Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

English should be removed from "Official language"

I see there being no reason why English should be labeled under "official language" even if it is put as de-facto. An official language has to have actual legal priority over other languages which confirms it as the official language. The Australia article notes that Australia has no official language but does list English as a national language- despite it being the most spoken language by far (debatably). The United States, despite also having English as its national language and it being universally used in all government matters does not list English as its "de-facto" official language. Why is the United Kingdom article different? Other major Anglo-speaking nations do not have this quirk. I'll be removing English from the official languages tab for this reason. If anybody would wish to dispute, then go ahead. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

English is treated with priority over other languages. The Welsh Language Measure 2011 notes "the official status of the Welsh language is given legal effect by the enactments about...the treatment of the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language". It also requires the "Welsh and English languages to be treated on the basis of equality". CMD (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

English is used by all MPs in the British House of Commons. Welsh is not. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed since De facto in this case means that it is unofficial. Incidentally, while English is the only language allowed in parliamentary debates, Norman French is used for communications between the two houses and for royal assent of legislation.[1] TFD (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The box is for the language of the United Kingdom, not that of its parliament. As TFD says, if it is “de facto” it is unofficial. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Theo. This argument was held before & the results is always the same. By all means, open up an RFC, if you want english removed. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Theo you are wrong to say an official language has to have priority over other languages. It has an importance as defined by what makes it official.If that is a constitution or legal statute the time and place where it is official can be quiteprescriptive, such as official "in a courtroom" (but not outside a courtroom). What makes English official in the UK is its widespread use in any situation. Ambiguity arises around the meaning of official - in writing or not in writing which is why different articals have differing approaches. Regarding theUSA, it has another reason to resist having English as the official language - new land open equally to all irrespective of origin etc. Having English as the official language makes it a touch biased to one type of immigrant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 16 (1): "English and French are the official languages of Canada."[2] The UK has legislated official languages for Canada, but has never done so for the UK. There is incidentally a debate in the U.S., which like the UK has no official language, to declare English its official language. TFD (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Flag ratio: 1:2, 3:5, or both?

Like I said before, the Union Flag Bill and Flag Institute say the correct ratio on land is 3:5, and at sea, it's supposed to be 1:2. Should the flag ratio be a 1:2 or 3:5 ratio? What about both ratios? Turns out, despite 3:5 being the official ratio, I didn't actually go to the United Kingdom, and I have a feeling, that only British people, Northern Irish people, or people who actually went to the UK can confirm that 3:5 is used everywhere instead of 1:2. Should we use 3:5, should we stick with 1:2, or should we keep both? (Update: Turns out when looking at Belfast protests over the Union Flag, there were a mix of 3:5s and 1:2s. Maybe this is useful?) Kxeon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, we don't really care much, as long as it's flown the right way up. Bazza (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Union Flag Bill, incorporating the Flag Institute's 3:5 but not 1:2, made no progress in Parliament and has no standing. The long House of Commons briefing paper doesn't specify. There are doubtless military and diplomatic conventions, but it's also a matter of practicality and aesthetics. Flags hanging downward over the Mall look good in 1:2 (and note that these are officially hung and on land), but it's easier to wave a 3:5.[3] Architecturally, we even find 1:2+.[4] Whatever works, really. As long as it's right way up. NebY (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

Sure is a lot of changes here by new ediotrs ....many not for the best and copy pasting with ref errors. Is the article part of some sort of student assignment? Moxy- 01:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just two sockpuppets of the banned editor Lam312321321 (talk · contribs), I think, who adds copyrighted content from outside sources and unattributed pastes from other Wikipedia articles. Sock accounts Educatead1 (talk · contribs) and 1deangreenie (talk · contribs) were both blocked yesterday, and I've now reverted their edits to this article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you Moxy- 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Monarch or Museum

Hello. I am relatively new. My father always says that the monarchy is just a glorified museum now. Shouldn't the article be changed so that it points to the Prime Minister who has most of the power? Faithful15 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Why? That doesn't make sense. The United Kingdom is a monarchy even if it is technically the Prime Minister who has the most power. Even if your father says the monarchy is just a glorified museum that doesn't mean it's actually true, that's just his opinion on it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit, even though it's technically a monarchy the Prime Minister has a lot of the power. The Monarchy is not as powerful as it once was. Faithful15 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, however it's a monarchy so we list the current monarch. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

True. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that HM's country is mostly ruled under the Prime Minister. (BTW I read your page and I suffer autism as well) Faithful15 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Faithful15, are you talking about the Infobox which has both monarch and PM? The monarch is there because he is Head of state. It's irrelevant what power he has. The PM is there anyway. All Heads of State are recorded in country article Infoboxes whatever political power they have - it's quite common for a head of state to be purely ceremonial, whether monarch or president. DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. Faithful15 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Faithful15. Nobody rules the United Kingdom. It's not an absolute monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Although the role of the monarch in the United Kingdom is not 100% purely ceremonial. See Constitution of the United Kingdom. Bazza (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The monarch is the UK's head of state, while the prime minister is the head of government. Thus the reason they're both listed in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on description of United Kingdom as a "sovereign country" in its opening paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that the lead sentence should say "... is a country" rather than "... is a sovereign country".

Though the question was broader, essentially all of the discussion was about which is preferable among "country" and "sovereign country".

The consensus view is that "sovereign country" is harder to read because it is unusual terminology and could cause someone to wonder if some point is being made about the UK's status in the world.

Considerable opposing view was stated that just "country" raises confusion of the kind, "If UK is a country, then what are England, Scotland, and Wales"?

But the consensus is that that confusion can and should be resolved further down the article.

Several arguments in favor of "sovereign country" cite the fact that that wording has been in place for years and was the result of a compromise over this UK vs England etc. concern.

One editor objected vehemently to the way the RfC was presented so wanted it disregarded, calling it biased and designed to elicit the response that it in fact did. But there was no other support for this and two editors said there was no problem.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed? Alternative options include country and state. Angry Candy (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Following a request from Jr8825, I have moved my opening comment/motion to the survey section below in the interests of neutrality and clarity. I have also moved comments concerning this to the object[ion] section below. Editors are asked to keep contributions to the survey brief and clear. Deeper remarks can be added to the discussion section below (or to the original "sovereign country" thread above) and any objections to this RfC can be added to the new obect[ion] section below. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far! Angry Candy (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• The current wording of the opening paragraph describes the United Kingdom specifically as a "sovereign country." While not quite incorrect, it stands out as both arguable and unusual. Arguable in that the UK may not be a country at all but a political union of four countries (these being England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales); it is often said on this talk page that "sovereign country" is an attempt to distinguish the UK as a country from the country status of its four constituent countries. Unusual in that (a) there is no Wikipedia page for "sovereign country" and the term links instead to sovereign state, and (b) no other sovereign country (with the notable exception of Australia) mentions its sovereignty at this point; the current wording places undue importance on the UK's sovereignty with the unfortunate consequence that it risks been seen as exceptionalist, triumphalist in the ongoing context of Brexit, and as a Unionist and/or anti-EU POV and, as such, a politically-charged NPOV issue. I motion that "Sovereign country" should be changed to something less arguable and less unusual (i.e. more factually correct and more politically neutral): either to "country" (colloquial) or "state" (inarguable) or "political union of the four countries of England, Norther Ireland, Scotland, and Wales" (factual but potentially an NPOV issue from the other direction). Please note that this is a perennial discussion on the UK's talk page; consensus is often claimed but the perennial (near constant) nature of this discussion suggests widespread dissatisfaction. Angry Candy (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to "country" Saving it is a "sovereign country" is curious wording. It makes it sound as if there was any question about its sovereignty. It might make sense for a country that recently achieved independence, such as "St. Lucia is a sovereign country, having achieved independence in 1971." TFD (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

