Talk:United Kingdom

Representative democracy

I'm sure everyone could construct a debate about whether the UK qualifies as one – whether due to the role of the House of Lords, or the fact that not everyone votes and/or we don't have PR or whatever – but the basic fact surely is that the UK is usually described/classified as a representative democracy in most political writing. As ever, let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be and start some huge analytical debate of our own and/or edit-warring over this. I'd be fine with the addition staying. N-HH talk/edits 15:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. (However, this did come up a year or two ago, and it was noted that the infoboxes of none (or almost none) of the democracies noted them as such. Someone had an explanation of why that was - can't now remember what that explanation was, though.) DeCausa (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the past discussions. However, by definition, the UK isn't a complete democracy, it's only a democracy to an extent. Of course, most people would probably agree that the UK can be described as a democracy, however it isn't clear cut in all cases. For example, describing Israel as a democracy would be contentious. I'm not sure we should draw the line on this, since we don't have to. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Representative democracy" is where the people exercise power (democracy) through elected representatives (in parliament). Hence, "representative democracy". It has nothing do with PR, or how many people vote, etc. In contemporary discussion on modes of democracy, it is often contrasted with "participatory" (where there are public consultations, etc.) and "direct" (where there are referendums, etc.) forms of democracy.

Representative democracy is the usual way of making decisions in democracies today. Though state also use participatory and direct democracy to differing degrees too (just as the UK does). In fact, I cannot think of a democracy that doesn't use representative democracy (i.e. has a parliament, local councils, etc.). So, my 2¢ is to remove "representative democracy". It's nothing very notable and looks a bit silly. --Tóraí (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what representative democracy means and I wasn't suggesting that the lack of PR, for example, would necessarily make a good case for suggesting the UK was not one (although some people would actually make that connection – it doesn't have "nothing" to do with it). The point was more that people shouldn't be making their own cases – either way – at all (the addition was originally removed with reference to the House of Lords not being representative). I'd agree it's arguably stating the obvious to some degree but I don't see that that matters so much, especially in an infobox. It's still a standard and relevant description. I was just hoping to stop either an edit war over it or too much talk page debate (I might have failed on the latter). N-HH talk/edits 10:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My view is representative democracy is relevant to the UK, and to readers of this article, so I support keeping it. Whizz40 (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"...the addition was originally removed with reference to the House of Lords not being representative..." The House of Lords is an example of "representative democracy". Folk may be unhappy with how members of the House of Lords are elected/selected — or say it is unrepresentative of society — but that's a matter of franchise and electoral systems. The "representative" in "representative democracy" means that members of parliament "represent" people (maybe not all of the people) in parliament. It does not necessarily mean that parliament is representative of the people.

As for representative democracy being relevant to the UK. The UK also employs participatory democracy (e.g. public consultations) and direct democracy (e.g. referendums). Neither is the using "representative democracy" anything unique: every western democracy uses some form of representative democracy.

I think the point about people making their own cases for it's inclusion is important. To me, it's not a matter of stating the obvious. It's a matter of stating the inane. "representative democracy" does not belong alongside "unitary state" "parliamentary democracy" "constitutional monarchy". It belong to a different set of concepts. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure any serious political source would argue that the House of Lords embodies a form of representative democracy. Representation perhaps, but not democratic. And sure, the UK also has elements of more direct democracy too. But, as noted, none of this is even the point. It remains, again, a more fundamental one than that, which is that we don't need to argue the toss one way or other. The actual point is that it is the term that is usually applied to the UK along with most modern European democracies (just as "constitutional monarchy" is the one applied to most modern European monarchies – I don't quite see the conceptual distinction there; they're both terms of political art with an understood meaning and application). Even if, semantically, you prefer the term "inane" to "obvious", it's not incorrect, not unencyclopedic and will add something for some readers. It does no harm in an infobox. I don't quite see why we need to expend more talk page space on it now it's there and no one, apart possibly from one person, seems to be suggesting it needs to go. N-HH talk/edits 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you might as well add that it is a liberal, majoritarian, multi-party, representative democracy ;-) --Tóraí (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Seanad Éireann too! And really most of the "Category:National upper houses" don't fit that particular bill either. IMHO, (and most other takes on it) the UK is a constitutional monarchy, that runs its affairs by means of respresentative democracy with its upper house as a check on the Commons when required. Commonwealth standard. A few personal gripes with its legality (as a Scots Jacobite Catholic), but it's been functioning fairly well for a few hundred years in that way.....Brendandh (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to be concise and precise. I would just put down "constitutional monarchy." The CIA World Factbook says "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm."[1] TFD (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be that minimalist but on reflection the combined effect post-the addition is a little overwhelming: "Unitary parliamentary representative democracy under constitutional monarchy with devolved legislatures" (with multiple links too). Maybe that should be split into two separate lines with "Parliamentary democracy under constitutional monarchy" and then "Unitary state with devolved legislatures". N-HH talk/edits 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brevity suites me. The suggestion above is cuts to the chase and keeps apples with apples, pears with pears. It describes the UK very well. --Tóraí (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Andreas11213 has reverted the change. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Commonly known as England"

