Talk:United Kingdom

2012 Census

Needs to be updated, now only 85% of Britain is white, when in 2001 it was 92% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A country consisting of four countries?

Aside from the still raging debate over the terms UK, United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain and Great Britain, I also notice this in the lead: It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries. A country consisting of four countries? Really?? Not a hint of confusion there I see. MrZoolook (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG I think that we are all going to have a nervous break down if this is reopened at the same time as the above discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I already had my nervous breakdown, the 35th time it was aired, which was some time last year if I recall correctly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec):Simple fact - check out Countries of the United Kingdom for details ----Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is special being made up of four countries, whilst the situation is not ideal in terms of clarity the sources do show lots of use of "countries" for the four nations of the UK. There will be no consensus to change that sentence. Its a reasonable situation at present clearly stating the UK is a country whilst recognising the four nations are described as countries too, even though it would flow better if it simply said the UK is a country in its own right made up of four nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference used for "Countries within a country" - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 - is (as I've said before) an archived page dating from 2003, not current, and in my view shouldn't be used to support that wording anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, that source clearly states "On this site the term ‘Britain’ is used informally (my emphasis) to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Why not use that wording in the lead instead of incorrectly, commonly, sometimes, hardly ever etc. If it that good of a source for countries within a country, its good enough for that too... right?

Snowded, the problem telling me to look at the article Countries of the United Kingdom, is that the lead there cites a page that does NOT indicate 4 countries making up a country. It in fact clearly states "United Kingdom - Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." and "Great Britain (GB) - Often used to refer to the United Kingdom, though Great Britain only refers to England, Scotland and Wales (i.e., the United Kingdom without Northern Ireland)." No mention of "four countries in a country", and in fact clearly stating that "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - (UK)" is a sovereign state, a fact mentioned in THIS article's lead right before the "4 countries in a country" claim. Thus adding to the confusion!

BritishWatcher, are you getting the terms Nation and Country mixed up? You seem now to be saying that the UK is a country consisting of 4 nations. Taken in the context of the lead here, we now have the UK as a country consisting of 4 countries, a country consisting of 1 nation, a nation consisting of 4 countries, and a nation consisting of 4 nations. MrZoolook (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All true and if you check out the note at the top of the talk page you will get the details ----Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also no shortage of sources available which give this description: [1].Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search term is flawed, producing everything with the words "United", "Kingdom", "country", "composed", "of" and "four" (the second "country" would be discarded as it is already in the list of words to match). The search should be United Kingdom "country composed of four countries" to look for the phrase. [2]. This gives a startling LACK of reliable sources. MrZoolook (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search actually gives a large number of sources which state that there are four countries within the UK. Yes of course it also throws up results which are wholly irrelevant. Your search is excessively narrow using a single very particualr turn of phrase so it is no wonder it generates far less, including far less relevant results. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not disputing that the UK consists of 4 countries. I am disputing that the UK is a 'country' consisting of 4 countries. So far, the one attempt at a source points to a reference that states no such thing. MrZoolook (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are contesting the fact that the UK is a country.... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is that it would be less complicated to simply describe them as 4 nations of the UK, as many do think of sovereign state when they think of the term country. That was certainly my primary understanding of the term. But there are sources saying the UK is made up of countries so its justified.

The United Kingdom is a country, nation and sovereign state. England,Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries and nations of the United Kingdom. In terms of text of the sentence it would flow easier to say nations of the UK, rather than countries of the UK. But there wont be support to have "countries" changed. And i strongly oppose any removal of the part of the sentence about the UK being a country in its own right, seen as the first sentence of this article forgets to mention it is a country too.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My passport states my nationality as British, not English. Where does the notion of the constituent countries being nations in their own right come from? MrZoolook (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From their history, their culture, their institutions and the constitutional and legal arrangements of the UK, which is not a federation but a union.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So they WERE nations? MrZoolook (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI MrZoolook, the underlying problem is that whilst Scotland, Wales and England are all clearly nations, and known as such, the status of Northern Ireland is heavily contested - and in addition, the current "nationhood" of Wales, Scotland and England are debated. Therefore the rather less debatable term "constituent country" or "country" has crept in. The UK and Irish governments also struggle with defining these concepts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the numb of it. It's a meaningless phrase that transmits no useful information to a global reader. The underlying point is that it was a "POV settlement". Scots/Welsh/Irish/NI/UK POV in a tangle all wanting to make sure their respective claim to the magical status of "country" was respected. But then it appears that wasn't just a WP problem because the sources were in the same tangle. So, in a sense, the ugly yet meaningless phrase reflects the mess the sources are in in the real world - which is what a WP article is supposed to be doing. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

'Country' and nation are not synonomous with 'state'. Extensively debated, mediated and resolved - you have the referenence to those sources and a brief investigation on your part would take you to the prior discussions. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We have been over all this many times. The word "nation" is to be avoided. Almost any use of the word in any context is likely to be contested. For some people a nation is the same thing as a country, for others it is not, and neither of them is necessarily the same thing as a state, still less a sovereign state. There simply is no agreement about what constitutes a nation. Enoch Powell noted that people belong to a nation if they think they do. Some people think Cornwall is a nation. Many of the Flemish think Flanders is a nation. Some Scots do not think the UK is a nation, but some UK politicians do describe it as such, while not denying that Scotland is also a nation. Nationhood is a matter of personal identity more than it is lines on maps or sets of constitutional arrangements; there can be all sorts of overlapping identities, and the only neutral thing we can do is to eschew the word nation altogether. So for want of a better way of describing what is a messy and asymmetrical state of affairs, we describe the UK as a country (which in most senses it is) but also its four constituent parts as countries (which is not entirely uncontroversial, but not as controversial as calling them four nations), hence "a country consisting of four countries". -- Alarics (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you are aware for future Wikibattles Alarics, "nation" can and does often mean something very specific, eg, a UN-recognised nation-state. It can mean loads of other things, but to some authorities it means the precise opposite of a generalised fuzzy "identity-state". One reason we've ended up avoiding the term though is because of the points you outline. The other is that Scotland, Wales, England and NI are not modern nation-states in the UN sense. At least, for the time being. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the UN, but if we are going to start citing international organisations, the EU certainly doesn't talk about nations or nation-states. It has "Member States", which leaves those Scots, Catalans, Bretons, Flemings, etc. who wish to regard the smaller-than-Member-State entities that they identify with as "nations" free to continue to refer to those places as nations in conversation without its having any legal force in EU law. And incidentally the Member State we are talking about at present is always called "United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni / Vereinigtes Königreich" in all official EU documents. -- Alarics (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does the UK compete in as a COUNTRY? The Olympics for starters. If the UK was not a country and instead was merely a union of countries such as the EU, then the four home nations would obviously compete separately. What kind of country has it's own parliament at the highest level (not local assembly) based in another so called "country?" Do you have a Scottish or English passport? I could go on... This will not change unless the region of Scotland votes to opt out of the UK in two years. Check out the BBC Country profiles for more verbiage supporting the fact that the UK is indeed a COUNTRY: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1038758.stm (82.44.72.174 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