People have different understanding about the definition of country because it is a loose term that is used mainly for sovereign states, but also used to describe non sovereign countries of the UK. Some people strongly oppose use of "constituent country" for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Saying "sovereign country" for UK was a more stable compromise that has managed to continue for many years with relatively little editing conflicts and only come up for discussion a handful of times in recent years despite how this rigged and misleading RFC attempts to misinform people about what has happened in recent years. RWB2020 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Use just Country and mention country type in the 3Rd paragraph as the 200plus other pages do.Moxy- 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use country. Not sure why the distinction needs to be made so prominently in this case. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country - more than good enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia, we can explain all the hodge-podgery later.  Tewdar  15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country good enough for our purposes. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country – we've had many past discussions regarding discomfort with "sovereign country"; "country" is simpler and less forced (and equally accurate in the colloquial sense). It's a country of countries. Because the reality is a bit confusing, it could potentially be confusing if our first few sentences said "the UK is a country made up of the countries of", but the relatively new second sentence ("It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland") conveniently sidesteps possible confusion by avoiding the term (largely because of NI) so there's no pressure to make an immediate distinction the UK as a country and E, W & S as countries. We can save the nuances for later in the lead and the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use Country per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Use Country as plain English per MOS:FIRST. The current "sovereign country" adds nothing and may make readers hesitate trying to figure out why we've used such a comparatively unusual phrase, rather than just get on with reading the article. That can't be justified by one editor's awful and implausible warnings that four other articles will be "destabilised". If this RFC carries on like this, it will provide clear evidence of consensus if ever the wording's questioned. NebY (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Some editors have suggested that "sovereign" is required to clarify the UK's relationship to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but

  • this is sufficiently clear from the following statement that "It comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland" and expanded upon later
  • Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia of the world and we should begin by straightfowardly describing the UK's position in the world, rather than shoehorning in another, more obscure statement about its relationship with its parts.

  NebY (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Country. Bazza (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country - because it is. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) although I can see the need to change present wording, which is a bit 'odd'. UK is colloquially a 'country', but technically a political union of several countries and part of another. The full niceties of this are as obscure as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and even locals, like myself, sometimes get details wrong. Whilst we don't need to expound everything in para 1 - to start off with an error seems unhelpful. "State made up of the countries of … " would achieve much the same result. I just see the logic of "country made up of countries" as inherently muddling - it depends on using 'country' in two distinct meanings, and even though the text does not say this EXPLICITLY, the text is using this logic. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: May I ask if "oppose" is in reply to the initial question "Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed?" or specific to replacing it with "country" per TFD end the rest? Your "I can see the need to change present wording" makes me wonder if you support change, just not to "country". NebY (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to change, it's just that the logic of using country to mean 'sovereign state' - which UK clearly is - and then at some later point needing to use it in wholly different way (whatever Eng, Sc and Wales are, which is distinct peoples with distinct histories - which are proud of being distinct countries, but which are not sovereign states), seems inherently confusing. Even if the terms are not used in the same sentence, the logic of what UK is made up of is dependent on realising that Eng, Sc and Wales are countries and that NI is an historical anomaly as part of a fourth distinct country.Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for absolute clarity, your preference is for sovereign state? Angry Candy (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a clear preference and would want to hear the contitutional/legal/historical arguments before making a choice. Despite being a UK person, I don't claim to understand and know all the niceties either of UK contitution, nor of the generally accepted understanding in English of country/state etc., but simply dropping the adjective and assuming that people are going to understand that 'country' is being used with a number of distinct meanings in the article is adding to, not removing confusion IMO. Non-Brits already often have difficulty in understanding the make up of the UK in my experience, why add to it? Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, it is all much like trying to be clear about the Holy Trinity. NebY (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just Country, because it is. (WP:BLUE and sources say it is any way [5], [6] etc etc). Risk of appearing POVish if the C-word isn't used: could be interpreted as messaging support for a view that the UK is artificial and should be broken up into "real countries". (I don't object to sovereign country but agree it's unnecessary.) Standard opening for almost all our "country" (i.e "state") articles across WP. No reason to single out UK and present it differently. "State", "union" etc absolutely not - messages the above POV. Only the likes of vatican, Monaco get the 'state' treatment. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Just Country. -- Alarics (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country, as per above reasons. ¡Ayvind! (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSE BOTH THE CHANGE AND THIS BIASED RFC* This is a totally unacceptable RFC, introduced in a totally biased way, without any attempt for a neutral opening explanation about why the current wording is used or needed, entirely 1 sided to get 1 sided outcome. The UK is both a sovereign state and a country. It is one of the only countries in the world where Wikipedia has articles that describe its constituent parts as countries in their opening sentence. It is for that reason, for many years this article has used the term SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. To distinguish between "constituent countries" England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, from the sovereign United Kingdom.RWB2020 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite the rigged RFC, there is no single format used by articles across wikipedia about countries. Some start by just saying country, others use a further description to describe the individual country. USA and Russia use transcontinental country. Australia uses sovereign country. New Zealand uses island country. Sweden and Denmark both say Nordic country. There is therefore no reason why this article should only use country in the opening sentence. People may not want to admit it, but the fact the United Kingdom is made up of what we call 4 countries is confusing to many people as it is extremely unique. For that reason it makes sense to clarify the fact the UK is both a sovereign state and a country in the opening sentence, and a compromise was to say sovereign country to cover both, which has been relatively stable and has existed for many years with only a few editors sparking discussions on the subject in several years, and very few editing conflicts over it (despite the misleading RFC intentionally painting a very different picture of what has happened in recent years). The situation since the current stable wording has been used, combined with what has been agreed on the other 4 UK articles has had relative stability. Stability changing this opening sentence risks undermining. RWB2020 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Every article uses a link to a type of country ......only here and Australia link to sovereign state in the lead sentence while most others link type of state in the government paragraph. Moxy- 11:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Country as the current wording implies it's some sort of break away state. Is this currently done because of leaving the European Union?204.237.50.43 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The compromise wording was agreed long before Brexit and has nothing to do with the European union issue. Again, this biased and rigged RFC misleading gives the impression it might be related. The reason for the distinction is because of calling England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland countries. Country is a loose term, by saying sovereign country and linking to the sovereign state article (all EU countries are sovereign states and listed as such) provides extra clarity to what is a very unique and confusing situation. RWB2020 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose See Sovereign state A sovereign state or sovereign country, is a political entity represented by one central government that has supreme legitimate authority over territory. The premise of the RFC is fundamentally incorrect. I did a google search on the meaning of sovereign country and the first hit was the wikipedia article, not unusual because of the way google works but indicative of a lack of research on the part of the originator of this RFC. It has a specific legal meaning. And in the context of the UK, composed of four separate countries with a common constitutional monarch this is a reasonable and accurate description to use. WCM_email 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  While sovereign state is a legal term, sovereign country is not. That's just something that Wikipedia editors added without a source. TFD (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Although 'sovereign state' is the preferred term in, say, international law handbooks, 'sovereign country' is a perfectly acceptable and very common plain English alternative. It certainly is not something that Wikipedians just made up. Or at least if they did, a great many other people already thought of it.  Tewdar  08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't describe "sovereign country" as very common or even common at all. It's certainly not used as often as "sovereign state",[7] NebY (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  More than 10x more common. Huh. Still, it's not a descriptor that Wikipedians invented.  Tewdar  09:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any change. The UK has an atypical structure, being a country made up of four constituent countries. The description, which has been in the article for many years before Brexit, is to clarify the situation that although there are four constituent countries, it is only the totality which is a sovereign country. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Current proposal options fail to capture the nuance. I think if we are to change the definition to country, then the 4 constituents should be mentioned as constituent units as britannica does (You can scoff at it being a tertiary source but it is the right way). That would be in conflict with our articles on the constituents. — hako9 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Its based on the above conversation really (and others before it). Country and state are the only sensible options that emerge. Others include sovereign state and political union. Or indeed leaving it as it is despite the problems with it: cases have been presented for each of these options. Referring to the other units as constituent would be fine, but that's a separate (albeit it closely related) decision and conversation. Angry Candy (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice the editor who opened the RFC says above: "Country and state are the only sensible options that emerge". That is most certainly not the case. How can the opening sentence of this RFC be neutral when the editor has only suggested two options for change that they consider to be sensible? its clearly selective to get either option they prefer, whilst ignoring other solutions and failing to link to past discussions or setting out in a neutral way the context and background of this issue and why its come up. This RFC is flawed. RWB2020 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't our current second sentence already do this? I confused as to what you think needs to change. Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence following a change agreed in recent months does not explain what England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are. It fudges the issue by simply saying "it comprises...". It doesnt make clear they are constituent countries, whilst those other articles simply say they are countries that are part of the UK, again, rather than using the term "constituent country". This is all why its helpful to say sovereign country in the first sentence here, to maintain a clear distinction. This is also one of the reasons im so critical of the wording of this RFC, because it isnt giving an accurate picture of the situation. It does not point out this long standing compromise has also helped to bring about stability on the England/Wales/Scotland/NI articles, where just saying country in the opening line there is more acceptable because the opening line here says sovereign country, showing clear distinction. If this article simply says the UK is a country, i no longer will support England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland being referred to just as "country" on any wikipedia article. RWB2020 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, I don't see any reason why "country" here would mean we need to change "country" at E, W & S (and NI's more complex wording). In fact I think it's extremely unlikely there'd be consensus at those pages to drop country in any circumstances. I don't share your concerns about "it comprises", I think it's clear "comprises" = "constituent parts", and I don't think it's essential to say "England is a country" or "Wales is a country" in the lead here (the lead doesn't do this currently, and I'm not sure how switching from "sovereign country" to "country" would change things). I tried experimenting with different alternatives for the second sentence in the thread above (11 April), and I don't think there's a way to sandwich country into the descriptions of E, W & S without a considreable increase in length and complexity (particularly because of the perennial argument over NI). Jr8825 • Talk 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact I think it's extremely unlikely there'd be consensus at those pages to drop country in any circumstances.

