as two nations, but there are more groups within its population than just the age old prodys/loyalists and catholics/nationalists (such as American students, chinese migrants, cross community peoples etc), and that does pertain to the people, not the land; simillarly England could effectively be described (in point of view terms) hundreds of nations if we begin to divide its inhabitants according to creed and colour. They should all be described as "countries" in the caption (constituent is not necessarily a term of art). -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have less problems with "country" than "nation" except that "country" usually implies sovereignty. I suppose the root problem isn't just NI (obviously neither a country or a nation by any normal definition); the problem is trying to apply a common name to all four. Scotland is a nation; but arguably not a country. Wales is a Principality, is it not? England is the closest of the lot to approximate to the term "country"; but not quite there; the COUNTRY is the United Kingdom. You can't have; "COUNTRY, the United Kingdom is subdivided into four COUNTRIES."

How about "Statelets"? (Sarah777 14:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

No - statelet is pure OR sorry. There's no reason why a country can't be divided into countries! Why can't that be?... Indeed it's the approach of the UK's various official literature - [21]. Scotland is not a nation, its a constituent country. The Scottish people are a nation as has been established. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a nation or country it is a province of the UK, which is how the British Government has discribed it numerous times over the years.--Padraig 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands I've provided citation for "country". If you could find suitable citation for province?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the same website [22] --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Barryob. A point of communication; I'm not contending NI is a province or not, I have also heard the term used, but citation suggested "country", and "nation" was bad English.... So, which one is correct? Both are citable. Any other sources to support either term? -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here [23][24][25][26].--Padraig 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the PSNI call it the province [27] Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service [28].--Padraig 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Province" refers properly to Ulster, not Northern Ireland. See Provinces of Ireland. --John 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly can have a country contituted of countries. The reference here , gives the UK government's take on that. Mucky Duck 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The British government and it departments have always refered to Northern Ireland as the province.--Padraig 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Padraig, qualify your conjectures with citation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is House of Commons Hansard good enough [29].--Padraig 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the UK annexed Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan without anyone knowing then the sources that Northern Ireland is referred to as a province have been provided --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it "The Province", in poetics, or "a province"? Hansard is an OK source, but with context, doesn't make anything official - it documents debate, nor does it quite assert that "The British Government have always called NI the province". Some of the other sources provided are blogs, personal columns and local websites. Surely something better can be found? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take stock of where we are before looking for more citations - there is more evidence for "Province" than "Country" and we all agree "Nation" is simply wrong. So edit to "Three Countries and a Province" unless and until we find a better solution. Then move on. There are other problems with this article that need fixing but I'd like to close off current issues before raising them. (Sarah777 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

If it helps, meetings in the UK public sector at which organisations from each of the four "entities" are present are usually referred to as "four countries" meetings - at least, certainly in healthcare. That's from personal experience so is essentially original research, but here's a citation to back it up. I've tried a few Google searches and the most popular words that are applied to all four are countries or territories. If some find referring to N.Ireland as a country objectionable, would referring to all four as territories suffice? I think it would be good to find one word that could be applied to them all, and "territories" seems to fit the bill. Waggers 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam before and the consensus was to leave the wording as 'countries'. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NI isn't a country. Perhap the reason it is discussed "ad nauseam" is 'cos the alledged "consensus" is ludicrous? (Sarah777 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

NI not a Nation (2)

"Territories" makes England sound like the Gaza Strip or something. Why do we have to use the same word for all four? Clearly NI is not a whole country in the same way that the other three are. "Province" is widely used - it's true that NI not the whole of Ulster, but it is based on Ulster, and "province" is in common use. As for the other three, "nations" is in widespread use. TharkunColl 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea folks, let's leave the article the way it is and was agreed to. The UK is a country, made up of four constituent countries (the four components are equal). Let's not beat a dead horse, please. GoodDay 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree; NI isn't a country. We can't be creating stuff on Wiki as I'm constantly told when objecting to the term "British Isles"! But do agree with you re flogging a dead horse - what we should do is bury the deceased. (Sarah777 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

