Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

UK or United Kingdom?

The article refers to the state as both the UK and United Kingdom throughout. Since both are made clear in the lead, shouldn't one be chosen and used exclusively? Rob (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Variety is fine surely? As long as each term is accurate, and each is clearly being used as a synonym for the other, it makes the prose less repetitive to the reader. N-HH talk/edits 11:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Support the variety - no confusion, and consistency is unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Me too. There are cases where this sort of variation is unhelpful, but surely not here. No need for consistency for its own sake. garik (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Units of measure dispute.

A dispute regarding units of measure has been taking place at WP:UNITS. One of the editors involved, User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) has taken this dispute to this article by changing the order in which units of measure are stated from metric-first to imperial-first, even thought this article has been metric-first (or metric-only) for many years. In my view, WCM has mis-interpreted WP:UNITS. I reverted, but User:FactController (FC) reinstated WCM's changes. I reverted that, so a third editor User:Mabuska reinstated the changes. Until now, neither WCM or FC had ever contributed to this article.

In order to avoid a 3RR ban, I would like the opinion of regular contributors to this article. Martinvl (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My view is that this edit-warring, which is already happening, should stop immediately, and the involved editors should immediately go to find more productive ways of contributing to the encyclopedia. I note that at least two of those involved in this dispute have had a history of confrontation over the Falkland Islands article. Additionally, there is already a discussion in progress on the talk page for WP:UNITS which has obviously spilled over into the edit warring here! The situation of units of measurement in British articles is not a smoothly consistent one, and this is acknowleged by many. It will not be sorted out by editors previously involved in disputes on other articles or wikipedia pages jumping into this article or any other article that uses metric or imperial units and starting edit-wars on those articles when the discussion should remain and be confined to the wikipedia pages on units until a clear decision is forthcoming. You should all know better than this, because you all have a reasonable length of editing history on wikipedia (one even claims to be retired from editing!) So, I advise those involved in beginning this tedious little spat here to stop, withdraw, and do not bring to this page disputes that are already underway on other pages. Discuss the issues on the talk page thread relevant to WP:UNITS, but confine it there until the issues are resolved or attrition wears you out if you must. If necessary, I will protect this article and may do other things to protect this and other articles becoming dragged into a general kind of edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The policy at WP:UNITS seems pretty clear to me: "...the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units", then some exceptions are given. If something is not among those listed exceptions, a pretty strong case would be needed to justify imperial as the primary units. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree that this is, of course, pretty trivial. But whatever one's personal views about which is a "better" system, and despite the fact that the UK has gone semi-metric, it's uncontroversial that distances in the UK are still almost universally expressed in miles not kilometres. As noted, the guidelines reflects that fact in the exemptions by specifying "miles" and "miles per hour" as the "main units" for UK articles in "contexts" such as this. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. As I said, it's very clear. Only someone pushing a POV or displaying incompetence could really go off track. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
From WP:MOSNUM "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.". I added emphasis to bring a point out.
Also from WP:MOSNUM units are predominantly metric with the exceptions "miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon".
The original edit meant the article became inconsistent in that unit precedence switched. This edit simply restored consistency per WP:MOSNUM by putting miles first in accordance with the listed exceptions and the prior state of the article. As this was reverted, I clearly indicated I would not indulge in an edit war here, over such a trivial issue. There is no dispute, other editors simply reverted a change that was counter to WP:MOSNUM. You may wish to consider this thread in the light of a more accurate summary, which I would suggest is an utter waste of everyone's time. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The primary way of stating distance in the UK is by miles not kilometers. The guideline even states it as an exception! All of our road signs use miles, our cars have miles stated more prominently than km, the speed limit is in miles per hour. Per the guideline, Martinvl is in the wrong here imposing metric on distances in an article about a country where distance is primarily stated in miles. If you check UK settlement articles, miles is used first when referring to distances between places, i.e. Troon, Tobermore, Bangor, Gwynedd#Geography and Berwick-upon-Tweed as four random articles, one from each part of the UK, where this convention is in evidence. WCM is in the right here with his edit, no matter how trivial it is.. Mabuska (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. My comments, above, were directed solely at the edit warring that was going on (and I don't want any arguments along the lines of "please sir, it was him that started it", either). These points should have been made on this page or elsewhere without initiating or responding further to reversions. I propose that edits are made to establish miles, etc as the appropriate units, and the matter is closed.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@DarkGreen: Are you proposing that the position in this article be changed or that it remain as it was before the conflict spilt over onto this page? Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks clear that he is proposing putting miles first. Mabuska (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary - he asked that the edit-war stop. This means reverting everything, unless of course he is being a hypocrite by entering the edit-war and asking that it stop at his favoured position. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the last sentence? Looks like a formal proposal which is how this issue should of went. Mabuska (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Per DarkGreen's suggestion I believe the article is now consistent and in line with WP:MOSNUM, brining it here for comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the miles for distance is now consistent with the exceptions given in WP:MOSNUM, the exceptions are not an exhaustive list as it states "including". As such I find it wholly feasible and appropriate to also "flip" the units in regards to square km and square miles. In the UK we state "square miles" first and foremost, and in is totally viable to be classified as an exception. It would also make the whole geography section consistent in style. Mabuska (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Will Mabuska please cite the reliable sources that out "square miles" first. If he is English, I suggest that he go to his local library and look at the local structure plan for his district/unitary authority/county etc. In it he will see that area are expressed in either hectares or square kilometres. If he looks at any school study guide (available in any decent bookshop), he will see that everything is in metric units. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Upon reflection you are quite correct, however who said anything about me being English? Not everyone in the United Kingdom is English seeing as it is only a part of the UK or do you not know that? I'm sure you can find a library book or study book that tells you that. See I can give lippy attitude back as well. Though why don't you go and amend the London article, it puts square miles first. Mabuska (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Then again maybe your not correct, Encyclopedia Britannica put square miles first: Armagh, Down, Wiltshire, Isle of Man, England. Search those articles for "square miles" and what comes first? Maybe you should write to them and complain. Mabuska (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I checked Encyclopeadia britanica - yes it uses square miles for the United Kingdom, but also for Germany - being an American publication it is part of their house style to use customary units first for everything, so you observation is invalid. Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. My i.d. is DDStretch, not "DarkGreen" 2. I asked for the edit wear to stop, and it did. At that point, it is then quite acceptable for me to try to see what should happen. On reading the Manual of Style, it is clear that miles, etc are allowed. That is why I made the proposal. It merely suggest we apply what is allowed in the Manual of Style, and what some others have identifiedc as being quite common in other, related articles dealing with UK issues. 3. Martinvl accuses me of being a hypocrite. I suggest he withdraws that or there may be consequences concerning this personal attack here. It devalues his arguments completely. Just because his edits have not prevailed, there is no cause to begin with insults. I note his behaviour here. 4. That's it.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not being pursued in the correct place now. The discussion (if one can call what is regrettably descending into insult and squabbles) should be pursued on the talk pages of the appropriate manual of style articles: the talk page of WP:UNITS, for example. I urge you to do that if you feel that all articles should start to use metric units.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for using the name "DarkGreen" - I picked it up in error when reading your signature in edit mode.
For the rest, the principle of WP:BRD requires that if we discuss then we revert back to the original state and discuss, not make the change and then discuss. Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It was discussed. Your objection was found to have little basis, because the changes you objected to were allowed under the manual of style. So, it was changed. You can perpetuate the discussion if you want, but it seems like delaying tactics to some, I suggest. You don't like using miles, etc. I also don't, in fact, because I favour SI units, but I go by what is in the manual of style and I do not try to changes things in articles when others object. In other words, I get over it and work within what is allowed and with other editors, which means compromise and accepting defeat on occasions. If you want to make a change to the manual of style, go and start or perpetuate a discussion there.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for getting your name wrong DDStretch, I should wear my reading glasses more often as I picked it up from the colour scheme in your signature. To answer Mabuska's query, MoS suggests we maintain the status quo on articles, since areas were predominantly already in Sq km, I chose to flip the one example that wasn't to achieve consistency. And as the article was originally written per MoS to put miles first that is what I did. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I also favour metric over imperial for most things, I too sacrifice my own beliefs to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines many times, which in this case makes perfect sense as imperial is the predominant way of showing distance in the UK. On Encyclopedia Britannica, it's an easy mistake to make based on the name of it, maybe they should rename it Encyclopedia Americana instead 8-/ Mabuska (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted all the units of measure changes that were made, ostensibly as a result as changes to WP:UNITS. Changes to that page only affect engineering structures, not discussions related physical geography. Please do not reinsert changes until the current version of WP:UNITS has been clarified. The view of User:RGloucester ([here]) is that " Metric can take priority, except for road speeds, road distances, personal heights and personal weights" - a number of other editors have taken a similar view. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't RGloucester's last word on the subject. In this later edit he said "In most cases, miles should be used for distances. I don't think anyone would say otherwise." This preference for miles is the consensus, and I would remind you that WP:Consensus says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", so your dissenting voice doesn't give you a veto, Martin. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, there is no consensus, so the last stable version is the version that must prevail. That is the basis of WP:BRD. (Obviously changes to the article that are unrelated to this dispute should remain). Moreover, the meaning of WP:UNITS should be discussed on that page, not here. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? No consensus? Everyone who has commented AFAICT, except one person, says both the guidelines and real-world usage favours miles. N-HH talk/edits 21:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
ps: I'm loath to get involved in an edit war over this but I have reverted Martin's reversion. I'd seriously advise you to drop this Martin. The consensus here is clear and I really don't see the need for this to take up any more talk page space or article back-and-forth than it already has. Looking further into it, this seems to be some kind of personal mission across the site and even off-WP on the part of one user, and it's very, very boring for everyone else. Please stop trying to impose your personal preferences on everyone else. N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This article, like every other article in Wikipedia, should follow WP:MOS. At no stage has WP:MOS (or its subsidiary pages) ever required that metric units should ever take precedence over imperial units in UK articles relating to physical geography. The discussion is going on there, not here. Therefore please argue your case there, not here. Martinvl (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't appreciate being quoted for sake of petty disputes over units. Martin, please refrain from trying to use my words to bolster an argument I hardly care about. Furthermore, you were present for that discussion and know well and truly that what you've quoted wasn't the full extent of my opinion on the matter, and misrepresented what I was saying. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
@User:RGloucester - It might have been better if I cited this exchange instead of the one I used earlier. Whatever else you were saying, you were arguing that physical geography should be discussed at a later date. However User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) rushed into the fray in this article before the issue surrounding units of measure relating to physical geography had been discussed at WP:UNITS, making WCM's contribution premature, if not inappropriate. Martinvl (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I also dislike (unjustly) being called a hypocrite by Martin, which I note he has not yet withdrawn or struck out, despite it being a clear personal attack.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
At no stage did I call you a hypocrite, I was accusing User:Mabuska of implying that you were a hypocrite by twisting what you had said. Please re-read the comments and you will see that my comment was directed at Mabuska, not you. Martinvl (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't you dare make such false accusations because no-one would back up your opinion. I never implied DDStretch was a hypocrite. They hit out about the edit-warring, but said they'd propose to use imperial. I made mention of that in response to youtr inability to read what they had wrote, which was evident by your question to them. Shame on you, just because you've lost your argument. Mabuska (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact here is the exact situation your trying to distort, which ended with a question you failed to respond too:

Anybody with a brain can see that nowhere did I imply DDStretch was a hypocrite. I request you withdraw your false accusation, and anyone with a brain can tell that I propose that edits are made to establish miles, etc as the appropriate units, and the matter is closed. is as I responded It looks clear that he is proposing putting miles first.. Apology please. Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And unless of course he is being a hypocrite sounds pretty much like an accusation about DDStretch as well. The best thing Martinvl is to just stop, make an apology to everyone you've made allegations against and drop your incessant pushing of metric here. Then we can all go our separate ways and live merrily ever after... hopefully. Mabuska (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To Martinvl: You are either forgetting what you wroite, or you are telling untruths to hide what you wrote. I quote your message of 3 October 2013 at 5:49am (my time in China) when you were clearly writing abouyt me, because it was me who asked for the edit-warring to stop: "On the contrary - he asked that the edit-war stop. This means reverting everything, unless of course he is being a hypocrite by entering the edit-war and asking that it stop at his favoured position. Martinvl (talk) 5:49 am, 3 October 2013, Thursday (8 days ago) (UTC+8)" I suggest that your continued refusal to apologize and distort what was said means it may become more likely for me to take the matter further. DDStretch  (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Mabuska - please calm down. Lets put things into perspective. DDStretch asked that we (you, me, and others) stop edit-warring on this page. If the edit-war is to cease immediately, then the appropriate action is to restore the situation that existed before the edit war started which was to restore metric-first, but DDStretch implied that he wanted imperial-first. I asked DDStretch to clarify himself. You should have let DDStretch answer for himself and not butted in. If you strike the unsolicited pre-emptive answer that you made on behalf of DDStretch, I will strike out my response to you and DDStretch can then explain himself as originally requested. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
More wriggling, and it is not up to you to place restrictions on what is to be done. You need to make a complete and absolute withdrawal of your various statements about other people. That is the way it is done. Most people faced with this reality would make an immediate and unconditional withdrawal and apology, and worry about anything else only later. I note that you have not done this, and attempt to pursue the situation further by trying to control the situation: it is now not for you to control apart from making the withdrawal and apologies.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, there is no need at all for me "to explain [my]self" as you seem to want make me do: the reason is that I already did so. There is nothing wrong with what Mabuska did, either, and to accuse him of "butting in" is quite unjustified, because anyone is free to comment when they like, unless they have had some restrictions placed on them. Once again, it is not up to you to place these kinds of restrictions on people before you withdraw a personal attack. If you enter into the spirit of wikipedia, you would do so immediately without quibbling, because your admission that you will withdraw the statements is itself an admission that you made them, and they can be seen by many as being personal attacks!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Lets go back to your first statement. Here you asked that edit-warring stop forthwith. A very good suggestion, I was trying to stop Wee Curry Monster dragging the edit war onto this page. The normal procedure when making such a request is for all the protagonists to withdraw their statements and that the status as it existed before the conflict started be restored. If you were were "Honest Joe" trying to get the edit conflict away from the article, why did you propose closure without reversion to original positions here? Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us be clear here, I refused to edit war over this, please stop trying to imply otherwise. The only person being disruptive here is you, everyone else thinks you're unnecessarily focused on trivia. Not for the first time am I thinking an wp:rfc/u may be warranted as this is becoming decidedly disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. RGloucester — ☎ 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
To Martinvl: Evasion by raising issues to avoid withdrawing personal attack. Furthermore, you imply extra things by implying, by your question, that an "Honest Joe" would not do certain things. I have explained exactly what I did. I was not involved in thuis dispute when the edit-war happened. I called for the edit-war to stop. The edit-war stopped. At that point, I am then quite within my rights to make a suggestion after I had read the corresponding sections of WP:UNITS and seen what other editors had written. All the discussion showed all editors EXCEPT YOURSELF were in favour of using imperial measures. You appeared to not want to understand that point. So, the consensus went against you, and now you are effectively gaming the system by suggesting that everything was not done exactly according to some suggestions, and thus attempting to force a change against consensus. We could, if you wanted, change it all back to the state you want, and then immediately read the views, conclude that the consensus exists, and then immediately change it back again to what it is like now. This "instantaneous" change would satisfy the rules you say should be followed, but it would be being highly disruptive over a trivial matter for you to insist on this. Wi8kipedia is not a bureaucracy. As one other editor has commented, there is evidence that this is some kind of personal crusade on your part on wikipedia. You need to calculate what the consequences for this are carefully now given previous somewhat similar incidents you have been involved with, because I am thinking now that I would go along now with taking the matter further against you.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Calm down? After your uncalled for smartass comments and accusations towards me to save your own skin why should I? I think that further action in regards to Martinvl's actions and continued twisting of other editors comments for their own ends may be the best course. Their behaviour to other editors here has been deplorable and has only caused a load of bad faith between him and everyone else. Their continued pushing of their viewpoint on the article itself despite the fact no-one else agrees with them is a further cause of bad faith and lack of respect for other editors. As such I second WCM's idea of wp:rfc/u. Mabuska (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also If you strike the unsolicited pre-emptive answer that you made on behalf of DDStretch, I will strike out my response to you and DDStretch can then explain himself as originally requested - who do you think you are? No wait, never mind. This is Wikipedia not Martinipedia, and I have a right to leave such a harmless response. Your actions since then, not mine, are the ones that are unsolicited. Mabuska (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For information, this has now been forum shopped to an RFC here. I will be taking issue with the continued personalisation of matters at WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would someone be looking for the Great Britain article?

Gareth Griffith-Jones, Why would someone looking for the Island of Great Britain article end up at this article? Why would they search 'United Kingdom' or click on a link to the 'United Kingdom' if they were looking for the Island of Great Britain? The Island of Great Britain is never called the 'United Kingdom', correctly or by accident. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If Britain was a straight redirect to this page, such clarification would definitely be worth keeping, as someone looking for the island could easily end up here. However, as Britain is currently a disambiguation page, I agree that's unlikely. That said, the nomenclature issues here are of course complex and I can't see that the hatnote guideline definitively prohibits its inclusion. Given all that, I'm fairly ambivalent about what we actually do here. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
... furthermore the term/s "Great Britain" and "GB" do apply to this country (United Kingdom)— and we should always remember that this project is an encyclopaedia for all nations on planet Earth  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The terms may apply to this country however the term 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' does not apply to the island. Currently Britain, Great Britain and GB do not redirect to this page, nor does the title of the page suggest that this page would be the location of the article about the Island of Great Britain. I still don't understand how someone would end up at this page while looking for the article about the Island of Great Britain? In what scenario would that happen? Regards, Rob (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Britain and Great Britain are common synonyms for the state. But United Kingdom is not a synonym for the island. There's no need for a hat note from this article to Great Britain because no confusion is likely to occur. --RA (✍) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kww, see above. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the level of knowledge you expect readers to have. If you went to the average American in the street and asked them to tell you the difference between "England", "Great Britain", and "United Kingdom", they would give you a scornful look and tell you that they were all different words for the same thing. Certainly our articles should work to alleviate this ignorance, but the navigation aids shouldn't rely on such ignorance magically disappearing.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This should not be determined based on the average readers knowledge of the terms used to describe the United Kingdom, but instead the average readers knowledge on term used to describe the island of Great Britain but who will also be likely to look for an article about the island of Great Britain. In what scenario would someone looking for geographic information about the island of Great Britain search the term 'UK' or 'United Kingdom'? I don't think someone looking for information about an island wouldn't know the name of it, and I highly doubt they would mistake it for the name of a state called the 'United Kingdom'. Maybe someone may think the island is called 'England' but I can't see even the average American calling it the 'United Kingdom'. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Most Americans believe the terms to be fully interchangeable. Any arguments based on "why would they look for x when they meant y" implies that they were aware x and y had distinct meanings in the first place.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Kww(talk) — exactly my point. That is the reason behind my reverting Rob (talk)Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The point about confusion over terminology is of course right; but the point is surely more a technical/practical sub-point about specific redirects and the hatnote. As noted, even if someone might well type in "Britain" or "Great Britain" when looking for this page, surely even the most confused person would not type in "United Kingdom" if they were looking for the specialist geographic page we have on the island – they would be looking for the page on the state. And the link to that island page is anyway provided in the second sentence here. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The point of the hatnote is to redirect users who are looking for an article with geographic information about the island of Great Britain who have arrived at this article by searching a term they relate with the island. I don't think anyone who is looking for an article with geographic information about the island of Great Britain would relate the term the 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' with the island. Your average American, along with anyone else who is completely unaware of the name of the island is highly unlikely to be looking for geographic information about the island, thus would never use the hatnote making it useless. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's easy enough to test. Have the hatnote go to a new DAB page, which itself goes to GB. Then, see how many clicks the hatnote gets in a month. If it gets traffic, it was obviously useful to users. Why don't we just test it and find out rather than theorizing? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently there is not source to suggest that it is being used, I don't have to provide a source to remove unsourced material, and there is good reason to believe it isn't being used, whereas there is little reason as to why it is. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, several very good reasons have been provided above - namely that Great Britain is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom. You may note that the license plates for British cars are marked "GB". In addition, there are dozens of redirects to the UK page, so you don't know what someone may have typed to end up there. A redirect to the island of GB at the top is perfectly reasonable, in the same way we do so for Ireland due to the naming complexities. Sources have nothing to do with hatnotes, btw. Are you willing to test your theory that it's not being used, or do you prefer to just continue guesstimating? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Non of the terms are redirected to this page, and so a reader would have to click on a link to the 'United Kingdom' while looking for Great Britain. The only reason why someone would arrive at this page while looking for the article about the island of Great Britain would be if they though either 'UK' or 'United Kingdom' was the name of the island. So to suggest this, you would be suggesting that someone who would be looking for geographic information about an island, would think the island may be called the 'UK' or 'United Kingdom', and I highly doubt someone looking for that kind of information would not know that 1. the 'United Kingdom' is only a political entity (which the phrase suggests) and 2. that Great Britain was the name of the island that they were looking for geographic information about. Someone looking for geographic information about an island might not know the name of it? Really? Rob (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubt all you want Rob. Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for example, links to the UK page, and if you were to take a poll of Americans I seriously doubt many would have the nuanced understanding of all of these terms that those from there have today. I think many people coming to this page may not know exactly what they are looking for - ideally they want info on a country, and if I'm looking for info on Iceland, I go to the Iceland page - to find out about the government, AND the volcanoes. In the case of the UK/etc, there's a weird mapping between states and islands and "countries" within that requires complex venn diagrams to explain, so I'm still quite boggled why you insist that a notification to the reader uptop is of zero use whatsoever. In any case, this discussion about whether the hatnote is theoretically used or useful is not worth continuing IMHO. I've changed the link to point to a scarcely used redirect. As such, I suggest we see how many hits it gets over the next month then decide if the hatnote is worth keeping. Experience trumps theory, almost always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No one's disputing that Great Britain is indeed an often used synonym for the UK, or that the terminology as a whole is confusing, but United Kingdom is not an often used synonym for the island of Great Britain. You can't just reverse the logic on that specific point. Sure, it's only guesswork, but I tend to agree with Rob that someone who is at the point of genuinely looking for the island itself is unlikely to end up here in error, whether through redirect or a straight typed search. Equally, anyone here who does want to move on to the island page has the link in the second sentence of the lead. Btw, on a related point, I'm not sure the switch to "usually" from "strictly" here is for the best. It kind of gives the impression that when someone says Great Britain more casually, eg Obama saying "we value our relationship with Great Britain", they are likely to be excluding Northern Ireland from the political unit they are referring to. N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we don't need to theorize. Let's just sit back and see how many hits the redirect racks up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The number of hits on your redirect will give you a clue how many people might want to go from one page to a related topic, but it doesn't tell you anything as to whether it is a valid hatnote. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There exists no harm with the articles current revision.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that hatnotes are for navigational purposes, the number of hits will indeed indicate that such a hatnote is useful. We have 3 different editors claiming a possibility of confusion here; others disagree - so the evidence from the page hits will let us know whether users use that hatnote, and if they do, I think it should stay. Others have claimed that no users will ever need such a hatnote - but if users click on it, then I guess they're wrong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A hatnote, as currently defined at Wikipedia:Hatnote, exists specifically to deal with readers who have arrived at the article containing the hatnote "because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names." It is not intended to cover more general cases of related topics, see WP:RELATED. There are other links in the article which cater adequately for readers interested in related topics, and you don't need to misuse a hatnote to do that. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just on an issue from a recent edit, not sure we need the "sometime used, particulary in the United States" it is slightly misleading as it is sometimes used by a lot more people than just Americans including people in the United Kingdom itself. Having been used as a synonym for over two hundred odd years the wording should reflect that and remove the "particularly in the United States" bit. The use of Great Britain to just mean the island in common usage is a fairly recent and still very limited mainly to officialdom. Whatever we say here it is unlikely that people using Great Britain as a synonym would even consider they were talking about the island, or that they would be excluding Northern Ireland in the real world. MilborneOne (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Surely the most recent edit deals with that, in that it removed the longstanding claim that it was solely "foreign usage" and replaced it with the more general observation that it is "sometimes" seen (ie everywhere, including in the UK). It nonetheless retains the additional point that it is "particularly" used in the United States, on the very plausible basis that is indeed more commonly used there than in other places. N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that it is more common in the United States it makes it sound like an Americanism when it is fairly common everywhere particularly in the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
'The term Great Britain strictly only refers to the island of Great Britain' contradicts 'is sometimes used, particularly in the United States, as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole'. How can it strictly only refer to one thing, but sometimes refer to another. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Rob, I think you may be interpreting "strictly" to mean something like "exclusively" or "without exception", which I'm pretty certain is not what was intended. The sentence means "In strict usage, the term Great Britain refers only to...". The sentence could have been better written, of course. garik (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"Strictly" is perfectly good English I'd have thought and is quite a common way of highlighting a distinction between what is technically "correct" and common usage. I'm not sure changing it to "in strict usage" is necessary for clarity or making it "better written" particularly. As for "Americanism", the "particularly in America" point could easily go, but I think it arguably adds something and as phrased it simply does not suggest it is used only in America or that it is an American invention. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Results of ~2 months of an updated hatnote. Back in August, we replaced the link to Great Britain in the hatnote with a link to "Island of Great Britain", a redirect that had little other usage at the time. As you can see from the page views, there are now an average of 75 users a day clicking on that link, almost all of them from the heading of this article, to get to Great Britain. As such, I think we have conclusively answered the question of whether some users arriving here may want to go to Great Britain article instead. I think the hatnote should remain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the British Isles to History of Britain move proposal

