Talk:United Kingdom

Removal of Special Relationship + updated Armed Forces image needed

Hello, I believe the Special Relationship nonsense should be removed, its not in the United States article, looks desperate we have it in the UK article when UK-US relations are no way as strong as it once was. Seems to be an old term for an old time. Also the UK forces image, BritishPatrolHelmand01.jpg should be replaced (three years old), we no longer use the Land Rovers in Afghanistan. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. It is sourced, in inverted commas (suggesting its limitations) and with a wikilink if readers want to investigate it further.--SabreBD (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why it is in the UK article and not the US? If it were so 'special' wouldn't it be mentioned in both? -- SuperDan89 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Because, most of the time, only the UK uses the terminology. Just because it is a British concept doesnt mean it cannot appear in the British article.--SabreBD (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The term does appear in both the United Kingdom-United States relations and Foreign policy of the United States articles. G.R. Allison (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in United States now, too.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote by Obama from May of this year which may be of interest to those questioning the current state of the relationship: "As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries -- a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines." [1]Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see it has been added to the US article and to hear Obama's comments supporting the relationship, with that the idea of the 'Special Relationship' seems to make more sense now and I agree it should be kept. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Motto

This article doesn't mention the motto of the UK which is "Dieu et mon droit" [sic] (according to the German Wikipedia). I'm not sure whether this is still correct. Could someone find out whether the motto needs to be added to the English version or whether it needs to be removed from the German version? -- 79.234.22.43 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the monarch, rather than that of the state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe some comic recently suggested that the motto of the United Kingdom is "mustn't grumble". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

5 world maps ?

It seems this country article pulls to much references on maps. Specifically 5 world maps seem not apropriate considering the overall appearance of the UK article. Italiano111 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The maps all have a relationship to the text. They seem appropriate to me. It is probably inevitable that an article about a state that had a world empire is going to have some world maps.--SabreBD (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You said it: HAD a world empire (50 years ago). This is the year 2010. Italiano111 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep I have a calender. It still has overseas territories, immigration from the empire and elsewhere and influence through language elsewhere, etc. Also, this article includes history, even as long ago as 50 years.--SabreBD (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A map in the Migration section has been removed. It contained almost the same information as the table in Ethnic groups. Please avoid duplicated content in the future. Thanks Italiano111 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You proposed changes here. Only I replied and I was against it. Then you did it anyway. Please avoid major changes without getting consensus in future please.--SabreBD (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the map in the migration secton does not display the same data as the ethnic groups table. The map shows the birthplace of British residents, the table their ethnicity. These are different things. That said, I might be persuaded to support removal of the map. At the very least, it is out of date as more recent estimates are now available (see Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Being out of date is a reasonable argument for removal and it would be useful if other editors can comment on that point. In the meantime it might be useful to explore whether a more up to date alternative is available. This might be difficult as we are almost as fare away from a UK census as we can be be.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The map is based on ONS estimates rather than the census, and the estimates for 2009 are available here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit, I agree that the number of world maps in the article does seem excessive, especially given that most if not all of the matters covered by them are linked to other articles. The USA article, in comparison, contains no world maps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The France article, probably a better parallel, has 3, and rather more than this one of Europe. Given the UKs greater historic relationships 5 might not be inappropriate, but their individual relevance is what is really significant. I think that if there are arguments for keeping the immigration map we should use the data that Cordless Larry points to above and make it an updated one. However, as a more general point I am actually in line with the opinion expressed elsewhere on this page, this article is just too long and these sections should be short summaries pointing to the major articles. If they are shorter there will be less room for pictures, so some will have to go. Perhaps we should think about the text here first and then worry about tables and pictures, which will be in proportion to that.--SabreBD (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(wrote this at the same time as SabreBD was making their comment above, sorry to repeat a couple of their points again) There is no right or wrong number of maps specified for a Wikipedia article, the question is purely whether the maps serve a useful purpose for readers in illustrating information given in the article. I see no value in comparing the number of maps in this article with the number of maps in other country articles, since those countries will have entirely different histories and profiles, although I note that the France article has 10.

Since the British Empire was the largest in history, existed for the majority of the UK's existence, and only started being disbanded half way through the twentieth century, a map showing its extent seems to me completely essential. A map showing the spread of the English language also seems essential and of great interest to readers, this is perhaps the single biggest cultural influence that the UK has had internationally, and English is now the leading second language worldwide and the first langage of many of the richest and largest countries in the world.

Both migration and immigration have had a very large impact on the UK's development and the migration section of the article is justly quite large. It seems entirely sensible to illustrate this section with maps. My only hesitation in this case is that it is important that these maps be up to date. The data for the expats map is now four years and in my view that map does need updating or should be removed. As a concept though I think that the map is very useful to readers and completely justified.

A map illustrating the present dependencies seems perfectly sensible and these dependencies continue to be an important part of the UK's influence in the world. Dependencies rightly have their own section in the article.

