Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK Template

I think the UK template should stay at the bottom of this article. Does anyone also not think that all the colours make it look very pretty? Jiang does not think it should be there. The main reason I think it should be there (apart from the prettyness of course!) is the unique status of the UK being a country consisting of other countries! Therefore I think it is important to have bolder links to each of the UK parts at the bottom. Comments please.

Keep of course. The UK is made up of three nations (England, Scotland and Wales) and a home rule region (Northern Ireland). It makes perfect sense to have that template, which incidently is one of the best designed templates we have.
One point through. It may sound pedantic, but the UK is not a country. It is a state comprising a number of countries. There is a shared political unity but not a shared UK-wide identity. People within the state variously call themselves Scottish, English, Welsh, British (ie, Great Britain, the geographic island on which one finds England, Scotland, and Wales but not Northern Ireland - hence the inclusion of Ireland in 1801, the disappearance of most of Ireland in 1922, and even the possibility of the disappearance at some stage of Northern Ireland makes no difference to the use of the word British. While the majority community in Northern Ireland calls themselves british their definition is fundamentally different to that of the island of Great Britain. Indeed unionists often say how annoyed they are to find themselves called Irish by everyone else in the UK, with everyone else excluding them from the definition of 'British', which they equate with just the island of Great Britain and its islands.)
There is no concept of a United Kingdomer in the way one can talk of a Spaniard, an Italian, a German, etc. So calling the UK a country is technically incorrect. It is what is called a unitary state (ie a singular state; in its case it has created subsidary home rule governments but they are created by the UK parliament and can be abolished by it at will - meaning that they have no constitutional right to exist. Such a state in which only one central government has a constitutional existence is called a 'unitary state'. Part of the confusion may be that calling the UK a country makes the countries within it seem less important as so not warrant what is in the template. The template is right. Our technical definition of what the UK is is wrong. FearÉIREANN 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You may wish to move these thoughts to the /Country Kingdom or State discussion that I am pulling out of the archives --NeilRickards 10:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The template serves no other purpose than being "pretty". Prettiness itself is not a reason to burden readers with useless, redundant text and unnecessary scrolling. The template is designed for the individual constitutent articles England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The fact that the UK consists of these parts is already presented in the lead section. It makes sense to have the template, but not in this article. This is at the wrong level of specificity for the template to be of any use.
If you have an argument for how this thing is useful, then please let me know. --Jiang 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought it was up to the person advocating the removal of an obviously relevant template to offer some justification for its removal. It is rather perverse to demand that people justify an obviously justifiable template. But since you set this ridiculous demand here's the answer:

  • The UK is made up of three countries and one region, each with their own culture, identity, history, enthnicity and symbolism.
  • Wikipedia contains articles on the four units, so people having read this article may want to read the others. Rather than having to shoot up and find individual links it makes perfect sense for them to have a grouped set of links at the bottom which joins this page to all the others, so that people can easily read all the articles as a set.
  • Not everyone who comes to the article will know the precise relationship. It is logical to have a graphic representation of that relationship shown.

Therefore it makes elementary common sense to have a template showing to those who don't know the relationship between the UK and what are in effect its political and cultural subsets, Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. I fail to see how this could even be an issue for debate as it is so self-evidently a good idea, that of creating a template that can bring certain linked articles together as an easily accessible set. In fact this idea should be used for other states that are of a unitary nature but which consist of a number of countries, federal states and confederal states. FearÉIREANN 00:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, agree with almost everything jtdirl has said. This template is needed to emphasise the culturally distinct regions of the UK.
However the UK is definitely a country (please don't continue lengthly UK is/is not a country debate here, as above, as I'm not going to respond!). It is more debatable as to whether, for example, England (one of the important and distinct UK elements with unique culture and identity which needs to be emphasised by using such a template) can be described as a country. Everyone throughout the whole of the UK can describe themselves equally as British. Subsets (or accompanying identities to) British are English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish. People can describe themselves as simply Scottish, simply British, British and English, British and Welsh, British and Northern Irish etc. I've also heard some people from the ROI even calling themselves British! There is no such thing as a "United Kingdomer" because that sounds stupid and does not rol off the tongue so "British" is the term used instead!
As someone born in Northern Ireland and now living in England, "everyone" does not refer to me as "Irish" as you say. While there are many ignorant people in England describing Northern Irish people as simply "Irish", "everyone" is not as ignorant as you think and equally include Northern Irish in the term "British". I proudly see myself as Irish as coming from the Island, but this is an unfortunate term as may also be interpreted as from the ROI state (with distictly different accent, government and elements of culture) and hence avoid it and prefer "Northern Irish".
Cauleyflower 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you are entirely correct. {England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland} is a set. {United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland} is not a set; this is because {England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland} is a subset of {United Kingdom}. If {England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland} is a subset of {United Kingdom}, then {United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland} cannot logically be a set.
People browse article at the same level of specificity. The template is helpful in moving from England to Scotland to Wales and then to Norther Ireland, but when moving from a more general article on the United Kingdom to a more specific article on England, readers are NOT navigating through a series of articles as a navigation template at the bottom of the page would suggest.
For comparison, I note that the template of US states and insular areas is posted at United_States#Political_divisions and not at the bottom of the page. If you so desire to keep the template, then it should be moved to a section on subdivisions of the UK. If people fail to grasp the relationship between the UK and what are in effect its political and cultural subsets by the time they reach the bottom of the article, or even the end of the lead section, then this article is a total failure and ought to be deleted. --Jiang 02:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nice edit Jiang.Cauleyflower 06:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't affect the point of the argument, but your set theory is incorrect JPD 7 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Considering England has no head of state, no passport, no parliament, no seat in the United Nations, no national broadcaster, hasn't signed any treaties in over 300 years, no judicial system of its own, I don't understand why it is still called a country by some. My passport says my country is the United Kingdom. England died in the Act of Union along with Scotland & Wales ceased to be a country long before then. Dmn / Դմն 16:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The state of England (a political entity) died as you describe but the country of England (a geographical and administrative entity) remains. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Cornwall Kernow Cornubia Cornewallia Cerny

I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.

  • Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.
  • The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).
  • Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between Anglia and Cornubia. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site Mercators Atlas by walking tree press. I am happy to provide further examples if required?
  • Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a de jure status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.
  • I present the following link to support my points.[1] Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site Bretagne 44 18/4/05


, there was a point that could be considered 'the unification of England', the point which terminated in the Battle of Hastings. After that point none of the separate tribes could be considered as separate anymore, including the Cornish. Compare the separate districts of India, such as Punjab or Pradesh Nadir. Another point is the Brick Wall test. If you built a brick wall and cut off any area of the UK, could it survive as a separate nation? I doubt Cornwall could, neither could Lincolnshire!!! Yes they were a nation, yes they are a distinct constituent part, but they are no longer separate - I should think Londoners own more of Cornwall than the Cornish do!!! Lincolnshire Poacher
Yes IMHO Cornwall is a nation. But it has no recognition as such. For wikipedia unilaterally to give such a recognition would be expressing a POV. NPOV means we must reflect what is generally accepted, not reflect our views. Most people unfortunately don't acknowledge Cornwall as a nation so we cannot. If that changes then I will have the greatest pleasure in reflecting that recognition here. But as of 2005 we cannot. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If the Cornish have no recognition of being a nation how is it that you could record your ethnicity as Cornish on the 2001 census and 2004 schools census plus many other monitoring forms in Cornwall used by various organisations. In addition the council of Europe is pushing the UK government to recognise the Cornish under the frame work convention for the protection of national minorities. The Cornish language is also recognised as a UK minority language by the UK gov and the EU. As to the constitutional nature of Cornwall this is still unclear. I am not asking that wikipedia declare the Cornish a nation of GB but it should surely mention the existence of the debate. Wikipedia should be impartial and to take the opinion of the English majority over the Cornish minority is not impartiality, what for example is the stance on Tibet in relation to the opinion of the Chines majority and government in Beijing?