Why is this not mentioned in the opening paragraph? People understandably do not like that to many, many millions of people England/Britain/UK are synonymous but surely this is irrelevant to the fact that they are often "commonly known as England" as well as "commonly known as Britain". 'Britain' as a synonym for the UK is, after all, just as incorrect as England given that the UK includes a part of a country which is not in Great Britain, namely Northern Ireland (although I accept there have been attempts to say 'Britain' is bizarrely now not a short form of 'Great Britain' but of the UK, a new claim which is clearly politically motivated). Furthermore, the same people who will undoubtedly reject this article including "commonly known as England" would be keen to defend "British Isles" as a "common name" despite enormous evidence that the name is avoided in one of the two major islands which the John Dee coined "British Isles" name claims to cover, namely Ireland. Surely, we don't have a double standard on "common name" here motivated by nationalist sentiment? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The above contributor is right to point out that England/Britain/UK are widely used as though they were one and the same. As a resident of Scotland I do not like that and I agree that we should be doing more to point out they are not one and the same. While I can understand Irish objections, given their history, the term British Isles is not geographically or historically incorrect. Viewfinder (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Most impartial observers would submit that "British Isles" is both geographically and historically incorrect, a term which first entered the English language in 1577 when used by a British imperialist named John Dee and was resurrected from classical sources to fulfil imperialist political aims of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns, rather that as an accurate geographical description. Historically, the Britons, who spoke one of the Brittonic languages, were native to Britain and Britain minor (Britanny), not Ireland, which spoke one of the Goidelic languages. The term "British" never in history included the Irish for these obvious ethnic/settlement/linguistic reasons. The idea that they did is a product of politically-motivated myth making by English cartographers from the late 16th century. At any rate, this is about why "commonly known as England" is not used in this article despite it being an accurate observation. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A sentence at the end of the first paragraph would be my preference. Similarly to at the Netherlands article. Along the lines of: "The United Kingdom in its entirety is sometimes erroneously referred to as England, the name of one of the states four constituent countries." I doubt you will succeed anything here though, since this has probably been discussed numerous times. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not object to such a sentence, as long as it definitely includes "erroneously" or "incorrectly". I completely disagree with the OP that this is on a par with "Britain". -- Alarics (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I would for one, and about 10/12 million others on these islands would concur I'd imagine! WP is not about perpetuating false (or just plain ignorant) nomenclature/historic innaccuracy etc. "Scandinavia, commonly but erroneously known as Sweden"? No, I don't think so. Brendandh (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, Scandinavia is never known as Sweden, eroneously or not. Whereas the Netherlands "in its entirety is often referred to as Holland, which in strict usage, refers only to North and South Holland, two of its provinces; however the former usage is generally accepted" DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We have, in the second paragraph, the sentence: "The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." That is an accurate and precise statement of fact. To include any reference in the opening paragraph (that is, before the accurate statement) to the UK ever being known as England - whether or not we include words like "erroneously" - would simply be confusing to many readers, and unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I too have heard the UK being erroneously called "England". But that is no reason why we should encourage that error. I've heard other erroneous statements about the UK too. We don't need to include them all.