The final two maps are of the UK. Who could seriously query the presence of maps of the topography and administrative units of the country?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in history section

[Copied from my talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)]

Hi, I see that you just removed an image that I added to the above article of Churchill at Yalta because of 'sandwiching'. I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean by this. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The MOS discourages placing text between two images at MOS:IMAGES. They can be down the left or right or left, in the case of the UK article they are alternated and that is also my preference, but as changes are made to text the alternation is usually not changed creating some odd patterns. My edit also tried to put the alternation back into the images so that the pattern is clear, but the article is so big that doing it all at once takes a long time, so I think I may have undone your last two edits, apologies for that but you can probably redo those more easily than I can, as you actually know what you were doing. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I must confess that I wasn't aware of that guidance (many articles breach it). Is there any way that we could reintroduce the image that I added of Churchill at Yalta by moving the WW1 image up? I think that the Yalta image serves a number of purposes including referencing the Second World War (arguably the most important single event in the history of the nation), providing a visual bridge into the post-war era and showing a picture of Churchill, probably the most important British Prime Minister?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about the Yalta picture. I have had a quick go at seeing how it looks with all four pictures in, but I have to say it is very crowded and doesn't look very good and this is on my widest screen (on a narrow screen it will probably look a lot worse). I don't have time to resolve this tonight, but will see if I can come up with something tomorrow. Also this discussion is really more suitable for the article talkpage so I am copying this conversation there - so that other editors can comment. One solution would be to sacrifice one of the other pictures in the section, but we really need a consensus on that sort of change.--SabreBD (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't fit, especially considering different browser sizes. 3 images is already pushing it. This article had a large problem with picture numbers before, best not to go back there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In which case it is fair to ask editors if they wish to replace one of the existing images in order to fit it in and if so which one. For myself I have been pretty happy with the existing images and would be reluctant to lose one, but if there is widepread consensus I am happy to go along with a justified change.--SabreBD (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lists

A number of lists appear in this article. The most blatant one is in the science and technology section, but they exist throughout it, especially in Culture (albeit lists in prose). It is my opinion that these do not belong on this article, especially as it is a summary the UK. They don't add anything. Remove? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the content of these lists should remain. I agree that there is an issue with some information requiring citations and some information being in a list format which might be better in prose. However the great majority of the information is extremely valuable and relevant. The UK's overall contribution to science and technology, and technological innovations, is arguably the largest of any nation over the last 300 years. The last 300 years have also seen by far the greatest technological progress in human history. This is very important content. The science and technology section in, for example, the Russia article is far larger in terms of total words.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you go to the Russia (recently delisted from GA) article's talk page, you'll see I suggested cutting that section down. This was agreed to by other editors. At any rate, the section there is nice and prosed, organised. The lists here are just random assortments of everything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the section as it stands needs work, the list style is not appropriate and the information should be in prose. However the solution cannot be to simply remove content that is completely relevant and important. Please explain which parts of the content you feel are 'random assortments of everything'.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well besides the items chosen for Science and technology that seem to have no criteria other than made in UK, theres the movies chosen as examples of being based off British stories, list of early writers (seemingly picked to get one a century), list of 20th century writers, a couple more in the literature section im not going to bother listing out, large parts of the music section, the second paragraph of Philosophy, practically the whole visual arts section, etc.

Not only are the lists mostly unsourced (often not even individual items are sourced), but usually no context is given other then oh these people or places are important. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't follow you at all. How are scientific discoveries made in the UK not relevant to a section on science and technology in the UK? How are British writers not relevant to a section on British literature? How are British musicians not relevant to a section on British music? How are British philosophers not relevant to a section on British philiosophy? A few examples of Hollywood films based upon British stories and events seems to me highly relevant to the cinema section, particularly since the British and American film industries are so closely connected.

If your comment is that these sections could be better written, then perhaps I can agree. All of your comments regarding content I completely disagree with however. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not once written about relevance. They're definitely relavant. The question is if they are so notable they should appear on this page, which should just be the shortest of summaries of whatever the topic is, especially under level 3 headers. If they are notable, not much reason is given why. There is only so many ways one can write a list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this article and the articles of other major nations I don't believe that the overall treatment of science and technology, literature, cinema or music is overly long here or that too many individual names are given. It is also fair to note that the UK has had an exceptionally large impact in very many areas and has produced very many notable individuals. In terms of whether this or that specific individual is worthy of mention, there will of course always be an element of subjectivity. In the literature section I think very few people would argue with the inclusion of Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer, Austen or Orwell but some may argue that, for example, David Edgar should not be listed (personally I wouldn't though). There are also many authors who are not included that a strong case could be made for. I am suprised, for example, to see no reference to Ian Fleming. Which authors do you feel are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Rangoon11 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the length of the topic per se, but the fact that much of that length is simply taken up by lists, with no real depth given. I would agree that the UK has produced many notable individuals, following your literature example, Ian Fleming in my opinion should be there too. However, what you think, and what I think, should play a minimal role in regards to lists like these. Although notable individuals are worth mentioning, mention too many and they all become meaningless names. If we pick who it is, there is an element of OR there. The best option would be if it was sourced from a list somewhere of people the list felt was most notable. The problem is none of the lists here have that, they are thrown together by the editors here. Summarizing:

• Long lists take up space that could be used to explain the notability and effect of the topic, especially in its relation to the UK.
• The current lists are arbitrary, based off the editors with no sources for them.

-- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The science and technology list is ugly and they are not based on a single source, and hence involve original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, certainly with anything connected to the arts, that there will always be a large element of subjectivity. This is not to say that the lists are arbitrary, they represent the combined contributions and opinions of many editors over many years. Even if we could find one source which listed the thirty or forty most significant figures in British literature, we could find other sources which would contradict much of the content. There is an inherent subjectivity in this area which is unavoidable. We could fall back on purely statistic-driven criteria, such as listing only the biggest-selling authors, but I think most people would agree that that would be both crude and inappropriate.