It could be regarded as a "province" of GB&NI I suppose. (Personally I like the word 'territory' as it implies "occupation" - but I'll not push that!) Also Unionists habitually refer to "the Province" as much as "the country" (I accept that it isn't a full Province in Irish terms). Nationalists refer to it as a State or Statelet or Entity but I realise Nationalist usage is POV on Wiki whereas British pov merely reflects objective reality. So how about "The Three Countries of Great Britain and the Province of Northern Ireland"? (Sarah777 22:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The UK's four components are equal. However, if some persist in disputing this? please continue to keep the discussion here (in other words no edit wars). We don't need the UK article being locked. GoodDay 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In what respect are they "equal"? Citation please, as the comment appears to be ridiculous. The only thing we have established, and appear to have some consensus on, is the NI is not a country. Fact. I will amend the article accordingly. DO NOT revert or YOU will be edit warring. (Sarah777 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The UK's four components are far from equal they where from a period from 1973—1997 equal but are not now. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sarah777, you come across as very negative. Please try to be more engaging and accomodating with your discourse and negotation. There is no rush; we can all talk about this issue like adults and make sure we have a fair outcome. It might take a few days but there's no need to start threatening each other; we're all free to edit, but bound to work out a consensus.

Now, the most official and quality citation suggests that NI is a (constituent) country. I'm not saying there aren't any sources that say province, or territory, or part, or land, or evil British occupied territory of the beautiful emerald isle, but they are not of the same standard of citation as the number10.gov.uk cite. Rather than all scrambling for Google and finding weak and obscure sources (by which I mean blogs, personal webspaces, commericial cites, personal columns) to support our cause, why don't we attempt to find something in a proffessional atlas, or a high quality British history book? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut! I am very negative when an editor tries to impose pov over factuality and warns me against edit warring when I have done none. NI is not a country, period. It meets no dictionary definition of the term and clearly "province" is better referenced - despite your claims. Read this thread - there is general agreement. Heck, you think I'm negative; I think you aren't neutral. So let's both keep such personal opinions to ourselves, eh? (Sarah777 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Nobody accusing anybody of 'edit warring'. I simply advised both sides, to keep discussion here, that's all. GoodDay 23:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see no evidence at all for a consensus that "NI is not a country. Fact." I do see statements like "NI is not a country, period." but these do not amount either to evidence or to consensus. Mucky Duck 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beg to differ. You clearly advised me. Re the interventions by yourself, Red King and Jza - I notice that British editors in all these Irish/British issues argue up to a point and when confronted with a point they cannot refute resort to simply saying "this is how it is going to be - end". All three of you have said just that in slightly different ways. (Sarah777 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I said if some persist and I warned both sides (for the sake of the article). Honestly, you're being paranoid. GoodDay 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sarah777 please slow down. I've not editted the article, I've just discussed the citation. I can't help being British - I didn't ask for it. Hell with my mixed ancestry, I can't even claim to be a constituent countryer. However, my nationality shouldn't matter and I certainly shouldn't be persecuted or frowned upon for it. I'm not neutral no - none of us are, but I at least engage with you and provide citation; I've not reverted your changes, nor even said you're wrong! We shouldn't be here to push POV content, we're here to look at the evidence, discuss it as a team, then once agreed proceed with the edit.

I totally agree there is material to support "province" but it is also verifiable (not necessarily true) that NI is a constituent country. Sarah, you're making a sweeping claim that NI doesn't meet dictionary definitions of a country. Can you provide some reasoning why you think this is so? Can you also explain your reasons why you think "country" might not be suitable, when say, it is for Wales? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

May I remind Sarah that per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, she "may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks". Some of the rhetoric above is close to being anti-British and I suggest she refrain from making such comments in future. Astrotrain 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wales has been recognised, both by virtually all its inhabitants and all outside it as a country for nearly a thousand years. NI was merely part of a country, Ireland, until 1921. It then became part of another country, or certainly of a different country to the rest of Ireland. A huge minority of the people living there have contested its creation since its inception and that remains the case today. There is no parallel in Wales, Scotland or England; though I would argue that they are not countries either they are different in these respects. A truly non-pov article would state that they are different parts of a country, the country being the UK of GB and NI (UKOGBANI). The claim that UKOGBANI is a country and also some constituent parts are countries is complete and utter nonsense. But they have all been widely called countries. NI has not. It has been widely called a state, a statelet, an entity, a province. But not a "country".