The second paragraph states that England is a part of (and therefore not all of) the UK. That clears the matter up sufficiently. --Tóraí (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS relevant? We just report what the sources say, for good or ill. It seems head-in-sand not to reflect somewhere (not necessarily early on, and I take Ghmyrtle's point on that) that some English-speaking RS especially in the US use "England" to mean UK and some non-English RS (notably German and French) use the equivalent of "England" to mean UK. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We'd need a source that discussed the issue (not just what we believe are examples of it). And we'd need to consider its weight. To which end, the etymology and terminology section seems more appropriate than the lead to me. --Tóraí (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this is about common usage. The selection is vast but here's Le Figaro and Chicago Tribune as examples: here and here DeCausa (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of those are examples of the usage, not reliable-source discussions of the usage. At best they are original research, and completely fail to support either of the points suggested for mention – that the usage is widespread and that it is erroneous. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about a country that is sometimes described erroneously as England. Living in France, "le Royaume-Uni" is non existent in day to day speak, with "l'Angleterre" being far more common in reference to the entire country. In some languages, there only exists one term for the "United Kingdom", "Great Britain" and "England". Mentioning the term in the introduction is important, considering a lot of readers are not aware the usage is incorrect. If anything, this would discourage incorrect usage. Rob (talk | contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, "Angleterre" is not the same word as "England". If the French word for the UK were the same as the French word for England (..it isn't..), that would be interesting, but not a matter for this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this is where we step off the OR cliff. Those examples may not be in error. Those may entirely valid words for the UK in those languages. More "precise" words may exist and be known to to speaker (such as le Royaume-Uni). But even in British English, the country is referred to frequently as "Britain" (to the neglect of Northern Ireland). And is that "erroneous"? No.

So, yes, it needs a source to establish (as Fat&Happy says) 1) that usage is widespread and 2) that it is erroneous. --Tóraí (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not "to the neglect of Northern Ireland" because a majority of people there regard it as part of Britain, which legally it is, "Britain" being equivalent to "UK" and thus a larger entity, paradoxical as may seem, than "Great Britain". -- Alarics (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep you knickers on. No-one is taking Northern Ireland off you yet.

Now, consider how the OED defines "Britain" as meaning the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. Yet there is no error if someone says that Northern Ireland is part of Britain. The word can mean BOTH.

My point is that if this is possible in English then is possible that in another language the equivalent of "England" can mean BOTH the UK as a whole (like "Britain" can in English) AND a portion of the UK (like "Britain" can English). --Tóraí (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is commonly used, it could be there but it would need to be qualified as "erroneous and offensive to many" if our intent is to inform. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The country is not called England in reliable sources. The monarch is sometimes referred to as the Queen of England, especially in the United States, but no one says Scotland is in England. People are merely using an older title of the monarch. Technically she remains the queen of England, although the title is no longer formally used. (See "Ex parte Quark", House of Lords, 2005, para. 9.)[2] TFD (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of people outside of the British Isles probably don't even know England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the same country. However, I think if you showed a map of the UK to people outside of the British Isles, within the English-speaking world, a lot of people, possible even as much as a half, would think it's named England. This isn't even really their ignorance, but more the English's, who for much of history, described the entire country as "England". For example, in 1878, Disraeli signed the 1878 Treaty of Berlin as "Prime Minister of England". I'm aware this is original research, however I'm pretty sure there are reliable sources that correspond to personal observations. I'll see what I can find. Rob (talk | contribs) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if it's half, be thankful for the small things, considering who makes up a large chunk of that English-speaking world outside the British Isles... "A survey taken in 2006, after the U.S. had been fighting in Iraq for three years, found that nearly two-thirds of Americans ages 18 to 24 could not locate it on a map." Fat&Happy (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not just plump it in the United_Kingdom#Etymology_and_terminology section where it belongs? Whilst I agree that many people erroneously refer to the UK as England, even in Hollywood films such as in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, do we have reliable sources that it is common as such?

Northern Ireland is known under various different names yet we keep them all in the Northern_Ireland#Alternative_names section. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We now seem to have a smart-alec removing Britain from the lede trying to use this discussion and the objections to adding England to the lede as their reasoning for removing Britain. As stated in my last edit summary, seek consensus for removal just like consensus is required for the addition of England. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Smart-Alec eh? Enough of that! What part of Down, Antrim, Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone or Armagh is part of Britain?? Some part of the population some may psychologically or culturally associate with the big island, but c'mon it's bloody obvious man! The English Border runs from Gretna to the North of the liberties of Berwick (4km from the town roughly), are those North to be called English, or to live in England? ....Smart Alec?......(grinning) Very silly. And I put forward that Britain (not "British") is removed, as it is a perjorative term for these other countries, when only England is implied? Brendandh (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to check the article's talk page archive before raising an issue and raising the same arguments that have been raised time after time over many years and which time after time over many many years consensus has confirmed the current position. If you did, you would understand how irritated others become. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We discussed all that at length only recently. "Britain" stays in. "England" is a completely different case. -- Alarics (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this piece on English National Identity is probably relevant. Notably, it states 'It is not surprising that England became, and remains for many people at home and abroad, a synecdochical expression not just for the island of Britain but for the whole archipelago'. There's also this relevant BBC article discussing, what they call, 'the whole Scotland-England-Britain thing'. From this discussion, I'm not sure whether mention of use of England to refer to the UK in the etymology and terminology section is contentious? This is advised per WP:PLACE. Rob (talk | contribs) 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn close: but the UK is neither "the island of Britain" nor "the whole archipelago". Something like that would be good for the etymology section. But would need to refer to the UK. --Tóraí (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Would depend if the bit is referring to the time the whole archipelago was British. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