There is also not space for a proper narrative of a topic as vast as the whole of British literature. Getting the balance right between narrative and purely listing out names is itself highly subjective and a matter of editorial judgement. Looking at similar articles on Wikipedia one can see that they also include large numbers of names. Given the very limited space constraints and the huge amount of ground to cover this is probably unavoidable. Having said all that I do agree that the narrative aspects of the literature, music, philosophy and science and technology sections of this article could all be improved. However I feel that doing so requires considerable care and restraint in order to avoid losing important and valid information and replacing it with narrative that is so partial and superficial as to itself be highly subjective.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Subjective information decided by editors should not be in an article. However, if the information is backed up by WP:RS, then it can be in the article. At present the lists do not fulfill that. Additionally, we are not trying to create a narrative of the entire body of British literature. That's what the page British literature is for. This applies for all of these sections. This article is not meant to have so much detail. It is meant to be a summary, not a full account. Lists are excessive detail probably not needed. Instead of just comparing it to Russia, please browse through the GA and FA country articles found here. There are some lists, but nothing close to the number here and nothing as audaciously bad as the current science and technology one. I've copied the list to Science and technology in the United Kingdom. I thus move for it to be deleted here, replaced by maybe a sentence saying that the UK has resulted in achievements such as (2 or 3 examples max). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of radically cutting that list to just provide a couple of examples. Many things in that list are notable, it certainly provides the reader with more information than a couple of sentences would. If this was a roadblock to it becoming a "Good article" then id support removal, but i suspect there would be major other issues with the article before that becomes a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All articles on countries in Wikipedia, including all of the GA and FA country articles, contain lists and contain subjective material. This is unavoidable. And as I said before, sources can always be provided to support an infinite number of possible texts, but the selection of the sources is itself original research and the content will still be subjective, it will just be sourced. You seem very keen on simply deleting chunks of this article, rather than making efforts to improve it, to rework content and to add sources. To delete the content of the science and technology section rather than making efforts to improve it through working the text into prose would be completely unacceptable to me. You also fail to see that your proposed approach of choosing just two or three examples of UK scientific breakthroughs is actually even more subjective than the current longer list, since it involves a far greater element of choice of what to include and exclude. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the GA/FA country article which has an unsourced list of 20 odd items. If a source can be provided, support it. Selection of sources is not original research. "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." If a list comes from a reliable source, we can use it. My proposed approach was a compromise approach, apparently unacceptable to you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, just because there are other problems with the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't address the list issue. Hopefully as a starting point, we can agree that the bullet-point list format should be changed to prose? I'm sure a reliable source can then be found to support the selection of items. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i prefer the list format and would rather see more bullet point lists like that than tons of prose, however i accept standard format is prose on wiki so i dont mind that being changed, im just against cutting the list down to 2 or 3 examples, losing a couple would be ok though. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would personally be prepared to lose the references to the hovercraft (a niche form of transport), soda water (obscure) and the theories of Stephen Hawking (merely theories and of uncertain impact thus far). I also feel that the references to the steam train should be combined, and the duplicative references to the jet engine and electric lighting removed from the sentence below the present bulleted list.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to put in my 2d worth. I would support the lists being turned into prose, as these look more encyclopedic and are less of an encouragement to unsourced list creep, probably with less examples, but almost certainly more than just 2 or 3. The subjectivity can be mitigated by following some major source as to what are the major discoveries.--SabreBD (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did we get to with this? Is anyone willing to take on a rewrite to more concise prose?--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine making the list more concise, it's a barebones list. Per the complex list guidelines "a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence", however I suppose if the "greatness" of everything was explained, it could become nice prose, albeit long prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Terminology: Northern Ireland as "a country"?