The Olympics is pretty much the only international event we compete as a whole in. Football, Cricket, Rugby... all are competed on an international stage as separate countries. And the Olympics commentators and reports I have seen and heard, refer to the UK as a nation. MrZoolook (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And during those Olympic medal ceremonies when we won gold, our "national" anthem was played. MrZoolook (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think all here agree, apart from MrZoolook, that the UK is a country. That doesn't stop its four constituent parts from also being able to be called countries by those who wish to do so. -- Alarics (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case (which IS about definitions - sheesh) you are totally wrong - the "wishes" of people are nothing to do with it! This needs sourcing, authorities, etc. Luckily it has some - just hoping to get through about the basics of Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was merely trying to explain to MrZoolook why we call the UK "a country consisting of four countries" as a compromise with wide though not total support. And in reply to MrZoolook's latest comment, I have already said that many people do describe the UK as a nation but some others do not accept this (in some cases because they evidently cannot cope with multilevel or overlapping identities, or the idea of a nation within a nation). The fact that the UK is described by some as a nation does not stop it from also being a country. The "problem" raised by MrZoolook is not in fact a problem at all. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who think there is a simple definition of the word country should look at the UK and say to themselves "My definition is wrong", rather than saying "The UK doesn't fit my definition of country, so IT must be wrong". Find a better, less simplistic definition of country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is indeed a country, as confirmed by the Prime Minister: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19232685 93.186.23.82 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but not because our inexperienced and ignorant Prime Minister says so. The Prime Minister doesn't know dick. He thinks the Americans helped us win the Battle of Britain! The Prime Minister is not a reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the PM thinks the US helped win the B of B when he's in the US. Doubtless when he is in France, he will explain how the French won it. :) Although the US did (for the historical record) help out in some ways, not just those rather pathetic lend-lease ships, but also with lots of raw materials at bargain prices, some vital machine tools, some volunteer pilots, etc. Nothing like what Canada offered, but something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well OK but I think it was evident in the context that Cameron thought the US had already joined the war, whereas the whole point about 1940 was that Britain stood alone, a fact one might have expected a British prime minister to know. -- Alarics (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me that he's a bit clueless, it isn't the only factual gaffe he's made. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The only country `in Europe` in 1940 stood alone against Germany you mean!.. On UK four countries, isn`t it three countries and 1 colony aka Wales make up the UK? On a serious note, four countries or nations is the best way to describe the nations that make up the `United` Kingdom --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if any of the three countries of Great Britain has been settled over and over by colonists, it's England, boyo. The whole point of Wales is that 20% of us still speak the same language they were speaking there two thousand years ago;) You can't even say that for Scotland. garik (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of Scotland is that it isn't England, despite the best efforts of a string of unmentionables from Edward I to Oliver Cromwell to James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, to, the list is long... Oh, and BTW, 2000 years ago everyone on this island was speaking the same language as the inhabitants of what is now called Wales; witness placenames Penicuik (Pen y Cog) in Midlothian, Pen y Ghent in Yorkshire, Pen y Fan in Powys, Pen y Bryn in Cornwall, need one go on? 81.135.132.151 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't speaking Welsh, or even the British language, in all this island. The Pictish Language is thought to have no relation to them. Clay More47 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually what little data we have imply that Pictish was pretty closely related to Old British. It seems to have been thought of as a distinct language, sure (so our anonymous contributor isn't quite right), but then the same goes for Dutch and German, and no one would say the latter has no relation to the former. In any case, this is a tangent that sprang from my tongue-in-cheek response to Rockybiggs's tongue-in-cheek dig at Wales. Let's not let it get out of hand. garik (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Against my better judgement, but more for the sake of qualifying my above comment and forestalling a discussion of the relationship between Pictish and Brythonic...) Of course the emphasis should be on the phrase "what little data we have". Pictish has been hypothesised to be everything from non-Indo-European to a dialect of Brythonic, and it's very hard to draw conclusions. It's not even clear that all the data we have are in Pictish! But my impression is that the majority view's in favour of it having been a P-Celtic language of some sort (quite probably with a non-Celtic substratum—or other significant non-Celtic influence—although the same has been claimed for all the surviving insular Celtic languages too...). garik (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if it's already been mentioned - there's only so much I can get through - but England (country) and Scotland (country) joined together to make a united kingdom, i.e. one new country ... Northern Ireland was broken off Ireland and is a province (not a country) and Wales has never been a country but a principality, hence the Prince of Wales (not a country). So, the union of two kingdoms + two minor bits = one country (not four countries). Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Irish Free State broke off from the UK, and thus NI, not the other way round ;-) However I agree with the rest of your statement even if this discussion has ended. The UK is the one and only country as in sovereign state. They are only countries in the sense of geographical areas (or administrative thanks to devolution). Mabuska ^(talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to laugh at "Excuse me if it's already been mentioned..." Perhaps you should look through the 20+ pages of archives on this talk page, the article and talk page at Countries of the United Kingdom, the lengthy discussions at Wales, Northern Ireland..... etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum. Such fun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I can't help myself from noting that Wales is not in fact a Principality (read here for more). In other news, the people of Edinburgh don't live in a duchy, and no one lives in Wessex. In any case, the assertion that "X is a Principality, not a country" is a category error; you might as well claim that Switzerland isn't a country because it's a Confederation. The point (which has been reiterated many many times) is that no one claims Wales, Scotland, England, or Northern Ireland are countries as in sovereign states, but that's not the only meaning of the word. garik (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"no one lives in Wessex". You'll upset some people with that (all three of them)! DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, Frank. garik (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Devolved administrations

