Talk:United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
:In response to [[user:Keizuko|Keizuko]]'s comment, I would say that it might very well be correct and true, but Wikipedia is mainly about verifiability. It's a verifiable fact that IMF in the report places the UK economy above the French for 2007. We, as editors, should not start to recalculate the reports by IMF, only report them. If the French economy indeed is larger than the UK's, it will eventually show in a future report and the affected articles should of course be changed at that time to reflect such a change. At present, the latest and most reliable report places the UK economy ahead of the French, and then the article should reflect that. Cheers [[User:JdeJ|JdeJ]] ([[User talk:JdeJ|talk]]) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
:In response to [[user:Keizuko|Keizuko]]'s comment, I would say that it might very well be correct and true, but Wikipedia is mainly about verifiability. It's a verifiable fact that IMF in the report places the UK economy above the French for 2007. We, as editors, should not start to recalculate the reports by IMF, only report them. If the French economy indeed is larger than the UK's, it will eventually show in a future report and the affected articles should of course be changed at that time to reflect such a change. At present, the latest and most reliable report places the UK economy ahead of the French, and then the article should reflect that. Cheers [[User:JdeJ|JdeJ]] ([[User talk:JdeJ|talk]]) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::It is also a verifiable fact that the IMF places the French economy above the UK economy in 2008 ([http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=52&pr.y=13&sy=2007&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=122%2C137%2C124%2C181%2C156%2C138%2C423%2C196%2C128%2C142%2C172%2C182%2C132%2C576%2C134%2C961%2C174%2C184%2C144%2C176%2C146%2C178%2C112%2C136&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=]), and that the Financial Times has reported that the UK economy has slipped behind the French economy due to the depreciation of the sterling pound ([http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto011120081702151765]). That's the whole point I made. These two |
::It is also a verifiable fact that the IMF places the French economy above the UK economy in 2008 ([http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=52&pr.y=13&sy=2007&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=122%2C137%2C124%2C181%2C156%2C138%2C423%2C196%2C128%2C142%2C172%2C182%2C132%2C576%2C134%2C961%2C174%2C184%2C144%2C176%2C146%2C178%2C112%2C136&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=]), and that the Financial Times has reported that the UK economy has slipped behind the French economy due to the depreciation of the sterling pound ([http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto011120081702151765]). That's the whole point I made. These two pieces of information are now missing from this and [[France]]'s article. [[User:Keizuko|Keizuko]] ([[User talk:Keizuko|talk]]) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:36, 10 April 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | United Kingdom has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
This page has archives. |
Article's introduction
I missed it. When was it decided not to call UK's 4 components constituent countries? I'm not complaining, just curious. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right - I've added the phrase. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Constituent Nations rather than Constituent Countries is a more appropriate term. It aids in the distinction between the recognized country (at a UN level) and the semi-autonomous nations that comprise it, similar to the way in which Catalonia declares itself a nation in its Estatuto. Jonnyboy5 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Jonnyboy5
- No, a nation is a group of people, not a division of land (see [1]). The Home nations, might be an alternative, but I think constituent countries is the term that has won preference, not just here, but in hundreds of articles and templates. --Jza84 | Talk 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maps for the constituent countries
I have created the above maps. I hope you all don't mind that I was WP:BOLD and added them to the relative articles myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice enough maps, but I don't see why you have added the comment on this talk page when we don't at present have any map that shows the constituent countries of the UK in the UK article. If you are thinking of adding these maps to the UK article, I'm not sure where would be most appropriate. Perhaps under the Geography section? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. No I wasn't thinking about that, but if you want go for it! I was just sneaking comments from others on pages that would have an active interest on the constituent countries pages. Anyway an edited version of Image:Celtic Nations1.svg or the informative Image:Nations of the UK.png would probably be better if you wanted to do that. If you could comment on the Poll that would be appreciated. Thanks again. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Map
The map of the UK shows europe as well. However Britain has recognised Kosovo, so i think its only fair to have a map of Britain and europe which include Kosovo ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Go ahead and add one. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I cant do it on my laptop. Its rather crappy haha ;) Could somebody else do it please. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Divided sections
Who came up with the nonsense, dividing every section along the constituent countries ? Whats next, dividing James Bond movies in Scottish actor/British production ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.19.199 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- What nonsense? Not every section is divided as you describe: Demography, Religion, Language and Economics aren't, for example. Those which are have been divided because the subjects covered (including government, health services, law, education, etc.) are different across one or more of the constituent countries. Bazza (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not every section was divided, they were correctly divided. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
UK's economy is firmly in fifth place according to the IMF's 2007 Nominal GDP figures.