Reference to Northern Ireland as one of the "countries" of the United Kingdom, in the same sense as England, Scotland and Wales, is historically inaccurate and politically charged. England, Scotland and Wales each have had many centuries of existence as countries with distinct histories, cultures and institutions; Northern Ireland came into being only in 1921 as a consequence of the partition of the island, and country, of Ireland. It was not at that time constituted as or ever referred to as a "country". In modern Northern Ireland, the term "country", like the term "the Province", is only ever used of the region by members of the majority (British, unionist, mainly Protestant) section of the population, although many in that community would prefer to think of Northern Ireland as a part of a larger "country", the UK itself; in the minority (Irish, nationalist, mainly Catholic) community, the region is regarded as a part of the "country" of Ireland, a part that is, for better or worse, governed as a part of the United Kingdom. Thus in Northern Ireland, to refer to the place as a "country" instantly identifies the speaker as British/Unionist/Protestant, and it is in no sense a neutral term. Neutral terms are, however, available - to refer to Northern Ireland as a "part" or a "region" or a "jurisdiction" of the UK is uncontroversial, just as it can also be referred to as a "part" or a "region" or a "jurisdiction" within the island of Ireland. These neutral terms should be preferred in Wikipedia. When I (a lifelong resident of the region, passionately committed to maintaining Wikipedia as a politically neutral space) made modest edits to the UK article to change references to Northern Ireland as a "country", my changes were quickly reverted by, I think, a person from one of the actual UK countries, namely Scotland. I'd like to seek support for changing references to Northern Ireland as a "country" in its own right, or a "constituent country" of the UK, to neutral terrms such as part, region etc. Views please? Brocach (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with your edit was that you simply piped Countries of the United Kingdom as "regions", contrary to the title of that article. Whatever the merits of your argument, I don't think this is the best solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brocach and thanks for raising the issue on the talk page. I am indeed 'from one of the actual UK countries, namely Scotland.' If you check around the talk pages of this article and those for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you will see that issues concerning describing each of these 'entities' comes up regularly. The difficulty is that it is not as straightforward to find neutral terms as you may believe. Editors disagree about what is appropriate and, indeed, neutral. I support the current version (which is supported by an appropriate reference) and would find a change to 'regions', as you suggest, completely unacceptable. I should also point out that the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland articles each state that they are 'one of the four countries of the United Kingdom', including the Northern Ireland article which begins "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.[3][4]" Therefore the change you propose, if enacted, would re-open arguments on other articles in turn...I hope we don't go there yet again! But thanks for raising the discussion on talk in response to my reverting your changes. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast responses, Cordless Larry and Fishiehelper2 - as you might suppose, I would prefer to see the article Countries of the United Kingdom renamed, and the various other articles that contain this terminology edited, to reflect the same point that I am making here. But as everyone agrees that England, Scotland and Wales are countries, I am only looking for consensus around the issue of whether the term "country" should be applied in the same way to the one constituent part of the UK where that word is politically contested. I'm not looking for any arguments - quite the contrary - but for NPOV in a very touchy area... Brocach (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note this user seems to be suggesting this to another article - Talk:Ireland#Northern Ireland a country?. --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not "seems to be" but is - while I think the discussion so far on Ireland has helped, there are, as Fishiehelper2 points out, several pages where the same issue arises. Rather than just conduct the discussion on one page, it seems to me to be right to work gradually around the affected pages seeking consensus. Brocach (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling what I'm about to say will piss a few people off, but this is just my understanding of facts, which may be incorrect since I don't claim to be an expert on such matters, but not my own opinion as such. My understanding was that Wales is a principality (and thus not entirely independent of England) and NI is a province, but only England and Scotland are countries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ, you might want to look here at what the Welsh Assembly Government says about the term 'principality' - having no connection with Wales I defer to their elected representatives... as for 'province', Northern Ireland contains six of the nine counties of the historic Irish province of Ulster, but it is not the whole of Ulster so is not an Irish province, and the term 'province' does not exist in UK constitutional law so it's not a province of the UK (unless you can find the other provinces...) Brocach (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, though. If you accept the Welsh Assembly as a valid source for the correct description of Wales, why not the UK government for Northern Ireland's status? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Or indeed the Northern Irish government. For example: "Northern Ireland has the highest total period fertility rate of the constituent countries of the UK", from this publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Wales is a country. The Principality of Wales was a different, and considerably smaller, geo-political entity. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In no definition outside of the UK (and some sporting bodies) can NI be considered a country. It doesn't even have a flag. It has always been a province unlike the other other parts of the UK. Can anyone name the last king of NI before the union? Sorry that was a difficult question, lets try the first king....or any king....or any international body (not link to sport or the commonwealth) that recognises it as a proper state? Bjmullan (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone here is claiming that Northern Ireland is a state. No international body recognises England, Wales or Scotland as states either. There is a difference between a constituent country and a state. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In my view this all touches on interesting and complex semantic issues. Northern Ireland is clearly not merely a region, is a political division of the UK with its own laws, governance, parliament and institutions and is allowed to field its own team in many international sporting competitions. However I can accept that there is an argument against the use of the word country as a description for Northern Ireland because it does not have a history as an independent nation. It should be noted that the manner in which England, Scotland and Wales are described as countries is almost unique worldwide and in large part reflects their histories prior to unification and the many ways in which they have maintained very strong identities after unification, despite the UK being quite a centralised state, at least until recently. What concerns me is that some clearly want to emphasise a difference in the title for Northern Ireland vis a vis England, Scotland and Wales for reasons other than pure semantics. To overly stress a difference in the label for Northern Ireland vis a vis the other parts of the UK is in my view POV and an attempt at using an issue of semantics to make a political statement. Life would be easier if we could just describe the four constituent parts as states, but the UK does not have any tradition of using that term and is not federal (though the recent devolution of Scotland and Wales has moved in that direction).

When Northern Ireland is described on its own I think that 'province' is acceptable, and the BBC and many British government departments do use this description in such contexts. However when one is describing the four parts of the UK together, I actually think that the most neutral and least POV solution, as well as the most elegant, is to describe all four parts of the UK as countries. Northen Ireland, though not very old as a concept, should in such situtions be defined by its relationship as a parallel entity to England, Scotland and Wales, which are all countries in common parlance. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I should add that Home Nations exists as a possible compromise solution, although I expect that many will not like it.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Terms such as "state" or "region" are clearly inappropriate, and "home nation" is a term used almost exclusively in the context of sporting competitions. The most neutral term, if there is an overwhelming need for consistency, is constituent country. But the problem is that the four parts of the UK have asymmetric histories and current administrative arrangements, so that imposing a consistent terminology across all four - while seeking to maintain the position that all four have an equal status - inevitably leads to disputes and problems. There's no way round that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If England, Wales and Scotland can be described as countries today then Northern Ireland is one. If the description of Northern Ireland is changed, England, Wales and Scotland MUST be changed to. I strongly oppose just changing the description of Northern Ireland. If people can get consensus to change England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to stop saying country and describe them as something else, id support it.. but the chances of that happening are about as likely as World War 3 starting this week. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit extreme BW, it is the case that Northern Ireland is not, per WP:Common often described as a country and has an independent history which is less that a hundred years old. If the definition of country is extended to require the name of a King at some stage in its past then a lot of UN member states are going to have to give up the status. When we spend a lot of time looking into the references then all four parts of the UK are clearly referenced as countries. We have subsequently modified the language on Northern Ireland to reflect common usage. Politically many editors (including myself) will feel that Ireland should be reunited as a single country, but that is aspirational and should not influence editing here. I think the current wording on the Northern Ireland article stands, and where all four units are described in a sentence it is obviously valid that say it is one of the four countries. --Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Although if the definition of a country did require it to have had a monarch then you could use that as well to class NI as a country due to it being the direct continuation of the Kingdom of Ireland. On a personal note I too would love to see Ireland reunited....with the UK and it seems a certain ROI politician agrees. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for consistency in describing England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - they have different histories and the first three have existed separately as nation states, whereas the last (User:Snowded note) has never had an 'independent' existence. I strongly agree with Snowded that private political views should not influence editing but, although not one user has contested the point that "country" is a politically loaded term in Northern Ireland (used only by members of the British/Unionist majority), a number of users revert every edit to substitute a neutral term such as 'part' or 'region'. I don't know whether they are not reading this exchange, or if their motivation is to assert the Unionist view via Wikipedia.