"Another point is the Brick Wall test. If you built a brick wall and cut off any area of the UK, could it survive as a separate nation? I doubt Cornwall could, neither could Lincoln shire!!! Yes they were a nation, yes they are a distinct"

  • What are you talking about Lincoln shire Poacher? This is not a discussion of the possible self sufficiency of the landmass of Cornwall, it is a discussion of whether those who consider themselves to be Cornish and of the Cornish nation deserve the right to be mentioned on this article as being one of the constituent peoples/nationalities of the UK; or are the Cornish in fact not allowed the right to think of themselves in this way and should really think in the way the English majority and UK government would like them to. However I am sure Cornwall as a full EU member in the euro zone still trading with the UK would probably do better than now. Bretagne 44 19/4/05
If Cornwall had a clear separate state or regional existence then it would warrant separate treatment. It doesn't legally so it does not warrant and cannot be given a special status on wikipedia. The existence of a question on a census or a separate linguistic identity is not enough to warrant it being treated like Scotland, Wales or even Northern Ireland. FearÉIREANN 19:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cornwall has no special status in the United Kingdom. It is a county of England and has no status that would give it any idea or notion that it is a separate state. You may think of yourself as Cornish rather than English, but that does not mean the county of Cornwall is separate. Astrotrain 18:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Astrotrain can i suggest you try and understand the debate before you add your two pence, also you never did respond to or address any of the points around the constitutional status of Cornwall like the case law from the 19th century or the Kilbrandon report. All you seemed to have done is express your dislike of the facts i have raised but without addressing them. However this discussion is about whether the Cornish are a nation or not and not whether Cornwall is separate from England or not.
  • FearÉIREANN you are failing to understand what i am saying and also failing to understand the term nation (stateless nation in this case). Who decides if the Cornish are a constituent people and nationality of the UK, Is it the popular opinion of the UK general public? Is that what wikipedia uses as it gauge because it is a very flawed system that is not used across the board? Many 'Cornish people' see themselves as being of the 'Cornish nation' even if 'Cornwall' has no existence as other than a county (and that is questionable). Who has the right to say they are mistaken in their perceptions of themselves, do please tell? Who should have the right to decide if a minority group exists and is a nation or not, wikipedia? Please answer the question on Tibet while you are at it, Tibet has no legal existence other than a part of China, does that mean the Tibetan peoples do not exist as a nation and should be removed from books and texts? Stateless nations exist and should be mentioned, in this case i would be happy with something along the lines of:

"there is also a popular and an academic debate as to whether the Cornish are a constituent people of the UK and could be considered a Nation"

  • At the moment the article has information on the Cornish Assembly campaign but gives no indication of why this movement might exist. Bretagne 44 19/4/05
You seem not to understand the principles by which wikipedia, like every other encylopaedia, operates. Encylopaedicas are reflective, not creative. They reflect the generally accepted consensus and report it. Fact - there is no home rule state in the UK called Cornwall. Fact - The UK is made up of Great Britain (which is made up of England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. Nowhere legally in the definition of the kingdom is there such an entity and a 'nation' called Cornwall. Maybe there should be, but the fact is there isn't. Encyclopaedias can only deal with facts. It has to deal with what is, not what perhaps should be. If you want to write to promote the concept of a Cornish nation, you should do it on websites whose raison d'etre facilitate that. But wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, cannot. Doing so would be expressing a POV and that is something we cannot do. Please understand just what wikipedia is and what it isn't. You hit the nail on the head when you spoke about a "popular and an academic debate". If it is only at the debate stage then its outcome cannot be stated as fact. If tomorrow it was decided and accepted that there is a nation called Cornwall and it was given equal status with Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland then the article would have to reflect that. But we cannot state a fact something that is simply still being debated and has no constitutional or legal status; not in an NPOV encyclopaedia. Please grasp what an encyclopaedia can and cannot do. FearÉIREANN 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes and you are failing to answer my questions.

"They reflect the generally accepted consensus and report it"

  • Of who exactly and how does this relate to the Tibet question?

"Nowhere legally in the definition of the kingdom is there such an entity and a 'nation' called Cornwall"

  • Well yes there is, in the Duchy charters. Again who says that a national identity has to be given legal status by central governments or majority groups (the Tibet question again)?

"Encyclopaedias can only deal with facts"

  • It is a fact that there is a sense of Cornish national identity and that a serious debate concerning this exits, these are a facts so put them in Wikipedia.

"If you want to write to promote the concept of a Cornish nation"

  • I don't want to do this, i just want the facts told and the facts are that there is a debate (academic and popular) concerning the existence of a Cornish national identity and the constitutional status of Cornwall, none of which is MY POV

"If it is only at the debate stage then its outcome cannot be stated as fact"

  • Yes i agree and i don't want to state it as fact! Please, i understand the raison d'etre of Wikipedia but the DEBATE on Cornish national identity is a fact and so should be mentioned.

"Please grasp what an encyclopaedia can and cannot do"

  • Oh my me! AHHHH! i know that, one more time, the debate which exists, that is both academic (therefore quite serious) and popular is a fact, as is the sense of a Cornish national identity. Reporting these facts adds interest and depth to the information on the nature of England / UK (things are'nt always as simple as people think) and goes some way to compliment and explain the other facts about the Cornish home rule movement on the page. Bretagne 44 21/4/05

I have made the following changes on the devolution section. The part in bold is the new addition, the rest was there before:

There is some debate, both popular and academic, as to whether the Cornish could be considered a constituent peoples of the UK and possibly a Nation. A movement to obtain some degree of home rule also exists in Cornwall, a petition of over 50000 signatures was collected endorsing the call for a Cornish Assembly however the UK government is not known to be considering any form of devolution to Cornwall Bretagne 44 21/4/05


If the guy wants to put in POV that says 'a group of cornish men still consider themselves a separate nation' then I dont see why not. The fact some people disagree is irrelevant. There is the constant battle on Wikipedia about NPOV. 'The cornish consider themselves a separate nation whereas politically and economically they are not' is a perfectly valid POV. Put a para in, I say. Lincolnshire Poacher

I reverted to my version, because:

1. The phrase "There is some debate, both popular and academic, as to whether the Cornish could be considered a constituent peoples of the UK and possibly a Nation." is grossly inaccurate. Very few people outside Cornwall are aware, let alone care about the 'debate'. I've seen no evidence that Cornwall's constitutional status has been widely debated, or at all, in academia. Provide substantial evidence if you believe that is true.

2. My version is 43 words, and the other is 69. I believe that on a page about the UK in general, 69 words is far too much to devote to Cornish nationalism. Perhaps that amount would be appropriate for Politics of the United Kingdom, but certainly not United Kingdom. It is inherently POV to give so much space to a movement with only 50,000 signatures endorsing it, considering their is no mention of significant topics like the Labour Party, Conservative Party, Lib Dems, UKIP, Green Party, BNP (and EU membership) - all of which have receive far more support (in terms of votes) than Cornish nationalism.

I propose that Cornish nationalism be allocated one sentence in this article, and two sentences in the Politics of the United Kingdom, to reflect its importance in the context of the UK. There are far more important topics which should be mentioned. Deus Ex 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced the mention of Cornwall to one sentence. This article's long enough already, after I added information about political parties which was previously omitted. The relevance of Cornish nationalism to an article about the entire UK is too small to have more than a single sentence. Deus Ex 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


DeusEx you wrote:

The phrase "There is some debate, both popular and academic, as to whether the Cornish could be considered a constituent peoples of the UK and possibly a Nation." is grossly inaccurate.

  • Please try and understand what I have written. There is popular debate in Cornwall i.e. amongst non academic Cornish residents as to the nature of their history and identity in relation to the rest of the UK, and from time to time this spills over into the rest of the UK. In reference to this and the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities the Times news paper asked “are the Cornish an Ethnic group”. Both of John Angarracks books on the subject "Breaking the Chains" and our "Future is History" sold out in Cornwall.
  • Here are a couple of links to academic discussions of Cornishness and Cornish history.
  • In your over enthusiasm you have confounded two related but separate topics.

1) the debate concerning the Cornish national identity and its place in the framework of the peoples of the UK.

2) the debate over the constitutional status of Cornwall.