which is why the status quo is better than the alternative proposed, according to me. The infobox also says "Constituent countries" and proceeds to list all four ignoring the argument over NI as you say. That can be solved just by saying "Constituents" instead of "Constituent countries" in the infobox. But the issue with defining UK is more pervasive. We could just copy gov.uk and skip the entire thing and just say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a constitutional monarchy comprising of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. It is situated in Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland." — hako9 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I strongly dislike the idea of using "constitutional monarchy" as the main/first descriptor for the UK. That's only one part of its political system (a formal/constitutional aspect too, rather than where power is actually held) and you could equally say "the UK is a parliamentary democracy" or "the UK is a unitary state". Jr8825 • Talk 15:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I am on the fence with this. Closer should disregard my comment towards the final tally. — hako9 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to any change on this, the term “sovereign” suits the unique nature of the UK in explaining its governance. The UK is a country with a central parliament, which has delegated powers to the devolved institutions. Parliamentary “sovereignty” is key to how the UK is governed because the central parliament has the ability to amend/repeal any legislation within its jurisdiction. This thread is showing the ambiguity that readers may have in understanding that fact, which is why “sovereign country” is appropriate to use as it provides a better understanding for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJosephCowan (talk • contribs)

Canada has a Parliament & 13 Legislatures, yet it's called 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes; the clarification is necessary for the UK given its sui generis organization. --Jayron32 12:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country. I'm reasonably well-read on international relations, 19th and 20th century history, and I'm familiar with the UK's legal structure, and I don't know what "sovereign country" is trying to say. The United Kingdom is a country. England, Scotland, and Wales are countries that are part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is...something...that is part of the United Kingdom. The lead isn't the place to get into the weeds on this concept. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Country is the most reasonable and basic plus the least vague term that clearly describes the U.K. Regardless of what it babbles about the "countries" within it, they do not fit the actual definition of a country, only the UK itself does. Bill Williams 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change to country. Wikipedia is not a legal text and the lead sentence is not the place to explain the sui generis nature of the UK, especially using terminology that the general reader is more likely to find confusing rather than helpful. Although I realise it has been like this for ages, it might look like the article was trying to boost Brexit, as "sovereignty" was one of the buzzwords promoted by those who sought to leave the EU. John (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sovereign state (singular) at the UN, with 4 constituent countries (not UN members individually). Sovereign country is possible but not that usual.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't technically object to this (it's a suggestion I've made before), but it seems inconsistent with how we treat other country articles, when the colloquial can be used correctly and potentially offers less confusion/more simplicity/accessibility for readers within the first few sentences. Jr8825 • Talk 19:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  For me, there's an NPOV issue with "sovereign state" because of that inconsistency with other country articles. If we were to describe the UK as a "state", yet other countries are "countries" and England, Scotland, Wales, NI are "countries", we're effectively pushing the nationalist POV that the UK is artificial and made up of "real" countries. I'm a strong oppose on that. It would be different if "sovereign state" was the descriptor on other country articles, but it's not. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I don't fully agree (I think, given that it's factually correct, NPOV doesn't quite stretch to include editorial inconsistency e.g. WP:OTHERCONTENT), I do see where you're coming from and would prefer "country" to prevent readers from taking away this impression. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Just confusing troublemaking. Whatever people think of the UK having countries within it that's how it is and it is better to refer to the whole country in a way that distinguishes it well from its constituent parts. How is all this supposed to reducer dissention? NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are not alone in expressing the logic of distinguishing the UK as a country against its constituent countries though. However, the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia entry is not the place (in my opinion and also perhaps according to the Manual of Style) to make that distinction. It is the job of a lead paragraph to define what something is, not against its component parts, but against everything else. Surely it is both standard and best practice to start general and get specific later. Thanks for your comment but the motivation is not to confuse or make trouble, I assure you. Quite the opposite. Angry Candy (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support for just "country" and "constituent countries"; "sovereign country" is an uncommon word which needs to be explained to the average reader, otherwise it is just a non-word, or visual noise (because "sovereign country" can mean a whole host of things and requires context to be intelligible). However, the lead is not the place to do that, especially since the term is not essential to grasp that the UK is a country in Europe made up of "constituent countries". See the lead of the article on Germany (with a similar situation of constituent states/countries, the Bundesländer) for an example. I agree with other commentators that the insistence on the "sovereign/constituent country" distinction seems to be a case of undue exceptionalism—still very notable, and should definitely be explained as early in the article as possible, but not in the lead. Looking at the "Germany" article again, we can see that the term Bundesländer has been translated as constituent states, not constituent countries, because the federal structure and relationship between the country and its constituent parts is immediately obvious from these terms. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There would be to much confusion with the constituent countries. It is just like refering to the United States as a state. That would just create confusion with the individual non-sovereign states. The UK is a sovereign state would be possible.2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:348D:CEC3:F314:F872 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any change. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• The RfC has been open for 3 days and has so far collected 12 responses in favour of changing "sovereign country" to "country". It has also collected 1 response seemingly in favour of changing it to "state" or "sovereign state". There has been no voice in favour of retaining "sovereign country". Thank you to everyone who has responded. I would like to end the RfC relatively soon and modify the article to reflect the consensus. Friend @RWB2020:, do you agree to honour the consensus arrived at through this survey and to not revert the change? Angry Candy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Leave it run for a week at least, perhaps?  Tewdar  17:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There have been several !votes in the last 24 hours alone. The discussion above started in March and wasn't the first; we can wait for other voices to be heard. If all that happens is that the consensus becomes even clearer, that's still fine and helpful. We don't normally ask editors to commit to observing consensus; all that matters is whether they edit against consensus or not. NebY (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! This is my first RfC and I wasn't sure of normal duration. 13 responses in 3 days seemed quite good to me. Let's leave it open for longer then. Would 10 days be fair? 14? (As to my reaching out to RWB2020, I am trying to keep communications open and to avoid a future edit war). Angry Candy (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I would be in no rush to close it. The larger the participation the more likely the outcome's credibility and likelihood of sticking. I suggest waiting to see when when posts dry up. Also, I suggest you not close but wait for an univolved editor. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. Angry Candy (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• The 'etymology' section does a reasonable job explaining the 'countries within a country' malarky: Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.[51][52] The UK Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom.[20] Some statistical summaries, such as those for the twelve NUTS 1 regions of the United Kingdom refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "regions".[53][54] Northern Ireland is also referred to as a "province".[55][56] With regard to Northern Ireland, the descriptive name used "can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences".[57] If you're confused by this explanation (which should probably emphasise a bit more that England, Wales, Scotland and NI are not sovereign entities), adding the word 'sovereign' to 'country' in the lede is probably not going to help very much.  Tewdar  17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most pages deal with country type in the 3 pagaraph or govermant section of the lead and as you mention in the main section, Not sure how having the first link in the article to Sovereign state explain this article. Moxy- 04:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Most pages deal with country type in the 3 pagaraph" No other country article on wikpedia has its constituent parts described just as countries too, and it is one of only a few countries in the world where this issue even exists. RWB2020 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