It also seems bizarre (User:The C of E) to describe the region as a 'continuation of the Kingdom of Ireland' when there was a 120-year gap between the end of that Kingdom and the creation of Northern Ireland, and the latter has only one-fifth of the territory of the former. Brocach (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You avoid the fact that the description 'the United Kingdom consists of three constituent countries and a region' is highly politically loaded, drawing as it does a clear (and incorrect) distinction between the current status of Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales within the UK.

Today Northern Ireland exists as a parallel entity to England, Scotland and Wales, albeit with a different history and different origins. Northern Ireland is actually far more institutionally and politically autonomous than England, and it is counter factual to describe England as a country and Northern Ireland as a region in a description of the four component entities of the UK. There is no requirement in the dictionary for a country to have existed at some time as an independent nation state, that is your own definition. It is also clear that every country must have a period of birth, the fact that Northern Ireland is (relatively) young - as an entity it is older than many members of the United Nations - is not by itself an argument against it being a country. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas A380 Jet

{{editsemiprotect}} Change the picture of a Qantas A380 Jet in the Economy section with a picture of a Trent 900 Jet (File:A380-trent900.JPG) and the caption "A Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine manufactured in the UK" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk)

I note that you have made this change at Economy of the United Kingdom earlier today. I am interested to understand your thinking behind this, since the wings of all Airbus A380 are manufactured in the UK (and of course many, but not all, of the engines).

In my view a photo of a whole aircraft is more visually appealing and accessible than one of an engine and more appropriate for this article, although I am not totally against the proposed photo I am certainly interested to hear your reasoning.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stands to reason if you think about it why have a picture of a Australian jet plane only part of which is built in the UK to demonstrate a section on the UK economy when you can put something in its place that wholly built in the UK.

Few products are now made wholly in one country and certainly no commercial jet airliner, and Rolls Royce engines assembled in the UK do in fact include a considerable amount of foreign components. The UK contribution to the Airbus A380 in terms of both research and development and manufacturing is very substantial and an Airbus A380 with Rolls Royce engines will actually have a greater UK workshare than that of any other nation.

Unfortunately British Airways are not yet flying the A380 so a photo in their livery is, I presume, not an option. I believe that Virgin Atlatic have placed an order but not yet received any aircraft. Quantas is at least a One World partner of BA.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

but the current picture of a Australian jet plane does not fit well in a section on the UK economy the picture of the jet is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that readers are capable of discerning between the aircraft and the livery of the airline operating it. Arguably the livery goes to emphasise the success of the product and the fact that it is an export from the UK, which is a crucial aspect of its importance to the UK. There is also a photo of Wembley statium in the article, which was built I believe by an Australian construction company. How do you feel about that? Rangoon11 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

the A380 is not assembled in the UK the engine is as for the quip about Wembley stadium that is not in a section about British builders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is the location of assembly so important? The assembly of an aircraft is no more important than the manufature of its wings. Apple Inc. assemble most of their products in China, does that make them Chinese? Similarly Toyota, Honda and Nissan all assemble cars in the UK, does that make them British, even though the research and development took place in Japan? Would you prefer a photo of a Toyota Avensis?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you being difficult on purpose. Why should a picture of a Australasian plane be on this page in a section about the UK economy when a better picture is available ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I can assure you that I am open minded to a change and am interested to hear your reasoning. I must confess that I'm not convinced by your arguments so far though. You may have noticed that I left your change to the image on Economy of the United Kingdom. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A380, the wings of which are manufactured in the UK

How about File:A 380 meeting.jpg, which is also a photo of an Airbus A380, but in more neutral Airbus livery?   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo, it certainly works for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better than the current one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.199.247 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Government section

Adding Speaker Bercow and Baron Phillips to the government tab of the side info bar seems redundant. Firstly Bercow is missing the title MP, which seems quite odd considering David Cameron has it. Secondly the speaker only plays the role of presiding over parliament, he doesnt have the role of setting Parliaments legislative agenda like the Speaker of the Unites States House of Representatives.

Baron Phillips doesn't have the title Chief Justice either, he's the President of the Supreme court. We should mirror other Westminster system countries pages that just have the monarch and Prime Minister (without the governor general of course)

ALMAlex5 173.51.119.15 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I've reverted their recent addition. Consensus needs to be reached if this addition is to be made. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember a couple of months ago we had a similar discussion over whether or not to include the Deputy PM in the box and that idea got shot down so I imagine there'd be the same response if you tried to add the Speaker. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

UK as a country

From the FAQ of this talk page;

Q1: Is the United Kingdom a "country"? A1: Reliable sources support the view that the United Kingdom is a single country. This view is shared with other major reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe the UK in this way.