He states 'The OED’s report of 1891 on the established usage of the time perhaps underplayed its inflationary tendency: "England: the southern part of the island of Great Britain, usually with the exception of Wales. Sometimes loosely used for:Great Britain. Often: The English (or British) nation or state." In later years the practice has if anything grown, rather than diminished, despite the irritation it causes the non-English inhabitants of the British Isles.'

This, along with the rest of the paragraph, pretty clearly infers he's also referring to the 'English (or British) state' (the UK), as quoted.

Rob (talk | contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If the above thesis is relevant, than I would suggest that this one is too, if anyone should care to? [3] Brendandh (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever that is, it appears to agree that 'England' is used to refer to the UK. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And so? (And I doubt you read the entirety of this quite well known constitutioonal treatise) Is Scotland the equivalent of: the Golan Heights, commonly referred to as part of Israel; or Tibet, commonly referred to as part of the PRC; or East Timor, commonly referred to as part of Indonesia....or Slovakia, commonly referred to as Czechoslovakia (and they've had their velvet divorce!), Texas (USA), Quebec (Canada), Catalonia (Spain)?.....tomato, tomato again, and not worthy of inclusion. Try rearranging Jerusalem? Is that Palestine or Israel? Sorry mate. Brendandh (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning the UK is erroneously referred to as 'England', suggests Scotland is part of England. It simply clarifies, 'England' is used to refer to the UK (as, per MOS, the article should, for all terms used frequently to refer to the state), but that this usage is incorrect. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Brendandh's view going by their post here and at their talk page hints that they arguing about the use of the term within the UK itself. The problem with that is that it is used by many people outside of the UK. It's a global thing not a local thing. 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is commonly known as Great Britain, per the Olympics and other sporting events, also per American literature. That should perhaps be included. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Covered in the second sentence of the lede, and in the section Etymology and terminology. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a problem with stating that the UK is erroneously referred to as 'England' in Etymology and terminology? I also would like the terms use mentioned in the introduction, however it would be a start if we could reach a consensus whether the statement is correct first. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes there bloody is a problem with that. This is not a platform for politicking, but as above, there would be 10/12 million people who would disagree with that. Is Kazakhstan known as Russia now, even though that was the common Anglophone name for the Soviet Union? Brendandh (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Look mate, nobody is suggesting we state the UK is called 'England', but rather that the UK is erroneously referred to as 'England'. What is even the point in having an etymology and terminology section, if we don't even bother to mention the fact that half the world doesn't know the difference between 'England' and 'the United Kingdom'? We should avoid stating a something that is clearly a fact, because British people might not like it? That's 'politicking'. This is an encyclopaedia, you can't exclude information because Brits might not like it. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave that for the etymology sections of the various countries, eh? In fact I think this section should be removed entirely from this article about the political construct that is this nation, and shifted to Great Britain. I don't think it needs a rocket scientist to know what the etymology of "United" or "Kingdom" is. Brendandh (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Rob984, you have to accept that not all readers are going to take into consideration all the words in the sentence and realise the context that it is in, for example stating "erroneously referred to as". Take Brendandh as an example, they don't seem to acknowledge or understand the context of the proposal. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Patronism aside Mabuska, it is not within the scope of this platform to continue and expand on error, but merely to present fact. The fact that I call a turnip a bagie, does not mean that it ain't a turnip! Brendandh (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not expanding on error. I assure both of you, there is a way to phrase this that would be completely clear that the usage is incorrect and offensive. And Brendandh, don't be silly, this is an issue with half the English-speaking world, not an individual. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well in response to Rob's question, there is no problem with including it in the "Etymology and terminology" section as it can be properly detailed there and as long as it makes clear it is erroneous just as Rob is proposing. It is valid and if it can be verifiably and reliably sourced then there is no solid reason why there should be a problem. Brendandh's objections are based solely on flawed arguments that don't seem to acknowledge the context of the issue, and seems to simply serve a POV.