Under the above heading it states that "Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each have their own Government or Executive". Should it not say that they have their own devolved government or executive? --Jonty Monty (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Don't all jump in at once to agree with me. I know when a suggestion isn't popular. :) --Jonty Monty (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly agreeing that it was worth adding - it's kind of clear from the section heading, but there's no harm in being more specific in the main text as well. I assume no one else responded because it wasn't a controversial change. Silence doesn't always equal consent, but this is quite a watched page I think. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the change seems good to me. -- Alarics (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No objection/I'm neutral. It's about as non-controversial as it gets - why did you feel the need to get consent rather than just doing it? DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See this [[3]]. I wasn't certain I could make the edit without discussing it. I know now that small edits like this are fine. As I was advised, I became bold. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has a lot of history, and in the past some editors have taken a strong line in relation to the wording of constitutional issues involving the national administrations in particular. It's tempting fate somewhat to describe any change to wording on such matters as "non-controversial". I was waiting to see what comments were made before commenting myself, but as no-one did you were right to make the change. It will be interesting to see if any other comments are made now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - one should never underestimate, as I did in my own comment here, the ability of even the most minor clarifying changes to spark controversy, however odd that might seem from one's own perspective ... but we seem OK here (so far at least). More generally, going ahead with a small edit, unless it's blatantly going to be contentious, is usually OK - the worst that can happen is reversion. N-HH talk/edits 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I happen to think the change is unnecessary as the heading - devolved administrations - makes clear that the governments/executives are 'devolved'. That said, it is not a big enough deal to consider reverting. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, adds nothing but so what ----Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds nothing. It clarifies the type of government/executive, and that's no bad thing. Jonty Monty (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It adds nothing because it is already stated in the heading. Keep up  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, people read in different ways - some people's eyes will be drawn to, and take in, bold section headings (and hence, in this case, the "devolved" will hit them immediately); others, by contrast, if already focused on the main text, may glaze over the heading without taking it in. The additional clarification can do no harm, and may have some benefit. Anyway, you have your responses now! N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A thread of 12 posts (oops, 13 with this one) on an edit that no one wants to revert...I love this page! DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay then! I'll take the blame! :) (14) Jonty Monty (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Better, surely, than 101 posts about something minor and relatively trivial where you don't even get agreement, but still probably have the "wrong" content. As seen ad nauseam, here and elsewhere ... N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted Wales is not a country, it's a principality, quite teh difference please fix this since you're giving out false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.105.6 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wales is not a principality. Please read Countries of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the British Monarchy website here. The opening sentence read "The Honours of the Principality of Wales are the regalia associated with the Princes of Wales". I amsure that there are hundreds of other references to the "Principalty of Wales". When I last checked, Wales had a prince - his name is Charles. Martinvl Also check out this website. (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Principality is still in use, but said use is incorrect, something that the EU and others caught up with changing their designation to country. Sure Charles carries forward 'honours' from a period where the title had meaning, so what?----Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. The fact that "The Honours of the Principality of Wales are the regalia associated with the Princes of Wales" - which is referenced in the article to which I linked - has nothing to do with Wales as a place today. This and similar questions - including the fact that Wales is sometimes wrongly referred to as a principality - have been discussed many, many times before on this and other pages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012

CINEMA Main Article - Cinema of the United Kingdom.

Many British actors have achieved international fame and critical success, including: Julie Andrews, Richard Burton, Michael Caine, Charlie Chaplin, Sean Connery, Vivien Leigh, David Niven, Laurence Olivier, Peter Sellers and Kate Winslet.

My edit requires the name of famous British actor "Roger Moore" should also be included in this list or sentence. Moore's contribution to British cinema should not be overlooked.

39.45.66.243 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any very good reason to extend a list which is already over-long. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially with Roger Moore: most famous for his wooden acting! DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two words in that sentence mean Roger Moore need not be mentioned: “and” and “including”. Many British actors have achieved international success. Many of those, perhaps too many, have been included as examples. The examples given are of some of those who have achieved international fame and critical success. Moore may not meet both criteria. Daicaregos (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing this edit request as  Not done: per the above responses. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Great Power

The fact that I have not taken an interest in this matter for some time does not mean that I am happy with the lede claim that "the UK remains a Great Power" or that I no longer take the view that the term Great Power is peacock. I realise the strength of the nationalist POV lobby and that the term is upheld by some eminent commentators, and that its removal may provoke an edit war, but the commentators are not unanimous on the subject. Would anyone mind if I replaced "remains" with the wording used in the Great Power article: "referred to as", which is not quite the same as "remains"? Viewfinder (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally that a straight assertion about Great Power status is wholly inappropriate; and also think that even "referred to as" is a bit much, since even that is probably not true that often in 2012. The latest addition re "soft power" seems pretty daft as well, especially for the lead, based as it is on a news report of a survey in "Monocle" lifestyle magazine. N-HH talk/edits 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that too. I don't find the source for "great power" in the lead (an op-ed in The Australian) particularly convincing. There are a couple of slightly better sources for it in the Great power article. Without doing a full review of sources (maybe it's in the archive?) my guess is that the balance of sources would point to something like "once a global power, now a middling power" - which is effectively what one of the sources in Great power says about the UK.