Definitions to support this may include "A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state" or "state: a politically organized body of people under a single government".

Also it is only the UK which appears on the ISO list of countries. Countries in this context being used to refer to a sovereign state but less confusing to casual readers as country is easy to understand despite some calling England or Scotland countries too. I also think the use of the world country is thrown around often when it comes to England, Scotland etc when they are perhaps nations but it is hard to see how they are countries themselves.

Given the above reasons I have changed from sovereign state to country in the lead. Does anyone have any feelings about this? G.R. Allison (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. The article already stated that the UK is a country, further down in the lead. It is both a sovereign state and a country (unlike England, which is only a country). The opening sentence should use the word state, since that is the 'highest level' description of the UK's status. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which definition of country are you using out of interest?G.R. Allison (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes. Not everyone reads the talk page, let alone the notices at the top. There have been extensive discussions in the past, not about whether the UK is a country which it clearly is, but about whether England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be called countries. The consensus - developed through much discussion over countless pages - is that they are indeed countries (although there are outstanding disagreements, particularly about Northern Ireland). Given that, it is more confusing to our international readership to say, in effect, that the UK is a country comprised of four countries. It is much clearer to state that the UK is a sovereign state - which is not disputed - composed of four countries, with an appropriate discussion in the appropriate place of the senses in which E, S, W and NI are called "countries". Not only that, but attempting to unravel the whole discussion from this page would lead to yet another round of arguments on other pages as well. This is quite a sensitive area, and changing introductory text in this way is unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all I disagree with it being unhelpful, it has served to spark a discussion regarding it. Given your point however I feel it may be better yo use 'state' rather than 'sovereign state' as the former is the easiest to understand for many readers and means the same thing. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really - a state can also be a sub-national entity, such as in Germany or the US. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sovereign state" is the accepted technical term, and has a linked article explaining it. "State" is ambiguous, particularly to our American friends. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems my proposal has been defeated, sovereign state it remains. Thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As a follow up to (and in light of) this decision, would it be sensible to refer to the countries of the UK as "Constituent Countries", as they are commonly referred to, or use the term "countries"? Since paragraph 2 of the lead of the article refers to the UK as a country, and the rest of the article refers to the four "parts" as countries as well, would this change ensure more clarity or is it unnecessary? (Also considering that "Constituent Country" may/may not be a legal/official term, but simply used for the purposes of clarity.) [Example: "It is a country consisting of four countries". I can imagine this being confusing to those unfamiliar with the UK and its geographical makeup.] Thanks. ★KEYS767★ ^talk 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would it be sensible to refer to the countries of the UK as "Constituent Countries", feel free providing no one here objects. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a fascinating ongoing discussion, one of the joys of Wikipedia. We could rarely have this discussion anywhere else. The UK is a fascinatingly odd polity to describe. It's not a unity anymore, because Northern Ireland and Scotland are autonomous now (is Wales?). But then it's not a federation either, because the components of the United Kingdom are not sovereign states. Scotland was of course, before the Act of Union. So yes, how do you define a 'country'? Gazzster (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are autonomous as the UK parliament does have power of many key issues but semi-autonomous certainly. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have some devolved powers, but each to different degrees. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that Scotland today has some degree of autonomy is not the reason why it is a country - it was a country before a Scottish parliament was re-established in 1999. By the way, to answer G.R. Allison, I do object to the phrase 'constituent country' as the phrase, when used, is often used by those with a political agenda (to downplay the fact that Scotland is a country). Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is what way the word 'country' should be used, Scotland is a country under some definitions of that word but not under others. The situation is certainly very complicated but given all the feedback I think 'constituent country' is the better term when describing parts of the UK as it still infers country status but also acknowledges that each country is part of the UK. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reiable sources (some are noted here) verify England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as countries - including official UK Government sources. The article is worded just fine as it is, and has no need to be changed. Daicaregos (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Many also describe them as constituent countries, this issue is not which has more sources, but simply which would be easier to read for the casual reader. But I think it is safe to say the consensus here is 'leave as is' and going by that I think this matter is now closed. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 'country' is fairly safe I think. I land with its own distinct people, with its own language (though it may be little spoken) and its own laws and traditions would qualify as a country I think. In former times, when people rarely travelled, they might speak of Kent or Gloucestshire or even their county as their 'country'.Gazzster (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why has "country" been removed from the introduction. For some time it said UK is a country and sovereign state. Country should be re added to the introduction. Some people do not believe the United Kingdom is a country there for it should clearly be stated in the introduction. I agree that sovereign state should be there too rather than replacing it with country. Both need to be displayed and it was stable until a recent rewording. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in the first line of the second para. From memory (not easy to check as the page versions take so long to load) the change was made quite some time ago, as part of a revamp of the whole introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