I have modified your changes. Bretagne 44 7/5/05

Given the links you provide, I accept there is some interest about Cornish national identity and the constitutional status of Cornwall, but I still believe that the original length of the reference to Cornish nationalism was too long. The current length is acceptable, but should not be any longer. It would be more worthwhile to talk about other topics-like UK minor parties, such as the BNP, UKIP, Green Party and Northern Irish parties than have far more followers in terms of votes at the last election than discussion of Cornwall at any more length than the current reference.The politics section could also talk about the UK's relationship with the EU, which is not mentioned in the politics section at all. Space is not unlimited on this page, it is currently at 39 kilobytes in length.By the way, I would prefer If you used your user account to make changes to the United Kingdom and other pages, rather than an anon IP which gives the impression of surreptitious editing. Deus Ex 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The current length is acceptable It is not your position to say what is or is not acceptable but to come to a consensus, that is unless you want to sound arrogant? It is not your position to say what is acceptable so please think about what you are doing here.

I would prefer If you used your user account to make changes to the United Kingdom and other pages, rather than an anon IP which gives the impression of surreptitious editing

Really. Bretagne 44 16/5/05

It's Cornish nationalists that are arrogant if they think their issue is of high importance in the UK nationally. I didn't simply say the current length was acceptable just because I as a person thought it was, I gave reasons which you have not responded to. Northern Irish politics, minor UK parties, the EU, human rights, terrorism, and probably many other UK politics topics receive much more national attention than Cornish politics-you only have to watch national news TV programmes or read national newspapers to know that. The UK government has paid little/no attention to Cornish politics and the call for a devolved assembly. I'm not saying Cornish politics receive no national coverage at all, but those other topics individually receive more attention. NI and minor UK political parties like Green, UKIP, receive far more votes than Cornish political parties-so why should we omit them and go into an extended discussion about Cornwall. That is why I don't think its appropriate to make the current mention of Cornwall any longer-because this page is 39k already, and those other topics are more important.

I'm sure you won't accept this, but Wikipedia's coverage of Cornwall's identity/constitutional question is generous already. On Britannica for example, there is no mention of Cornish politics in their United Kingdom article, even though there is a large paragraph on "regional government". Also, there is no mention of Cornish identity/constitutional question in their Cornwall article, and the Wikipedia article, Cornish nationalism is mentioned immediately in the first paragraph. Deus Ex 11:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


  • high importance in the UK nationally

No but it is of importance in a section about national and regional devolution.

  • minor UK parties, the EU, human rights, terrorism

So you think these should be covered in a section on regional parliaments and government?

  • you only have to watch national news TV programmes or read national newspapers to know that

So that makes it OK then does it? That means the petition should not be mentioned does it? Why does'nt Wikipedia just copy the UK news and Britannica, save a lot of time and please all the ultra unionist bigots at the same time.

  • Green, UKIP, receive far more votes than Cornish political parties-so why should we omit them and go into an extended discussion about Cornwall

That's because they are UK wide parties. Where is there mention of Mebyon Kernow on this UK page? Again should they be in a sectiuon on devolution and national parliaments?

Yawn, in the section about devolution and regional government i killed two birds with one stone saving a lot of space. I described the desire for devolution to Cornwall which is worthy of mention and also described the debate about whether or not the Cornish are one of the constituent nations of the UK and how this relates to the Assembly issue. Now you for what ever reason don't like this or don't think it worthy of mention but i would ask you why?

Britannica Britannica shmitannica!

Here is another link to the discussion on Cornish identity within the UK [2] Bretagne 44 18/5/05

  • "No but it is of importance in a section about national and regional devolution."

It's of very low importance in the UK as a whole, and of low importance in comparison to other regional movements. The nationalist movements in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are much larger, polling at least 45x more votes (at the 2005 election).

  • minor UK parties, the EU, human rights, terrorism
  • "So you think these should be covered in a section on regional parliaments and government?"

No, I think these should be covered in the "Government and Politics" section of the United Kingdom article. As I have said multiple times before, there is not space for large coverage of every minor facet of UK politics on the United Kingdom article. The regional parliaments and government subsection does not need to be any larger than it currently is, it covers the topic adequately. However, other subsections of the United Kingdom require expansion, and it is more important to expand these than talk any further above Cornwall.

  • "So that makes it OK then does it? That means the petition should not be mentioned does it? Why does'nt Wikipedia just copy the UK news and Britannica, save a lot of time and please all the ultra unionist bigots at the same time."

There needs to be a way of measuring the extent/popularity of a movement or political party. It might be measuring the number of votes in an recent election, the coverage in the national media, the attention government has given it. You seem to be suggesting giving coverage to Cornwall just because you feel it is important. So what if you think the media/govt/public is against Cornish nationalism-the point is that its is not important to UK national politics or regional politics in any measurable or perceivable way. 50,000 signatures for the petition is a very small amount compared with the population of Cornwall (10x that) or compared with the number of voters that took part with the Scottish/Welsh/NI referendums on devolution, or compared with the number of voters that vote for nationalist political parties in those nations. Here's a radical idea-the media/govt/UK public/Britannica editors are not indifferent/against Cornish nationalists/devolutionists because they are "bigots" or part of a vast conspiracy against Cornwall, it is because it is a movement that polls insignificant amounts of votes at elections, and according to its own petitions, less than 10% of the Cornish public support.

  • "That's because they are UK wide parties. Where is there mention of Mebyon Kernow on this UK page? Again should they be in a sectiuon on devolution and national parliaments?"

Exactly my point. There isn't space on this page to talk about regional political parties that poll miniscule numbers of votes. Only UK parties and nationalist parties like SNP, PC, SF which poll substantial numbers of votes are worthy of note. Mebyon Kernow received 3,552 votes at the last election-less than fringe parties like the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, and in comparison to another regional parties, 49 times less votes than Plaid Cymru. Mebyon Kernow is not relevant to a section on UK parties, or a section or regional parties-it polls far to few votes. If someone started an independence for the Isle Wight political party which polled 3,552 votes, it wouldn't be notable either. If Mebyon Kernow polled say 30% of the Cornwall population, then it would obviously be worthy of note.

I don't care if you keep the petition info, even though I don't think that petitions that represent less than 10% of the population are worthy of inclusion. What I would oppose is if the info on Cornwall was expanded anymore than its current size, for the reasons I have mentioned above. If there is any reason to expand the regional politics section, then it should be to talk more in depth about NI/Scottish/Welsh politics, not Cornwall, which is already adequately covered for an article about the entire United Kingdom. There is already a link to Constitutional status of Cornwall, which is enough about the academic issue. Deus Ex 22:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You seem to be suggesting giving coverage to Cornwall just because you feel it is important

No, it is important because it is fundamental to the nature of the UK and the makeup of the British people. It is a debate about what are the constituent peoples of the UK plus the related subjects of devolution and nationalism. For some reason this is not important for you, why? On the UK page there should be a section on the subject of what is the UK, is it a nation or a collection of nations, and in this section the Cornish and their Duchy should be mentioned. This is not the case however my original edit summed up both points.

  • 50,000 signatures for the petition is a very small amount compared with the population of Cornwall (10x that) or compared with the number of voters that took part with the Scottish/Welsh/NI referendums on devolution

To compare a petition gathered by volunteers as opposed to a nationwide referendum organised by government is spurious in the extreme and makes me question your motivation.

  • or compared with the number of voters that vote for nationalist political parties in those nations

In addition to the petition there are two opinion poles that put support for a Cornish assembly at over 50%, the work of the Cornish Constitutional Convention and the fact that the whole Duchy is Lib Dem, a party that supports devolution to Kernow.

  • 3,552 votes

These are just the votes for candidates in the general election, however if you add the votes for the Council elections in constituencies that MK did not field a candidate for the general the number is closer to 10000.

  • they are "bigots" or part of a vast conspiracy against Cornwall

I think there is a degree of conspiracy to undermine the Cornish national identity and change the nature and history of the Duchy, however in this instance I was referring to certain users of the internet.

  • Some more links from the BBC for your edification.

[3] [4] [5]

Bretagne 44 19/5/05

How about replacing the current text with this then, if you wish to show that there is 1. a popular movement 2. an academic debate. There is no need to mention the petition explicitly-just provide a link:

"In Cornwall, there is a movement that calls for devolution [6] (Cornish nationalism), and an academic debate over the constitutional status of Cornwall." Deus Ex 17:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How about: "In Cornwall, there is a movement that calls for devolution [7] (Cornish nationalism), and an academic debate over the Cornish identity and constitutional status of Cornwall." Bretagne 44 20/5/05

Done. Deus Ex 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Nation vs. country vs. part vs. ... Part the Umpteenth

Three of these parts—England, Wales and Scotland—are located on the island of Great Britain and are often considered nations in their own right. WTF!!!