But in any event, IMHO, "great power" isn't a term with much currency for any country. I believe it's more of a 19th century and 1st half of 20th century term. "Superpower", "regional power", "global power" and, perhaps, "middling/middle-ranking power" are the only "powers" that reference is generally made to these days I suggest. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked out the link afterwards and was slightly surprised to see that was what we were relying on (and there's nothing in the body to support it as far as I could tell, other than a free-floating and unsourced sentence somewhere way down). I was also going to say something about how to these ears/eyes at least, it's a bit of an anachronistic term, more commonly used, as you say, in the later Age of Empires. Given that we have a term that is both subjective and arguably anachronistic even in the best cases, and of both dubious and, more importantly, relatively infrequent application to the UK in 2012, I can't see a case for maintaining the wording as now. I won't edit it myself, and it may be worth waiting for other opinions/evidence, but I'd happily see someone else amend the wording or even take any form of the claim out altogether. N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd be happy with removing the specific words "great power" in the lede for the reasons given by others. But what is particularly important and noteworthy about the UK is not that its military and economic power is now supposedly "middling" (a meaningless term that we should avoid - it is far greater than most sovereign states) - it is that its cultural and "soft power" remains remarkably high - [4], [5], etc. - and of course that historically it certainly was a "great power". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The historical position is dealt with by the preceding sentence ("foremost power"). Suggest replacing the sentence in question with "The UK's economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence remains globally significant", and delete the new sentence on Soft Power based on the Monocle(!). DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, but I'd support a link to "soft power", maybe at the start of the Culture section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion having died down with at least a consensus against the existing version, I have made the change to the Great Power claim and reworded the soft power claim. I would tend to support further changes but leave them to others to make. Viewfinder (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the term great power from the lead of the article. The United Kingdom is still considered by most academic bodies in international politics to be a great power and is recognised as such at the United Nations Security Council, the G8, the G7 and so on. The Great power article refers the the United Kingdom as being as much of a great power as any other country which is considered to be a great power. The leads on the articles on France, Germany, Japan and Russia all include reference to those countries being considered to be great powers. I don't think the United Kingdom is seen as being any lesser of a power than those countries and therefore the article should maintain reference to the United Kingdom's status as a great power. Some here it seems only to want the removal or watering down of the statement that the United Kingdom is a great power rather than what is most accurate or best for the article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. I don't see any reason for it to be removed. — Jon C.^ॐ 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree also. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, although you can argue the phrase has a quasi-objective status, I think it's ultimately a subjective term and a bit peacocky; and I'm definitely not sure we can rely on arguing that it is "recognised" as a Great Power by virtue of its membership of the UNSC, G7 etc. The fact that the UK sits on those bodies is correctly noted. It seems to me that stating those simple facts is all we really should be doing, especially in the lead. I'd argue that the phrase should be avoided in the leads of similar articles as well. N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. As discussed above "Great Power" is a slightly outdated term for any country. It fits with the the Great Game, but in 2012 how often is it used in any context? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, even with the minor changes that were made following the initial comments after this thread was first opened, the lead still notes that the UK is sometimes "referred to" as a Great Power - the term hasn't been excised altogether, the article just doesn't assert it as an explicit and unqualified statement of fact anymore. I think it's pretty hard to argue that it should go back to doing that. N-HH talk/edits 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a POV attack against the United Kingdom article. The UK is a great power. There are plenty of references backing that up in the great power article. Don't remove it from the article until it is proved otherwise and/or there is consensus for it - all I can see here are two or so vocal editors who are pushing for the UK's great power status to be removed from Wikipedia. David (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is "great power" a peacock term?! It's a well-known and well-used term in power in international relations. And it's still very much relevant. The UN Security Council is a perfect example of it, an embodiment of "great power consensus" being required in world affairs. And the UK is still a permanent member of that Council and still has great influence in world affairs, from both soft and hard power. David (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see points already made about it being, in part at least, a subjective and anachronistic term, plus the argument that mentioning the UK's UNSC status etc surely speaks for itself without having to throw that term in on top of it. Sure, some sources describe the UK as a great power; plenty do not and would not. You can't just grab one source and say "proven". And what "POV" btw do you suggest I and others are coming from exactly? N-HH talk/edits 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument you put forward, about the term "great power" and Britain's great power status, are just your own opinions and conjecture. The sources speak for themselves. Please provide sources that Britain is no longer a great power or that the status is irrelevant today. David (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the suggestion that great power status - or the lack of it - does not exist as a verifiable, definite categorisation, amenable to being "proven" one way or the other, is an uncontroversial statement of the obvious, not simply my "own opinion" or "conjecture". And, despite that, you also seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the issue here - I am not asserting that it is not a great power, such that we are on opposite sides of an either/or debate. The point is that there are sources that might say that it is, and sources that will say it is not (or at least pointedly not assert that it is), based on their own definition of the term and then their assessment of where Britain fits in with that. If you really are claiming that sources that reject or qualify the description for the UK in modern times do not exist, as your demand that I present them suggests, please just Google for anything related to Suez for starters. A truly neutral representation of this question in tertiary source like WP would not take sides one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So why is the UK losing its great power status but, say, Russia its keeping theirs? Seems odd to single just this article out. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never asserted that to be the case either way in the real world, to the extent that such an assertion would have any meaning, nor would you expect me to debate that substantively if you'd understood anything I've argued above; nor have I suggested that the term has to be excised from this page altogether; nor has it been. Equally, this is the talk page for the UK, not for Russia (or any other country) - this page is being "singled out" for discussion here for that reason. And if Russia is simply being raised as a genuine comparison/talking point, I and others have already said that the term is problematic in all modern contexts for all countries, as a matter of possible anachronism and terminology, as well as any issues in relation to subjectivity. N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the "real world", just Wikipedia. Could've phrased that better, maybe. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying; but then see the latter part of my answer! The overall point for me is that people, including serious historians of international relations, write whole books arguing for different interpretations of what the term "Great Power" means - and whether the term even has any meaning in a "unipolar" or "bipolar" world, as some writers choose to describe it - and spend hours debating whether post-imperial Britain really is one, as even a cursory knowledge or review of the literature will reveal. This WP page, like all WP pages, should (succinctly) reflect the breadth of this or any other debate, not cherry-pick from sources that appear to back up one preferred option. The fact that the newest contributor to this topic has been canvassing for allies while making ridiculous claims about supposed "typical POV attack" reveals more about their POV than that of anyone else involved. <insert joke here about Britain no longer being able to act alone on the world stage in pursuing its interests> N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can we put back the word "sometimes". If it is OK to remove it on the grounds that it is weasely, it is OK for me to remove the term "great power" altogether on the grounds that it is peacock. "The UK is a great power" - in your opinion, David. Not all commentators agree. Viewfinder (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh? No, it's not my opinion, it's what many reliable sources say. This is getting ridiculous. And if you remove "great power" from this article because you reckons it's a "peacock" term (though it's not, again backed up by many reliable sources) then you must also remove it from every other country's article, or at least their leading paragraphs. David (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We can continue going round in circles if you wish. All your points have been responded to, more or less to the point of rebuttal, without acknowledgement or counter-argument from you, as follows: many reliable sources say it, but many do not and/or question the assessment, while many dispute even the value of the term altogether; in any event, the term is still there (albeit in slightly qualified form) and no one is currently suggesting removing it altogether; each page here stands on its own and other pages are other pages, and people are not barred from suggesting or even making changes on one page until they agree to do the same in every other equivalent situation. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has explained how exactly great power is a peacock term rather than an accurate description? And how is great power any more of a peacock term than those of superpower and middle power? Great power is a term often used to describe a country less powerful than a superpower but more powerful than a middle power. It often takes the form of major power or world power but nevertheless is it frequently used by academia and the media. Some here claim it is an outdated term but where are the citations proving that is any more outdated of a term than those of superpower or middle power? It seems the problem is only with the United Kingdom being referred to as a great power and not with France, Germany, Japan or Russia being referred to as great powers, nor for that matter with the United States being referred to as a superpower, China as an emerging superpower or any of the numerous countries referred to as middle powers. A modern example of the United Kingdom as a great power was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whereby the United States, a superpower, contributed 148,000 troops to the invasion, the United Kingdom, a typical great power, contributed 45,000 troops to the invasion, and Australia, a typical middle power, contributed 2,000 troops to the invasion, with numerous smaller powers contributing far fewer. Quite vivid blur (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out with regards to wp:peacock that the term great power is an academic term and not a personal opinion and therefore is not a peacock term. An example of a personal opinion and peacock term would be 'The United Kingdom is a great country.' rather than 'The United Kingdom is often recognised as a great power.' 'Great power' is an academic term and not just an unsupported personal opinion. I also agree with the removal of the word 'sometimes' as per wp:weasel word. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Academics devised the term "great power" in a world of European dominance that consisted of several more or less equal and definable powers. The fact that academic use of the term on the vast internet can be found makes it no less peacock. Incidentally, as far as I can see, all the upholders of the term "great power" here have been canvassed] by Dpaajones. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty much already involved with this discussion from my first comment on the 29th November. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