In technicality, as it is to be mentioned as an "erroneous" term it can be argued that it is expanding upon an error, but in reality we are detailing an error not expanding upon it. Wikipedia is supposed to detail such things if they are notable, and I believe in this case it is. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be hard to nail down, as this is primarily an American fallacy and mostly an issue with general perceptions instead of usage in reliable sources. My biggest concern is while the misconception is sometimes "England" = "UK", as demonstrated by "PM of England", the error is really "England" = "Britain", with Northern Ireland instead seen as part of Ireland. There is then a second error that Britain = UK, which is reinforced by how the word British is used. One way of demonstrating the error would be to find otherwise reliable sources referring to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish places as in England.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether people know Northern Ireland is part of the same sovereign state as Great Britain isn't really significant to the etymology and terminology of the UK, although it's probably an issue that is correlative to the terminology issue. I don't think people who think 'England' is a sovereign state would know what other countries (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) form what they're calling 'England'. I agree, these people probably visually associate 'England' with the island, however they are associating 'England' to a sovereign state as well as an island; and the UK is the only sovereign state. This is a complex issue, and that they don't know Northern Ireland is part of the same sovereign state as Great Britain definitely shouldn't exclude discussing this issue here. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is the error is primarily that Britain that gets mistaken for England, not the UK. The UK does get mistaken for England as well, but that is a harder error to demonstrate. UK organisations and officials being referred to as English are illustrative of the UK-specific error.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

But "Britain" and "the UK" mean the same thing -- "Britain" includes Northern Ireland; it is "Great Britain" that doesn't -- so you are making a distinction without a diffrerence. Anyway, I don't see the point of this whole argument. The text as it currently stands is fine. -- Alarics (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Nilfanion is under the impression that "Britain" means "Great Britain", not the UK. That's not completely wrong – the term is often used in a sense that excludes NI – but it would be more helpful in this discussion to stick to UK and GB and leave "Britain" out of it. Garik (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware "Britain" can mean both GB and UK. However my point is when "England" is used incorrectly, it is often being used to mean "Great Britain" (with "Ireland" seen as a separate entity) - so London, Cardiff, Edinburgh are "in England", Belfast and Dublin are "in Ireland". Add the word Great to all my comments above if you prefer ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, been away (Scotland coincidently). I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think the lack of references to non-English UK places being described as in 'England' is necessary. That people describe a region in the context of a sovereign state including any part of the UK as 'England', and primary sources show this (along with the secondary sources I citied earlier) really justifies stating this here, as this is the article about the only sovereign state of which these regions form. In truth, I think this should be noted on the articles for the UK, Great Britain and England, if it's not already; to reduce any confusion. As editors of these articles, I think we often underestimate how little some people know about the terminology for these things. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested rebalance of "Demography" section

I don't quite understand why the section on ethnic minorities and migration is more than twice the size of that of the United States and many other western European nations who are much less ethnically homogenous. I feel that the section could be reduced for the purposes of balance; though migration is a significant political issue in the United Kingdom, I don't feel that the emphasis in this article is proportionate to the percentage of "non-White" residents as compared to neighbouring countries such as France, Spain and the Netherlands who have proportionally far more non-native citizens and residents. Hayek79 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a question of how ethnically homogenous the UK is, so much as how many words it takes to describe what is a complex situation. But if you want to propose a shorter wording I'm sure people will give it consideration. -- Alarics (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom - music

hi there just wondering why there's no mention of Black Sabbath as a pioneer of heavy metal or Iron Maiden or Judas Priest as these are some of the biggest and well know artists of this genre that has persisted since the seventies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.145.98 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is just lack of room.--SabreBD (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are additionally described as "regions"...."