England as a nation has been in existence since AT LEAST 1500 AD see http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/europe/id5.html or even further, see http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/E/En/English_nation.htm and also http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/window.htm

Its also a valid argument to say that Magna Carta was the first legal cornerstone of the English nation, and therefore the English Nation is at least 800 years old. You could even say the English started when the Romans mixed with the Brigantes in 56 AD, followed by the Saxons, Danes and Vikings, and then the Normans, so the English were formed per se by 1086. So i object to this line, and propose to remove or edit it.

Ill tackle the subject of the meaningless phrase 'Great Britain' when weve sorted this one.

Anyone object?


Lincolnshire Poacher 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Great Britain" - meaningless phrase??? It was the name of a state from 1707 to 1801, and was a component part of the name of the UK of GB + NI. Now on earth can that be meaningless? Mindboggling. FearÉIREANN 22:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'Great Britain' was an adminstrative gadget invented by James I. Where are the 'Great British', the ethnic race that inhabit such a place? Theres no such race!!! Theres the English, the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh - the Great British dont exist. And the 'British' are not just those 4 nations.

Who says the English are a different race to the Irish, Scots and Welsh? Why do you find the concept of an ethnic race of British contemptible, but proclaim as fact an ethinc race of English? Owain 18:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There was an article on BBC Web circa two weeks ago which says DNA research found the welsh and scottish kelta are genetically related to the basque people, who were the first habitants of Europe. The anglo-saxon are mere newcomers.

Actually, anyone can be British, all u need to do is get a UK passport. Yo uactual place of birth, nationality or ethnicity is irrelevant. You dont have to be born her eor be related to anyone here to be British. Its a stateless, meningless label. And since devolution seems to be the name of the game, and the Welsh are proud to be Welsh, the Scots pproud to be Scottish (they even have ther own parliment), as do the Nothern Irish, then we the English also wish to maintain our nationality and cultural integrity. So, to me and thousands of others like me, Great Britain is a contempable, meningless label. We are the United Kingdom.

Er, it's far from meaningless, it is the name of the large island that makes up the majority of the UK. Owain 18:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may well have been, at one point. I object to the phrase 'often considered nations in there own right' as it trivialises about 3000 years of English History. But, I repeat, because you keep ignoring the point, there is no nation or national identity or race called the British. We are the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish. So i intend to edit that statement. Lincolnshire Poacher 08:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have chosen some odd sites to back up your argument:

  • http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/europe/id5.html is a Tripod personal site, so we have no idea of the credentials of the author. Furthermore it's nonsensical to claim that the "England as a nation" has been in existence only since 1500 - it dates from sometime between the English immigration in the 5th century and the accession of Egbert as the first recognised king of all the English in the early 800s. You seem to be confused as to what to date to formation of England to, but I'll say it plainly that any date earlier than the withdrawal of the Roman administration, and especially to refer to "3000 years of English History" is absolute garbage - a) there was no such thing as the "English" before their arrival on the island, and b) they were illiterate so there is no "history".
  • http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/E/En/English_nation.htm is a mirror site of a Wikipedia article, now redirecting to English (people).
  • http://www.englishindependenceparty.com/window.htm - oh, wow, you've chosen the site of a "party" which managed to get all of 84 votes in the Ipswich by-election of 2001 (0.3% of the total), and hasn't put up a candidate in any subsequent by-election. This is even fewer votes than the OMRLP usually gets!


I'll echo FearÉIREANN and Owain, "Great Britain" is the name of the island, whether you like it or not, and there is a British identity in addition to the others. -- Arwel 15:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK population number

I am reverting the changes made by user Benbread on 15 March 2005. User Benbread, apparently, thought that the 2003 estimates were too old, and so he put some 2004 estimates from the CIA world factbook. Should it be reminded to all one more time that the CIA world factbook is not the Bible? It is actually known for making big mistakes. In the case of UK population, the CIA world factbook is wrong. The only credible estimates for the UK population come from the UK Office for National Statistics, and the latest estimates we have are for July 2003. In the next months we should get the July 2004 estimates. Computing UK population is a difficult process. There was already a discussion about this a few months ago on this discussion page. After the 2001 UK census, UK Statistics realized that their estimates were overestimated, that's why they had to downsize them and change their estimate methods. CIA world factbook is obviously not aware of that and still uses bogus estimates from the 1990s. So please don't change the estimates again to put the CIA world factbook figures. It's becoming weary to always have to revert misinformed edits. Hardouin 13:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The July 2004 population estimates are now here. . ONS England and Wales[8], GRO Scotland, NISRA N.Ireland zzuuzz (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Little Britain

Quote: The term "Great" is used in opposition to "Little" Britain or Brittany in France (the '-ny' ending being diminutive).

The -ny of Brittany is no more a diminutive ending than the -ny of Tuscany or Germany!

Compare Bretagne / Brittany with Gascogne / Gascony, etc. This -ny is no more than the English version of the Latin -ia ending (here applied to a root ending in -n) via French -gne. Yes, Brittany is Britannia Minor in Latin -- in contradistinction to Britannia (Major) -- but those who consciously talked up the idea of "Great Britain" in the 16th-17th centuries did not have Brittany on their minds - rather, a whole-island polity of "greater Britain". See The Isles: A History by Norman Davies. -- Picapica 22:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prime Minsiter vs Head of State

Queen used to have her image shown in politics section, but should not be so prominent in politics section given that she is apolitical. Wikipedia should strive to be neutral as far as possible, and the Prime Minister (love him or hate him) is the most important figure politically - not the Queen who has a largely symbolic role

Templates

Why the resistance to removing the Commonwealth and NATO templates? Consensus has existed at Wikiproject countries since May 2004 that these templates do not belong. The UK article is now one of the only ones to have these templates. Also recently Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes was rewritten after much discussion and it now contains a number of rules that explicitly say these templates are a bad idea. Notably it now states that "multiple boxes are generally considered a blight." - SimonP 17:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason many other articles do not have templates is because you deleted many of them today. And the said policy does not explicitly say these templates are a bad idea, it says it could be a disadvantage. Astrotrain 17:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I see "generally considered a blight" as fairly explicit. - SimonP 18:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Electronica?

Why is 'electronica' mentioned in this article? That is hardly a significant genre of music let alone a culture defining one. This article needs major work--Josquius 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article separate from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Tjdw 16:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the name before Irish independence. That article is about the UK during that time. DJ Clayworth 16:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

Why, when we could choose from thousands of helpful external links, is one of the 20 most important deemed to be UK Gay Guides: A guide to the gay scenes in various towns in the UK? It looks very out of place among our links list of maps, atlases, geographical and political information and a couple of major national institutions.

I submit that if this were important enough to be included, so would be "a guide to the straight scenes in various towns", "a guide to the music scenes in various towns", "a guide to your local hospital in various towns", "a guide to finding a good pub to watch the footy in in various towns" and so forth. Wikipedia could link to such sites (if they're good sites), but not IMO from United Kingdom, they're just not relevant enough. Now flame away. —Blotwell 02:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the link, SqueakBox 03:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Turns out the link was added by 80.4.224.6, a known (shared IP) vandal. —Blotwell 05:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questionable sentences

"It should be noted that the practice by some, the informal media in particular, of using "(Great) Britain" as shorthand for the United Kingdom is an inaccuracy which can cause offence."

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people might be offended to call the UK "England", but who is offended to call the UK "Britain"?

" With the Act of Union 1707, the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland, having shared the same monarch since 1603, agreed to a permanent union as the Kingdom of Great Britain. This occurred at a time when Scotland was on the brink of economic ruin and was deeply unpopular with the broader Scottish population"

I presume it means the Act of Union was unpopular, not the Scottish government. Is "deeply unpopular" accurate, or would simply "unpopular" be more accurate. Without evidence, it should make quite such a bold assertation about the attitude of " the broader Scottish population" (whatever that means) 300 years ago.