People have explained endlessly above why "great power" is not necessarily an "accurate description" and why there are issues around subjectivity and anachronism. No, it is not pure peacockery, but it skirts very close to it, as anyone with a cursory understanding of the term and the voluminous academic literature around it, but without a nationalistic agenda, understands. And there has indeed been canvassing, even if you exempt yourself from it. N-HH talk/edits 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there has been canvassing of sorts - I felt I needed to alert others who have contributed to the great power article about this peacock term claim. I find it annoying how two or so editors can hijack an important article like United Kingdom and declare a long-established academic term (great power) as "peacockery" or whatever so they can remove it from the article. The discussion needs to include more editors and especially those who have contributed to the UK article, the great power article, and to other similar (other countries/international relations) articles. David (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For I think the fourth time – no one is trying to remove it from the article. A couple of people have suggested it might be better removed, but no one has insisted on that and no one has made such an edit. Nor has anyone disputed that it is a standard academic term; those who are querying the use of the term, or how exactly we should use it, have been explicit in pointing out that the peacockery, if there is any, is partial and/or mostly relates to the application of the term, which is indeed a subjective and much-debated choice. We seem to have built up a vast amount of text on these two "power" topics based mostly on strawmanning, scaremongering and forum-style debating. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am confused about taking the U.K.'s great power status into an question. Shouldn't we also be removing other Great power references or "neutralizing" them? Like from France, Russia, etc. If it is peacockery, then I think we should also remove the term "great power from other articles. Because if it is just the U.K. article being neutralized then it looks kind of like a personal attack and I worry that non-registered users might be confused about that. For example, France's military budget is fifth, but Russia's is third largest. But they are still called great powers without objection. The United Kingdom, which is fourth, is not without objection a great power. It just seems a little bit of a misconception. Does anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Soft Power

On a related note to the above discussion, shouldn't the UK's recent ranking as the world's #1 soft power be mentioned in the article?

FCO

I'm surprised that the UK's soft power isn't even mentioned (directly, as "soft power") in the article at all at the moment! David (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Soft power" is mentioned, even if not in direct terms. But the page just hasn't trumpeted and highlighted one random survey in a lifestyle magazine (although a report on the survey is used as a reference for content in the lead, see footnote 18). Nor should it. N-HH talk/edits 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I amemded the soft power claim. It was subsequently removed by another editor, although its reference was retained. Personally I do not have a problem with it, in fact I rather like it. Whether it is noteworthy enough to be in the lede may be another matter, but it is referenced, and it is more specific than "great power" which is imo pure peacock and irrelevant in a world in which military expenditure by the USA far exceeds that of any other country. The term "great power" should have no place in the lede of any sovereign nation article. Viewfinder (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that it's just your opinion re: great power status! Just because you think no other power than the US is a great power/the UK is not a great power, doesn't make that so. Stop pushing your opinion. Reliable sources say that the UK is a great power and that the status is relevant today. David (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect David I am entitled to state my opinion on a talk page that "great power" is peacock. Sources are not unanimous. Just because some or even a majority of them uphold the opinion that the UK is a great power, doesn't make that so. Viewfinder (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soft power is a neologism. It's somebody's "clever" new word to describe, well, the UK, and nothing else really. It's newness, and seeming very specific use so far, means that it is a pointless descriptor. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soft Power sounds like a computer program that controls something. Martinvl (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think calling it a 'soft power' is doing the UK a bit of an injustice. As Quite Vived Blur points out above, the UK sent 45,000 troops to Iraq in 2003. If one takes into account its size, population, GDP etc, it starts to look like the UK made the biggest committment. Not forgetting too that the Royal Navy is one of the few blue water navies. The UK is not the global superpower it once was but it still punches way above its weight on the world stage.--Ykraps (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinion and analysis about who might be punching above or below their weight - or even getting involved in killing thousands of people, if one looks at it that way - is very interesting, but not relevant to the issue. N-HH talk/edits 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that if we are discussing the UK's power, how many troops she is able to deploy around the world is entirely relevant; and your insuation that I condone the killing of thousands of people is an erroneous assumption entirely without grounds!--Ykraps (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that the assessment of random pseudonymous WP editors about what troop deployment capacity, whether purported or real, might mean when it comes to "power" levels or categories is indeed neither here nor there. If you think otherwise, you are probably in the wrong place. N-HH talk/edits 01:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

