Talk:United Kingdom

Lead - distinct legal jurisdictions

The sentences "the UK consists of three distinct legal jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. This is due to these areas retaining their existing legal systems even after joining the UK" seem unnecessary for the lead; I propose cutting them or mentioning legal differences in the following sentence about devolution, but would like to hear others' thoughts/suggestions. Jr8825 • Talk 01:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, its a fundamental part of the make up of the UK, it belongs in the lede. WCM_email 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If I read the 2022 RFC correctly. We chose to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, as comprising the UK. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The UK isn't an island country

The UK's core territory borders the Republic of Ireland and based on our other articles about countries located on islands (e.g. Haiti, Ireland. Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea) the lead sentence should just say:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Northwestern Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland. The helper5667 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. (Island country doesn't say that.) What those articles say is irrelevant. Who says that's the definition? Britannica also describes the UK as an island country. If you want to open a discussion on this you need to do so by citing reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it to country, per the 2022 RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Coats of arms in infobox

I'd like to raise the issue of the coats of arms again, as the previous discussion didn't lead to a new consensus (regardless of the outcome). As it stands, the only arrangement of the infobox coats of arms which I know to have any form of consensus is this one, which uses the 'other_symbol' field to place the two coats of arms side-by-side. It was BOLDly introduced in March 2020, gained consensus, but was then changed for unknown reasons in November 2021.

There are two primary reasons to use the 2020 arrangement. The first is that both arms have equal status, despite the 'non-Scottish' version being far more widely used. The Scottish version is used by various Scottish institutions including the Scottish Parliament, the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland (you may need to squint) the judiciary, and the monarchy in Scotland. Elements from it are used by bodies such as Police Scotland and Royal Mail in Scotland. In the original discussion there was a debate about what 'primary symbol – Scotland' meant in the UK Government Identity Guidelines, but I think this is a secondary issue when there are plenty of examples of the Scottish version being used as the royal arms in relation to Scotland.

The second reason is aesthetic. It just looks better to have both coats of arms next to each other than to have them separated by the national anthem bar. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer Version 1 above as it reflects the primary nature of the main coat of arms per the sources discussed in the above thread. Not sure why a new thread has been opened on this with other thread still open above. Someone better close that one or it will end up with new posts going to either. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Only one source is discussed in the first thread, the Government Identity Guidelines, and it's clear we disagree entirely about their interpretation so I'd rather not go over them again. I would genuinely be interested to know what's made you change your position, because you seemed happy to go along with the 2020 consensus to put both arms side-by-side. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I understand: my last post to that thread was "As I say, I think it pretty clearly and straightforwardly points to adopting Version 1 - but let's let others comment." DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the 2020 discusson. You suggested captions for the side-by-side images, which implies you agreed with the arrangement at that point and have since changed your mind. Apologies if that isn't the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok! At that time I didn't think there was any RS to make the determination that the non-Scottish arms had any sort of primacy, and it was only a question of editorial taste/judgment. I don't think any sources were brought up by anyone in that thread and I didn't/don't have any strong personal opinion (absent RS) either way particularly. But then you produced the Government Identity Guidelines and I find that is compelling as an RS to say the non-Scottish arms are primary. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See, I just don't find the Identity Guidelines a compelling RS. In the absence of other sources they're useful enough, but they're not a guide to heraldry. I also don't think that the wording is clear enough to definitively show that the Scottish arms are secondary – they're called 'primary symbol – Scotland', after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I find your interpretation baffling when the non-Scottish arms are stated to be the "primary symbol" without qualification and the Scottish arms have the limitation "primary symbol in Scotland". One is the primary symbol to be used on the entire planet with the exception of Scotland's 30k sq miles the other can only be used on those 30k sq miles. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that I don't think the limitation (which isn't strictly geographic) has any bearing on the status of the versions. They're both the royal arms, so we may as well put them side-by-side. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said, that interpretation baffles me given how explicit the document is. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The document explicitly states that the British government uses the Scottish version of the arms in Scottish contexts, not that it's a subordinate version. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh I thought we weren't going to rehash...in that case:

• In the document there is only one coat of arms called the "Royal Coat of Arms", and that's the non-Scottish one. It has no further qualification. The Scottish arms are called the "Royal Arms of Scotland". That alone is enough to clearly distinguish the two.
• On page 5, that Royal Coat of Arms is represented with the caption "primary symbol". There is no other way to interpret that. The text also reads "The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms". There is no other way to interpret that either.
• Also on page 5, there is effectively a footnote to that broad statement which says "In specific cases the Royal Coat of Arms will not be appropriate". It then gives 4 "examples". The second example (not even the first one mentioned, mind you) is where the Royal Arms of Scotland should be used. I'll repeat the first point here: the other arms are simply called the "Royal Coat of Arms". They're not "of" anywhere.
• Finally, on that page, while the Royal Coat of Arms takes up the middle third of the page, the Royal Arms of Scotland are tucked away in the right corner, with two other similarly miniatured symbols.

To argue that what the document calls the Royal Coat of Arms isn't the primary one really is calling black, white. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not really interested in rehashing things. As I said before, although the Identity Guidelines are better than nothing they're just the UK Government's branding guidelines, not an authoritative statement on whether the arms are equal or not.

I've been looking for better sources, but the go-to heraldic texts (such as Fox-Davies Complete Guide to Heraldry) don't really touch on the subject. Neither do the websites of the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms, the heraldic authorities for Scotland and the rest of the UK respectively, and as royal.uk still seems to think Wales is a principality it's not great either.

What I'd instead ask is, given the UK definitely has two coats of arms, does it look better to separate them in the infobox or to keep them together? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"just the UK Government's branding guidelines"?? The point of the CoAs in country infoboxes isn't to provide heraldry fancruft - it's to depict a symbol of the state. Hence, country infoboxes of republics and other countries with no heraldic tradition have them. It's about it being a national emblem: how the UK government treats this emblem is exactly on point. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what fancruft is, sorry.

The intricacies of how the UK Government brands itself aren't really important. What is important is that the UK has two coats of arms, or national emblems, and how we display them in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FANCRUFT. The UK doesn't have two coats of arms: one of them is the Royal Arms of Scotland. The government's declaration that the other one is the UK government's primary symbol is hardly an "intricacy". DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're focussing too much on this single source to form your opinion. I've just found some guidance from the Lord Chamberlain's Office, for example, which characterises the royal arms as a single symbol with 'English' and 'Scottish' versions.

As far as I can tell the language around the two versions isn't standardised, so you will find them called the 'royal arms', 'Scottish royal arms', even the 'English royal arms'. It all amounts to the same thing — two versions of the royal arms. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I would say that that that document was created specifically to control/restrict the commercial exploitation of royal symbols - it's about the Crown's intellectual property rights and revenue only. It's an inferior source for our purposes to the Government publication which is specifically about the symbols the state should use which is what we are talking about. I think the fact that the CoA is referred to as the "English version" should give you a clue about that! DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, the fact the arms are called the 'English version' despite that clearly being inaccurate demonstrates how loose the language surrounding the royal arms is. You can't infer much from the terms used, they're ways of distinguishing the two versions rather than assigning primacy.

Focussing soley on the UK government is also unhelpful. The Identity Guidelines lay out how the UK government brands itself, yes, but the arms are a symbol of the state (or the Crown, if you like) in its entirety, so how other branches of the state use the arms matters just as much. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense. One source is clearly written loosely so all sources have to be written off? Of course not! You have to look at why the document was created. The Lord Chamberlain's document is not stating how the state should use the symbols, it's setting out the rules around commercial exploitation and other uses of those symbols by private entities i.e. businesses and organizations. It's irrelevant to what we're discussing and, also, it has no need to be accurate about what we're discussing either. And clearly, it's not. DeCausa (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Lord Chamberlain's guidance isn't written loosely, but the terminology used to refer to the royal arms isn't standardised across all state documents — the Scottish version might be called that, the Scottish royal arms, the royal arms of Scotland, the royal arms used in Scotland, etc., but it all refers the same thing.