I have started a discussion at Talk:History of the British Isles#Move proposal to propose moving History of the British Isles to History of Britain so that it becomes the main overview article on the history of Britain (and its incorporated and unincorporated territory) since the start of time to present. This includes changing the content at History of the United Kingdom. Rob (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Music

I'd suggest we're better off without Duffy here. It's just too easy to let this list expand as passing editors add more and more names to it and, in fact, I think Duffy's name was only added recently. Ultimately, it's hard to argue she is really a top-tier UK artist in the same way that some of the others mentioned are and she is not anyway mentioned, for what that's worth, in the source that happens to be cited at the end of the list currently. N-HH talk/edits 16:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain as common name in lead

OK, so this has come up again. Although I don't think it has to be there, it is arguably a helpful improvement and offers relevant and accurate information (for those who have forgotten or didn't participate, here's the last lengthy discussion on the issue). To deny that the UK is commonly known as GB is a little odd and it is, as noted, already recorded in more detail in the terminology section and hence can happily be mentioned briefly in the lead too. You can argue that it is, strictly, an error, but that's a different point; in any event, something becomes increasingly less an error the more common it is. And you can see how common it is, including in some serious sources, by reviewing its prevalence in books, news reports and the web as a whole (I chose the "PM of .." construction both to limit the false positive returns and also because it flags up the point that by ignoring this usage, we are implicitly suggesting that these sources are referring to the PM of an island).
I know in the previous discussion that some argued we can mention it but only if it is described as an error, but as argued in the previous discussion, that just seems overly instructional to me. Constructions and meta-commentary such as "it should be noted" or "but this is in error" read patronisingly in encyclopedic writing and just add clunkiness, especially in a lead, where we are aiming, presumably, for concision. The fact that we immediately mention that the main island is called Great Britain and the more detailed explanation in the main terminology section should be enough. People understand the principle of pars pro toto (even if they might not know the Latin phrase). N-HH talk/edits 08:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the current wording - that is, not mentioning the use of "Great Britain" in the lead, but mentioning it as a "loose synonym" in the Terminology section. We need to have regard to "common use", but at the same time we are producing an encyclopedia and need to be as accurate as we can be. It's a matter of balance. I agree that we shouldn't refer to it as "an error" or "inaccurate" - we should just explain in the text that it is a loose usage, not a precise synonym - and certainly not suggest or imply in any way that it is as correct or acceptable a synonym as "Britain" - and leave it at that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we could find a phrasing that distinguishes the formal name, the "approved" short form(s) and the "common but improper" short form(s) without being too clunky or patronising or technical, something like "commonly known as the United Kindom... but also often called Great Britain". NebY (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Something like that would probably be my preference. It's possibly too easy for British editors, who are aware that it is a technical "error" and who, precisely because that fact is more accepted in the UK itself, perhaps don't see it that often, to want to avoid mentioning it this early in the lead. However, I think that runs the risk of forgetting that it is actually quite common elsewhere and hence mentioning it in some form would add clarity for a wider international readership. N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
N-HH has given above a link to the extremely long and detailed discussion we had on this question only just over a year ago. I hope people will read through it before launching into all this again now as if from scratch. The compromise arrived at, called the "loosely" compromise, left GB out of the first sentence but noted in the etymology section that GB is sometimes loosely used to mean UK, was eventually accepted by most of the contributors to that discussion, even including DeCausa who was gracious enough to say that he had shifted his position and was persuaded by my wording. This compromise then stood until 20 September last, when an editor not previously involved, in one of only three edits to this article over five years, added GB to the first sentence, see [edit]. That is the change I have now reverted (goodness knows how none of us noticed it for a whole month). I am glad to see that Ghmyrtle thinks we should now leave it as it is, and sad to see that N-HH seems to have changed position since the previous discussion, on the basis of which there is clearly no consensus for further change. -- Alarics (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's "sad" when people change their mind. And, as it is, I haven't anyway. As I noted in both discussions, I'm kind of ambivalent but leaning towards inclusion in the lead in some form – many people don't read beyond leads after all, and what something is called or known as is pretty fundamental information that should kick off any page. I opened another thread because: a) the addition had stood now for a while (I certainly noticed it btw but was happy to leave it); and b) the slow edit-war over it had two editors in favour of inclusion and only one against. That may be because people aren't fussed either way, or because they don't want to get stuck into an edit war, but consensus can change of course. Also, I'm not sure the consensus was as clear as is being suggested: there was a spread of opinion in favour of saying something about this usage in the lead, but less agreement on how to say it. That ended up, as so often, with it being left out altogether. N-HH talk/edits 10:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it sad because if we are going to reopen this whole thing again now, it sets at naught the immense amount of time and effort many of us invested in the previous discussion, during which many of us made compromises from our ideal positions on all sides of the argument in order to work towards an agreement. -- Alarics (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The change from the previous wording was made - without any significant discussion - by User:WheelerRob here (and subsequently reverted and re-added, most recently by User:DeCausa). So far as I'm concerned, the existing wording stands until such time as Rob (and/or others) provide a sufficiently persuasive justification for changing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't spotted that it was WheelerRob who first sought to unilaterally depart from the year-long compromise. -- Alarics (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
But there was no "compromise". Yes, an protracted attempt was made to find a form of words that everyone could agree on but it failed and hence the reference was simply left out altogether – which was the preference, ultimately, probably of a minority. That said, I accept that the status quo should probably remain for now in the absence of clear agreement to change it and on how to change it (although the arguments in favour of acknowledging the common use of GB seem, as a matter of principle, insurmountable and the objections to noting it misplaced). N-HH talk/edits 11:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Alarics, I did read it. I was hoping to suggest a different approach, one that as far as I could tell hadn't been directly discussed and yet, if I understood the discussion correctly, just might be be acceptable. But I do understand your annoyance at this being re-opened barely more than a year after the last discussion and I'll shut up now. NebY (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the lede as is. Whilst Great Britain is a common name at times for the UK, so too is England going by how many Americans erroneously refer to UK as that. Britain I think is a far more common name for the UK meriting mention. Then again I can be wrong. Mabuska (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

'Great Britain' is used formally, and sometimes even officially (mostly by foreign entities) to refer to the United Kingdom, whereas 'England' is usually only used informally. I think that the official use of this term is important, and I don't think Wikipedia should encourage the use of a term incorrectly, however I would question how incorrect 'Great Britain' is, considering 'Britain', according to the UK Government, is deemed acceptable to refer to the UK. To some extent, you could argue that the distinction the UK Government is making between 'Britain' and 'Great Britain' is simply for convenience, similar to how 'Eire' was used to refer to the Republic of Ireland, in that, they weren't suggesting 'Eire' isn't synonymous with 'Ireland', but instead assigning it an alternative legal meaning in UK law, so that it would always be clear which entity they are referring to. I don't want restart a discussion on this, if there is nothing new to add, as it's just a waste of time, since the consensus is unlikely to change. I personally only have slight preference to including the term in the lead anyway. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in discussing this again. (I'd just re-state in passing that GB is not "erroneous" any more than "Britain" is. Neither are "correct". In the UK currently, the latter is conventionally favoured by governmental sources and newspapers etc., in the same way that "England" was 70+ years ago. In many parts of the English-speaking world outside the UK, GB is conventionally favoured by governmental sources and newspapers etc. That's all.) Anyways...all I will add is that I reverted Alarics because the reference to GB had stood for a month after someone put it in. Other words in that sentence had been edited, without GB being removed. There was a case to be made that consensus had changed, but as is obvious from this thread, that case can no longer be made. DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As acknowledged, there would indeed appear to be no consensus to make the change and add anything to the lead, but the numbers in this thread are four, by my maths, at least open to having something and only three outright against. I'd quickly add in response to Mabuska that I think the "England for UK" comparison is flawed. As noted, it may have been more common a while back, but it really is not common these days, and any serious source that deployed it would swiftly disavow their use of it as an error. That is simply not the case with the use of GB, which remains common and is not thought to be an error by many of those deploying it, even if it is by many others, including by "official" standards. As I've said, I can't quite see the point in refusing to at least briefly acknowledge that indisputable fact in the "known as" sentence of the lead, but there you go. As we all know, a lot of space has been wasted on it and could still yet be. N-HH talk/edits 08:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No where did I suggest we actually add "England" in. I was pointing out there are other names people use for the UL that aren't in the lede. Most times I see GB used in media it's in reference primarily with the island of GB ignoring the part of the UK across the Irish Sea, aka Northern Ireland.
On England being not common these days (I did say amongst Americans not the world)? Tell that to most of the Floridans I spoke too when on holiday there in May. In fact just to show how ignorant some where in regards to this issue, the following discussion actually happened between me and one American: American: "Where you from?" Me: "United Kingdom." American: "Oh your from England, I thought you where Scottish." Me: *shakes head* "I'm actually from Northern Ireland, but there all part of the UK". American: "Ooh". Mabuska (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The difference is however, 'England' is outright incorrect, whereas 'Great Britain' is arguably as correct as 'Britain'. In my opinion, 'Britain' is synonymous with 'Great Britain', and as they are both used to refer to the UK, they should both be included, even if one has an alternative meaning in UK law. Rob (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
But they are not synonymous. "Great Britain" has a specific geographical meaning and is not generally used officially to mean the UK. "Britain" and especially "British" are in constant use at official levels as the name of the state. The British delegation to the EU, the British Embassy, etc. The notes in my passport refer to "British nationals" and "British citizens". You never hear of "Great British citizens". On 3 Sep 1939 prime minister Chamberlain said when declaring the war, "the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note". He did not say "The Great British Ambassador" and nobody ever says that.
If people still want to include in the lead the "looser" (several of us would say "inaccurate", but in a spirit of compromise we already agreed not to press that point; "loosely" is borrowed from the OED's wording) use of GB to mean the whole state, we could revive a proposal made in the previous discussion to add it to the second sentence, such as "The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state)..." This idea met with considerable acceptance in last year's discussion. -- Alarics (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd go along with that, if it helps resolve this. We can't base an encyclopedia page on Rob's "opinion" that the two terms are synonymous and "arguably as correct as" each other - they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
'Great Britain' is derived from 'Britain', and they still both refer to the island. The state being named 'Britain' is derived from the island (or historical country named after the island) in which most of the states territory is located. Therefore, its usage may vary (and its correctness in specific usage), for whatever reason, but I would think they are still linguistically synonymous, whereas 'England' is linguistically different. Also, 'British' is arguably the demonym for 'Great Britain', not 'Great British', as per its use pre-1801. Regardless, like Ghmyrtle says, that they are completely synonymous, is only my opinion, and my comparison of its use to that of 'Ireland' and 'Eire' in UK law only, is just an observation. I also agree with your proposal. Rob (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So can we agree to make the second sentence read thus: "The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands."? -- Alarics (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This point is Q2 of the FAQs noted at the top of this page. Any editor attempting to change that consensus should be notified of it. Once notified, It should be incumbent upon that editor to read the previous discussion and bring (only) any new argument to the attention of this talkpage. If no new argument is brought forward, the current consensus should stand. @WheelerRob: Do you have any new argument not already discussed before the current consensus was reached? Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not an approach supported by WP:CONSENSUS. Your suggestion appears to be predicated on the assumption that an unchanging Praetorian Guard around an article need to be persuaded by a new argument before the previous consensus can change. Admittedly, that's often the practical reality. Not always though. Consensus often changes because of the composition of the editors who are active on an article changes - without necessarily any new arguments being put forward. Perhaps that's not applicable to this article. But to semi-codify it in the way you suggest seems antithetical to the spirit of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and could be seen as smacking of WP:OWN. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that is the approach supported by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus can change says: “Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.” (my emphasis). It goes on to say “... in most cases an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.”, which wasn't the case here. I am proposing that editors changing existing consensus on controversial topics such as this are pointed to the FAQs at the top of the page and to the discussion where the previous consensus was reached. They should then be asked to bring only previously unconsidered arguments to the attention of this talkpage. That way, we won't have to go over previously-discussed (and well-known/rehearsed) arguments again and again. Implying I have ownership issues on this article is both inaccurate and uncalled-for. I happen to disagree with several items on this article, yet I respect the consensus on those issues. Daicaregos (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to add to my previous post, which stands, except to say firstly my point revolved around your suggested requirement of a "new argument" not the need to post on talk before making a change and secondly I didn't say that that you, as an individual editor, had "ownership issues" of this article. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The only point I noted, which wasn't previously discussed was "I would question how incorrect 'Great Britain' is, considering 'Britain', according to the UK Government, is deemed acceptable to refer to the UK. To some extent, you could argue that the distinction the UK Government is making between 'Britain' and 'Great Britain' is simply for convenience, similar to how 'Eire' was used to refer to the Republic of Ireland, in that, they weren't suggesting 'Eire' isn't synonymous with 'Ireland', but instead assigning it an alternative legal meaning in UK law, so that it would always be clear which entity they are referring to." Rob (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No matter what consensus is reached here the fact that Great Britain is still a commonly used term for the country means it will keep coming back for discussion, hiding it in the body of the article obviously doesnt make it go away. Why cant we just accept what is in real life and add it to the lead like commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain and particularly in the 19th and early 20th century as Great Britain. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the last discussion, it's obvious that many editors have changed their preference, and new editors, such as myself have been introduced to the discussion. Although in contrast with 'Britain', 'Great Britain' is less frequently used to refer to the UK, and is used officially very rarely, they are fundamentally very similar, in that their linguistic meaning is not the UK, therefore, we are looking at the extent to which 'Great Britain' refers to the UK, and whether it is significant enough to be included in some form, in the introduction. Since this is not black and white and the current discussion has no strong consensus, I think we should do a straight forward vote on whether 'Great Britain', referring to the UK, should be included in some form in the introduction. Then, if preference is for some form of inclusion, we can go on to discuss what this form would be. Rob (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Votes dont normally resolve these sort of issues that have been going on for a long time, it is better to make reasoned arguments and try and find a centre ground for compromise, it is a bit of a balancing act and if the consensus is not right it will keep getting raised by new or sometimes the same users. The fact that it has been discussed before is no reason not to see if the consensus has changed. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
MilborneOne urges compromise, but I have already proposed a compromise. Could people please respond to that, instead of fruitlessly going back over the same arguments yet again when we already know we won't get agreement on them. Here is the proposal again: Leave the first sentence as it is but amend the second sentence to read: "The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands."? Please just say if you can accept this or not, and if not, why not. (Rob ahd Ghmyrtle have already said further up the page that they agree with it.) -- Alarics (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As in the previous discussion, I'd be fine with that or something like it. N-HH talk/edits 10:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As a compromise between differing opinions it seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That's five in favour and none against, and no further comments in the past two days, so I have gone ahead and made the change. -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