"The United Kingdom, the dominant industrial and maritime power of the 19th century, played a leading role in developing Western ideas of property, liberty, capitalism and parliamentary democracy - to say nothing of its part in advancing world literature and science"

"to say nothing of its part" is a poor way of phrasing the UK's scientific and cultural contributions. Any suggestion to a better way of putting it? The history section is extremely poor in general, it might be better if someone just wrote a fresh summary of it using the History of the United Kingdom

"Historically, the House of Lords has featured members of nobility who were granted seats by nature of birthright, although this feature has been abolished"

Is this a reference to hereditary peers or something different? Deus Ex 28 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone being offended by the use of Britain or Great Britain as a shorthand for the UK. However, as Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, it may be offensive there. Agree with history point. As for House of Lords, it would mean hereditary peers, rather than nobility (as not all of the notablity would be entitiled to sit in the House of Lords) Astrotrain June 28, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
I'd say the a great many, if not all Unionists would find calling the UK "GB" offensive, and many others do, too - I'm a Londoner but I find it very annoying and bordering on offensive, especially if it is done wilfully (and it's as annoying as .
I agree, we should change "when Scotland was on the brink of economic ruin and was deeply unpopular with the broader Scottish population" to "when Scotland was on the brink of economic ruin, though the Act was unpopular with many Scots".
As to peers, yes, it should be "Historically, the House of Lords was composed of members of the Peerage, holding seats by nature of birthright, although now members are appointed for life."
James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

I changed the line about UK/GB misusage, hopefully it's more accurate now. I'm not really convinced that many people outside of Northern Ireland are aware of, or offended by the misuage. After all even political parties often call the UK "Britain", like Labour's 2001 manifesto: "Ambitions for Britain". "Ambitions for the United Kingdom" would sound a bit over-formal. And things like "Brit-pop", "Britannia" are obviously derived from "Britain". But it is true that "United Kingdom" or more accurately "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are the only correct legal names for the country. Deus Ex 3 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

Map

This is completely off the point and I haven't bothered reading all the stuff above, but the map of Britain's crap, it shows loads of ports then Birmingham. Felixstowe isn't as important as say, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Derby, even Mansfield, so why keep that map?

I agree. Where are Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester? And Norwich is usually on UK maps because it's in the middle of nowhere. Plus theres lots of space in Wales for a name or two.
Rednaxela 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

(Above two comments moved into this section, where they are more relevant --Rednaxela 9 July 2005 11:01 (UTC))


I see that this article uses the frankly bizarre CIA map of the UK (Peterhead and Grangemouth but no Inverness, for example) from the CIA World Factbook. Surely there must be a better one than this available in the public domain? Leithp July 8, 2005 14:02 (UTC)

The bizarre CIA map probably includes places like Peterhead and Grangemouth because they are "economically/strategically important" or something like that, seeing as it is from the CIA, Peterhead being important in the fishing industry and Grangemouth important in the oil industry? Just a guess. Although Im not defending the maps use on this article at all, it doesnt even hint at the densely populated areas in Yorkshire and the Midlands, so Ill throw my hat into the movement to find a better UK map that is public domain.

Republic

I am quite surprised by the poll that shows that 23% of the UK favouring a Republic, but I would say that "little support" and "23%" are contradictory. I would think that, say, under 10% would be little support, where as nearly a quarter would be seen as a significant minority. Does anyone else think it should just perhaps say something along the lines of "a recent poll showed only 23% in favour of a President"? On the the subject on the Act of Union 1707 being deeply unpopular, writers at the time commented that it was deeply unpopular and reported demonstrations against it. I think Daniel Defoe, who was in Edinburgh at the time, reported a violent protest against it "A Scots rabble the worst of its kind" and it was also said "for every Scot in favour of the Union there is 100 against it". But it was 300 years ago, who cares? Not necessary for the main UK article anyway.

Perhaps "a recent poll showed 23% in favour of a President". The statistic doesn't surprise me at all. A lot of people are against the nepotism rather than the Royal Family itself, SqueakBox 22:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

And I have chganged it to Although the abolition of the monarchy has been suggested several times, the popularity of the monarchy remains strong with 23% wanting a republic, it isn't only 23% but neither is 77% quite strong, as it had been described, SqueakBox 22:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

It has been 20% ish for decades and far more during the reigns of the Georges, Victoria, Edward VIII and the early years of George VI. MORI, who do polling for the Royal Family on the issue, and have done for decades, regard 20% as little support, as do most pollsters. 20% opposition on a major issue is seen as pretty minimalist. On just about any major issue, one in five is pretty much guaranteed to be opposed, some just for the sake of opposition (to stand out of the crowd, etc), some because invariably are opposed to everything (they are not the same, BTW. The latter would oppose a monarchy, a republic, a federal state, a unitary state. As the Irish say, "Whatever it is, they are agin"). Others are opposed in principle on the issue. Others are fringe republicans in far left movements, or campaigners against nation states, or for world government, or like one campaigner because he believes the Queen is a secret 20 foot tall human-eating lizard (and yup, he does believe that. So is Bill Clinton, by the way!), or Lyndon La Rouche nutters who think she is the world's big exporter of drugs, or supporters of the Stuarts who want the Windsors dethroned for revenge, or others who want them dethroned because they think they are German, or because they think the Duke of Edinburgh killed Diana, Princess of Wales, etc etc. Remember, according to one poll, 8% wanted cars to drive on the right of the road but trucks to drive on the left!!! And 30% still think JFK is still live!!! And according to a poll in France, 15% believe Pope John Paul II was murdered by the CIA to silence him in the war on Iraq.
Pollsters would regard a figure of up near 30% as slightly more notable, 30-35% as significant, 30-40% a major. But circa 20% is in polling terms, a case of, "round up the usual suspects", the nutters, the fringe groups, the extremists, the Lizard-believers, the 'I'm opposed to Mom and apple pie' (ie, lets kill Mom and poison the apple pie shower) brigade, etc. 23% (in reality it ebbs and flows between 15% and 25%) this is pretty much bottom of the barrel numbers and would be regarded as "little support". It is what one polling lecturer of mine used to call the 'SNV' or Standard Nutter Vote. Unfortunately every electorate has them.
According to Mori, the most remarkable thing about support for the royals is that it has remained so steady. It does occasionally rise when the issue of Diana crops up but invariably falls back to the 15-25% level, much of which is that SNV. If a republic was declared tomorrow, you could pretty much guarantee that 90% of that 15-25% vote would be anti-it too. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 22:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Im sorry if I sounded like I was trying to start a debate on republicanism, i just thought the language, as in "little support" and "23%" seemed contradictory. You seem to know a lot about polling so I dont want to argue. But I thought just saying "23% favour a president" would do. When people see 23% they can then make their own judgements as to how many of that 23% like to "stand out from the crowd", are communists, etc. Although the Jacobite argument doesn't work because Jacobites dont "favour a president", they are royalists who favour a different royal house. But I digress, what I was saying was 23% is 23%, and the "little support" remark was contradictory (perhaps a royalist journalistic slant?).
Oh goody. According to some Wikipedians I am a British monarchist, and Australian republican etc, an Italian monarchist, a Spanish republican. But then I'm supposed to be an IRA-supporting, West-Brit unionist republican for edits on Irish pages. :-) Actually 23% is the usual highpoint. More often it drops to 15%, and occasionally has dropped below 10%. And 23% is, according to pollsters, "little support" because it is almost totally made up of fringe groups with little support among general voters. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't call you a Royalist/Monarchist, it was reference to whoever wrote that part of the article (and a tongue in cheek one at that) although it is fair to say you are a populist, i never thought of 1 in 4 people as being on the "fringe" of society. Like I said before this is'nt an article on "Polling", "Demographics", "Market Research" or anything else, your points would be perfectly valid then, I was just saying why not just let it say "23%" instead of "little support...23%" and let others make up their mind from there about fringe groips etc. And please dont take this as any sort of personal attack to do with the IRA or Italian facists or whatever you are on about.

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms shown in the box on the top right is the coat of arms as used in England (and possibly abroad), but the version used in Scotland is different with the lion and unicorn reversed, the Scottish arms appearing twice and the English and Irish once, different compartment and motto, and I think some other changes - should this page show that too?

  • The Scottish version is only used for Scotland, whereas the version on the page is for the UK (not just England). It is used in Scotland for UK-wide representation (eg it is on the UK passport for instance) Astrotrain 21:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes at bottom

OK, I know there have been discussions about this before; but I wasn't involved in them — so I don't remember if there was any clear upshot. At any rate, since we've been having a lovely edit war about them again, maybe it's time to discuss some more.