I've updated the disputed GDP sentence to stae that the UK's nominal GDP is the fifth largest not the sixth, which some French editors had tried to assert after The Times last November ran an article stating the UK's economy had slipped behind France's. The new 2007 IMF figures now show this to be wrong and that the UK's economy is actually considerably larger than France's. Signsolid (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Although I don't think the IMF figures show the FT story to be wrong, exactly, it was just the case the France overtook the UK temporarily due to exchange rate fluctuations. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- If that is the case, the article should of course reflect it. But would you care to provide the source for it as well? The link I found from Wikipedia is to an estimate made in October 2007, before France was reported to have overtaken the UK. That is not to say that I don't believe you, far from it, just that a source would be good to have to make the whole thing more verifiable. JdeJ (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I read the report myself and it's clear that the UK economy is larger than the French. However, the UK is still ranked both fifth (nominal GDP) and sixth (PPP) by the IMF. As the IMF takes care to mention both and doesn't state a preference for one over the other, it's best to keep both in the article. For us to decide which one to use would be original research. JdeJ (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not really surprised that Signsolid, with his usual British jingoism, wrote what he wrote above, but I'm a bit surprised that JdeJ jumped to conclusions concerning that IMF report. Nothing has changed at all since the Finantial Times article, in fact the British pound fell further and is now worth less than 1.25 euros, which means the UK GDP is now 100 billion euros behind the French GDP. JdeJ, if you check the IMF report carefully, you'll notice that they used the exchange rate of 1 pound = 1.46 euros for their 2007 GDP estimates, which is last year's exchange rate before the pound started to fall. We should still reflect in the article that the UK economy is either 5th or 6th largest in the world in nominal term depending on whether we use last year's or this year's exchange rate. The IMF pretty well know that because for their 2008 estimates they placed the nominal French GDP in 5th position ahead of the UK GDP (you can see it here: [It's a bit strange that this information is completely mising in the article now. Keizuko (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I read the report myself and it's clear that the UK economy is larger than the French. However, the UK is still ranked both fifth (nominal GDP) and sixth (PPP) by the IMF. As the IMF takes care to mention both and doesn't state a preference for one over the other, it's best to keep both in the article. For us to decide which one to use would be original research. JdeJ (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah I think we're going to stay with the IMF's figures thanks, considering all country articles use them. Finally this malicous anti-UK rumour spread by a few French nationalists all because of a reactionary British newspaper article can finally be done with. The IMF's figures will always take priority over newspaper articles who were reacting to a sharp drop in the London Stock Exchange one day when France's economy may have slightly over taken the UK's for maybe all of one day. Any further attempts to basically deface the UK article by discrediting IMF official figures and using random newspapers articles instead to run an anti-UK bias on this article and I won't hesitate to submit this article to the administrators' notice board and suggest the article be submitted to arbitration commitee for them to take action against relevent editors. In particularly make a note of Keizuko's anti-UK editing trend according to their history and talk pages for administrators to come to their own conclusions. Frankly I'm sick and tired of having to spend so much of my time having to keep an eye on UK related articles to try to stop the anti-UK bias edits being made by a handful of editors. I make no anti-French edits to France related articles as I don't even edit France related articles apart from changing back the IMF's GDP ranking on the France article once. This is just another example of even when the IMF releases its new GDP figures a scurry of the small handful of UK hating editors pounce on this article to try to maintain their anti-UK edits and even go to lengths of denying official IMF figures, which are the mainstay used by every country article on Wikipedia. I hope others can see my frustration at this situation, a situation which should never have even started if the GDP figures had been left to the official IMF figures like every other country article on here until a couple of editors took a newspaper article as more reliable than even the IMF, a situation which other editors should never have allowed to happen and has only ended with the IMF releasing new figures, with them still resisting it. This is not only confind to the UK article but to many UK realted articles like the War in Afghanistan article as one example, with Keizuko maliciously removing all mention of the UK from the article until administrators stepped in and restored the article. Signsolid (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
JdeJ appears not to be trying to spreading any anti-UK bias but Keizuko appears to regularly attempt to spread anti-UK bias if you look at their history and talk pages and have been contacting other editors talk pages who they think may be sympathetic towards them. Signsolid (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Keizuko's comment, I would say that it might very well be correct and true, but Wikipedia is mainly about verifiability. It's a verifiable fact that IMF in the report places the UK economy above the French for 2007. We, as editors, should not start to recalculate the reports by IMF, only report them. If the French economy indeed is larger than the UK's, it will eventually show in a future report and the affected articles should of course be changed at that time to reflect such a change. At present, the latest and most reliable report places the UK economy ahead of the French, and then the article should reflect that. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is also a verifiable fact that the IMF places the French economy above the UK economy in 2008 ([2]), and that the Financial Times has reported that the UK economy has slipped behind the French economy due to the depreciation of the sterling pound ([3]). That's the whole point I made. These two pieces of information are now missing from this and France's article. Keizuko (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)