English language proficiency diagram

The illustration that keeps being added back in is clearly in violation of the guidelines at MOS:SANDWICH on sandwiching of text. Even if it wasn't it appear in the wrong section (religion) due to the fact that there is already an illustration in the language section. Futhermore its relevance is in question. In a generally article on the UK it hardly seems significant since it deals with an topic not even mentioned in the text and it only deals with England and Wales, not the UK. All that said if there is a consensus to replace the map of the English speaking world we could swap them.--SabreBD (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Mottoes and suchlike

User:Rob984 While Scotland remains a part of the Union of 1707, its symbolism as the other part of the Union should be presented here, ex colonies are irrelevant here. Its motto In Defens, the , etc. As for historicity of use, here's a sample of pictures of the 2009 opening of the Scottish Parliament, of which the third clearly shows HM's Bentley with the quartering of Scotland. [1] The Anglo-centrism here is an example of sleeping with an elephant indeed! Brendandh (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Rob984 said in his edit summary on 16 November that the statement at www.royal.gov.uk "From the times of the Stuart kings, the Scottish quarterings have been used for official purposes in Scotland" suggests they are no longer used. On the contrary, those words suggest to me that they *are* still being used. So I favour putting back the Scottish coat of arms that Rob984 removed. -- Alarics (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted my edit as it's against consensus, and these info-box sections should really reflect what is stated at the relevant topic's articles. Therefore, I think these are really discussions to be had at the relevant topic articles; Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, Dieu et mon droit and In My Defens God Me Defend. Apologies, Rob (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I might be totally wrong, but I have always been led to believe in all my study of British history that the motto and arms in the info-box are those of the monarch, not of the country - is this the case and if so should they really be in this article (or at least, should they be so prominent)? 141.228.106.148 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No you're not wrong, to a point. The monarch (or rather the crown) and the country are transubstantially one. (rather more codified in England than elsewhere, however) Therefore symbols of royalty, are by default symbols of the nation(s), see the amount of Lion Rampant flags (the monarch's personal emblem) displayed at any Scots sporting fixtures, or the Three Leopards for England's. The Royal mottoes are a super variant of the Scottish crest badge, where a member of a clan shows his chief's slogan. Brendandh (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Unification of England in infobox

I have added the Unification of England (c.927) to the history section of the table. Since the Monarchy of the United Kingdom is a successor of the Monarchy of England, and since the Kingdom of England's history is so often linked to British history, even on this site, I felt this info belonged in the table. Toolen (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm, England's monarchy died out with Elizabeth I (even the legality of her reign is dubious, and it can be argued that the last legitimate holder of that title was Richard III) King James VI of Scotland became King of England, so I'd turn that on its head. Brendandh (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Similar arguments would apply to the formation of other countries within the United Kingdom. We discuss the histories of the parts of the UK in other articles and their formation does not fall within the scope of this one. Please do not make further attempts to reinstate your material until there is clear consensus in favour of and please take note of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. NebY (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It is out of the scope of the article and, as the section at Unification of England demonstrates, there is no consensus on a single date.--SabreBD (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The English control of Scotland was already established well before the Acts of Union, and the English monarchy and the British Monarchy are basically one and the same. Even before the Act of Union of 1707, the monarchy for the nations was in London. Also, the date I am using is the date used in most articles. If there is a problem with the date, I'll just put a c. (circa) in front of the date. I hope that will satisfy the other editors on the site. (Toolen (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

Brendandh is referring to the Union of the Crowns (1603), when the James VI, King of Scots, inherited the Crown of England. Since then the English and British monarchs are all descendants of Scottish, Dutch or German nobility. It could be said that England ceased to exist in 1066, when it became a vassal state of the French crown and was ruled by French speakers (from France, you see?). Or before then, when it was a possession of the Danish Crown and Danish vassals sat on the throne as King of England. Indeed, maybe even a few short decades at the start of the last millennium were the only times in the past 1,000 years when an "English" monarch sat on the English throne. For even Elizabeth, for all her talk of being "mere English", was of Welsh descent. None of this is ancient history, by the way. Remember, the current lot are only "Windsors" for less than a century, being originally the House of Hanover (in Germany, you know?).
Anyway, the unification of England isn't very significant. I'm surprised the annexation of Wales is absent though. --Tóraí (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I partly agree with Toolen. This discussion back in April was similarly over what preceded the UK, and what was the UK. I'm not convinced the annexation of Wales and the union of Great Britain and Ireland were that much different to the union of England and Scotland. Most of the British institutions and bodies "formed" during the union were continuations of the English institutions and bodies, with Scottish elements integrated. On the unification of England, the West Saxon kingdom transition to become England similarly really wasn't the creation of a new state. From my current understanding, the state we today call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is the same state as the kingdom of the West Saxons, formed in the 6th century. I don't think the evolution of the territory of a single state in these so called "unions" with other states constitutes as the formation of a new states. I think this article should either cover the UK from 1801, it's last major constitutional change, or from the 6th century, when it was first formed. Rob (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't, each previous state has its own article. The 1707 Union was highly different than the one of 1801. The Irish State had been long ruled by the Lord lieutenant, (or Lord Deputy, Viceroy etc.) on behalf of the Monarch of England, who was also Monarch of Ireland from 1177-1922 (excepting NI afterwards). The Irish state broadly mirrored the English system, and to an extent still does in the Republic with its Oireachtas. Scotland was completely different, a relatively sophisticated nation-state with its own particular mechanisms of state, broadly based on native custom and the French model. Its unicameral parliament of the Estates of the Realm, had only shared its monarch with England for 104 years, rather than 624 as was the case with Ireland. "Most of the British institutions and bodies "formed" during the union were continuations of the English institutions and bodies, with Scottish elements integrated."? Unlike Ireland, Scotland retained her law, courts, national church, education system, and other national institutions (and still does), the Union notwithstanding. Wales on the other hand is a different kettle of fish entirely, having been annexed in the 13thc.,and its Royal House extinguished. (P.S. The last major constitutional (and territorial) change in the UK would be the 1922 Anglo-Irish treaty, rather than the Union of 1801!) Brendandh (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Further, if we are to have Athelstan's 10th c. conquest of the Danelaw here, then surely we should have Kenneth MacAlpin's 9th c. consolidation of Scotland, and even Owain Gwynedd's 12th c. efforts in Wales? Brendandh (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
To discuss this, I think all editors in the April discussion should be informed. From what I remember from the April discussion, more research into the unions was necessary to change the status quo, which is to be ambiguous on what the 1801 union was, and describe the 1707 union as the formation of a new state. I don't think this ambiguity is necessarily appropriate, but more research would be needed to come to an accurate conclusion. Regarding your point on the last constitutional change, the Anglo-Irish treaty, nor the union of 1801 are really major constitutional changes. "Major constitutional change" is really an inappropriate phrase to describe these changes in territory/formation of new states. The unions at-least, are probably better describes as constitutionally declared states (or something similar), as opposed to the political reality of which this state is a continuation of the state formed in the 6th century, or 1707; depending on whether you count the 1707 "union" as annexation or a union of two states. You're last point is only really correct if we count the 1707 "union" as a union, and not annexation. This isn't something that can be decided based on a few assertions by either side of the argument. The extent to which the unions and annexation of Wales differ from each-other, and where we draw the line on the formation of a new state, is not something that can be quickly concluded. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Can we stop this now, please? This article deals with the entity that was formed in 1707, and its subsequent development. Its common name is "United Kingdom", hence the article title. There is no need to include anything in the infobox about predecessor states, other than those existing immediately before 1707 - and it would simply pile on unnecessary confusion to do so. As others have said, earlier history is addressed in other articles, not this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
And it isn't already confusing that this article covers from 1707 to present, and the Kingdom of Great Britain article covers 1707 to 1801, claiming to be a separate state, which this state succeeded? The blurred distinctions made between these entities is already confusing. It's not at all encyclopaedic to be ambiguous in these instances. Rob (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The entity that was formed in 1707 ceased to be at mid-night of December 31, 1800. --Tóraí (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no. Ireland was a territory of the UK of GB which absorbed Ireland. It is even questionable whether the UK was created in 1707 or was merely an enlarged England that absorbed a previously independent state. Otherwise, every time the U.S. admitted a new state, it would be considered a different country. TFD (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh rubbish, different horses for different courses. Creation of the US was of a totally different entity and processes, and not relevant here. An enlarged England? See above, and here [2], and here [3], here (which is inherently biased) [4], and here[5] (which also is a tad biased). Ireland was not a territory of the UK of GB (which is a complete misnomer anyway), it was an independent self-governing state until 1801, bullied by, and having to answer to Westminster of course....Brendandh (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The government and judges were chosen by the British government, Westiminster could legislate, and appeals lay to the Privy Council. Foreign countries accepted that the British king could sign treaties affecting Ireland, and the Anglican [English] church was the established church, with bishops appointed by London. Catholics, who were the majority, were barred under British law from voting or holding public office. Other than that, it was "an independent self-governing state." TFD (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
We can have these slightly esoteric and academic debates about what each thing really was, and their relationship to each other, but the basic point at issue here is, or was, about the detail in the infobox. I think there's a clear consensus – which follows rather logically one would have thought from the scope of the page as defined – that we don't need to add events prior to the union in 1706/07 (and that if we did, we could add hundreds of them). Beyond that, and when it comes to the division of the pages as a whole, our own analysis doesn't really matter. If history tends to treat post-1706/07 as a discrete entity and/or period in history, we can and should too (with sub-articles within that and relevant background in the main body of each page as necessary). N-HH talk/edits 10:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think N-HH has summed it up very well. We can argue about the significance of previous events, but they are outside the scope of the article and thus do not lie in the scope of the infobox. I think that there still a consensus for that point of view.--SabreBD (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants to change the content of the history section entire. Nor do I think the entire history of the the Kingdom of England and its formation, should be covered in depth in this article, however clarifying what unions really were, rather then being entirely ambiguous, is far more encyclopaedic. There is not enough evidence to distinguish so bluntly between the 1707 and 1801 unions. From my point of view, I fail to see how the unions were such significant changes in regards to England, that they constitute as new states. They're not even close to the major constitutional changes the country went though previously, which are far more significant to the current formation of the UK, then addition of less then 10% of the population. 1707 is an appropriate start for the article, not going too far back in history, however o[O]verstating what the union of 1707 was, is not helpful. Rob (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's see next year how insignificant the northern third and ten percent are, eh? Brendandh (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you mention it, I wasn't actually going to bother with this discussion until after the referendum, but then it was brought up again by someone else. There's no denying people views here strongly correlate to their nationalities, which is why I think it's important we get it right; and whatever the outcome is, it is based of accurate sources and not editors POVs. Rob (talk/edits) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, though it's been fun! :) Brendandh (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I say we don't change anything in the history section, just add the formation date of England to the table, and for earlier history, we can just put "see Kingdom of England". I think that is a fair change. As I said before, the British Monarchy is a continuation of the English Monarchy. Same monarch, same capital. The history of England Template even has the United Kingdom on it. I am NOT trying to start an edit war or a debate. Some of us simply feel that that the unification of England is worth noting on this page, as is expected of an encyclopedia article. The date I selected is the date that most articles on the subject mention. Since it correlates with the most articles, and since the British Monarchy is a continuation of the English Monarchy, the date should at least be mentioned in the formation section of the table. Please just let me add the date. Thank you. Toolen (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this change, so if you keep re-adding it, you will be propagating an edit war, despite what you state as intentions to the contrary. Also please do not use "some of us" as supportive phrasing; you only speak for yourself, like everyone here. This article is about the UK, not England. Events which happened in constituent countries centuries before the formation of the UK are excessive information here, and just confuse the subject matter. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Toolen, I sympathise with your argument, but PaleCloudedWhite is right, you're edit warring. When I have time, I will look into what exactly the unions were, but right now there's not evidence to clearly suggest the UK is a continuation of England. Rob (talk/edits) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Toolen, what isn't clear about the principle of consensus and about edit-warring? No one agrees with you on talk and this page is not about England – yet you're just unilaterally flipping the page back and forth despite that. Whether you believe the information needs to be here and whether you have passing sympathy from one other editor or not is neither here nor there. You don't own the page and don't get to make up the rules and the content as you go along. Can't people ever just drop things like this at this point? N-HH talk/edits 23:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
N-HH, a consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Telling someone to drop it doesn't. It's impudent. Rob (talk/edits) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's the only rational response when one person insists on banging on about something like this when everyone else has made clear they disagree and when there are no good reasons for doing what this one person, for their own idiosyncratic reasons, insists we simply must do. It's just draining for everyone and it happens far too often on pages here. N-HH talk/edits 15:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