To my eyes, I agree that there shouldn't be too many boxes at the bottom; that is ugly and distracting. But on the other hand, omission of certain "obvious" infoboxes could be interpreted as "unnatural" and hence POV.

Let me suggest that there appear to be three main categories of "membership" for the UK:

  • it is associated geographically (and now politically) with Europe. Hence there could be boxes for Europe or for the European Union member states
  • for historical reasons, it is associated culturally with a diverse range of countries around the world; and it looks to the same queen as many of them. Hence there could be boxes for the Commonwealth of Nations or for Commonwealth Realms where the queen remains head of state
  • it is associated politically with the UN, with the UN Security Council with NATO, with the G8, etc. etc.

I would argue that it is unnatural and POV to focus our boxes on one of these categories; we should include a healthy cross-section from all three categories. But again, I don't think it's necessary to include every single possibility. Doops | talk 21:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC) PS: Please see also my thoughts at the WikiProject Countries talk page. Doops | talk 22:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, although some users will insist on removing them and will constantly vandalise and censor the page to get what they want. I agree that a UN Security Council template would be a good idea. Astrotrain 21:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that all three groups are equally important. The current guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject countries are that geography templates like {{Europe}} and supranational organization templates like {{EU}} belong, but that international organization templates do not. I feel this is a good compromise. Most countries only have one geography template and supranational organizations are quite rare and important. By contrast there are dozens of international organizations that each country is a part of. I think a blanket ban on international organization templates is far easier than spending ages debating if {{NATO}} is more important than {{WTO}} or if {{OECD}} is more worthy than {{Commonwealth of Nations}}. I suggest the best idea is to discuss this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject countries to try and have some guidelines that will apply to all country articles. - SimonP 22:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is a simple logical way to define what templates are necessary, namely, is it important in understanding the country for readers to understand a particular context of importance to that country, for example

  • Templates dealing with unique constitutional relationships or history;
  • Templates dealing with international organisations that are centrally important to the state' existence, culture or economy.
  • Templates dealing with information that would not be generally known to readers.

So for example,

  • the template of countries in the European continent should be deleted. If someone look's at a globe they'll know where the UK. They don't need a template to tell them that. Ditto with a template on who is in the UN, or is an island, or is a monarchy, etc.
  • the template on the EU is vital. UK membership is vitally important to its economy and politics. Plus if this template is there, then there is no need for the one above.
  • the template on Commonwealth realms is important because it deals with a unique constitutional feature; that the UK is one of 16 states that share a monarch. All sixteen states share an overlapping constitutional history so a reader needs to be able to go easily between them if making constitutional comparisons.
  • the template on the G8 is relevant. It is a major shaper of world economic policy. It is important for readers to know that Britain is one of its members, and who are is co-members.
  • the template on the Commonwealth is arguably unnecessary when one as a Commonwealth Realm template, as to be a commonweath realm one is by definition in the commonweath of nations.
  • Templates on the WTO, NATO etc are probably should be in in this case because the UK is a key player in those organisations.

The UK, because of its economic size and world role will need more templates than smaller countries. There can be no 'only x' number of templates' policy that is workable. It simply has got to cover the central issue - is it relevant in terms of history, constitution, politics or economics. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You've made good arguments in favor of the EU and Commonwealth Realms templates. But of course each of those groups is a subset of the countries in the Europe and Commonwealth boxes — so I was about to argue in favor of those larger ones on the grounds that they're more inclusive and thus more useful. Interesting... Doops | talk 00:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm OK with the commonwealth one. The Europe I think is irrelevant, certainly for major states where everyone knows where they are, unless there is only one or two templates, in which case a third is fine. Where as in the UK there is quite a few justified templates that need to go in, adding another one to tell people that it is in Europe when the reader will already know that is IMHO unncessary. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important to understand why templates exist in the first place. They do not exist indicate whether an institution is important or not, they exist to help readers navigate pages. If an organization or other grouping is important, then it should be clearly mentioned in the article. Informing readers that UK is a member of NATO is important, but giving them that information does no require us to list every other member of NATO. When we mention NATO membership in the article the term will be linked and the interested reader will in a single click be able to find what other countries are members. The point of templates is simply for ease of navigation. Having multiple templates is bad design as it forces the reader to search between them, making navigation harder. We should thus dump the templates that few readers are going to use. One option, that I increasingly feel might be the best idea, is to simply dump all the smaller templates and simply end every country article with a template:countries, as a single template listing all the countries in the world would actually be shorter than a cluster of any three shorter templates. - SimonP 00:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that might work. Clearly some "thinking outside the box" (resign! resign!) is required. I've been bold and tried another similarly radical solution: adding a single UK-specific template with links to the various templates (or articles where I couldn't find a template). It's at Template: UK ties2 if anybody's interested. See also Template: UK ties for a version where all links go directly to the relevant articles. Doops | talk 04:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) PS: Another attempt at a box which uses its full width to better advantage, may be found at Template:UK ties3 Doops | talk 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Good work, this really shows how new blood can bring great ideas that have never been considered in the years this dispute has been going on. - SimonP 13:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

England Is The UK

England has been the controlling member of the UK like how Russia was the controlling member of the USSR I would also like to add that places like The Isile of Mann are not part of the UK they belong to the queen Scotland may have it's own Parliment but it is still part of the UK Dudtz7/20/05 18:00 est

  • Are you trying to be funny? I wouldn't have thought Wikipedia is the best place for trolling. Leithp 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I withdrawn that idea and went to the exact opposite Engalnd is not a nation only the UK exists as a nation I dont know what I was thinking when I wrote that other thing Dudtz7/21/05 5:53 PM EST

Queen of Canada?

In the politics section, the Queen is wearing the Order of Canada and is reigning as the Canadian monarch; this is, indeed, a picture from the Canadian Government. This is inappropriate, much like using US English in an article on the UK. Is there a better picture?

I imagine that everyone agrees that it is inappropriate, yes.
However, no, there is not a better picture that we have access to.
Note: Any official portraits of the Queen from her coronation would be now PD were they under Crown Copyright (50 years); if you find one...
James F. (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

England redirect

A user using various IPs has been redirecting this article to England. They have been warned over and over again, under their various IPs, to stop, including getting a final warning (test4) telling them that they would be blocked if they did the redirect again. It may be their first time using that IP but it is part of a series. It is a waste of time treating them each time as a new user. They are simply an old user IP-surfing. They know exactly what they are doing (and have been doing it here for days.) Block them the moment they try under a new IP. Their most recent IP has just been blocked. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why UK is called that

The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of England's counties, as UK and England are the same

That is so wrong. The United Kingdom is, as its name makes clear, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not England. English is one of its bits, along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Stop doing these redirects. They are completely wrong.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are plenty of Scots like me who will happily lynch those who equate England and the UK.

It's the national obsession!

Wait, and there has never been a 'United Kingdom of England'. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, and can never be defined as, counties. They are home nations. Zhengfu

The United Kingdom is comprised of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK is not 1 of these 4 nations, but as it's name implies, a United Kingdom of the 4 combined. As such, for example, the name England is as interchangable with the name UK as Texas is with the USA.
Counties such as Aberdeenshire fall within the United Kingdom, but Aberdeenshire is in Scotland, a long way from the border with England. The fact it is in one yet not the other shows that the 2 are not one and the same. - Burwellian 13:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest redirect

I attempted to fix it and might have briefly made it worse because I don't know what I'm doing - sorry!

The UK is a country of 4 countries?

Quotes:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country..." (United Kingdom)
"The United Kingdom is a country comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." (Category:United Kingdom)
"England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom..." (England)
"Scotland ... is a country in northwest Europe and a constituent nation of the United Kingdom." (Scotland)
"Wales ... is a country and one of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom..." (Wales)
Northern Ireland's article does not claim that it is a country.