James, Alan. “Sovereignty: Ground Rule or Gibberish?]” Review of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, Moxy- 05:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly it is shameful this RFC is taking place right now, as people will be distracted with the death of the Queen. Also this RFC is etxrmeely misleading and not neutral. RWB2020 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel no shame & there's nothing misleading about the RFC being held. It's quite straight forward - Do we want to change the description of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• A recurring argument in favour of retaining "sovereign country" is that it distinguishes the UK as a country against England, NI, Scotland and Wales being countries. The difference being that the UK is sovereign while the others are not. But the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia entry is not the place (in my opinion) to make that distinction. It is the job of a lead paragraph to define what something is, not against its component parts, but against everything else. Surely it is both standard and best practice to start general and get specific later. Angry Candy (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we should be concentrating on this page's intro. Not the intros of the England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Object to RfC

I strongly object to this one sided misleading RFC. It is clearly designed to get an outcome the editor favours, rather than provide a balanced explanation of the current wording and the potential different options for if there should be changes. For example, why did this proposal not also include the option of saying both sovereign state and country in the introduction rather than the limited options mentioned? This RFC also grossly misrepresents how this wording came about, why it came about, and how the compromise has been stable for many years compared to how unstable previous wording was and how it is part of a wider compromise and consensus that has maintained stability on the other articles. Considering this article's opening sentence has said sovereign country for many years, the article is viewed by 10,000s every single day, and over recent years there has only been a handful of discussions about if the wording should be changed, it cannot be as problematic as this rigged and misleading RFC makes out. RWB2020 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What change do you believe will make it better ? Perhaps link old talk? Do you have another wording option? As for stable...its clear this has been a point of contention and edits for a long time. Moxy- 04:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A handful of discussions over recent years and only a few times there has had to be reverts on the actual article is very stable for something that is in the opening sentence of a major article. This is FAR More stable than the situation before the compromise was reached.

I believe the RFC is entirely biased and in no way accurately reflects the situation, its designed to get a certain outcome. It does not explain the reasons for the compromise, how the compromise came about, how relatively stable it has been for MANY YEARS, how it links with other issues of a compromise on constituent country articles.

It doesnt make clear that there is no single format for country articles, with many using different descriptions before saying country (transcontinental / island / nordic) etc. It doesnt make clear this is a unique problem for the UK because there are only a few other countries which are made up of what are considered countries, and they are not described that way on wikipedia anyway. So this is why a different wording is used than on many country articles. It is not triumphalist as this rigged RFC attempts to imply. it also tries to link it to brexit, again, entirely false considering this compromise was agreed long before brexit, and of course sovereign country links to the sovereign state article and very EU memberstate is a sovereign state, no one is suggesting otherwise.

The RFC is entirely selective about potential options too. When its opening suggestion of change suggests "state" or "country".. of course most people are going to choose country out of those two options, i would too. It doesnt suggest sovereign state, it doesnt suggest saying both sovereign state AND country. It doesnt suggest saying "Constituent country" for England, Wales, Scotland and NI instead.

Also you are right about it not linking to previous discussions too. Some people are just going to read this one sided RFC and form an impression based on that, even though its not a fair or accurate impression. It also doesnt help that this RFC is taking place right when many UK editors are obviously going to be distracted with the death of the Queen so checking wikipedia far less and may not have the time to contribute to this discussion. A rushed, biased and rigged RFC seeking to change the opening sentence of this article which has been relatively stable for many years, and its a RFC opened and proposed to be closed all during the period of mourning in the UK when some regular editors may be distracted. With all of these factors, is it really going to bring about a stable outcome if a change is made? RWB2020 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@RWB2020: You seem to misunderstand how RfC's are structured. You say "the RFC" should "provide a balanced explanation of the current wording" and include a number of other things such as links to previous discussions. No it shouldn't. There should only be a short neutral question. Anything else should come from what the participants which to put forward in support of their response to that question. The question posed here is this: Should the current definition of the UK as a 'sovereign country' be changed? Alternative options include country and state. Angry candy's post of 13:11, 11 September 2022 is their view in response. they're entitled, like everyone else, to say what they wish to say in response. This is just the normal way RfCs are structured in my experience. The only issue you can raise is whether that question is neutrally expressed. This was discussed earlier on and Angry candy seems to me to have followed what others have said. I don't see a problem with it. There's been probably the widest participation on this issue on this page that I can remember. The RfC has brought univolved and experienced editors to comment. The previous consensus was created by a much smaller number in 2016. You may not like the outcome but that's the way WP works. I suggest you calmly put forward your arguments for what the wording should be and accept the result when this is closed. Nothing's for ever in WP and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And by the way there's nothing "rushed" about it. It hasn't closed and there's no reason to close it while comments are being made. As far as the "period of mourning" is concerned. No, that's not a legitimate reason. We don't close down discussion on Jewish-related articles on the sabbath or Ukrainian-related articles because they've been invaded. That's a fundamental misconception of WP. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor who opened this RFC included their opinion in the RFC section giving it clear prominence over any other opinion. the whole of the post in that question is why this RFC is so very biased. And its all very well that perhaps being moved now, but it was there for days, days during which support for one option was backed by quite a few editors. Even if we ignore the opinion which was placed in that section, even that opening sentence is not neutral. It gives favouritism to two proposed changes, country or state... even i would back country out of those two options. It entirely fails to even attempt to set out what the problem is, why its arisen, how it came about, how long ago and implications of such changes. If a RFC was to be established, there should have been an agreed wording first. And the person that opened the RFC, suggested maybe it should be closed after a few days, and then maybe 1 week was suggested instead. All incredibly rushed, especially considering real world events right now, and the fact this is about changing the opening sentence of a major article to say something different after many years of a stable compromise. RWB2020 (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RWB2020, is your argument that whenever a place is described as a country, that there should be an adjective? If so, why must it be "sovereign?" Why not "island country?" And why aren't Russia and China called sovereign countries, when they also are made up of different countries? TFD (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The international comparisons are apt, e.g. Republics of Russia such as Tatarstan. Jr8825 • Talk 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No im not suggesting that there always has to be something before country in every country's opening sentence. I am just pointing out that many country articles do have something there, such as transcontinental, nordic, island, sovereign in the case of Australia etc. So its not like it is unusual or not following precedent or standard practice for there to be a description there. The issue then becomes is it notable and helpful for the reader to include it. In the case of the UK, because the UK is made up of four countries (which are described as such on wikipedia), it is helpful to continue to draw a distinction by saying sovereign country as we do not use the term constituent country for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which again follows a long standing compromise and agreement, of which the opening sentence of this article has helped maintain stability on for many years. RWB2020 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the RFC. It's merely asking, "Do we want to change the description of the UK to 'country' or 'state' or anything else, or not". GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

But that section includes the editors opinion too, it looks like its all part of the RFC which is why its so biased, as it gives prominence. And also simply suggesting country or state as options, and without setting out what the actual problem is, how its come about, why and for how long etc, is not neutral and certainly not a RFC that will command confidence and bring about a stable outcome. RWB2020 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC result, will be what it will be. GoodDay (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments concerning Angry Candy's opening comment:

I think it might be worth moving this comment to either the survey or discussion sections below, so that it's not mixed in with the brief and neutral opening question. Jr8825 • Talk 14:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This RFC is already entirely tainted because the opinion is contained within this section, it looks like its all part of the RFC which is why i have been so critical about the biased RFC. Its been here several days, several days in which one outcome already stacked up some backing. Though even if we just take the first sentence of this RFC, i dont even think that is neutral enough considering its intentionally highlighting only two potential options, it also in no way sets out the issue. Failing to set out in a neutral way the problem... blatantly helps those wanting change, especially as there is no attempt to explain when this compromise was made many years ago. As i said during the discussion at the top of the page recently, if we were going to do an RFC, there should atleast be an attempt to ensure its neutral. The complete opposite has happened. RWB2020 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Angry candy's comment suggests at least three possible alternatives to the status quo, and is hardly likely to force anyone to vote a particular way, but perhaps Angry candy could move it to the discussion section if it's making people unhappy... fwiw I think the RfC is neutrally worded, and flexible enough to allow anybody to propose whatever option they'd prefer.  Tewdar  10:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How can it be neutral when they have said below that they have only included two alternative options that they view as "sensible", clearly dismissing other options, even though there may be better alternatives. Its selective and leading. Especially without any attempt to put this debate into context, nor link to past discussions. And if people agree that the original opinion should be moved to the discussion or survey section below, it clearly shows there has been a problem. a problem that existed for several days, when many of the opening responses were stated, some of whom may have only come from this discussion via the flawed RFC, with no insight into the many long discussions over recent years on this topic. RWB2020 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of the votes have come from people with a long-term interest in this perennial discussion, providing detailed justification in some cases. I didn't even read the opinion section before casting my vote, for example. I only agree that it should be moved because it seems to be making (one person) unhappy.  Tewdar  11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it as a formality, and for clearer presentation going forward. I agree with Tewdar: most people below have been following this discussion closely and there has been extensive WP:RFCBEFORE. It suspect the main cause of unhappiness here is that early indications suggest a consensus may be forming in a way an editor doesn't like. Jr8825 • Talk 11:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is active & in motion. I'm certain all will abide but whatever its result is. These thing do last a month. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup could last for a bit. Walls of text always slow things down and normally stall things a bit..... usually to the detriment of those writing walls of text. Moxy- 21:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Remarks concerning the objection