The UK Government Identity Guidelines have no particular need to be accurate about what we're discussing either. They're concerned with how the government presents itself, not whether the arms are equal in general. The UK government uses the non-Scottish version of the arms far more than the Scottish version, so it's no surprise that the latter is given more space in its guidance. That doesn't mean the Scottish version is inferior — just look at a Scottish courtroom, or Holyroodhouse when the King is there. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the issue isn't even equality. It's how, given there are two versions of the coat of arms, they should be shown in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think using words like "inferior" and "equality" doesn't put this on the right footing. I think we have a reliable source that we should follow and not to do so is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to consider the relative status of the versions of the arms at all. The fact is there are two versions, the question is how to display them.

For the sake of argument I'll agree that the non-Scottish arms are primary. Even in that case, the side-by-side view just looks better. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any particular thoughts on the issue from an aesthetic perspective? I'm sorry to push, it just seems like we never really reach a conclusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My only objection to side by side is aesthetic. If they can be manipulated to be the same height then I think it would look fine. At the moment it looks jarring I think. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see exactly what's happened — when the non-Scottish version was adapted to use the Tudor Crown after Elizabeth II's death the size of the file was changed from 1,550 x 1,550 to 512 x 479 and white space was introduced, so it no longer aligns properly with the Scottish version.

Fortunately, Sodacan (who's created a lot of heraldry images we use) has created a file which combines both arms at the same size, so that solves that issue. I'll swap it out in the article to see how it looks. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think that looks fine now, thank you. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Do Scottish residents get issued passports with the Scottish coat of arms? It does seem like in practice that there is a primary coat of arms for the UK as whole. I still oppose changing the format moving the UK coat of arms down. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk)

@Bokmanrocks01: No, the non-Scottish version is used on passports. The Scottish version is used in Scottish contexts, you can see some examples in my original comment from the 22nd. I'm not a fan of separating the two arms in the infobox, it doesn't look very good. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well at the very least the image size should be made smaller. If you compare national emblems/coats of arms of other infoboxes the coats of arms in this article are too large I think - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size from 300px to 250px, which seems to be the largest it can be without expanding the size of the infobox. Given the intricacy of both coats of arms they need to be as large as possible, I'd say. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So only one coat of arms is used to represent the entire country? Why is this exception being made for Scotland again? The Scottish coat of arms belongs on the Scotland page for sure, but not here. Scotland doesn't represent the entire country. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it the Act of Union 1707 left the power to regulate the royal arms in the hands of the monarch, and Queen Anne and her successors continued to use a distinct version of the royal arms in Scotland. It's just one of those quirks of history. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Infobox

Ive reverted 2 attempts to re-add the Religion parameter in the Infobox with sole recognition of the CoE.[1] [2]. If the parameter is to be there it should be a demographic breakdown of religions per census as per other countries. In fact, that's what it always used to be but at some point it seems to have come out of the Infobox. I couldn't find any discussion on that - last discussion I could find was in 2022 - may be I missed it. In any case, I I'm neutral as to whether it has a Religion parameter but if there is one it shouldn't have an arbitrary sole reference to the CoE. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

To my understanding, religion in the infobox would be a reference to the idea of a state church which would be appropriate to mention in there, even if it is caveated by an "England only" note or including the CoS too with the "national church/Scotland only" one. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit at the beginning of August, with a reasonable explanation. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it a reasonable explanation? It says the reason is the census was "botched" in Scotland. I completely missed that if it was. I've just googled and can't find any explanation. Can someone shed some light? DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