N-HH what's with the personal attacks against Ykraps for making a perfectly reasonable comment? To me it seems that your mask has slipped and that you comments reveal a deep anti-UK bias, hence the positions you take on this talk page and the comments you make. Perhaps you are angry that your attempts to modify the article in line with your now obvious anti-UK bias have failed? Oh and by the way, those Iraq War troop numbers were not just plucked from the air, they originate from the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. Go see for yourself, unless you think that article is also lying. Quite vivid blur (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no personal attack involved; I was just trying to make the point that WP content is not based on the analysis or opinions of individual editors. I do get a little frustrated over this point because it should be obvious but I regularly come across people, on multiple pages, who don't get it. As for whether I have a "deep anti-UK bias" or am "angry" that I have "failed" in my bid to "modify the article" in line with that alleged bias, I can't even be bothered to reply to any of that, given how utterly nonsensical it all is, other than to point out - since you presumably have not noticed this - that it is other people in this thread who are currently asking for modifications, and indeed in the previous one about "great power", not me. And nor btw, despite your suggestion, did I claim that the Iraq war figure itself was "purported", I merely used the word as part of a more general comment, so I don't quite see what that little rant is all about either. N-HH talk/edits 15:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a point of interest, the concept of the UK punching above her weight is not the random assessment of an anonymous editor but something that has been the subject of much discussion among political analysts on both sides of the Atlantic.--Ykraps (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And often referred to as a "delusion", "vainglorious" and a "cliché", eg here and here. Many more examples abound, and not just from media columnists. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• This thread seems to be verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Is there actually a specific proposal to amend the article in relation to "soft power"? It wasn't very clear from the way it was opened and it seems to have gone downhill from there. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and apologies for contributing to that. To focus, and from what I can tell of what is being requested by way of change ..

• The current text: in the lead a) "British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories"; and b) "The UK ... retains considerable economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence internationally". There are further, similar reference scattered throughout the body (just search for "influence" and flick through). As often, they contain elements of subjective judgment and are simultaneously boosterish and vague but can probably be backed up as reasonable and verifiable statements.
• Soft power proposal pt1: to refer directly to the UK's "soft power" by using that term, which doesn't currently appear in the article. I agree it's a rather ugly (relative) neologism, but it's in pretty common use these days and it has a broad, understood definition. I can't see that it matters much either way whether we use the actual phrase or not.
• Soft power proposal pt2: to make specific reference to the UK coming first in the Monocle poll of soft power nations (it was briefly in the article lead before being removed, although the Independent report on was retained as a reference). Personally, I'd be very strongly opposed to this in an encyclopedic page about the UK. If it were some kind of definitive and respected academic assessment with some enduring point to make, that would be one thing, but this is a random one-off result from a random glossy magazine, whose pick-up seems to be limited to a couple of newspapers' news-in-brief items and a couple of websites' online commentary. I doubt the FCO or any WP editors would be trumpeting such polls if they placed the UK 49th. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think reference to "soft power" is particularly useful given that its ingredients are already referenced. It's a modish buzzword that doesn't feel encyclopedic to me - but that's just a personal opinion. I haven't any objection to it provided its reference is supported by a proper RS - which the poll in the Monocle, I agree, isn't. DeCausa (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "Soft power" just a new way of saying what we used to call "cultural imperialism"? -- Alarics (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"The UK is still referred to as a great power and a leading exponent of cultural imperialism"! Novel. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

London skyline

Good morning SabreBD,

The City of London is one of the world's largest financial centres

I use a Sony VAIO notebook which has a 17" screen, and having viewed United Kingdom on a conventional 4X3 set-up,
I can understand what you state in your edit summary this morning.
It does seem a shame though, if the image cannot be included within the article. Any thoughts? Cheers!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It means that we also lose the links to these two citations:- The City of London is one of the world's largest financial centres alongside New York City.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the photographer who took the photo in question, perhaps I'm not the best person to comment, but what exactly is the issue? I see that it was removed with the edit summary "Remove pic that creates sandwiching of text", but I can't see it doing that. It isn't so much how wide your monitor is, or what the aspect ratio is, it's simply how many pixels your display is capable of showing horizontally (but potentially also what you've set your thumbnail size in Wikipedia's preferences). I've tried resizing the width of my browser and I haven't been able to recreate the problem that has been reported. Until someone can explain (and possibly demonstrate with a screen capture or similar), I think the image should remain in the article as it has done for a number of years, because it is both valuable to the article and a featured picture. If it genuinely does cause a problem for the article, surely it would be better to move it than remove it? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why correspondence from my talkpage is being posted here without explanation of the origin, but since it it and pre-empts my raising of the issue her: I don't think we really need a screen capture to demonstrate that there is a sandwiching problem on some displays, since the editor who posted it excepts the point. More productively, I was going to suggest that we think about replacing the Bank of England image with this one, since it has the duel benefit of showing the London skyline and making the point about London as a financial centre.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just putting the record straight: on December 7, with this diff, was when the issue started –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

requested screenshot showing sandwiching. for benefit of dilif. This is my screen with natural setup - not jiggled to get the effect. The problem is not with the actual picture, just its position within the article. No reason why it can not be readded in a different place in article --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation/screen capture, but I still don't really see what the problem is. It looks like perfectly normal placement of thumbnail images among text. I assume by 'sandwiching', you mean that the left and right images are slightly overlapping, causing the text to be pinched in the middle? It just doesn't seem like a big problem to me though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no "sandwiching problem" in this case, nor in the case where User:Sabrebd deleted the image of Westminster Abbey on grounds that the image and the census table sandwiched the text. Any sandwiching in this case was minimal - the width of the table and image combined is small. I tried reducing the width of the window until I saw problems elsewhere in the article. At this stage the subsection on religion was still very readable.