• Hi. I am the originator of this RfC and I'd like to get some remarks on the record concerning the objection:

1. This was my first ever RfC and I followed guidance to the letter. The guidance is to "place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." It does not say that my statement should have been in the survey section. I moved it later purely as a gesture of goodwill.

2. My comment does not reflect my personal political opinion. If the page were to reflect my personal politics, it would read "political union" and not "country" at all. Note that even I described the potential NPOV problem of using "political union." My proposed edit is not politically motivated or "rigged" but motivated by a desire for important Wikipedia pages to be readily understandable, NPOV, and a reflection of thoughtful common consensus. "Sovereign country" does not achieve this for the reasons I have outlined.

3. I took pains to carefully and neutrally describe the NPOV issues concerning "sovereign country". I employed some relevant political terms in order to do this but I did not make assertive statements concerning any political position or the "sovereign country" issue under scrutiny. For example, I said "it risks been seen as exceptionalist" (not "it is exceptionalist"). Taking the political heat out of the lead is one of my aims.

4. The options I have presented are "country," "state," and "political union." These were not made up on a whim. They are the result of reading and digesting previous UK talkpage conversations on this subject. I see these as the options that these discussions have boiled down to. An additional option inherent to my opening question is to leave it as "sovereign country." Where editors have suggestions additional to these four options, they have always been welcome to raise them in the discussion.

5. The objection was raised (by the same editor who posted this objection) on the RfC talkpage and there were clear comments in favour of my RfC's wording from two experienced editors.

Thanks everyone and sorry for another wall of text. It's just that these comments might be needed when it comes to closing the RfC and, if appropriate, making a significant content change. Angry Candy (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Only one person objected to the presentation. Not bad for your first RfC, I'd say. 😁  Tewdar  11:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tewdar! Angry Candy (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. That objection may have sprung from a very restricted experience of contributing to Wikipedia, to a great extent confined to this one talk page's discussions concerning the lead, especially mentions of country.[8] NebY (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

yes, I noticed that too. this RfC seems pretty standard to me. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Towards ending the RfC

Hi. I am the originator of the RfC. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. The RfC has been open for 3 weeks and will be ended by a bot on 11 October if no human editor ends it first. It is my intention to seek an uninvolved editor to end it, ideally with a closing statement to help establish consensus or lack thereof.

Third party closure requests are apparently encouraged when RfCs are contentious: although discussion here has sometimes been lively, I do not suggest that it has been or remains contentious. Formal closure may not strictly be required but our process should be as rigorous and legitimate as possible to help avoid edit wars or dispute resolution in future.

To prepare the ground for any neutral editor incoming with an eye to closure, I'd like to offer the following summary. Editors are invited to respond to my summary in this section where they have comments directly concerning it. Of especial value would be comments concerning consensus.

1. There have been 19 voices in favour of changing the wording to "country," 7 voices opposing any change, 1 voice in favour of changing it to "sovereign state", and 2 voices with no clear preference (but offering valuable insight).

2. Of the 7 voices opposing any change, I motion that 2 are inadmissible: 1 is from a new and anonymous user while another argues from a distinctly NPOV (emotional and political) perspective. I'm not sure anyone has the authority to declare these voices illegitimate but I would like editors to take this into account when considering consensus.

3. Some editors responding to the RfC have also responded to previous and ongoing conversations concerning the "sovereign country" issue. Others came from the history, geography and politics sections of the main RfC page, from a UK project page and from the NPOV noticeboard. I motion that the level and quality of engagement with this RfC has been healthy and legitimate.

4. One editor has objected to the RfC, describing it as "one sided" and "rigged". My comments and those of other editors in the RfC's defense are offered beneath the objection. The same editor also posted to the RfC talkpage where no other editor objected to the RfC and two experienced editors supported its wording and presentation.

5. While this is not strictly a vote, 20 voices in favour of change (19 of which are in favour of a specific change) to 5-7 objections to any change points towards (but does not confirm) a consensus in favour of changing "sovereign country" to "country." Qualitatively, (though this may be a subjective observation and editors should make up their own minds concerning this) argument promoted in favour of change has been more reasoned and complete than argument against change. Arguments against change have sometimes been loud and repetitive to their detriment, have often relied on the restating of status-quo or historical decision making instead of actively reasoning against the cases for change. Other arguments against change have notably been concerned with the "constituent countries" issue despite its being intelligently reasoned against on many occasions and from several perspectives.

I motion that there is something approaching consensus for changing "sovereign country" to "country" in the article lead but I await further discussion and, hopefully, a closing statement next week from an uninvolved editor, before suggesting that any change be made. That's all from me! New and currently-involved editors should feel free to comment below on the specific topics of consensus and closure. Thanks! Angry Candy (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Whilst i disagree with it, i accept the consensus has changed and the change proposed will have to now be made to the article. The RFC has run long enough for people to express their opinions on this issue and so there is no need to delay closing the RFC and implementing the change. RWB2020 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You're a scholar and a sportsman. Thank you, RWB2020. Angry Candy (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and I don't see a consensus for change. Consensus is about strength of argument not counting votes I don't see in the support comments a valid policy based argument to change, whereas the opposite is true for those opposing. As an aside being a flawed RFC right from the start with a distinctly biased opening that is clearly advocating a position, it is a tainted RFC that should probably have been abandoned. That is not to prejudice a future RFC but a lesson to be learned. WCM_email 13:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Better to request someone close this over at Wikipedia:Closure requests, then...  Tewdar  13:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been done...  Tewdar  13:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

If no one can come up with a sources for the current term....then there is a real problem. We shouild not make up terms. Source any source? Moxy- 21:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying a source that the term "sovereign country" exists? That's not an issue - there's plenty of usage for "sovereign country". Just need to check a google books search - the first return has the phrase in the title for instance. There's this for example. Or do you mean that the UK is one? not sure that's necessary but here you go:[9]. DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure why this isn't being closed in normal way by someone uninvolved. @Angry candy: not entirely sure what the purpose of your post above is. It's for the closer to make the assessment. If no one's showing up to do it put a request at WP:CR. DeCausa (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, EC. Already suggested/done. Although Angry candy's request seems to be for the closer to just confirm Angry candy's assessment, which is a tad...unusual. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Much better than the first (and only) RfC I hosted, though...😐  Tewdar  15:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The purpose is explained in the summary itself. It is to prepare the ground for any neutral editor coming in to close the RfC. The alternative is to read the huge amount of text in the survey and discussions sections (which of course they are still welcome to do). Incidentally, seeking closure by a closure request isn't the 'normal way'; it is just one way and the one I am hoping to avail ourselves of. Angry Candy (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors don't always appreciate such efforts. If they agree with you, then they might be accused of being lazy or gullible; if they don't, then they might feel like you're planning to fight. People who volunteer to write summaries expect to read everything. It'll likely take half an hour in this instance, but that's okay: that's what they've signed up for.