the UK economy as measured by the International Monetary Fund is now the 2nd largest of the European Union (EU) and 8th in the world therefore please amend the section which states the UK as 3rd largest in the EU and to France as being the 2nd largest of the EU. Thank you.

Sandallr (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Debate: Galicia as replacement of Scotland

Should be added to the main article.

Galicia (one of 17 autonomous communities of Spain), has proposed his integration as part of United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent.

No, that is a online petition that anyone can edit. Would need a RS for that before it is even considered. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think, as a source, WP:PRIMARY is more to the point. But as entertaining as it would be to include this in the article the fact that Sr.Antonio Formoso Cores of Vigo has proposed it and 750 people have signed to agree, it probably isn't notable enough to be covered. DeCausa (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
When Scotland becomes independent.... according to the bookmakers this is unlikely. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Viewfinder, Depends who's your turf-accountant, and this isn't one of those, it's an encyclopedia! :) Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Umm, uhum, um , yep, er,.... what? Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Brendandh can you find a turf accountant that is offering odds-on independence? Bookmakers are a good guide to what is likely to happen, if they were not they would go out of business in days. If fishface does somehow conjure a rabbit out of the hatch that wins him the independence vote then it would be more natural for the Galicians to throw their lot in with him. Viewfinder (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Europe

Closed as a concern that is lacking in sources. (Participant closure.) --Tóraí (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last year, it was agreed, when applicable, to define the UK as being "located in north-west Europe". However, the middle latitude line of mainland Europe is generally agreed to be between 53° to 55° north and the middle latitude line of the UK is 55.5° north (Illustration). So geographically, it's not located in north-west Europe; however, "northern Europe", politically, in contrast with "southern Europe", would of course include the UK. From this, I'm not sure "north-west Europe" is actually correct at all, since surely you can't combine political terms like that? And then I would assume "western Europe" would be most appropriate, as it is both a political, and geographic term? Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 20:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not talking about the lead of this article, which is perfectly correct. Just on disambiguation pages and such, which currently describe the UK as in "north-western Europe". Rob (talk | contribs) 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine as is. The concept of north/south/east/west, Europe isn't a strict mathematical calculation based on the extreme points of the continent. I've also posted on Talk:Ireland, where a similar message was left.
We certainly will not be saying that the UK is in central Europe :-) (joking) --Tóraí (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If you define northern Europe, as if Europe had no peninsulas, then the UK and Ireland are northern; which is reasonable, since islands are already excluded. However, you then possibly extend the definition of northern Europe to Belgium, Poland, and Belarus. Also the definition of central Europe appears to take into account peninsulas, which means comparing northern Europe (based on Europe without peninsulas) to central Europe (based on Europe with peninsulas) has no geographic meaning really. For example, Poland (central) and the Netherlands (northern) have completely overlapping latitudes, but are described as being at different latitudes.
In response to your reply at Ireland's article, I believe the UN's region are simply for statistical convenience, and I don't think Google Maps is of any use, since apparently eastern Europe is in Asia, and Bulgaria isn't part of southern Europe...
Rob (talk | contribs) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the "Eastern Europe" map, it looks like the highlighting is simply off. The curve of the lines are correct but it looks like a printing error that they are shifted to the right (i.e. if you transpose the highlighting to the left it lines up with the borders of the countries it means to highlight). --Tóraí (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that, I was just making a point. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm wrong, there's no way, using points of the continent, that the UK and Ireland could be described as north. See this illustration. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Every north/south/east/west grouping is just a matter of convenience and convention. There's no standard method or definition which results in these labels, they're inconsistent products of history. That the UN says it is a matter of convenience means nothing other than the UN making sure it's seen as definitely obviously apolitical. If people want to try and standardise or somehow regulate such terms, the place to do this is not wikipedia. CMD (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but unless "north-western Europe" is also a common political grouping, then shouldn't it be either "western Europe" or "northern Europe"? Rob (talk | contribs) 08:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Politically, the UK is in Western Europe. But it was felt that such "political" statements should not be in the lead, so "north-west Europe" was used in order to describe its physical location and avoid misleading (and politically motivated) statements such as "off the coast of Europe". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The UK is in north-western Europe by little more then convention, and doesn't geographically describe its physical location within Europe in a way that's comparable to descriptions of other countries. "Western Europe" is both geographically correct, and probably the most common description. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I really don't see how we are really describing the location of these countries, when there's no consistency between the definition of "northern Europe". I don't think we should describe the latitude of Netherlands and Ireland as northern, and Poland as central, when they are at the same latitude. In regards to the UK, describing the latitude of the UK as northern, and Belgium as central, suggests that the UK is north of Belgium, which it isn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think these definitions (which will vary between sources) are based solely on latitude - Poland is possibly regarded as "central" because there's a lot of land mass (Scandinavia) northwards of it, whereas there's not much northwards of the UK and Ireland. I agree with Tóraí and CMD - these definitions (of north/central/west etc.) are not based on precise logical measurements. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If reliable sources say the UK's in western Europe, it's in western Europe. If reliable sources say it's in northern Europe, it's in northern Europe. If sources say both, it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as being in north-west Europe without making any sort of fuss about it. It is geographically correct. Incidentally, I have no idea where the map you link to originates from. Is it original research? If so, it should be ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
+1 to GHM. There's no need to make a fuss over this just because of what we think "Northern Europe" should mean. There's plenty of sources that describe the UK as being in north-western Europe. --Tóraí (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this a good enough source? Any map of the world shows the UK is not north of the centre line of latitude of Europe. Here's another illustration I quickly made, in which I have literally taken a map of Europe, and added lines of latitude from specific points, to show the UK is very much central between the north and south most points of mainland Europe. I agree, the UK can be described as being part of northern European grouping, but geographically, the UK is very much central, with most it's territory being south of the centre line of latitude of mainland Europe.
CMD, "Poland" is probably described as "central" because it is central. I don't know how to can compare two regions on a map, when the description of what is north is different.
The main issue I see is comparison. Both are common, however "western Europe" is comparable to descriptions of other countries, whereas "north-western Europe" is not.
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Dont think we have a problem with describing the UK as being in north-west Europe is clearly understood and used by many sources. I dont thing drawing lines on maps and other original research will change it, perhaps time to close this and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
To illustrate my point, see this map, which clearly shows the inconsistent "northern Europe" definition between country's descriptions on Wikipedia. Drawing lines on maps is not original research, It's simply highlighting things the map already shows. If you don't think the inconsistent (and therefore misleading) definition is a problem, then sure, I'll drop it. Might see what the Dutch and Irish editors think though. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said we dont do original research, please just drop the stick and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. And as I (and others) stated above, these terms aren't determined purely by lines of latitude. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I've said already, this is your source. Besides Wikipedia very much does allow uncontested original research, and I have no idea why anyone would doubt highlighted lines on a map. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite, I agree, but shouldn't those terms be consistently determined across all European countries' articles? Like I said, it's the lack of consistency that I have an issue with. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The inconsistency is not created by Wikipedia, it is an inconsistency that exists in the real world. Wikipedia does not make terms, it follows common usage, and we are not here to correct that usage. CMD (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Western Europe" is actually more common.[6][7][8] I believe "north-western Europe" was originally preferred because it was believed it was more accurate. I guess nobody actually looked at a map though. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose close

This thread doesn't look like it's going anywhere except down a dark hole. Sources are provided for "north-western Europe" and there doesn't look like much desire to change it. Agreement? --Tóraí (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Tóraí's sources don't suggest "north-western Europe" is preferred to "western Europe", they just clarify "north-western Europe" is commonly used. I have no idea what WP:OR has to do with this. My claims are verifiable by anyone who can read a map. Any map of Europe shows the UK is not north of Poland and Belarus. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To be topical, and comparative in relation to this rather silly latitudinal/longitudinal chitchat: HS2. A rail-link purported to be between the capital of England and the so-called "North" (ie Birmingham on the 52nd Parallel, London being on the 51st. Aberdeen's on the 57th, and Lerwick (if a tunnel was built) is on the 60th) North?.....Case concluded! Brendandh (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparative? How is a north-south divide comparative to a north-east-south-west-central description? Most of central Europe, when only dividing Europe north-south would, would be described as in the north, such as Germany and Poland. Birmingham is in the "North of England", but it's not in "north-west England". Regardless, defining the geographic location of a region using geopolitical terms (what you're essentially arguing "north-west Europe" is) is normally resented on Wikipedia. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Birmingham's only in the "North of England" if you're from south of Watford. NebY (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
NebY, you got in there first! The concept of the Watford gap still alive and well then? Last I heard, England's second city was in the Midlands! Anyway, not that it really matters, but my view is that it's all very fluid, and to paraphrase Churchill, most of Scandinavia and the British Isles, are (culturally) with Europe, but are not (physically) of it. Brendandh (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're responding to my point, or going off on a tangent. In case you are, Stoke is also a "North of England" city which wouldn't be described as being in "north-west England". Rob (talk | contribs) 13:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Stoke is in The Midlands, England, not Northern England. Such terms are of course necessarily fluid, culturally defined, variously conceived from different perspectives and not readily susceptible to mathematical solution, as can be seen in Wikipedia's discussion of center of population and as exemplified by the location of Central Europe significantly south-west of the geographical midpoint of Europe. Or in other words, Close! NebY (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In all cases, there's still a straight line of latitude or longitude in which something is defined as being north, south, east, or west of; even if it's not at the geographical midpoint. The common geographical descriptions on websites such as the CIA World Factbook describe all countries with most their territory south of Denmark as not being northern. This consistent, and therefore more helpful, and less misleading. Wikipedia on the other hand, uses different descriptions of what can be described as northern on different European countries' articles. Like I asked already, is there any reason as to why "north-western Europe" is preferred, since I've given a fair few as to why is isn't? Rob (talk | contribs) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Britain is in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and north-west Europe. These are not mutually exclusive. -- Alarics (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before contributing. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I did read the discussion before contributing, as I always do. -- Alarics (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that matters here is that not one other person shares your concern. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
One last shot. Here's an illustration showing how each European country is defined on Wikipedia, along with the average line of latitude and longitude between each region. Every countries' description fits the majority of it's territory within an average north-east-south-west-central line of latitude or longitude except the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Bulgaria. Not a single one of you agree with my reason as to why "western Europe" should be preferred? Rob (talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I count 9 editors who have posted in this thread, none of whom agree with you. You are alone in your view. WP:SNOWBALL] DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Rob, I've been on your end of "1 vs. many" debates before. Fighting the good fight – even against a torrent of opposition – is a necessity for Wikipedia. And it's important to recognise that arguments aren't won or lost because of the numbers of participants weighing in on one side or another. But, if you're on the unpopular end of a thread, you need to come with sources, not just an interesting observation and some homemade diagrams.
I'm going to be bold and close this thread (acknowledging that I was a participant in it). --Tóraí (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that was a bit overkill Torai seeing how many discussions just simply end and there is nothing to stop Rob continuing on seeing as you lack any administrative authority to just "end" a discussion. As Rob clearly has no consensus for his view, then it would be simpler to just ignore him from this stage on. Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, really? It's called being considerate mate. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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."[9] 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)