I feel foolish asking this, but according to the quotes above, the United Kingdom is a country of countries. Is that correct? Is there some more proper terminology? Would it be more proper to say:

Is there an official UK policy on terminology? -- Reinyday, 06:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think all of your restatements are OK; but so too is the original statement. It is a country made up four countries. Life is messy. And I sure hope there's no official policy — how boring! Doops | talk 06:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) PS — not just boring: it would also be officious and unnecessarily meddlesome; and also smack of false precision. Doops | talk 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The UK is a kingdom of 4 countries.
    • Messy. A kingdom is just a specific type of country, so why not just mention it directly?
  • The UK is a Commonwealth Realm made up of 4 countries.
    • Unnecessarily vague.
  • The UK is a sovereign state made up of 4 countries.
    • That makes it seem like a federation, which it isn't.
  • The UK is a country made up of 4 nation-states.
    • Not true, the UK is the state, it is not composed of states.

The way it is currently is fine. There are lots of overlap with terms such as nation and country, so trying to find a perfect politically-correct solution will end up offending someone. Owain 09:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. A kingdom is a specific type of state (a political entity) but not a specific type of country (a geographical/demographical entity). -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The official policy is that the United Kingdom is exactly that: a kingdom uniting the three constituent countries and Northern Ireland under a common government. The UK is therefore NOT a country- feel free to consult Whitman's Almanac which backs up this. Jmperry

Um...so what's your definition of country? Doops | talk 04:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The UK is not a country. It can be described as a state, a kingdom or a geo-political entity. It consists 3 countries (or nations) and a region. JM is correct in his definition. Wikipedia is not. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, no doubt about it: the UK is not a country. A kingdom or a state, yes but not a country. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why?Doops | talk 08:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked my passport, the UK was a country. I seemed to have misplaced my english passport. Perhaps I should contact the english parliament about it or I could even ask the Queen of England. I assume England is a signatory to many international agreements so that my human rights are guarenteed. Red screen of death 11:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no Queen of England. There is a Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, something different.
I think you've missed the irony...
The bigger irony is that the UK passport doesn't refer to the UK as a country anywhere within it. It mentions "another country" on the Notes page when talking about dual nationality and such but whenever talking about itself it uses the term "United Kingdom". On the personal details page, it uses the wording "Code of Issuing State: GBR" rather than "Code of Issuing Country: GBR". So to the extent that it supports either position, the UK passport seems to support the "kingdom/state" position rather than the "country" one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the UK is a country and a nation, but it contains four constituent nations, which are not countries as recognised by the UN, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Keith 20:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Not so. The UK is not a nation. It is a geopolitical entity created from the merger of 4 nations through a series of Acts of Union. Ireland however left legally in 1922. Northern Ireland is not a nation and is not regarded by any group as a nation. Unionists regard themselves as British. Nationalists regard themselves as Irish. Neither side regard Northern Ireland as a nation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Everybody agrees on what the situation is; there's no need to keep rehashing it. The only disagreement is on what the words country, nation, state, and kingdom mean. Personally, I think that it's false precision to claim to try to pin down any of these words too precisely. Doops | talk 20:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously everyone doesn't agree. People use country for nation, nation for kingdom, state for nation. An encyclopædia needs accuracy in its use of terminology, not half-baked, illdefined, mumbo-jumbo. The term kingdom is the most apt. Its meaning is simple: a state with a monarch. It is dodgy POV to suggest that Scotland, Wales and England aren't countries. It is poor writing to talk of something being a country made up of three countries. It is the sort of thing that would be seized on any secondary school teacher as shoddy workmanship and poor writing. An encyclopædia can't write such inferior rubbish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So since it's made up of three books ("Book I," "Book II," "Book III"), we can't call Sense and Sensibility a book? Since two of its constituent boroughs are cities (the City of London and City of Westminster), we can't call London a city? Since some sections of it are local trails with their own local names, we can't call the Appalachian Trail a trail? It's not "ill-defined mumbo-jumbo" to use words according to their plain, commonsense, everyday definitions. Having been a secondary school teacher myself, I hope that I taught my kids to think for themselves and not fall into the (mumbo-jumbo?) charms of false precision. Doops | talk 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Technially, London (i.e. the Square Mile) and Westminster are cities but the area of Greater London is a conurbation, NOT a city. - JVG 10:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

To follow up: I don't think I can express any better than I did in January (slightly edited) — All this is ridiculous. A small handful of people clearly attatch strong POV meanings to the words "country," "state," and "nation" — but in common parlance the words are virtually indistinguishable. True, a country has definite geographic implications (there could be an unpopulated country), a nation has definite people-based implications (there could be a landless nation), and a state definitely has governmental implications (a nation or country in anarchy wouldn't really be a state) — but these are differences in emphasis. The UK is a state, nation, country, and kingdom; trying to pin in down further is false precision. England, Scotland, and Wales (and perhaps Northern Ireland as well) are countries and nations, although one probably wouldn't call them states. (England and Scotland, furthermore, have a history as kingdoms although they aren't independent kingdoms anymore.) There really shouldn't be any issue of POV, just clarity — what's the simplest and most direct word for an introductory ¶? Doops 02:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, if you haven't seen it before, just a reminder that there's already been several metric oodles of discussion here: Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State. Doops | talk 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That is such a piece of poorly understood claptrap it is mindboggling. For a start calling Northern Ireland a "nation" is about the only thing that Gerry Adams and Rev Ian Paisley would agree on. It is balmy. Unionists don't believe it. Nationalists don't believe it. Academics don't say it. Demographers don't say it. It is looney and shows no grasp whatsoever of Northern Ireland. Nation, country and state are not coterminus. A state is a political entity. A nation is a cultural and historic entity. A country is a geographic entity that may or may not be coterminus with a state, or nation, or may not. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a pass standard essay. Getting terminology right is crucial. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
God, calm down. Fine, I've struck out the offending parenthetical aside; I abase myself before you for being such an idiot as to write it. But it doesn't affect my point. And indeed, let me point out that I never claimed the words were coterminous; just that they had overlaps and grey areas. Doops | talk 21:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It is true that "in common parlance" the terms mean more or less the same vague thing but the reason that some of us are being pedantic over this is that for an encyclopaedia we expect to see the terms used with their technical meanings. That's because the common meanings are just too vague for educational purposes. It's got little or nothing to do with POV unless you count the "encyclopedic" POV and the "uninformed" POV as valid points of view. We want to use the technical meanings to avoid overlaps and grey areas as far as we can. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that people want to be precise. I agree with you that the UK is a kingdom and a state; but what, precisely, makes it not a country? "Country" has geographical implications, certainly; but the UK has geography. Doops | talk 03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
What makes it not a country ? Good question. I would imagine that it's the same thing that makes Europe not a country, or Scandinavia not a country, or Yugoslavia not a country. However whether it is or it isn't is beside the point. We both agree that the UK is a state or a kingdom whereas we have a disagreement about whether it is technically a country or not. In that situation it seems more sensible to me that we all use one of the terms that we agree on rather than picking the most contentious of the three options and trying to reach an agreed definition of it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but there are objections to both of those words: state is really a technical term that nobody uses in everyday speech. It is the kind of forbidding language which turns people off; some readers may not even be familiar with its use in this way. Kingdom is, firstly, tautologous (do we really want to say "The United Kingdom is a kingom..." ? I suspect Fear Eireann's hypothetical school teacher would seize on that as poor writing!); and, secondly, given their edit summaries, I have been getting the sense that some anonymous editors have been using "kingdom" for POV reasons. Furthermore, both "state" and "kingdom", I would submit, are unnecessarily government-focused. The UK has a lot more to it than its government. That leaves "country" and "nation"; and I think it goes without saying that the former is much less contentious.
The basic point I am trying to make is that, to use a term from linguistics, "country" seems to me like the least marked word. It has the least baggage, it's the most everyday. The intro paragraph is for the quick summary; there's plenty of room in the body of the article to give details.
OK, that's addressed your general point. To the specific: the difference is that nobody calls Europe or Scandinavia countries; lots of people call the UK one. Unlike states, which can be pretty clearly defined by a diplomatic-recognition rubic or suchlike, countries are hard to pin down. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some political entities take up only part of a country; others seem to include more than one. Is the US one country? Or 50? Aerial photographs don't reveal dotted lines pained on the surface of the earth to tell us. So all we can go by is common parlance. And I submit that millions of people accord the UK the status of country in their everyday speech. Doops | talk 06:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the term used in Acts of Parliament (for England, Scotland, Wales, and NI — Ed.) is "Part".