User:Rob984 has inserted text here, backed up by sources from statistical extracts, claiming that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are additionally described as regions (as well as countries or nations). The claim that it is "pretty well known" that they are regions is disingenuous at best, given the controversy that such terminology can generate (and has generated here in the past). But, those sources exist. They are not especially good sources, and my view is that they simply use the word "regions" as shorthand for "regions or nations" rather than making explicit statements that they are (or can properly be referred to as) "regions". What do others think? ("And now, the news from where you are....") Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sources do state 'regions and counties', then later 'regions' only, suggesting they are using 'regions' as a shorthand, however other make no mention of 'countries'. These sources are all to do with statistics, because these are the 12 NUTS 1 regions of the UK. Ghmyrtle, this is the etymology and terminology section. Isn't this the kind of thing we should be covering there? Rob (talk | contribs) 14:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but "..are additionally described..." doesn't give any suggestion that the term is used loosely, or inaccurately. It's accurate to say, for instance, that Scotland is a NUTS region; but it's too imprecise to say that therefore it is described as a region, implying some more general use of the word. I think the wording needs to be more careful and precise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Such as, "Some summaries of statistics, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the UK, also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions". - with a reduced number of refs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer sometime along the lines of:

Some statistical overviews, corresponding with the NUTS standard for the UK, refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions", together with the 9 regions within England.

I think it's generally more accurate wording, and the additional 'together with the 9 regions within England' for clarification.

The ONS and GMB citations are probably most ideal.

Rob (talk | contribs) 21:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a great use of language though. What does "Some statistical overviews, corresponding with the NUTS standard for the UK..." mean??!! And I don't think it's relevant to refer to the English regions in that sentence. How about: "Some statistical summaries, such as those for the NUTS 1 regions of the UK, refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to refer to the English regions, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are only called 'regions' when compared to these. I don't see the point in including this if we don't suggest why the 3 countries are described as 'regions'. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I'd be happy for that sentence to be removed completely - I don't think it adds anything helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you remove mention of the English regions, then you remove half of the context. You leave the reader asking, why are they called 'regions'? and why isn't England also called a 'region'? I pretty sure a terminology section should suggest why terms are used. In this instance, simply mentioning the English regions is enough. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No - if you remove the whole sentence - "Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are additionally described as "regions", together with the 9 regions within England." - there is no mention of "regions" remaining to be explained. It's irrelevant, not necessary for this article, confusing and unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so the fact that 3 of the countries are sometimes described as 'regions' is irrelevant to a paragraph dedicated to discussing the terminology of the UK's countries? The statement is as relevant as the rest of the paragraph. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's utterly irrelevant to this article that alternative terminology is sometimes used in certain specific circumstances. It adds nothing at all to an article about the United Kingdom. It can be mentioned (I expect it already is) in the article on Countries of the UK - but it is too trivial a point to be mentioned in this article, which is about the UK as a whole. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You could say the same about the rest of the paragraph, especially the part regarding Northern Ireland. Additionally, the paragraph is worded such that it gives the reader the impression that they have the full picture, and if you remove the fact that the 3 countries are sometimes regarded as 'regions', as oppose to 'countries', then they don't, and it becomes misleading. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing the sentence would not be misleading, because they are only called "regions" in one, very specific, context - NUTS regions. And, rather than explaining that in detail and giving it undue weight, it would be better to leave out the sentence completely. Or, use my wording of 23:50, 5 March 2014. We have an entire section further down the article on administrative divisions. There is no need for that sentence in the terminology section - it is misleading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The 4 countries are 'administrative divisions'. It's not misleading at all, as it clarifies this is only in 'some statistical summaries'. What is misleading about that? The NUTS regions are not a 'specific context'. They are widely used for administrative purposes across the UK, such as the emergency services. It's unbelievable that you think 6 extra words give the mention of the term too much undue weight for you to tolerate. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Believe. The sentence currently says: "Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are additionally described as "regions", together with the 9 regions within England." That is misleading because it does not provide the context - the very limited context - in which they are all described as "regions". The NUTS regions are not used for administration. Areas with the same boundaries are used for administration, but in that context three of them are countries and the remainder are regions - they are not equivalent to each other. This paragraph only needs to refer to E/W/S/NI - it does not need to refer to the English regions, and it is utterly misleading to imply that they are at an equivalent level of importance. What is your problem with my wording: "Some summaries of statistics, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the UK, also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions". Why insist on including reference to the English regions, which are not of equivalent status and which are of no relevance to an article about the UK as a whole? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to see how the 4 countries are of much more relevance. That's where we're fundamentally disagreeing. I would do a straw poll, but it would simply show how many of the participants are 'unionists' or 'nationalists'. To be fair, you are compromising, and this discussion isn't going anywhere, so I'll accept your wording. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* No surprise this was objected too. Daren't say that certain parts of the UK are known as anything other than a country or a nation. Might reveal their true status as component parts of a larger country and nation. I see no problem with Rob's suggestion preceding this comment. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the recent discussion at Talk:Wales, I don't think you could say "unionists" are much better. :P Rob (talk | contribs) 22:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesnn't surprise me that sources exist for that. For me, it just goes to illustrate the utter nonsense of the whole obsession in this, and related articles, with this sort of terminology. These terms are used either indiscriminately without thought or in an entirely loaded way (but only loaded for a narow UK readership). We do a disservice to our global readership to attach importance to it in the way that we do. I'm sure it leaves readers in, say, Brazil scratching their heads in bafflement. What readers globally need to know in an open an open and clear way is how national identity works in different parts of the UK. Treating that issue as a semantic country/region issue with the national identity as a sub-text in that treatment is parochial and pointless. If we're going to cover this sort of terminological issue we should make express what the political and cultural significance is of using those terms and explain why they are loaded. Ho hum, I know I'm wasting WMF bytes typing this. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My ears are bleeding now! Norway was not Sweden when it was married to the latter until 1905, Poland was not Lithuania during he late Middle years. Scotland plainly ain't a 'region', apart from in an EU report, by non-national that didn't know better! Brendandh (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should complain to the Office for National Statistics. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not good enough. Statistics, like "history" are quite moveable, and open to 'interpretation'......Brendandh (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The cabinet is traditionally drawn....