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)

"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.)[10] 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? [11] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.181.98 (talk) 15:35, 19 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)
It's difficult to describe this topic in tasteful terms (so I apologise for any misunderstandings)... Is "black British" really an ethnicity for example? Or might people rather identify with their origins in Africa and the Caribbean? (A Somali background is entirely different from a Jamaican one, for linguistic and a hundred other reasons) And then there's the question of whether British itself is an ethnicity. Also, in Scotland at least, a number of people identify as ethnic Scots whose origins come from Pakistan, Italy, Botswana and elsewhere.
English, Scots, Welsh etc are difficult, because there's a difference between being domiciled in Scotland, and being Scottish (some of the people in Corby would probably identify with being Scottish). --MacRùsgail (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is overlap, invidious lack of distinction and more - it is all very debatable. But as Wikipedia editors, we just rely on the sources. The most comprehensive, current and reliable source is the 2011 census, so we largely report its figures for its categories. Besides, that categorisation system is used by all sorts of other organisations, especially governmental bodies and their contractors. Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom covers some of the development of the system, the debates and arguments about it, the different systems used in diffeent parts of the UK and so on. It's got a good set of references besides; I remember finding the first one particularly interesting and I hope you do too - after I fix the broken URL, that is! NebY (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that explains why there is the "colour" based categorisation, but not the omission of the non-"colour" categories used in the 2011 census English, Welsh etc. That coupled with the genetics emphasis in the first paragraph makes the whole section look somewhat dated. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that question, #15 in the English version (links to the English and Welsh questionnaires are here - which you may have known already but it seemed to take me ages to find them). I could argue the technicality that it's about national identity not ethnicity ("How would you describe your national identity? Tick all that apply: English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British / Other, write in).... But no, you're right and we should locate the results and include them. Sorry I can't do that right now - RL calls! NebY (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I had thought (from memory) it was under an ethnic heading. If it's "national identity" then I'm not sure it can be used as a source for this. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, not as a source for the Ethnic Groups subsection, but it seems worth including within Demographics. It was an interesting question to ask, especially at this time. I'm now curious how it came out (e.g. how many people outside Scotland regard themselves as Scottish, and vice versa?) and whether it was asked before. NebY (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cornish minority & Cornish language

Today it is being announced that "Cornish people will be granted minority status under European rules for the protection of national minorities." Bodrugan added material to this article stating that the Cornish language was now being protected; I reverted it because that did not appear to be supported by today's announcement and Bodrugan re-reverted me. My edit comment was perhaps not entirely clear ("the language is not being protected under the FCPNM, according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035)"). I should have said that the reference does not support the statement that the language is being protected; we don't know that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is being applied. Let's discuss. NebY (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Danny Alexander, both are to be recognised: “Delighted to be confirming than Cornish language and culture will be fully recognised, after long campaign …”. Best to wait for the official announcements/news reports and update then. Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh good! NebY (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here's a link to the FCNM: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm

As the BBC article states: "The Cornish will be afforded the same protections as the Welsh, Scottish and the Irish." Article 5 1 The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage. Article 9 1 The Parties undertake to recognise that the right to freedom of expression of every person belonging to a national minority includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas in the minority language, without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers. The Parties shall ensure, within the framework of their legal systems, that persons belonging to a national minority are not discriminated against in their access to the media. Article 10 1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right to use freely and without interference his or her minority language, in private and in public, orally and in writing. 2 In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if those persons so request and where such a request corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, the conditions which would make it possible to use the minority language in relations between those persons and the administrative authorities. 3 The Parties undertake to guarantee the right of every person belonging to a national minority to be informed promptly, in a language which he or she understands, of the reasons for his or her arrest, and of the nature and cause of any accusation against him or her, and to defend himself or herself in this language, if necessary with the free assistance of an interpreter. Article 11 1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right to use his or her surname (patronym) and first names in the minority language and the right to official recognition of them, according to modalities provided for in their legal system. 2 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right to display in his or her minority language signs, inscriptions and other information of a private nature visible to the public. 3 In areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority, the Parties shall endeavour, in the framework of their legal system, including, where appropriate, agreements with other States, and taking into account their specific conditions, to display traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public also in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand for such indications. Article 12 1 The Parties shall, where appropriate, take measures in the fields of education and research to foster knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of their national minorities and of the majority. Article 14 1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right to learn his or her minority language. 2 In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language. Bodrugan (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't we wait for a reliable source to say that the result is that the language is protected rather than deducing it ourselves from the details of the framework? It seems to have been the government's choice to apply the framework; do they also have discretion over which parts of the framework are applied? I know from experience that such discretion is available with other frameworks. It seems too much like WP:OR to assume it's being applied in its entirety and that we know what the implications are without WP:RS. NebY (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree entirely. A secondary source is needed to explain how this will apply to Cornish. I note that Bodrugan has used the convention as a citation for his edit which is way beyond WP:PRIMARY. As you say, we don't yet know exactly what the Government will do to implement this. Bodrugan quotes the BBC article, but that quote says "The Cornish will be afforded the same protections as..." (my emphasis) not "Cornish will be afforded..." (If I was being a smart alec I'd say that must mean the English language was being protected given that's the actual language of the Cornish :)...) DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the UK Government announcement. They say "The broad aims of the Framework Convention are to ensure that the signatory states respect the rights of people belonging to national minorities, undertaking to combat discrimination, promote equality, preserve and develop the culture and identity of national minorities, guarantee certain freedoms in relation to access to the media, minority languages and education and encourage the participation of people belonging to national minorities in public life." Happy days! Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So what does "guarantee certain freedoms in relation to ... minority languages" mean? Is it Humphrey-speak for "we haven't decided yet" or even "you'll be terribly disappointed when you find out"? NebY (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
On Cornwall Council's website it states twice that the Government will "fully recognise the Cornish as a national minority under the Framework Convention for Protection of National Minorities". http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-news-room/media-releases/news-from-2014/news-from-april-2014/council-welcomes-government-decision-to-recognise-the-cornish-as-a-national-minority/ Bodrugan (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what's the big deal with certain freedoms? I bet its got something to do with funding, which is what minority languages really could do with. But that's WP:SYN :P --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite. It may be that the Cornish language will still only have Section II protection, unlike Scottish Gaelic, Welsh and Irish, which are protected under Section III. There doesn't seem to have been any mention of an equivalent of the Welsh Language Act or the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act. So no change from 2002? NebY (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox doesn't mention the other currencies

Does the infobox need to have the other currencies listed in it? Cause not all British territories use the British Pound as official currency. Seqqis (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. British Overseas Territories aren't part of the United Kingdom.89.240.86.190 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The British Overseas Territories are classed as separate, self-governing entities - they are not classed as being part of the United Kingdom (neither are the UK's Crown Dependency which are the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands). The United Kingdom is strictly Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As for the UK itself, it's currency is the Pound Sterling alone. Italay90 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh...
The British Overseas Territories are not all self-governing.
The Crown Dependencies don't belong to the UK.
The UK isn't just Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless you're referring to the unconventional political definition of Great Britain.
:)
Rob (talk | contribs) 20:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

70.39.187.231 (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe these blank edit requests to be nothing more than test edits, and should probably be removed on sight. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014

I want to add a template about left- hand traffic countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Left-_hand_traffic_countries {{Left- hand traffic countries}} Orfeasmakris (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'd like to know the source of the information in the template before inserting it into this article. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Heading

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland

There are at least three other United Kingdoms on this planet. Denmark, The Netherlands and The United Arab Emirates.
I would suggest a correction in the article heading. Darmech (talk)

No there aren't. None of those you mention are called United Kingdom either officially or as a common name, see Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and United Arab Emirates. There have been some other United Kingdoms that existed historically, but not now, and these are dealt with by the hatnote on the article, and, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say they were called United Kingdoms, but that they are United Kingdoms. There is no country called The United Kingdom. Darmech (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The UK is a single kingdom. 'United', before 'Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is entirely irrelevant to the constitutional composition of the UK. 'United Kingdom' is simply a name the British parliament decided upon in the 18th century. That other historical states also included 'United Kingdom' in their name, is irrelevant. A 'united kingdom' is not a form of government. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please understand I am suggesting that the article heading be changed to the correct title and not an informal name commonly used. In the 18th century before the joining of Ireland to the Union it was called Kingdom of Great Britain, no reference to the United title. This is an encyclopaedia and not the Sunday paper, it's not correct.Darmech (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Point taken -Thanks- Darmech (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Further,the Union was between Scotland and England, latterly with Ireland. If the constitution and political map changes, as may be possible in September, Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It'd be a little like calling the USA, the 'United states of North America,...and Mexico and Canada'...etc, etc Brendandh (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean "The United States of Mexico"? :) --Pete (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but don't you mean the "United Mexican States"? :) (or is that some slightly strange refrence to Mexican immigration to the USA? Sincerely hope not O.o haha. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Locator map

The locator map for this article shows two entities: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whilst I know what it's meant to show, it has the potential to confuse. Isn't there a more accurate map the article can use? If nobody can suggest one, then I will create a new one for the purpose. Bazza (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If we want to show the UK in more detail, we could consider adding a zoom insert to EU-United Kingdom.svg similar to the map at England's article. However a separate map with place names is just an unnecessary waste of space. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not really mind which map we have, but can we just locate the subject once. The infobox is massive enough as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Demographics

The sections mentions the figure of 6% for gay people. Can somebody add the figure of 1.5% (gay and bi) too, from this source http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ethnicity/measuring-sexual-identity---evaluation-report/2010/index.html 92.16.58.122 (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why must the article refer to all white people? Should it not identify that section of the country that is indigenous, which by all intents and purposes is white British and excludes those immigrants or other non-indigenous whites such as Poles or Americans? Other articles about European peoples do this. I find this a deliberate attempt to remove the identity of the native British people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.165.169 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. We use the official statistics collected in the census, and the categories contained in that. There are no reliable figures for "native British people", whatever that may mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon-Celts ignoring the vast amount of other DNA that has imbued itself into the British genepool the past 2 thousand years? Mabuska (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Two thousand years ago we didn't have all those back-stabbing Anglo-Saxons running round pretending to be British. Happy days. Apart from the ale. And the loos. NebY (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Motto

Why has the motto of the United Kingdom been removed? All other countries have a motto specified in their template. It is featured in all British passports. I suggest someone add it again. 2A01:E35:8A42:A30:FCDC:A095:C9AB:D212 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's 2007 proposal that the UK might have a national motto was dropped despite provoking some suggestions. NebY (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought "Dieu et mon droit" was the motto. And so it is listed on the Spanish and French wikipedia. List_of_national_mottos#U lists UK's motto as such. Maybe there is a subtlety I don't understand. 2A01:E35:8A42:A30:FCDC:A095:C9AB:D212 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
According to whom? Please provide a source. It translates to 'God and my right' and refers to the monarchs divine right to rule the UK. It has little to do with the entire country as a whole. That said, neither does "God Save the Queen" but we use it as our anthem for some absurd reason. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Great unsourced motto from Serbia on that list: "God is a Serb". hmmm. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Dieu et mon droit" is the monarch's motto. It is used on passports only in the royal coat of arms; UK passports are unusual anyway in preserving an ancient concept of the passport, being requests "in the Name of Her Majesty". (Yes, there are subtleties and gotchas in plenty.) As for the Spanish and French Wikipedias and List of national mottos, that's three good examples of why it's become a truism that Wikipedia is not a reliable source! NebY (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Government Type