James F. (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I like the term "part". Nicely neutral. --Khendon 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Doops is entirely correct. The words country and nation are for the most part interchangeable and synonymous and tryng to pin them down is a pointless exercise as so masny people have different views about the precise meaning. Look one word up in the dictionary and you will find the other. I don't know why so many people are so hung up about it. Jooler 07:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The BBC has a country profile for the United Kingdom [9]. There are no such pages for England or Scotland. Dmn € Դմն 08:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The BBC is no more likely to be right about this sort of thing than we are. I had to write to them recently asking them to correct their magazine article on portraits which stated that photography destroyed miniature portrait painting in the 18th century (even though it wasn't invented until the 19th century). If enough of us wrote to them stating that the use of the word "country" was wrong and that it should be "state", I am sure that they would correct their profile entries in the same way. Of course they might well come back and say "We checked Wikipedia and it uses 'country', so it must be right". <Grin>, well maybe not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I asked this question out of curiosity, and not because I feel the wording in the article needs to be changed. I just wondered if you could technically have a country made up of countries. I am enjoying everyone's input, except the overtly rude comments. -- Reinyday, 01:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/AboutBritain/AboutBritainArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10012517&chk=loPvDs
"The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK."
Robertbyrne 17:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple more interesting bits of data. Firstly, the EU describes itself as

"The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity."

So you would expect the UK, as a member, to be a country.

The ever-inaccurate-and-wobbly CIA World Factbook has this glaring innaccuracy on the UK page:

"The second half [of the 20th century] witnessed the dismantling of the Empire and the UK rebuilding itself into a modern and prosperous European nation."

...unless they didn't mean "nation" technically, but more as a wobbly notion-state? (I'm so sorry.)

I don't see a problem with "a country of countries". The key thing to avoid is what the CIA Factbook did, which is to call the UK a nation. Robertbyrne 18:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If the UK is a country of countries (which it is), why can't it be a nation of nations? let's not get too hung up on these terms — "nation" is simply a group of people with a shared history, culture, language, &c - which definitely describes the UK. Owain 18:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read elsewhere (sorry, too lazy to check) that it is a major journalistic faux pas to describe the UK as a "nation", or, I think, to speak of "the nation" when referring to the UK. Not sure about the word "national" though. It might be OK.

Apart from some kind of historico-cultural aversion to the notion of the UK being a nation (probably many people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might take a special exception to the idea), I agree that you could in principle have a nation of nations, but I doubt one exists, given the ideas we usually attribute to nations.

As for the general notion of "an X of Xs", I am sure everyone would agree that there are "regions of regions". Also, isn't the US a state of states? (The constitutent states not being soverign, but the federal "state" being a soverign state.) The UN seems to call its members "states" at [10] (Although it also implies they are "peace-loving"!)

(So the UN is really "the US". Ouch! Reminds me of the French for the US: les EU. (In French the EU is the UE, so it only hurts in English.)) Robertbyrne 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol, it is true that the UN is in fact a union of states, but I guess the name was already taken.

For my view, the reason people avoid 'nation' with the UK is simply to avoid offending the various nationalists of its consituent parts ;-). The UK is most definately a state. As for country... I think this works too; as has been said, country is a synonym for both nation and state. However, its ambiguous nature means that its place in an encylopedia is questionable. So, the UK is a state of nations, which can also make it a country of countries.

As for Northern Ireland - well its not a country, nation or a state! Its not even a county, as its borders don't match exactly with that of Ulster. So go figure Robdurbar 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Isn't Northern Ireland a Territory? Ulster being a Province of Ireland.
Also, can we just pick one thing to leave for the time being as the status of the UK is debated... We've got it being called both a Country and a Sovereign State. Personnally, I prefer the latter.- JVG 12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Motor Racing Heritage

There is mention of tennis, football, rugby, and more besides, but not a single word on Motor Racing... that is really quite appalling.

Write it yourself! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so here's your chance to make a contribution - Adrian Pingstone 19:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

CO UK ?

A little offtopic perhaps, but I don't know where to ask. What does CO UK (as in amazon.co.uk, or in postal address) stand for? 82.210.173.231 09:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

co = company, uk =United Kingdom. Odd question. Perhaps you are from the US? There is a co.us domain but it is rarely used as most companies prefer .com Jooler
co.us = Colorado! -- Arwel 11:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahh I didn't know that. Jooler

Co=company! That was my first guess, but my friend didn't aggree, and I had to ask :) I'm not from US - I'm from Poland. Thanks for the quick response. 82.210.173.231 11:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually looking at http://www.nic.uk/SecondLevelDomains/AboutSecondLevelDomains/ it seems it means commercial rather than company. Jooler 15:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture: Sport / Football

A great number of major sports originated in the United Kingdom, including football, golf, cricket, squash, boxing, rugby, billiards, and rounders, the forerunner of baseball. England won the 1966 FIFA World Cup and the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

- The article is about the UK and sports originiating in the UK. England winning stuff has nothing to do with sports originating in the UK, or the UK overall. It already states under that the footballing nations are individual. It only makes the complicated subject of the UK more difficult. I have made changes and improved the text / linkage.

Pictures

I need to see more pictures.I am doing a report on United Kingdom and I looked everywhere to find pictures and I just cant find them.I even looked on other sites and I can't find any!It is so frustrating!I would redo the whole intrenet system to find pictures!!!If I can't find pictures I will Tell my teacher that it is all your fault and you are the most disapointing website I've ever been to!

Well, that will make a nice change for him/her from all the gossip in the teachers' longue about how insidious and dangerous the Wikipedia is. Doops | talk 22:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
What kind of pictures did you want? Dmn € Դմն 13:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm certain this request is a joke. For example, just type in any city name and most will have pics (especially London). I'll just give you a few UK articles that I've illustrated. I've done many many more but can't be bothered to type them all in for such a silly request. The requester has obviously made no attempt to search for anything!: Arboretum Barnstaple Bradford on Avon Brecon Beacons National Park Bridge Bristol Channel Bridge Campanology Bristol Castle Combe Cheddar Gorge Chipping Sodbury Cliff Clovelly Cotswolds Dartmouth Devon Exmoor Fishery Heritage railway and so on - Adrian Pingstone 08:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article?

Might it be worth making this a featured article? A perhaps slighlty boring task, but...

James F. (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


I can't see any reason why this article is not of great enough quality to be considered as a featured article - go for it :) -Benbread 20:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Countries of Europe

Who has made this new "Countries of Europe" thing on the bottom? with the subdivisions and the maps? I think this should either be corrected or reverted back to how to used to be. Not only are these groupings subjective, several countries are excluded from the list. Where is San Marino, Malta. before it also had territories that were self governing listed, like the faroe islands, or gibalter. I think this new one is a shame. --sterms 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What are the superscripts?

The entry is full of superscript numerals (example: "Anthem: God Save the Queen4") (superscript "4") which aren't links and apparently don't refer to any footnotes on the page. What is this? It damages the usability of the page. Let's remove them or make them actually useful. -- 15 October 2005

The footnotes are within the infobox. zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom infobox, copying this to its talk page, SqueakBox 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the matter has been cleared up (and it was never a gigantic issue in the first place, which is what cleanup is for), I've removed this from Wikipedia:Cleanup and removed the template from the article. Johnleemk | Talk 19:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks all.

For how many countries of the world does the UK exist?

How many countries of the world do recognize the UK? I remember reading there are some that only acknowledge Great Britain, because they give priority for the natural right of the Irish Island for unity and independence.

Interesting question, but as for the natural right for an united Ireland, in a democracy there is no natural right, just the voice of the people and, in Northern Ireland, they choose to remain part of the United Kingdom. But as the UK is a member of the United Nations its sovereignty is recognised by the other member states of the Genera Assembly. :: Keith :: 13:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Yup, not aware of any states who refuse to recognize the United Kingdom. Ireland, however, did not recognize the UK as the government of Northern Ireland when the rest of the country gained independance. The Irish government claimed Northern ireland for itself. This claim ahas now been dropped adn they do recognize the UK. Robdurbar 14:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

100% of states worldwide recognise the UK. The last that didn't, the Republic of Ireland, did so de facto under Article 3 of the Irish constitution in 1937 and does now de jure by constitutional amendment.FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued in...

Discussion continued in Archive 4.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_3&oldid=1091995650"