The article currently says:

The cabinet is traditionally drawn from members of the Prime Minister's party in both legislative houses, and mostly from the House of Commons, to which they are responsible.

It is too simple as it is not true where there is a coalition government (as there is now), and while coalitions governments have not been common since World War II in the first half of the 20th century there were a number of them so to say "traditionally drawn" is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "...normally drawn from members of the governing party or parties..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it with "or coalition" rather than "or parties", remembering how party unity broke down in the formation of the National Government. I've also copy-edited the remainder of the sentence in the hope of making it a bit clearer. NebY (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Confidence

The article says

The position of prime minister, the UK's head of government, belongs to the member of parliament who can obtain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons, usually the leader of the largest political party in that chamber.

"obtain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons" is not strictly true. It is possible for a prime minster to have the confidence of less than half of the house, but to defeat a vote of no confidence or win a vote of confidence because of tactical abstentions (or absences) by some members, either for tactical reasons (eg minority parties holding out for a better deal), or because some members are away from the House for some reason (such as illness), or because they refuse to take the parliamentary oath of allegiance to the Queen (Sinn Féin). I think that the last time that happened was in late 1978 when Callaghan won a confidence vote, but with only 285 votes in favour (a few months later he lost a no confidence vote 311 votes to 310).

So I think that the wording needs to be changed to a reflect that it is a "majority in a vote" rather than a "majority in the House". -- PBS (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"...a majority of those voting in the House of Commons..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's right, per Wilson in 1974. There is no "vote" prior to the appointment of any PM. Conventionally, the Queen appoints the leader of the largest party if there is no majority party or no majority coalition or pact (as in 1974). "Confidence" comes in subsequently, in that he may then have to step down or call an election if he loses a vote of no confidence (or, I think, a "money bill"). "Confidence" in the Commons is not a positive requirement prior to appointment. So long as the PM can avoid a vote of confince being actually called a "minority" PM can continue - as Wilson did in the 6 months or so after the Feb. 74 election. DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa is right (apart from a couple of quibbles - see below): conventionally, the monarch appoints* the leader of the largest party or majority coalition. This normally takes place after an election before Parliament is called and so without any parliamentary vote. Our article on minority government goes into some detail and National Government (United Kingdom) describes a period within living memory when the government was formed from parts of several parties with other parts of those parties in opposition.