I have removed "with devolved legislatures" from the government type in the sidebar "unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". It appears as if somebody has looked at the government type classification of a federal nation like the United States or Australia and thought to add this in, despite having no understanding of constitutional law. The devolved legislatures are constitutionally equivalent to local governments. This would be like classifying Australia as a "constitutional federal parliamentary democracy with local governments"!!! The devolved legislatures exist solely by virtue of statutes and could be repealed tomorrow if they government so decided. They are far from the equivalent of states in a federal system eg in the US, Australia or Canada, where the states pre-existed the federal union whose powers are derived from those of the states. In such systems, the states are constitutionally entrenched and may not be abolished by the federal government, which merely holds the residual powers not exercised by the states. As such, this federal nature (the states) are fundamental to such systems of government. In the UK, devolved legislatures are a totally different animal created by statute which are not fundamental to the type of government. Indeed there are hundreds of other descriptors you could choose to add which like "with devolved legislatures" describe a present reality in the UK but are not fundamental to its system of government.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but the devolved national legislatures have far more authority than ordinary municipal governments and under international law may have a right to self-determination, unlike almost all provinces and states of the U.S., Canada and Australia. Not that I disagree with removing the information about devolution, but would like to hear other comments. Incidentally, the powers of the Canadian and federal governments were not derived from the states but ironically from UK statutes which could have theoretically been repealed. TFD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the removal for the reason given. However, I think it could be reinstated, on the ground of consistency, if there are equivalent examples (I.e. with similarly extensive devolution of authority) in other non-federal country articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Spain might be broadly comparable - it has autonomous regions but is described on WP as "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". On the other hand, this info-box item is government, not constitution, and it seems a little odd to describe it in the same terms that we would have used before devolution. NebY (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that it is strange to describe it in the same terms as before devolution. With devolution, nothing about the system of government fundamentally changed. The Westminster Parliament merely devolved some of its powers, which it has done infinite times through history, whether it be to statutory govt entities, tribunals, local govts, London authority, blah blah blah. We are describing here in a few words the fundamental characteristics of this system of government. Devolved legislatures is not central to the UK form of government. It is an important policy which has been implemented within the unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy system of government. Similarly, we could add "with fixed-term elections" or "with universal suffrage" or "with bi-cameral legislature" or some other quite important policy, but these are not absolutely vital to a characterisation of the fundamentals of the system of government (indeed devolved legislatures is less important than some of these).--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Saruman. Additionally, only 20% of the population falls under these devolved legislatures. They have little affect on the majority of the country and are definitely not fundamental to its system of government. Rob (talk | contribs) 09:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
...these are not absolutely vital to a characterisation of the fundamentals of the system of government... Ummm ... yes, they are. Without altering the UK's constitution (uncodified as it is), the Westminster Parliament (including its Government) have no powers in devolved matters. So, say, anything to do with justice in Scotland, the Westminister Parliament has no competency in (i.e. no power).
In all cases, the Westminster Parliament has reserved control over the Constitution. So, it can at any time change the Constitution and roll back on devolution (in Scotland and Wales, anyway). But, a fundamental characteristic of the UK system of government is that the UK government has no power over, say, justice in Scotland — or any other matter that is wholly devolved. --Tóraí (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the UK government have the power to change the bin collection day in the London Borough of Wandsworth? The difference of course is (a) the extent/importance of the matters devolved (b) the political practicality of rolling back those powers. But neither change the fundamental constitutional principle. But to put the other side of the argument, I saw some legal academic in a Newspaper column (can't remember who) posit that it was "now" a convention (an element of the constitution of course) that rolling back devolved powers requires a referendum and are therefore entrenched. The trouble with an emerging convention in a not-wholly-written constitution is you don't really know when and if it's a convention and when it's an argument that there should be a convention. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the UK [parliament] have the power to change the bin collection day in the London Borough of Wandsworth? Yes. In contrast, it does not have the same power for a borough of Edinburgh. (At least not without constitutional change first.) --Tóraí (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The 'Countries', I think you mean. And just you see if there's ever an attempt to disassemble Holyrood, Scottish sovereignty resides with its people, unlike England, Magna Carta notwithstanding

. Brendandh (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK also differs from the rest of the world in having an "unwritten constitution." Hence in the same sub-box, the monarch is decided by statute while the prime mninister's office merely exists by precedence. TFD (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The devolved legislatures are constitutionally equivalent to local governments. ... The devolved legislatures exist solely by virtue of statutes and could be repealed tomorrow if they government so decided. At least in Northern Ireland, devolution is dependent upon an international treaty. It cannot be simply repealed by Parliament. As regards devolution in Scotland and Wales, Parliament could abolish the monarchy, if it wanted to. For now, both the monarchy and devolution are intrinsic parts of the UK's constitutional make up. --Tóraí (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the parliament serves out its term at the pleasure of the monarch, and that all bills are passed by the monarch, this is doubtful. Indeed, it is convention for the monarch to pass bills on the advice of the Prime Minister, but if presented with a bill to abolish the monarchy, what would occur is unknown. It would probably lead to a constitutional crisis like the one that happened in Australia in 1975 or in Canada in 1926. Rob also makes a good point that only 20% of the population live under these devolved legislatures. I don't see that they are any more fundamental to the system of government than are local governments or, for example, the Greater London Authority (indeed, 100% of the population live under local govts).--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Queen is part of parliament as Queen-in-Parliament, your point is moot. Parliament can abolish the monarchy just as it passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. OTOH parliament cannot restore powers it has ceded, whether through treaties or grants of independence to former colonies. TFD (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why can't the government restore devolved powers? Why can't they simply repeal the acts which devolved powers and cease the British–Irish Agreement? Rob (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit overanalytical and academic about a fairly simple presentational point. And does it matter that the devolved powers could, theoretically, be revoked or that they might or might not have the same status and powers as sub-national bodies in other countries? The fact is that devolved legislatures do, currently, exist for three of the four constituent countries that make up the UK, which are each described as having "governments" of their own in that respect (and however precisely one analyses their powers, they are also very much more than simply variations on the idea of local authorities). The brief reference was useful information that was fairly concisely expressed. I'm not saying mention of devolution simply has to be there but nor do I see that it simply has to removed either. N-HH talk/edits 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
3 out of 4 of the UK's constituent countries... 16% of it's population. The London Assembly covers 13% of the UK's population. Like Saruman has said, there are more significant characteristics then these legislatures. I actually think whether the UK government has full sovereignty over these regions is important, and no one has given any evidence that the government doesn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that population proportions or Westminster's ultimate sovereignty have much to do with this. The infobox entry is there to describe the system of government in place in UK and its most notable recorded characteristics. The fact that there are devolved national administrations and legislatures seems to be, prima facie, worth mentioning briefly, regardless of more theoretical and abstract arguments about the precise constitutional relationship. There's certainly no cast-iron argument in favour of suddenly and unilaterally removing the mention of it that has been there for a while now. N-HH talk/edits 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
ps: looking at actual sources, it's not hard to see that much academic treatment, unsurprisingly, sees devolution as a significant development in defining the UK system and that the "unitary" nature of the UK has been at the very least qualified by the reality of devolution. That seems a pretty good basis for retaining the qualification here too, regardless of any theorising any of us might do. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. If you look at Spain, which also has a number of quite heavily devolved governments within its boundaries, these are not mentioned in the main national infobox, despite the existence of the Basque Parliament, etc. The scope of UK devolution appears to still be a work in progress and particularly with the rapidly looming Scottish independence vote, we should probably avoid giving any dubious or incompletely factual assertions in the infobox for the main national article which might tend to mislead. It's worth noting in passing that Article 28.7 of the crucial Scotland Act 1998 appears to in no way diminish UK Parliamentary control over Scotland, despite devolution, for example. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 June 2014

The current description already seems excessive. However, all the current elements describe exclusive parts of the government. Take out unitary and there is no description of how power is distibuted. Remove parliamentary and there is no description of system of govenment and remove constitutional monarchy and the type of head of state is excluded. Devolved legislatures is a subsidiary element of a unitary state (in fact they are mentioned in the lead of the article on the subject) therefore including them is just adding unnecessary detail to an already crowded element. Eckerslike (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the entry is a little cluttered. I guess we're also up against the problem that infoboxes are the worst places to set in stone often-complex and subjective ideas. The problem with simply stating "unitary" without any reference to devolution, as noted, is that the description is starting to be qualified and even disputed – in direct observation by sources, regardless of our own interpretations (which of course don't count for much at the end of the day). It might be better just to stick to the two most commonly found and uncontroversial descriptors, "parliamentary democracy" and "constitutional monarchy". I'm not sure we lose too much by losing "unitary" – the sovereignty of parliament in the distribution of power is arguably implicit in the mention of the former. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare with the opening paragraph on United Kingdom (Government and Society) from Britannica Online for example: The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The country’s head of state is the reigning king or queen, and the head of government is the prime minister, who is the leader of the majority political party in the House of Commons. [13] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That's how the narrative text in lead here does it too. The problem with "unitary" is that it can be seen as carrying quite a precise technical meaning but is also a relative term whose application is open to interpretation. Anyway, I'm not too fussed about all this - I just thought the original rationale cited for the unliateral removal of any mention of devolution was a bit weak and that the issue was not that clear-cut. The clutter/excessive description problem seems more relevant as a justification; although in turn it suggests to me that, now we've started, we might get away with trimming the entry a bit further still. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Although my intention was not to advocate trimming back. The unitary element was the element that I thought could most easily removed without loss of information as the majority of readers will not be aware of its exact meaning. Also, although it is theoretically possible to have a federated constitutional monarchy, it is difficult to think how such a beast would come to pass. The whole point of monarchies is that power passes through a single institution. Eckerslike (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Australia and Canada have a federal structure and are also monarchies. So too Malaysia and UAE, but in a different way. DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove unitary. Powers have been devolved not transferred. The legislations which created the devolved legislatures carefully reserved power to the UK Parliament to legislate in all matters. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Your personal analysis is very interesting, but neither definitive, funnily enough, nor what matters here, as I already pointed out in comments that were very far from being "nonsense". As I also said I really don't care that much one way or the other, not least because there is no great "truth" as to the unitary-ness or otherwise of the UK or any objectively "correct" presentational option here: authoritative sources can be found that qualify or dispute the "unitary" description, post-devolution (just as, yes, there are many, possibly even the majority, that would affirm it), while the one thing we do have a choice about is what information or description to include or not, given that and given that there are more universally accepted and arguably pertinent terms, in the small space available. N-HH talk/edits 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the day, 'unitary' just doesn't appear in sources and is not a common usage to boot. It isn't accurate, the UK is not yet some sort of semi-federalised or unified but widely devolved entity in the complete sense, it remains what it is, a constitutional parliamentary democracy. The word should come out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this being re-inserted. Would the supporters of 'unitary' please state their sources for usage of the term, or else explain why it is common. If nothing convincing is forthcoming, I propose that it be deleted again. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's a bog standard constitutional description of the UK per [14] even though you'll find the odd rogue source in there saying it's not so post devolution . DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think many people here are lacking in their knowledge of constitutional law. Either a state is federal (eg Australia, US, Canada, where a number of formerly sovereign states agreed to create a federal government which would take over some of their powers which the states could agree upon (eg defence, foreign affairs). Alternatively, the regions/provinces/municipalities whatever the local nomenclature is derive their powers from the central government. The powers of these devolved legislatures (doesn't matter even if the central govt devolves almost ALL its powers to them) derive from the central government. It has passed legislation devolving some of its powers. As such, they derive their powers from the centre which is the precise definition of a unitary state -- a very clear, important concept. Doesn't matter how many of their powers they decide to devolve to whatever regional divisions. The powers of these divisions/counties/provinces/whatever they may be called derives from the centre. In a federal system, which is the other characterisation, the powers of the central or federal government derive from the states(doesn't matter how broad these powers may be, they could include only defence or the states could hand over much more including eg health and education). That is to say, the states created the centre and gave it some of their powers. Even if the Westminster Parliament devolved 99% of its powers to the devolved legislatures, the fact remains that the UK is fundamentally, unequivocally a unitary state where the powers of the "devolved legislatures" derive from the centreand this will always be the case. It is a defining characteristic of your unique system. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As already pointed out the debate is not about whether the UK really is, in some way, objectively a unitary state, especially not by basing such arguments on the deployment of own – supposedly superior or otherwise – "knowledge of constitutional law", but about deciding how best to simply and briefly summarise the UK's government type in an infobox entry, based directly on the descriptions that are most frequently and uncontroversially found in sources. The unitary description is clearly contested or at least qualified – and not simply by "rogue source[s]". N-HH talk/edits 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The info-box is for non-controversial simple information. Whether or not they are correct, some scholars claim that devolution has affected the unitary nature of the UK. Furthermore, the UK has always been an anomaly, because it combined three separate states with a common king and parliament, yet separate judicial systems, and separate sections of the executive for each country. AFAIK, the only other country to do that was the Province of Canada (1841-1867). TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of collapsible list

WareMiekal, can you explain the point in using a collapsible list to reduce the infobox by a single line? The inconvenience caused is worth one additional line in my opinion. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD also. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


You obviously haven't looked at the content I have added

.uk .london .wales .cymru .eu

to the "Internet TLD" section. If it's just the collapsible lists you don't like, why do you keep removing the information? The internet TLD's I have added are relevant to the page. WareMiekal (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you commented out the introduction. Anyhow, I don't think those domains are that relevant, although I'm not set either way. The collapsible list is definitely not necessary though (they will fit vertically on two lines). Rob (talk | contribs) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about the collapsible list, but I do think the internet TLD's are relevant and should be there. WareMiekal (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Top Level Domain for the UK is .wales? .london? .eu? .cyrmu? As listed here its .uk therre is also .gb reserved nd unused this could be mentioned butthe others are not tlds for the UK. Murry1975 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Country?