Also, as a minor note, newbies and IP-based editors are welcome to contribute to RFCs on equal footing. While some communities have rules that exclude or limit them, this one does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing, I will keep all of that in mind for any future RfCs. I didn't mean to obfuscate or complicate anyone's efforts. Angry Candy (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. The RFC process is pretty robust in the end. It's amazing how well things can work when everyone is doing their best to settle a dispute. We typically have more than 50 RFCs open on any given day, and only a couple of them will really go sideways during the course of a year. This isn't one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, this has largely allowed us to each make our points and move on. I suppose if we wanted more or a wider range of editors in it, it could have been advertised in the six projects listed at the top of this talk page. NebY (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Angry candy:, no closer should close without reading the full RfC - they can't base it on what you said only. That would be out of process and their close could well end up at WP:AN as a close review request. There's an essay that gives advice on closing which makes it clear that no closer could get away with just reading your post. They have to read everything in the RfC and, as commented in the essay, probably more than what's in the RfC. DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2022 (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.

Hi

Pls change prime Minister Liz Truss is not prime Minister change into vacant. 37.39.167.35 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss is still Prime Minister until Friday 28th. — Czello 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

I want to edit the united kingdom page of Wikipedia. Just wanted to update the PM. lol Hellloboi2010 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. No change until 25 October. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: wait until October 25. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong PM

Rishi Sunak was elected October 24 2022 but it still shows Liz Truss! CrayolaTeam (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022 (2)

It is listed that Liz Truss is the Prime Minister. However, Rishi Sunak was elected on October 24, 2022 CrayolaTeam (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: He is not the prime minister yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Rishi Sunak 2001:448A:2077:C13:95E0:5A15:815:2FB9 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Religion section

The opening paragraph in the religion section includes the statement "Although a majority of citizens still identify with Christianity in many surveys, regular church attendance has fallen dramatically since the middle of the 20th century..", however this statement is no longer true. In fact, the statement is contradicted in the same wiki article, two paragraphs lower, in the paragraph beginning "In a 2016 survey conducted by BSA (British Social Attitudes)...". I'd suggest that the first paragraph I mentioned needs changing to reflect modern reality, perhaps stating that 'Historically a majority of citizens identified with Christianity...', or just removing it as it is out of date.

As an aside, the reference, citation 360, used to back up the sentence in question simply does not support it - it is a (non peer reviewed) discussion document about how religious statistics have been captured over history, not an actual compendium of statistics backing up the point, which its use as a reference implies. It should be removed. Andyetanotherusername (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though the 2011 census showed a Christian majority, surveys since have not; the 2016 survey further down has 41%, the pie chart based on a 2018 report comes to about 38%. I haven't checked the second part of the statement, about falling church attendance. Census figures may skew high (some people may answer according to community or heritage rather than personal faith) but we'll soon see results; the provisional publication date for the religion summary of the 2021 census is 29 November 2022. NebY (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

National Anthem File

Whenever I try to play the country's national anthem either on here or on the anthem's own article, the audio sample reads, 'No compatible source was found for this media.' This started happening after the death of Elizabeth II when the anthem's lyrics changed due to the Monarch's gender changing. I don't know if this is an issue with my computer or an issue at large. I think that somebody changed the file's title and accidentally rendered it incompatible. Joesom333 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

seems fine to me WiltedXXVI (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on! Joesom333 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

National anthem

I move the national anthem file be changed to that at File:God Save The King - Official Version.ogg it sounds better and has the lyrics as well. WiltedXXVI (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Go for it (my opinion)! Joesom333 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Now you should put that file on the national anthem page. Joesom333 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

it is, thats where I got it from WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's odd... on that page, it is still saying, 'No compatible source was found for this media.' Joesom333 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

'Used to be a 'Cultural superpower'

The Culture section now says:

The United Kingdom used to be considered a cultural superpower.

When did it become "used to be"? Lots of references online say it is one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, on 17 November 2022. The "old" sources date from 2011 and 2012. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, sharply aware of how much harder it is for British bands and orchestras to do concert tours in Europe nowadays. Looking again, I see we have near-duplicate sentences in that paragraph:

The substantial cultural influence of the United Kingdom has led it to be described as a "cultural superpower". [...] The United Kingdom used to be considered a cultural superpower.

The first has 2011 and 2010 refs, the second has the same 2011 ref and a 2012 one that's based on "Monocle magazine's annual "Global Soft Power" survey"; I don't know what that annual survey has shown since.The first sentence's "has led it to be" looks far better than either "is" or "used to be" in the second sentence. NebY (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Add some of the reliable references to the article and you can change "used to be" to "is". Bazza (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "used to be" seems to derive from an editor's personal position of being "sharply aware of how much harder it is for British bands and orchestras to do concert tours in Europe nowadays.." - which, as presented, is clearly WP:OR. The alternative wording of "...has led it to be... " is supported by sources. There are more recent Monocle surveys, but behind a paywall. Obviously any duplication should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wish it was WP:OR. Moving equipment, merchandise and even the vans across borders on a European tour used to be straightforward, but no longer. Even an unencumbered artist no longer has freedom of movement. I thought this was common knowledge, but here's a quick unfiltered grabbag of links to NYT, Telegraph, Express, NME and others,[10][11][12][13][14][15] plus the Musician's Union main page on working in the EU with sidebar links to a flowchart and pages on different issues.[16]

Anyway, it would be good to have strong sourcing for "cultural superpower". Of the three we cite, I know nothing of the British Politics Society in Norway or whether their journal automatically counts as a WP:RS, Their 12-page Winter 2011 journal titled "The cultural superpower: British cultural projection abroad" is a review of the British performing arts and wider creative industry somewhat debating whether the current staus of the country of Shakespeare, Milton, the Beatles and Monty Python, but none of them calling it a "superpower". The article in the Australian is paywalled, not cached by Google and not archived by the Wayback Machine; the headline suggests it might not support the UK being great now. Does anyone know if the Monocle surveys are any good as sources? Our Monocle (brand)#Monocle surveys doesn't tell us much. Altogether, I read "has been / used to be / is considered" as a much stronger statement than "has led it to be described as", requiring stronger sourcing than I can see. NebY (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

In the interests of boldness I've removed it, as it is clearly OR and also internally contradictory, since only a few words earlier the paragraph says it *is* a cultural superpower. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Official language

Following the passing of the British Sign Language Act 2022, should British Sign Language be added to the infobox as an official language of the UK? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't an official language of the UK, as the infobox shows: English is only listed as de facto, not de jure. BSL is already alongside other formally recognised regional and minority languages which, IMHO, is sufficient recognition of its new status. Bazza (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a similar act in New Zealand where sign language is always referred to as an official language. It is noted in WP infoboxes there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The United Kingdom does have an official Language and that language is English, so Bazza is wrong.

82.19.124.151 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you add the reliable source you've found which states English is the official language of the UK to this article? Or paste the details here and someone will do it for you. Bazza (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't need a source because it says English is the Official Language on the actual article which you should know by now, because English originated from England, it makes English the official Language of the United Kingdom.

Official language

and national language

English (de facto)

So you're wrong.

82.19.124.151 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same IP editor that has demonstrated their knowledge of English by editing List of countries and territories where English is an official language to read "Most states where English is an official language are the United Kingdom, former territories of the British Empire.".[17] NebY (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But as they have deployed the irrefutable argument "so you're wrong", we'll need to carefully consider what they say of course... DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that. Too fascinated by because English originated from England, it makes English the official Language of the United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

They have now reinstated that claim and that grammar, along with their table entries.[18] NebY (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To put on record to end the debate, English is the official language of the United Kingdom, along with it's minority languages, Scottish Welsh and Irish as well as other regional languages, but overall The United Kingdom's Official Language is English because it the language originates from England, there's no other language that is official, Not Chinese, French, Spanish or any other Language other than English, and that's the end of it. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think you just saying something "ends the debate"? Particularly when you say you don't need sources and make laughable assertions nearing gibberish such as "The United Kingdom's Official Language is English because it the language originates from England". DeCausa (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not gibberish, it's the truth, does the UK speak German? no it doesn't, does it speak chinese? no it doesn't, does it speak french? no it doesn't, does it speak spanish? no it doesn't, does it speak English? Yes it does which makes English the official language of the United Kingdom. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You are wasting everybody's time with this nonsense. Alarics (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

No I'm not, I'm just putting the record straight, I suppose what they're trying to say is that English is the official Language of the United Kingdom not by law but by practice, is this correct? 82.19.124.151 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. I think anyone trying to plead a case in the courts in anything other than English or (in Wales only?) Welsh would not be given a hearing, though witnesses are routinely given translators. There must be laws covering this. The statuses of the local Celtic languages in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are huge and complicated local issues, though largely ignored by most UK people (and many of the locals too). Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about that I asked is English the official language of the United Kingdom not by law but by practice, yes or no? because I believe it is. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

de facto, which you know about as you said you'd read the article. Bazza (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The official language of the UK Parliament is English, although Norman French is used in some ceremonies, probably since 1066: https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/norman-french/ There doesn't seem to be official status for English for the state, only "de facto".