For the record, I see no problems with the layout on the screen shot either - I believe that this is because at all times the text occupies at least half of the screen width and the steps where the text wraps around images is less than a quarter of the screen width. Martinvl (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether an editor perceives a sandwiching problem, but whether there is sandwiching and particularly the case of the table and the Westminster Abbey picture, there is sandwiching. The reason for having a guideline on this issue is because you can end up with something like this:

If editors disagree with the guideline they can open a discussion about it on the relevant page, but there is a guideline and I think that therefore we should stick to it. That said, the original issue I raised may have been lost in this debate, which was: should we replace the Bank of England pic with the London Skyline one? Or can someone suggest a different placement? A second issue now arises, which is: do we want to keep the census table or the Westminster Abbey image? If we follow the guideline then we are faced with alternatives, we cannot simply cram every picture and graphic we would like into the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:ACCESS, the lower limit of screen size we should cater for is 1024×768. Of course, it's the wider screens that will see more sandwiching. I agree that we should follow the guideline, as it exists, especially as pictures should be supplementary, and not essential to the conveyance of the text. Given the choice between the Bank of England picture and the London skyline picture, I think we should use the London skyline. It makes for a good companion to some caption noting London's economic prominence, especially in the financial sector (definitely one of the more notable aspects of the economy), as it can be linked to the financial district. CMD (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2011 Census results

Perhaps someone can update the demographics section with the release of the new census data? http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-interactive-content/index.html Duhon (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandwiching and the Westminster Abbey image

I have reinstated the image of Westminster Abbey and adjusted the positioning of the table and of teh image to ensure that there is no "sandwiching". For the record, the term "sandwiching" is not defined. I understand "sandwiching" to mean two images are placed at the same height on a page which results in the text between the two being squeezed into the space between the two images rather than flowing over one and under the other as the page is narrowed.

If other editors disagree with this interpretation, I suggest that we take it to the WP:IMAGE talk page for more detailed discussion - maybe this will result in the guidance beign improved. Martinvl (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is looking good to me. –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I define sandwiching as text between 2 pics, wherever the top of the two pics are. FWIW, on the screen I'm temporarily using at the moment I'm seeing sandwiching (although not completely) between the pic and the table - but the top of the table is dropped down 2 or three lines from the top of the pic. It doesn't bother me too much - as one side of the sandwich is a table it doesn't seem to have the same effect as 2 pics. DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about having to get a ruling on the MOS talkpage before being able to implement a clear guideline, but it is not reasonable to reject an obvious meaning because it is not specifically defined. For the record, "image" and "text" are not defined in the guideline either. As DeCausa's comment makes clear, it is pretty obvious that sandwiching is meant to refer to the text, it is not reasonable to say that it is not sandwiched because you have moved one image down three lines. On my current display twelve lines are still sandwiched in this section. Moving the images at all tacitly accepts that you actually know what sandwiching is and that it is about the text and not about whether the two images are totally aligned. Once again, there is a very good reason for this guideline, it is a way of avoiding the overcrowding of articles with images and the creation of very small central columns of text on some displays. More importantly, if we accept that we can do this when we feel like it we have no argument for removing the many superfluous images that get added to this and other articles by casual editors and long term editors will be aware how much of a problem that will be. I would very much welcome other views on the issue.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I misunderstood what Martinvl was saying then. I thought that it was only my screen showing that it was dropped down just the 2 or 3 lines and that theirs was showing no sandwiching. There is no doubt about what the guideline means: there should be no text between the 2 pics. As Sabred says, just dropping the top down a few lines doesn't stop it being sandwiched. Nothing need to go to any talk page to clarify that. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the text means “No text”. As an example, please look at the article Mesures usuelles. This system of measure was introduced by Napoleon in 1812 and abolished by Louis-Phillipe in 1837. The images of the two rulers are at either side of the article.

If you expand the window (I have a wide-screen), the image of Napoleon will foul the sub-title “Permitted units”, the image of Louis Phillipe will run into the next section while there will be a 60% overlap between the two images. Reduce the window width to half of the physical screen, - the text is still more than half the width of the screen and the overlap has been reduced to about 25% of vertical distance.

If the window is reduced a bit more so that only one line of text is sandwiched, that line of text is still larger than either of the two images. Reduce the window a little more and all sandwiching disappears.

I think that this shows the impracticality of being absolutely rigid about sandwiching of text – one needs guidance which might well become very complex. Anyway, if SabreBD wishes to initiate a discussion at WP:Image, I will participate. Martinvl (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what your saying. All it shows is that someone's decided not to follow the guideline on that particular article for a reason which is not obvious to me. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If I have understood this it is essentially an other stuff exists argument. I would be happy to go to the MOS talkpage and open a discussion about the meaning of "sandwiching" if I had evidence that anyone else but Martinvl feels there is a lack of clarity about the meaning. Again, this argument tacitly admits that there is sandwiching here, since this is not an arguement about the whether the guideline is applicable, but clearly an argument about the validity of the guideline ("this shows the impracticality of being absolutely rigid about sandwiching of text"). That being so, it is for the editor that wants to modify the guideline to take it to the MOS talkpage. As DeCausa indicates, we should implement the guideline here as long as it exits.--SabreBD (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to understand why' sandwiching is a bad thing. It can be demonstrated mathematically that if one has a left-hand and a right-hand image, then for an certain window widths sandwiching will happen.

I

understand

the

problem if

sandwiched

text

appears

like this

but

I do not see the problem if sandwiched text looks like

this.

Explaining how to avoid one but not the other requires that editors bew aware of a number of constraints - the minimum and teh maximum number of pixels that should be catered for, whether one should cater for people who choose to have a larger default for thumb images etc.

Let me repeat that if you mix left-hand and right-hand images, then you can always get sandwiching if your window is the "wrong" width. I do not propose spending the next few hours explaining why - just, it does. If somebody wants to pen a full discussion in MOS space, I will cooperate.

Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis drew my attention (higher up on this page) to the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which advises one to plan a layout so that readers with a 1024×768 screen can read it without scrolling. The page does go on to say "This is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen" which I take to mean "Sandwiching is permitted provided that at this resolution there are no ill effects". In contrast Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says "Do not sandwich text". Since there is no consistent approach (something which is very common in Wikipedia) , one cannot say that sandwiching is or is not permitted. Given this ambiguity, one should not remove pictures just because text is sandwiched - one should explain why sandwiching of text is uindesirable before changing or removing pictures. Martinvl (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous. There is no ambiguity and I've never seen anyone else claim there is any ambiguity. "This is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen" means what it says and nothing more. It does not mean "Sandwiching is permitted provided that at this resolution there are no ill effects". That's fiction. The MOS is crystal clear and everything you say suggests you just don't like it. That's completely legitimate - but then what you need to do is go to the Talk page there and propose to change it. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of religion in census table

The current table added to the religion section is actually misleading as the 2011 data for Scotland will not be released until the 19 December, meaning that data for England and Wales is being compared with that for the UK. I suggest we take it down for now and then revisit after the data is released and can be consolidated, but for reasons that should be obvious I do not want to be the one to remove it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should add the word "England" to the existing table until the Scots data is released and merged with the Englsih and Welsh data. It is only five days away! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, just put England and Wales only until the Scots release theirs. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Religion in the United Kingdom; it is currently an "apples and pears" false comparison, so should be removed. I'd remove it from this article, but it's locked, so I cannot. Perhaps Martinvl would try to remove it for us if he has a more privileged access. Curatrice (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since England and Wales account for 80% of the UK's population, this is not quite an "apples and pears" situation, but rather an "apples and Cox's apples" situation. Anyway, I have amended the table headings which can be changed once the Scottish are released. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The result is hardly any better. Tabulating data from different distributions in such a way as to imply direct comparability is very misleading. I'd rather it was deleted. What do others think? Curatrice (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Only having to wait five days I see little point in keeping this data in this confusing (or misleading) form. The issue I put in an edit summary originally still remains, that if we are going to state this in the text do we need the table?cmt The only point in having a table is if it convey more information than is in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to have a lop-sided and misleading table for 5 days. Unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can Martinvl (or anyone else with editing privileges in the article) remove it then please, given the weight of feeling against its inclusion. Curatrice (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't be doing it - since 88.5% of the UKs population live in England and Wales, it is highly unlikely the figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland will change the trend. Anyway, readers can see the caveat and make their own judgement as to what the figures mean. Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I now seem to have acquired increased privileges myself. so have actioned the changes as requested above, and similarly to the associated text. Curatrice (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have undone the changes. Please look carefully at what you do. You managed to remove all references to Moslems and to Hindus in your changes, never mind removing comments about the growth of these groups. If you want to be constructive, add something about whether these groups are evenly distributed across the UK, but do not just delete text. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All I removed was based on incomplete census data. The UK includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, the data was for just England and Wales. Curatrice (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was incomplete, it can still be useful. By flagging it as being only English and Welsh data, the reader can decide for himself how valid it is - we don't know why the reader wants that data, nor should we second-guess, all that we are telling the reader is that the two are not strictly comparable. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line - should we include the findings of a survey covering just Northern Ireland or just Yorkshire or just Anglesey? There is an article on just England and Wales, so there is no need to have that sub-set covered again here. Curatrice (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Martinvl because I'm not seeing consensus support for the dat's addition. It should not be reinstated until there is a consensus to do so. Apart from that, this article is about the UK and data on England and wales only is not only misleading it is simply irrelevant for this article. Additionally, it's just plain silly having this argument when the full UK is just days' away from being available. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If so many people are opposed to including the 2011 census figures, does anybody object to reinstating the section as it was immediately prior to the 2011 census fugures being releaased rather than just blindly butchering sections? Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Let's not waste any more time on this. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maybe Curatrice should take a lesson here on why not to just hack out sections of text. Martinvl (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that as a fair criticism of my actions here. However, maybe Martinvl, you could learn how to be less clumsy with your edits, and how to give less misleading edit summaries. Curatrice (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest going back to the pre-release version, so that is fine by me, but obviously we need to consider what we do when the full figures are released.--SabreBD (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I have reinstated the long standing third and fourth paragraph of the lead of this article since they were heavily modified without any discussion, let alone a consensus. If large scale changes are to be made to the lead they should be with a consensus on this page. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Date for Battle of Culloden

The Article states "defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1745...". The battle was in 1946. Could this be edited? (Battle was on 16 April 1746 per the linked page on Battle of Culloden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden) Dt69 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Martinvl (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

.uk used; .gb not used - Is Northern Ireland the real reason?

On this List of Internet top-level domains page, the following statement is made: “The use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. My general understanding of British history is that “Great Britain” was a far more common name for the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” than “UK” ever was (back in that pre-1922 era). Moreover, even today, I think lots of people use the term Great Britain to refer to the whole country of the UK (especially in the UK). Is there any ‘’’source’’’ that indicates that – at an official level – the reason “.uk” is preferred to “.gb” is because “[t]he use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. I don’t think it would exclude NI. For example, other countries seem to have no problem with the equivalent:

• .ag stands for Antigua and Barbuda even though “.ag” clearly cannot derive to any extent from the name Barbuda
• .ba stands for Bosnia and Herzegovina even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Herzegovina
• .st stands for Sao Tome and Principe even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Principe.

I would be interested to learn of any sources concerning official thinking on “.gb” versus “.uk”. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it is somebody mixing up the common name Great Britain which is the same as the UK or the island of Great Britain. We have lots of moves in wikipedia to try and ignore the GB=UK despite which it keeps appearing as a common name. I cant see why the UK would be given geographically restricted TLDs. Has it a reliable reference? nothing mentioned in our .gb article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement on List of Internet top-level domains is incorrect. .gb is the ISO ISO 3166-1 for the UK.

The history is explained here. It would appear that use of the .uk TLD predates the creation of the ISO-inspired list of ccTLD. Consequently, by the time that .gb came into being, .uk already existed and it was too late to roll it back.

The answer, therefore it would seem, is that the use of .uk instead of .gb is an accident of history. --RA (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And I bet the guys in Ukraine were really cheesed. But they got UA (for UkraniA) so it wasn't too bad. --Red King (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)