And that explanation seems to justify removal of that table that was originally there, it doesn't consider whether the religion tag in the infobox should be used or not. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the parameter is not to state the legal status of one denomination in one part of the country. Why would you think it is? DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, it does in 2 of the 4 countries/majority of the nation. Hence why I'd suggest that it be tagged with England/Scotland as appropriate as both churches hold differing legal statuses but legal status nontheless. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No, fails WP:DUE and the purpose of the parameter. But let's see what consensus is. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, see this article in The Times. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think there should be an indication of the official status of the CofE and CofS. I also think census data should only be used for significant religions, eg only if above 20%, otherwise we get a pointless list.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an arguable view. However it's never been the approach taken in this Infobox or the Infobox of similar countries eg those of the Scandinavian countries which have state churches. It's always been a demographic summary of population religious affiliation. If there's traction for that view, however, it's radical enough for an RfC to be warranted. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Britain"

I challenge the idea that the UK commonly being referred to as Britain should be present in the lead, particularly without the clarifer that this would be considered colloquial. While Northern Irish people are entitled to a British and Irish passport, including Northern Island in "Britain" is a topic of debate.

Great Britain, which is shortened to Britain, excludes Northern Island, and formally constitutes only the three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. Wrehhn (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if it is geographically incorrect, the United KIngdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is sometimes shortened to Britain. TFD (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I might have lost count of the number of times this has been raised, discussed and dismissed over the last 2 decades. Have a look in the archive. The bottom line: it's a question of WP:RS usage rather than editor opinion/preference (as always). The crux is "Britain" isn't treated as just a shortened version of Great Britain. 23:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RFC on how to describe the UK & its components, in the lead

In the lead I've just restored country for the UK description & left no description for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, aside from that they comprised the UK. Was there another RFC held since, with a different outcome? Because since then, someone had replaced country with island country (I've since restored the status quo). Also, somebody added countries to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland (I've since deleted to the status quo) in the lead. IMHO, adding that description for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, only creates confusion, when we've already decided to call the UK a country. I'm just wondering, is the aforementioned RFC been overturned, concerning the lead of this page? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries within the UK and should be listed as such. It seems misleading to exclude this from the lead. Wrehhn (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. We have E/S/W/NI described as such in their own articles & that suffices. Using the descriptions here, would only be cumbersome & add confusion. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Contacting @Giraffedata:, who closed the 2022 RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't the RfC about the choice between "sovereign country" and just "country"? I don't have a problem with the revert as it's unclear if there is WP:CONSENSUS for the pre-revert wording but I'm unsure that the RfC is relevant. DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Island country wasn't an option in the RFC & country was the choice, for the UK's description. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing how saying Island five times in the lead helps anyone. Moxy- 00:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't checked the contribs history, to see who added in island country. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The RfC technically settled only the question of whether the UK should be called a country or a sovereign country, but I think the discussion implied a consensus on whether England, etc. are countries. The background of that RfC was that someone had written the "sovereign country" in order to distinguish the status of the UK from that of England, etc., which were nonsovereign countries. The consensus was that "sovereign country" is redundant, which implies that nonsovereign country is contradictory, i.e. those entities simply aren't countries today. So that bears on GoodDay's second change.

I'm not aware that this issue has been discussed since.

But the RfC doesn't address the issue of whether "island country" is even better than "country". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The supposition that if the United Kingdom is a plain "country" then England (et al) cannot be is not correct, as the article on what a country is explains. A country can consist of other countries. That's not a reason to avoid careful and clear wording when describing such a situation. Bazza (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Last year, "...comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" was adopted, after country was chosen to describe the United Kingdom. I presume, this was to avoid arguments. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

Change "The Proms is a classical music festival held at the Royal Albert Hall which regularly plays music by Edward Elgar and Henry Wood." to "The Proms is a classical music festival, most closely associated with Henry Wood and held at the Royal Albert Hall, which regularly plays music by Edward Elgar and other British composers". (Henry Wood was a conductor, not a composer.) Cjholula (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 14:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

UK 2021 ethnicity White: 81.7% Asian: 9.3% Black: 4.2% Mixed: 2.9% Other: 2.1%

}} 2A00:23C5:EF47:2701:1140:F799:657D:9E94 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)