Welsh is an official language in Wales and the Senedd. Welsh and English have equal footing in Wales. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/section/1 There doesn't seem to be any legislation saying that English is an official language in Wales. It seems to be a "de facto" language on equal footing with Welsh in Wales.

Scottish Gaelic is not yet an official language in Scotland, but legislation was passed in 2005 with a "view to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/7/introduction

In Northern Ireland, Irish does not yet have official status but there is legislation that is likely to passed very soon protecting the Irish language Irish Language Act. Legislation: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3168

Technically, Welsh is the only official language in the UK, but this obviously applies only to Wales. Titus Gold (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Official is an ambiguous word. It can mean as stated in a document such as a constitution or statute, or by common usage over time. There is no wp consensus on this which results in different articles taking different stances. The main problem, IMO, is that 'official' conveys an air of importance, which for some languages is not necessarily true. Conversely, not being official gives the impression of not being important. For example, Welsh is official in the UK, but only in certain defined situations - in Wales; in a court room. in the Welsh parliament etc. A similar situation exists in NZ with Maori being official according to legislation. Its official-ness is restricted only to where the statute says it is official. This means that English in overwhelmingly more important in the UK due to its unrestricted acceptance, (similar but more qualified in NZ re Maori). But if you take the de jure approach, it is not official and by implication less important. I wonder if WP should create a term for languages like English in the UK that clearly denotes its importance. The term 'national' language doesn't quite do it in my mind and is also ambiguous. Could wp start using the term 'primary' language? That would put English at the top without using the term official. People could then claim that Welsh, Maori, Sanskrit in India, are official and therefore important, but not more important in the readers mind than a primary language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "official", not just in relation to languages, is the bane of Wikipedia. It's the sort of thing WP editors latch on to and have huge arguments about because everyone has their own WP:OR definition of what it means. Then to add to the mix, what are otherwise reliable sources bandy the word around in various contexts without any real thought and meaning and then that's picked up by WP editors as and when it suits their particular POV. Personally I'd just ban use of the word. But that's never going to happen. I'm afraid as tempting as it may sound creating our own lexicon (e.g. "primary language") it's never going to fly while we have policies like WP:DUE and others that prioritise following the sources. It will forevermore be a bun fight on WP:RS usage on a case by case basis. Ultimately "official" doesn't really mean anything. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Well put and I'm afraid I tend to agree with you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We've seen this debate (about the UK-wide status of Welsh) before, going back at least ten years. There isn't a clear-cut resolution but several things are clear - (1) there's no legislation in the UK on this topic other than peripherally (calling on translator services when under arrest - although I recall these are covered under government regulations rather than laws) or in-country (such as bilingual signage in Wales or equal status for both languages in the Senedd Cymru) and (2) the way this is done in the UK is not completely precisely replicated in any other country with similar issues, albeit there are moderately similar examples. Suffice to say what is absolutely clear is that there are no legislatively confirmed 'official languages' for the UK. As with many things, common usage and a lack of public pressure to legislate prevail. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Culture/Literature - removal of English authors

Looking back in the history, I can see that for a long time there was a longer list of English famous authors in this section - for a nation so dominant in global literature, it seems a shame to have removed everyone except Shakespeare and the female ones. There may have been too many in a list previously, but now it's curiously blank in that section. Of course due weight to writers from the four countries should be present, but not at the cost of removing the sense of the section. I propose we re-introduce (at minimum) Austen, Dickens, Hardy, Tolkien, Waugh, Forster, DH Lawrence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be best to create a better, more coherent re-write of the section. It reads like a bunch of random editors each added a paragraph or so at random times. Instead of adding to the chaos, it would be better to just rewrite the section. I mean, I would expect at minimum to mention Beowulf and Chaucer and the Arthurian cycle; none of which is mentioned at all. But I'm also not just going to shoehorn in another random paragraph. It would be better to just rewrite it from scratch. --Jayron32 15:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not that bad. The visual arts section is much worse. Most of "the Arthurian cycle" is French literature, & frankly, who reads Malory these days. Otherwise, yes. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the section, but I would have expected all those you listed to be there, being among the giants of UK authors.Halbared (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Briton is only used to describe welsh and cornish

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Briton its rarely used to describe british as a whole, and is offensive to welsh and cornish if english call themselves britons 92.40.219.189 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This poster wasn't only trying to recruit Welsh and Cornish people.

It's used to describe British people as a whole whenever Rule, Britannia! is sung, which is usually at least once a year, as well as on many other occasions. "Brit" as shorthand for "Briton" has only caught on, in my experience at least, in the last 10-20 years or so.

Wiktionary, being a wiki, is not a reliable source for a definition. Other dictionaries are fairly clear.

• "A native or inhabitant of Great Britain." - TheFreeDictionary
• "a native or subject of Great Britain" - Merriam-Webster
• "A native or inhabitant of Great Britain, especially of England" - Dictionary.com
• "A person from Britain" - Cambridge
• "a person who comes from Great Britain" - Collins

Most of those dictionaries - and other sources - do indicate that when referring to ancient history, the ancient Britons are considered to be natives prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion. But that's a very long time ago and today, "Briton" refers to any British person.

I know quite a few Welsh and Cornish people and none of them have ever expressed any disgruntlement at other people being called "Britons" so blanket statements like it "is offensive to welsh and cornish" are clearly not true. I'd argue it's more offensive to spell "british", "welsh and cornish" without a capital initial letter. WaggersTALK 14:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also hyper-dubious about the alleged offence taken by Welsh and Cornish people. It historically was a fairly common term for the people of the whole island, contemporary and even more in ancient historical contexts, but over the 20th century became much less usual. "Brit", with the same meaning, has indeed become common in the 21st century, indroduced I think by the Americans, who certainly don't go in for these fine distinctions. Wicktionary doesn't support the top ip's contention anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I see the main banner headline on The Times on 24 November 2022 is "Britons told how to save energy". Will they be flooded with complaints from Wales and Cornwall? Somehow I doubt it. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Waggers and Johnbod are correct. The IP is clearly mistaken. -- Alarics (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. A while ago, reading some dispute elsewhere over whether "Briton" was a charged term, I tried to do a rough survey of news sites. I got the impression that the Daily Mail and Daily Express use it in body text more than various others, but that use in headlines was very general. That's not surprising. It's conveniently imprecise compared to British people, British citizens, people of Great Britain etc and most of all it's short. NebY (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - song lyrics are similar. I wouldn't expect to see an academic use it in text for modern people, for example. But if one did, they wouldn't mean just the Welsh and Cornish. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

IP, disagree. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Another point that hasn't been made is that "Briton" seems to be used much more in the written language than in everyday speech, possibly because it sounds the same as "Britain", while there is no such ambiguity when you see it written down. -- Alarics (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the United Kingdom

Why has the ratio of the flag of the United Kingdom been changed, it should be 1:2 ratio, not 3:5 ratio, can it please be reverted, thanks. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 37#section Flag ratio: 1:2, 3:5, or both?, then if you have a reliable source indicationg that in general use it should be 1:2, please do provide it! NebY (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

It is in fact 7% of the population are black and 3% are Asian. someone has gotten it mixed up 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:AD8B:CB59:9CD3:A300 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, those figures are from ONS sources. If you have different information, you should cite a source. --Belbury (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The source data can be found here and, as Belbury says, clearly indicates 7% Asian and 3% Black.