* "Appoints" is not quite right. Technically, the monarch invites some person to form a government (conventionally an MP - barring the Speaker of course - but I think in law could still be a member of the House of Lords, though that would be awkward); if that person succeeds in forming a potential government then s/he and hir potential secretaries of state kiss hands. Of course, even then, s/he would not be appointed Prime Minister as that is a conventional description and not a constitutional position. And yes, this is all a gross simplification by an ignorant pleb. :) NebY (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the wording used in the article, I think it probably is as good as it's going to get. Because, actually, (I think - and to slightly adjust what I first said) where there is no majority, the Queen doesn't necessarily have to "go for" (to avoid trying to be over precise!) the leader of the largest party. I think the convention is she "invites" him to try to form a government him first. But, in fact, I think conventionally she would *appoint* (for want of a better word) the leader who is least likely to be stopped by a confidence vote. So, I believe (but am not totally sure) if behind the scenes discussions indicate that the other parties would immediately go for a confidence vote on the leader of the largest party but would "tolerate" the leader of the next largest party she would "have to" invite the latter. But this is all without any voting as such and based on "consultation" with the Grandees. The problem with the British Constitution is once you get into hypotheticals that can't be based on modern precedent it all gets rather mirky. DeCausa (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding too and I agree the current phrasing is pretty good; we wouldn't be wrong to keep it. I slightly prefer the phrasing in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, "the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party or coalition of parties that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber". "Most likely" covers both post-election and mid-term situations nicely, and that link of "confidence" to Confidence and supply is helpful - that's a handy little article. But yes, it does all get very murky if you dig a little deeper - and nearly did in 2010. NebY (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer that wording too. "Commands the confidence" is a better description because it's more suggestive of a background situation, whereas "obtains the confidence" is too positive i.e. there's been some specific event like a vote. And, as you say, "most likely" is really what it's all about. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Without putting in a paragraph to replace the sentence it is not going to be easy to describe what happens in practice, particularly towards the end of some parliaments when they are wheeling in the dying to vote, but the proposed sentence is better that which is there at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that paragraph could take ages to settle whereas now we're marvellously in agreement. I've made the change. NebY (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Languages

Jason Mandryk (2010). Operation World. Biblica Publishing. p. 850/851 lists peoples, the following of those above 0.4 % associated with a language and not Anglo-Saxon/Celtic:

• • Urdu
  • Punjabi
  • Hindi
  • Chinese
  • Bengali
  • Gujarati
  • Punjabi
  • Arabic
  • Romani/Gypsy/Irish Travellers
  • Greek
• Number of speakers (from articles given in brackets, sourced)
  • Urdu 400,000 (British Pakistanis)
  • Punjabis more than 2 million (Indians in Britain) Pakistani Punjabi 573,500 (British Pakistanis)
  • Hindi ???
  • Chinese people 466,000 (British Chinese)
  • Bengali people at least 300,000 (Bengali people)
  • Gujarati???
  • Polish ???
  • Arabic ???
  • Romani ???
  • Greek diaspora in the UK 400,000 (Greek diaspora) + Greek Cypriots 270,000 (Greek Cypriots)
• Members of peoples (percentage of the population from the book given above)
  • Hindi 0.7 %
  • Gujarati 0.5
  • Polish 0.7
  • Arabic 0.6
  • Romani/Gypsy/Irish Travellers 0.5 %

Sarcelles (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Poles article has the sourced information, that 630,000 Poles are in the UK and Bangladeshi people has the sourced information, that there are 500,000 Bangladeshis in the UK. Sarcelles (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? It's customary to suggest an amendment to the article rather than leave others to guess what you have in mind. DeCausa (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Why does the ethnic group section deal solely with skin colour and overseas groups? Some of the indigenous make-up of the UK (and non-skin colour related stuff!) would be interesting. -MacRùsgail (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the first paragraph of the Ethnic Groups section is about the genetic make-up of the "indigenous" (for want of a better word) population, so that's not quite true. However, that does somewhat confirm your underlying point: that the section makes an incorrect assumption that ethnicity equals genetics/skin colour (and nothing else). I think I would take out some of the genetics text in the first paragraph and add in the info from the 2011 census on English/Welsh/Scots etc ethnic identity - although I think (but am not sure) that the 2011 data on "English" as an ethnic descriptor hasn't been released yet (?) There are other sources that could be used in the interim for a more general point, if that's the case. (That can be a can of worms here anyway...) DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Uniformity in Nation Entries

There doesn't seem to be any uniformity in individual nation entries - if you look at the United Kingdom, then the United States for example, the ethnicity and religion is displayed in different areas. The same goes for other countries on Wikipedia. Surely the site would benefit from having the "Religion/Ethnicity/Population/Currency/Anthem" etc. shorthand sections all being identical.