about a month ago yes. But Country should absolutely be stated in the first sentence of this article along with sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No it "absolutely" shouldn't. It doesn't matter. It's in the second para. That's fine. Move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering someone wanted to have it say country instead of sovereign state there, i think its reasonable to go back to the previous wording which said both country and sovereign state before it was changed without consensus to remove country from that first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also looking at the introduction, is it really accurate to say "The UK has three Crown Dependencies [17] and fourteen overseas territories that are not constitutionally part of the UK"? The Crown dependencies are possessions of the Crown, unlike the overseas territories which are the United Kingdoms? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. The territories are possessions of the UK, and it has legal authority over them; the crown dependencies are possessions of the crown itself, and I believe (but could easily be wrong) that they are much more autonomous legislatively, though the UK still manages things like defense and foreign affairs. I can't think of an analogue anywhere else in the world, except maybe the Netherlands, with its difference between "The Netherlands" and "The Kingdom of the Netherlands". Aruba, etc. are not part of the Netherlands, but they are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. So an analogous (but I could easily be wrong) way of putting it might be, the territories are owned by the country of the United Kingdom, but the Crown Dependencies are not; they are owned by the kingdom of the United Kingdom. Things are complicated by the fact that the country has "Kingdom" right there in its name. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To have a country made up of four countries is an impossible paradox. The four countries in question ceased to be countries when they merged into one country thus abrogating their sovereignty to the newly formed united country and nor was there one union but several. Please would someone adjust this. It would seem to make sense to say "The United Kingdom is a country formed from when Great Britain and Ireland were united in... "for example (?)

Reference to Cliff Richard in the Music section

I note that Cliff Richard is not included in the List of best-selling music artists article, and that it is hotly disputed as to whether his sales total is anywhere near 200 million: [[2]].

I therefore propose to replace his name with that of the Bee Gees (who are British/Australian) in the sentence starting 'Prominent British contributors to have influenced popular music over the last 50 years include', as their sales total of over 200 million is generally accepted to be true.

I would be grateful to hear others' thoughts on this. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Richard has a reliable reference in this article so I dont see a reason to delete. I dont have a view about the The Bee Gees but you dont need to remove one to add one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the Bee Gees but left Cliff Richard, my main concern is that his reference in this article creates a contradiction with List of best-selling music artists. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood but we are not here to understand other articles, which does not appear to accept reliable sources like the BBC but has for some reason set itself a higher standard than normally reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"United" Kingdom of Great Britain?

This is strange and have never heard it called that before, also strange to start the history of the United Kingdom in 1707 rather than 1800. I checked the texts to the 1707 and 1800 Acts. Art 1 of the 1707 Act says explicitly that the name of the Kingdom is "Great Britain" - no attempt to include "United" in the title unlike the 1800 Act. The 1707 Act does then go on to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain later in the text but 'united' is clearly being used in an adjectival sense rather than part of its formal title. One shouldn't be misled by the use of capital 'U'. In accordance with usage at the time many words begin with a capital letter (which don't now) for the purposes of emphasis. This is quite different to the usage in the 1800 Act. Can someone clarify please the thinking here.DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity this is the 1707 Act: "THAT the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain..." and this is the 1800 Act: "That it be the first Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;" DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I believe you have quote from the English Act. The Scottish Act and the Treaty itself give a different picture. For example, article VI says "That all parts of the United Kingdom for ever from and after the Union shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions and Regulations of Trade and lyable to the same Customs and Duties on Import and Export." Hope that helps! 86.153.144.192 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note also that for historical completeness (some might say over-kill) there is a separate Kingdom of Great Britain article for the 1707 to 1801 period, and a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article for the 1801 to 1927 period.