Astro, I'm discussing, not editing. And telling the truth can't be anti-anything. But I do note your are resorting to threats. (Sarah777 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I have no problem with the term territory, and don't think it implies occupation. After all Canada contains territories as well as provinces. As for the four constituent parts of the UK being equal, where is the basis for that. That's never been the case and never been implied before. England is the strong partner in the kingdom with Scotland as a poorer partner and Wales coming in third. NI has always been more of an overseas territory than a full equal partner in the union, a view held up by UK laws. NI often has it's own laws, isn't included in many mainland UK things, often had no governance of its own and no power to alter things in Westminster. I don't think anyone seriously believes the four components of the UK are equal. I also don't think there is any reliable source that has ever described NI as a country (other than one odd entry on the Number 10 website I recall seeing many years ago) unlike the other three constituent parts, and it certainly has no basis in law. It's always been very dubious as to what official status should be applied to NI in that instance other than it is part of a larger nation/state/country of the United Kingdom. Ben W Bell talk 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I understand your point of view, but it is only that without source material. Could you qualify your statements about the inequalities of the terms of union between Eng/Sco/Wal/NI with some citation? Re Sarah's points, its certainly the first time I've ever seen someone use the phrase "a huge minority" in a discussion, but non-the-less, I must make a point of clarity; I understood things a little differently regarding NI; that it was the territory of NI that remained part of the United Kingdom, not become a new part of it in 1921. Indeed it was the Irish Free State that seperated from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, becoming a new state... of course. Quite verifiable.

Sarah, you stated earlier that NI doesn't conform to the definition of a country. Well, (I'm citing sources now) my cursory research suggests a country is "the territory occupied by a nation".[30] or "In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical entity, a territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation". Am I right in thinking you retract that statement based on this material? For the record I have no problem in working that issue out, but as a user I must see citation if we wish to proceed on nulifying the term "country" for NI.

It seems that "A province is a territorial unit, almost always a country subdivision". So if we proceed with this for NI, then why not for say Scotland? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Northern Ireland being refered to as a country, I merely mentioned that Britain regarded it as a province of the UK rather then a seperate country, I think this comes from the fact that from 1921 to 1968 British politicans basically ignored it and left it to the devolved parliament to do its own thing, and it was only with the onset of the troubles when Britain was forced to intervene did they pay any attention to the place.--Padraig 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that NI had its own Governor shows that it was not treated the same as Eng/Sco/Wal its was treated as a colony with a great deal of autonomy for most of its history --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the opperative word there is was. That arrangement ceased in 1973. It must be remembered that when NI was first set up, it was intended to exist in tandem with Southern Ireland - each with their own House of Commons, but with a joint senate. NI was never intended to be an entity in its own right, because both it and Southern Ireland would have remained part of the UK, with a large measure of internal self government. That things didn't work out this way was largely a result of WWI. TharkunColl 11:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody earlier said 'Northern Ireland' seperated from Ireland and joined the UK, what? Actually, the rest of Ireland (which eventually became the Republic of Ireland) broke away from the UK. Afterall, from 1801 to 1922, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also raised this point. I'm assuming it was a misunderstanding on that user's part. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest cities/towns

Eagerly trying to get their favourite city or town into the list largest cities/towns, some editors are restorting to including the entire population of city councils or their equivalent: Newcastle upon Tyne and City of Sunderland are the latest to try and squeeze in. Taking into account the comment in the article's text just above and below the list — See main article for the precise figures. They are urban sub-divisions according to the 2001 census, not local authority districts. — and the notes at List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population, I have removed any below the 200,000 mark. Bazza 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think eventually, the whole section will have to be deleted. It has become a 'favourite city' battle ground. GoodDay 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I find it odd when there are lists in some articles which simply duplicate the information on another "List of..." page. Perhaps just replace it with (e.g.) "There are twenty-two cities or towns with a population over 200,000." Bazza 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go for that. GoodDay 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is more that editors are ignoring the comments placed in those locations for exactly that reason. There's no reason for the 200,000 - 250,000 group to be removed if people actually read the comments and the daughter article. If this list is to be removed, then so should the conurbation and LUZ ones too - which would be a shame as they add valuable information to the article. Fingerpuppet 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I've been bold whilst you were typing. Agreed about conurbation lists going the same way, but is there a similar UK-only LUZ list as well? Bazza 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)