The second line of the article states: "The country includes the island of Great Britain...." Is the UK (as a whole) not just a state that has four countries within it? Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Country" has many meanings and usages, varying across different periods and places and still varying with context and speaker/writer for any particular time and place, resulting in apparent paradoxes of this sort. It is quite normal to refer to the UK as a country and to refer to some of its constituents as countries too. Some editors would prefer one or the other usage, but despite much discussion the only consensus we have reached or - realistically speaking - are likely to reach within our lifetimes has been to accept a variety of usages and to document this as the very first of the FAQs above, and the third, and the fourth.... NebY (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

change official language to english and welsh. both have official stauts and are the only languages teh drivign test can be done in. 2.101.124.113 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, AFAIK Gaelic is also an official language in Scotland, but we need actual official sources - not what you can take your driving test in (you could choose 19 languages for your test until April 2014). - Arjayay (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ranking of countries by area

An editor moved the UK from 78th to 79th largest sovereign state by area saying "Ranking sovereign states by area gets tricky because Greenland is an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so the KoD is 12th largest sovereign state. That leaves the UK at 79th.)"[15] However sources do not include Greenland as part of Denmark when comparing countries. For example, the CIA factbook lists Denmark as the 124th largest country in the world[16] and lists Greenland at 12th.[17] Greenland is not part of the European Union and geographically is not in Europe. The EU includes Greenland under "overseas counrties and territories", the same status accorded British Overseas Territories [18] I think we should exclude Greenland as a part of Denmark for comparison purposes. TFD (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The list has a note next to Denmark explaining that "the entire Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland and Faroe Islands covers 2,220,093 km2 (857,183 sq mi) and would be 12th." The EU classes Greenland as an overseas country, but that doesn't really address Greenland's constitutional status as a fully integrated part of the Kingdom of Denmark (see Danish Realm), comparable to France's overseas departments. That is, the Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state which contains three countries. I'm sure you'll agree that insisting on including a rank of sovereign states (explicitly sovereign states) is complicated when we factor in Greenland/Denmark. I've no particular preference for "sovereign state" or "country", but the latter is going to make ranking the area of the UK a lot easier - it should be ranked 80th -and the term country is presumably more familiar for the average reader. There's the tricky issue of Western Sahara which isn't really a country but a disputed territory, however most other countries' articles do simplify and treat all entities on 'List of countries by area' as countries and will state, "X is the XXth largest country".
This is a very minor issue that I hope it can be resolved as quickly as possible- but not by treating Greenland as a dependency/colony of Denmark, which it is not. Would you agree to use "80th largest country in the world"? -- Hazhk Talk to me 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that a discussion about the constitutions of Denmark and Greenland and international law on dependencies and how France differs from the UK will be productive. The fact is lists of states by area and population treat Denmark and Greenland as separate states, and therefore we should too. TFD (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is quite simple as I see it - go with what the sources say. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be adjusting a ranking based on their personal criteria - which is WP:OR by the way - but by what sources say. This avoids all this petty nonsense - so if the CIA factbook says 79 put that in the article. Thanks to TFD for initiating the talk page discussion but I would comment I would have reported Hazhk for edit warring with multiple editors if there had been another revert. If you want to edit without problems follow WP:BRD and you Hazhk really should have been the one initiating a talk page discussion. WCMemail 17:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources are listing countries, not sovereign states. Greenland is always going to be listed separely because it is an autonomous country that is detached from Denmark, but the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole constitutes one sovereign state (there are whole articles on this topic, so it's not original research). My opinion is to go with the sources and list the United Kingdom as the 80th largest country. In regards to edit warring, I don't consider my edits to be hostile. I wasn't repeatedly reverting, I was changing text to reflect what I considered to be more accurate based on the change from country > sovereign state. I didn't think it was contentious enough to need to be raised on the talk page! I'm not going to labour the point any further because it's so trivial. If editors insist on leaving the text as "78th largest sovereign state", then so be it, but it is most definitely inaccurate.-- Hazhk Talk to me 18:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is OR because you add Greenland to Denmark to increase its population and come up with a different ranking than in reliable sources. As is typical of OR, it requires us to delve into various sources, and analyze the constitutions of Denmark and Greenland and international law. TFD (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm very surprised you've just warned me that I "currently appear to be engaged in an edit war" when my last edit to the article was six hours ago! I've responded on the talk page, and I've proposed a compromise solution, and even resigned to the fact that the article will be changed against how I want it. What exactly was the reason for leaving that message?
The solution is to follow the list that is linked to. My original text was "80th largest country", exactly as listed on List of countries by area. It wasn't my decision to rank sovereign states, which is unnecessary. Let's change back to the original text, in accordance with the sources, and forget the debates about sovereign states. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
An edit ware is not linked to tie. That aside you seem to be engaged in OR, making a decisions about what is or is not included then canting the rank. ----Snowded TALK 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Whaa? The size of a sovereign state doesn't vary significantly between sources. The Kingdom of Denmark is a bigger sovereign state then the UK and to claim otherwise would be absurd. You don't need to 'analyze the constitutions of Denmark and Greenland and international law'. The Kingdom of Denmark is one sovereign state, not one sovereign state with two external territories. The Kingdom of Denmark has no external territories. To class all dependent territories (or quasi dependent territories, as in Greenland's case) as 'countries' is obviously incorrect. Are the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands a country? No. Nobody lives there. Please can we use common sense? Rob (talk | contribs) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in question use "sovereign state", pretty simple then. The 79/80 doesnt even come into it. This article is about a sovereign state, so we compare like for like, the list linked, yes its "countries" and definition of a what a country is varies, sovereign state does not. And what Rob said (EC). Murry1975 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Following the conversation here is becoming more difficult. I'll reiterate what I think: either we rank the UK as the 79th largest sovereign state, or the 80th largest country if we treat Greenland and Western Sahara as countries. Now other users are agreeing that the Kingdom of Denmark should be ranked 12th and this isn't OR. I've been falsely accused of edit warring and have been warned on both the talk page and in edit summaries, despite trying to having a discussion here. For that reason I'm not going to argue here any more, it's become pointless. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Rob the SGSSI are not part of the UK either under domestic or international law and despite having no permanent population it has a Commissioner with the power to set laws, establish courts, etc. It was the subject of House of Lords decision on the divisibility of the Crown.[19] But I do not see why I need to examine the constitutions of Denmark and the UK rather than rely on what reliable sources say, viz., that the UK is bigger than Denmark. TFD (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the SGSSI are external territories of the UK was irrelevant to my point. It is just an example of an external dependent territory that isn't a 'country'.
You can't 'reference a reliable source' for the ranking of the area of 'countries' because the choice of source would be original research. We would have to state every reliably sourced figure.
The UK is a country, but it's also a sovereign state. 'Country' has no clear meaning. 'Sovereign sate' has a clear meaning.
The state of the Kingdom of Denmark has a clear area. The state of the United Kingdom has a clear area. The state of the Kingdom of Denmark has a larger area then the state of the United Kingdom. We don't need to look at secondary sources. The primary sources are clear and require no analysis.
It's not original research stating that the UK is the 79th largest sovereign state. The official figures for each sovereign state are available at there articles. We don't need 200 citations here.
Rob (talk | contribs) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It is OR because you have chosen to reject sources that provide listings of countries by size and examine constitutional documents to determine what you consider Denmark's and the UK's "clear areas". Denmark told the International Maritime Organization that the Faroes Islands comes under Article 72, which says, "Members may make a declaration at any time that their participation in the Convention includes all or a group of a single one of the Territories for whose international relations they are responsible."[20] That's the relationship, the same one the UK has with its overseas territories. TFD (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't understand. Greenland is part of the legally defined territorial extend of the state of Kingdom of Denmark. It is part of that sovereign state. It might not be part of the country named 'Denmark' but it is part of the state of the Kingdom of Denmark.
There is no ambiguity. What Denmark declares to the EU, UN or IMO that Greenland is, is irrelevant. The governance of Greenland is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the legally defined territorial extent of the state of the Kingdom of Denmark. That is the only way that state's internal jurisdiction can be defined. Since jurisdiction is a legal concept any other definition is wrong.
um.dk/en/politics-and-diplomacy/greenland-and-the-faroe-islands
Rob (talk | contribs) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
If I do not understand it is because editors are not required to understand constitutional laws and the laws of nations in order to determine where the UK ranks in terms of area. We just use what reliable sources say. The same sources include Hawaii and Alaska as part of the U.S., but not Puerto Rico or other overseas territories or associated states. Why they do this is not up to us to second guess, in this article at least. Incidentally by "legally defined" are you referring to Danish law or international law and how did you decide? TFD (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but if you can't understand what a state defines as it's territorial extent, then that it your problem. There's only 4 countries with external territories, the UK, US, Norway and New Zealand. All other state's territory is entirely part of the state. See Dependent territory for more information.
Under international law, there is no such things as external territories. All external territories are regarded as part of the state that holds sovereignty over them. I was referring to Danish law however. If we go by international law, the Falklands are part of the UK, and Greenland is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Pueto Rico is not part of the United States. The US uses the terms 'incorporated' for internal entities, and 'unincorporated' for external territories.
In all cases (except Australia), state's make very clear what is part of there territorial extent, and what is external territory. Like I said, we don't need to look at secondary sources and go by what they think is part of a state. We can look at official publications:
UK: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217278/british-overseas-territories.pdf (Page 3)
Denmark: um.dk/en/politics-and-diplomacy/greenland-and-the-faroe-islands
Seems pretty clear that the UK regards the Falklands as external territory, while Denmark regards Greenland as part of it's state.
Rob (talk | contribs) 03:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
So the Danish constitution says that Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, while the NZ constitution says that the Cook Islands and Niue are part of the Realm of New Zealand, and your reading is that Denmark's overseas islands must be part of Denmark while NZ's overseas islands are not part of NZ. And based on your reading of another Wikipedia article, you have determined that even though France listed French Polynesia as a non-self-governing territory and it is still on the list, that both French and international law consider it part of France. Not only that but that none of your conclusions involve any interpretation, and could not possibly be seen any other way. TFD (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't determined anything through reading a Wikipedia article. But yes, I haven't interpreted anything. The Danish government state 'Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark'. The British government states 'They [the British Overseas Territories] are constitutionally separate from the UK'. The UK government also states in the same document, 'under International Law the Territories are part of the UK, so they are represented on international institutions, such as the UN, by the UK Government'. The Realm of New Zealand is not a state, however it contains multiple independent states. The Realm of the Kingdom of Denmark however is one, unitary state. The French Republic is one, unitary state. I can keep providing primary sources down to the legislations if you want, as time consuming as it is. Rob (talk | contribs) 04:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Danish constitution does not tell you how the area of the country or its relative ranking. You need to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (i.e., "synthesis") Incidentally the NZ government says that the Realm of New Zealand is a a sovereign state which includes three separate states.[21] That's why we don't allow OR - different editors may draw different conclusions and fortunately we don't have to reinvent the wheel. TFD (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
True, but we a only compiling one figure from each source. There's no synthesis there.
Your conclusion is wrong. It doesn't refer to the Realm of New Zealand as a sovereign state. In fact, it doesn't even include the term 'sovereign state'...
Rob (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to put forward a solution once more: why do we have to rank the United Kingdom amongst sovereign states? The infobox has had ranked the UK's area as 80th for years. When I first introduced the sentence it said 'countries' not 'sovereign states' - this was echoing the list and the infobox. It's obvious that what counts as a sovereign state is contentious. Therefore let's simply revert back to "80th largest country". This is the so-called edit warrior trying to push for a resolution rather than back-and-forth arguments. That being said, Rob is absolutely right in what he says, and what I have been trying to say; Greenland is undeniably a full part of one sovereign state, the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark and Greenland are often listed separately because of geographic and cultural differences, and a misunderstanding of the nature of the Danish Realm. -- Hazhk Talk to me 21:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What is a country? What if this varies between reliable sources? How would we decide? I think 'sovereign state' is clearer defined then 'country'. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you may have a point... I was hoping to use the list on the article as the standard for 'country', but as Greenland is being treated as a dependency by the CIA Factbook perhaps 'country' in that context is supposed to mean sovereign state. I think this is just a very difficult issue. Any source dealing with the Kingdom of Denmark will define it as a unitary state, but foreign sources seem to think Greenland the Faroes are dependencies.-- Hazhk Talk to me 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with you to just go by the list at List of countries and dependencies by area. I may recreate List of sovereign states by area, deleted in 2008, sometime, with sources. Then we could look at changing the ranking for all sovereign states. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that list would be a good idea. It would avoid having certain territories listed separately. -- Hazhk Talk to me 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_28&oldid=1136387729"