It seems sensible to keep historical information about both those periods in this article however, both for the ease of readers and most importantly because to do otherwise would ignore the reality that the various incarnations of the United Kingdom post-1707 have been, in all significant features and to all intents and purposes, exactly the same nation but with different borders; to break the narrative sweep of the nation into articles covering the periods 1707 to 1801, 1801 to 1927 and 1927 to present day would be completely artificial. United States has a single article running from 1776, although its borders today are quite different to at its foundation.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is the reasoning, then I'm afraid this article is misleading and incorrect. The United Kingdom was founded as a new state in 1801. Prior to that there was no United Kingdom, but two predecessor states: Ireland and Great Britain. Just as in 1707, Great Britain was a new state created out of its two predecessors: England and Scotland. It wasn't the expansion of one state with additional territory (as is the case with the US). I can find a ton of citations for this - I had assumed, however, that someone had found a technical reason for arguing that Great Britain = United Kingdom. If there isn't, it's just a mistake and needs to be corrected.DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I saw the message from 86.153.144.192. I'll take a look at that. Even so, I think it is a highly unusual and novel use of "United Kingdom" based on one of the two Acts only. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I happen to have a particular interest in Scottish history. The Treaty of Union created a 'united kingdom' in that it united two kingdoms. The Treaty did not call this state 'The Kingdom of Great Britain' or even the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', but just 'Great Britain'. The question then is whether we should add the description 'The United Kingdom of' or 'The Kingdon of', to its name. The Scottish Act of Union chose the former as that more accurately reflected the wording of the Treaty, the English Act of Union chose the latter (I'm not sure why.) By the way, no one is arguing that Great Britain = United Kingdom as that would lead to confusion since Great Britain is also the name of the island and the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland. However, if you had said' United Kingdom of Great Britain = Great Britain' that would be clear and make sense! The political union created in 1707 has indeed evolved, and its name has changed twice to reflect these changes. I'm sure no one wants to confuse matters by suggesting that each stage should be regarded as completely separate? The union that is the United Kingdom has survived (indeed prospered) for over three hundred years and, notwithstanding various nationalist movements, is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Hope that is helpful. 86.153.144.192 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really disagree on this. The normal convention by historians and constitutional lawyers follows the legal formality, that is that 'United Kingdom' refers to the union of GB and Ireland, whereas 'Great Britain' refers to the union of Scotland and England. 'United Kingdom' means something specific. I can easily gather cites from constitutional law books and will post in the next few days. As I said in my earlier post, the English Act of Union of 1707 said the countries "be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain. I've now checked the Scottish Act, and it expresses it in exacly the same way - sede Art 1. The later references in the Act to the "said united kingdom" are merely adjectival i.e these kingdoms that have been united and are also in the English act. The term "United Kingdom" was not brought into force as the name of any state until the 1800 Act.DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the use of the term United Kingdom in the 1707 act is adjectival and that the conventions stated by DeCausa are normal among historians. However, I didn't think that the article was stating that the state started in 1707, just that this was part of a process of constitutional development, just like the union of crowns in 1603. Perhaps I am reading this a different way, but this kind of mention to 1707 seems reasonable in this context. What exactly would be proposed changes if this view was accepted?--SabreBD (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it does strongly suggest that. The first sentence of the history section says that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was created in 1707. There should be no reference to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and the history section should start with a statement that the UK was created by the Union of GB and Ireland in 1801. It can then say that prior to this GB was created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 (see main article Great Britain) and that Ireland was established as a Kingdom in personal union with the English (then British) crown (see main article Ireland). I'll write it up if there is consensus on the principle.DeCausa (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't mind that sentence being changed to say that the name of the state as established in 1707 was the Kingdom of Great Britain - although I feel that this is very much a point of form rather than substance - but the article should nonetheless still contain pre-1707 historical information, in a similar manner to Italy, Germany, Russia etc. In my view the history section of the article as it stands needs a lot of work and expansion, but that is another matter.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1801 information should primarily be in the Great Britain article with a brief summary in this article. I think the view that it is form over substance is a misunderstanding of what happened in 1800.109.154.121.100 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with DeCausa's suggested pattern, which I think is a largely a matter of emphasis through getting the order right. On the problem of how far the history section goes there is a major difficulty here, which has been discussed extensively before. It so happens that Italy, Germany and Russia, although relatively modern states, occupy an area that had the same name or for which the same name is used in English. In a literal sense there was no UK before 1801. But that is probably a debate for another thread if someone wants to reopen it.--SabreBD (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi DeCausa. You say "The United Kingdom was founded as a new state in 1801. Prior to that there was no United Kingdom.." Unfortunately that is not accurate. Prior to 1801 there was a 'United Kingdom' - the political union formed when the two kingdoms of England and Scotland merged to form a new 'united' kingdom. I agree that you could argue that the United Kingdom formed in 1801 was a different 'United Kingdom' since the two kingdoms merging were Great Britain and Ireland, but this was much more of an existing union expanding rather than a completely different state being created. It's a little bit akin to the expansion of the European Union where the EEC grew and changed to the EC which in turn became the EU - a proper history of the EU would have to start at the initial 'union' whether it was called the 'European Union' or not. Similarly, the history of the United Kingdom should start with the original 'united kingdom' which was formed in 1707. Such an interpretation is clearly supported by authoritative sources including, if I recall, the UK parliament website. I'll check that out and post the link to confirm. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To confirm the above, the UK parliament website states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707.[3] It then goes on to say that "The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707." Hope that is helpful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, fraid that's not right - already covered earlier in the thread - that's based on a misinterpretation of the 1707 Act. I'll dig out the citations from my constitutional law books and post! Cheers DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I assume you're referring to the Scottish Act. In any case, whatever your constitutional law books may say (which will also be interpretations) the fact remains that reliable sources do support the claim that the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' was formed in 1707. It is also the case that the term United Kingdom was in use to describe the state of 'Great Britain' long before the Treaty with Ireland. Indeed, that is probably why the new state was formally called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' rather than 'The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one (and it is one) sloppily written website doesn't carry much weight against the statutes themselves plus the overmhelming weight of the legal academy and historians' convention (in print).DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you really say that Parliament's official website is sloppily written? That seems a little unjust. --George2001^hi 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? The official booklet issued by the Home Office which candidates for the UK citizenship test had to study contained notoriously legally incorrect statements about the constitution for many years...! Civil servants...TasiEngi (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipdedia is built on the idea of reliable source. If The UK parliament website can not be viewed as a sufficiently reliable source, we are in big trouble! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are discrepancies between reliable sources, we should explain those differences in the article. If it's simply a disagreement between editors, it's trivial, irrelevant to the article, and can be ignored and forgotten. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the name of Great Britain was suitably ambiguous, and that no-one of the time particularly minded. In statute, Kingdom of Great Britain was used often, as was Great Britain alone - and United Kingdom was used in a modern fashion for Great Britain as well: "of that Part of the United Kingdom" - Scottish Episcopalians Act 1711. --Breadandcheese (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Surveillance State

The paragraph "The UK is a pioneer of mass surveillance..." should really go in the law and criminal justice section. While undoubtedly true and important, it isn't really introduction material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.205.221 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly had no place in the lead, which was pure soap boxing. I have every sympathy with general concerns about the level of surveillance but some objectivity is required when comparing the UK with other nations. In terms of monitoring of the internet, email, phone calls etc, I see no evidence that the UK is more active in this area than other major nations, and in each case the reality is going to be a state secret so who knows? Yes there are lots of CCTV cameras in the UK, but very few of them are actually operated by the state. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. I actually agree with you, but I'll let others decide whether it should go in at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.205.221 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)