Incidentally he 2021 census data for England and Wales have been published and indicate 9.25% Asian and 4.04% Black, but the UK-wide figures are not expected until the summer of this year. WaggersTALK 13:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The UK isn't just England and Wales

There seems to be a tendency to replace UK-wide statistics with more recent but England and Wales only statistics in this article. This had been done in the infobox with the religion figures from the 2021 census, with no indication that the data was for England and Wales only. In my view, we should prioritise statistics that are for the whole of the UK over more recent but partial statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The ONS has stated that UK-wide stats from the 2021 census are to be released later this year and we should wait for that, or if figures for Scotland and NI are published separately before then, combine them when available. It's a bit frustrating to have to use data that's 12 years old but if that's the latest that's available for the UK as a whole, that's all we can use in this article. WaggersTALK 13:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, if it is not already known on here anyway, Northern Ireland's data for the 2021 census has actually already been released, it is just Scotland's stuff at the moment we are waiting on. If any editors want to go ahead and combined the stuff we currently have then go ahead. Data can be found here on the NISRA website (2021 specifically) Tweedle (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until we have Scotland's results too, so comparisons will be meaningful and no-one has to read the fine print and qualifications to understand which figures are not for the UK. NebY (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This issue also arises at Demography of the United Kingdom. After reverting to a 2011 chart instead of File:Foreign born in England and Wales population pyramid 2021.svg, which was captioned "Foreign born as a population pyramid in 2021", I've opened a discussion at Demography of the United Kingdom#The UK isn't just England and Wales. NebY (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert the description of United Kingdom back to as a "sovereign country" in its opening paragraph

I have noticed that on the description of the United Kingdom has removed the word sovereign and has been left with just country, which I do not approve, The United Kingdom is a sovereign state country of nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are not independent countries anymore, they haven't been since 1801, now Australia has still got sovereign country on its page, so I propose that the word sovereign must be brought back on it's Wikipedia and I don't want any arguments about this, I just want it to happen straight away. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of anti-UK bias on Wikipedia with lots of undue emphasis on the constituent countries (just check any geographical article, you'll likely see the name of the constituent country but not the sovereign state that they are all part of). In my view that convention is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. WaggersTALK 12:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Whoever started the debate which caused the sovereign word to be removed should be reported and then the word should be put back into the text. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Luckily we have educated editors here that have reached a consensus. Most understand the contentious nature of the usage here Colón-Ríos, Joel (2020-03-26). "Sovereignty and Dictatorship". Constituent Power and the Law. Oxford University PressOxford. pp. 226–C9.N185. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198785989.003.0009. ISBN 0-19-878598-4. Moxy- 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

and I don't want any arguments about this, I just want it to happen straight away. Hilarious. Equally hilarious that an admin then posts "I agree". Perhaps both would like to read through the lengthy RfC and consider WP:CONSENSUS before opining further. DeCausa (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the UK isn’t NOT a country. It’s a Sovereign State collective of countries under one constitutional monarch. Merely A political union. It’s not a country in its own right, and the UN and EU even stated this, and this needs to be reflected in the description. I also suggest it’s changed back to Sovereign State Collective Jackwdj (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is just not correct. The UK -is- a country in its own right, just like other multi-level countries (The US, Germany, Canada, Australia etc) are. The UN and EU have not, actually, stated that the UK is not a country in its own right - the UK's membership of both suggests otherwise. Nor is the UK is not "merely a political union" like the European Union. ZElsb (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Info Box Name Translations

While English is the only de facto official language, the use of Welsh, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic has increased on consciousness of late. For example, Welsh, Irish, and Scots translations for "Her Majesty's Government" have appeared on the Government of the United Kingdom page, as well as Welsh, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic translations for the appearing both in the most recent Series C passport and on the British passport page.

In light of this, I think it would be appropriate to include Welsh, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic translations of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" under the English version as is the case in states with multiple official languages, for example Belgium.

Translations to be included would be; Welsh: Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon; Scottish Gaelic: An Rìoghachd Aonaichte na Breatainn Mhòr agus Eirinn a Tuath; and Irish: Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann. Scots (Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland) could also be included, however it's lack of inclusion in the most-recent passport series could justify its exclusion for the time being. ZElsb (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No, avoid that trap. The language/s used should first be determined by their weighted used in reliable secondary sources. Govt sources are generally self-published primary sources. Although usually reliable and often the only source we have on the subject, we must still use them with care. In this case, use of those other languages has a promotional element to it and in some cases it might even be required by legislation. That brings into doubt the independence of the source, which, do not forget is usually primary. Another reason to be on one's guard is that use of these other languages feeds the enthusiastic button pushing fingers of those editors who love adding detail just for the sake of it or, in some cases, have an inbuilt determination to promote these languages in whatever way they can. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow your logic. Welsh, Irish, and Scottish Gaelic name translations have been accepted for use in both the HM Government and British passport pages, I see no reason why they should not also be included on the infobox here in the same manner as other multi-lingual states (eg Belgium). At the very least a Welsh translation should be included given the Welsh Language Act (1993) requires it to be treated equally to English in the public sector.

Similarly, I’m not sure I follow your logic re “button pushers” and how adding translations, which have been accepted elsewhere, could be considered to promote them in a pejorative way. ZElsb (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

We use independent RSSs use, not what the govt uses. Nearly always they will be the same, but not always. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@ZElsb You've been selective with your interpretation of the Welsh Language Act 1993: you need to add "in Wales" after "public sector". This being the English language Wikipedia (and hosted in the US), it's probably not covered by that act. We could always follow the precedent set elsewhere. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated religion and ethnicity data - change to more recent?

Religion and ethnicity data is from 2011 - more recent census data does exist - particularly I noted that Christian is listed as the largest denomination here, even though Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) does not agree. Busy right now, so I'm throwing this out here Webbandspider (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The page you link covers only England and Wales. CMD (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oooh wow I’m blind! Managed to completely miss that somehow… I do still think the fact that there has been fairly significant change deserves a mention but alas I guess we can but wait for them to do a full UK survey. (I do know it’s mentioned later in the article, just think the infoboxes can be a little misleading) Webbandspider (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about thoroughly wasting your time here by the way! Webbandspider (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You have not wasted anybody's, no need to apologize :) Tweedle (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Uk Authors

Any reason why Jk Rowling is not mentioned despite massive international sales and fame ? 92.239.13.177 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

She is mentioned in the British literature article. Jmccormac (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Article bloat

A fundamental expectation of Wikipedia's format is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. WP:TOOBIG says articles greater than 100kb "almost certainly should be divided".

The article is now almost 380kb. According to this, it's now the 269th biggest article on Wikipedia (out of 6.6m) with the larger ones being mostly entirely list class. Size cerainly doesn't equate to quality, as we can all see. According to this, the article expanded c. 50kb every 1 to 2 years until 2017. It then plateau'd at 340kb until mid 2021 when it resumed its upward climb. The current trajectory not only fails to comply with SUMMARYSTYLE, it is just not sustainable. Editors constantly drop by to add their pet "improvements". Unless they're obviously objectionable, no one's systematically considering these edits in the overall context of the article as far as I can see. The latest example is new user 117PXL adding 5kb to the article since 11 March.

The article needs to be at least halved with excess material devolved to subsidiary articles per SUMMARYSTYLE. But a starting point is halt the current trajectory. My initial thoughts are that without Talk page agreement, there should be a ban on additions that aren't matched by byte-for-byte content removal. (Obviously any addition/removal is also subject to all normal policy scrutiny as well) Others' thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I can't disagree with any of what you have said. I'll be happy to occasionally review and remove some of the bloat which has been added in the past, particularly in areas with their own substantial articles. Bazza (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be careful not to expand more, but I am trying to bring up to date and make a more accurate reflection of the UK. The page is the main page for the UK with lots of views and removing content may mean it won't be read. 117PXL (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• HTML document size: 1462 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 237 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 823 kB
• Wiki text: 371 kB
• 'Prose size (text only): 109 kB (17782 words) "readable prose size
• References (text only): 103 kB

A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65% At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style.Moxy- 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What are the guidelines, if any, for section size? Stara Marusya (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Specifically for sections, the guidelines are that they shouldn't be too short or too long, which is useful but not the most enlightening on the question of overall size. It's probably better to think of them within the terms of WP:DUE weight. Say an article is 40kb-60kb of prose. How much of that would you expect to be taken up by a particular section? CMD (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

5-10kb? Stara Marusya (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

As a summary article I would guess each section is like a lead//intro to another main article so MOS:LEADLENGTH would be a good guess?Moxy- 22:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say you could probably easily cut down on stuff in the Demography section, to take an easy example the 2nd paragraph under 'Migration' which talks about 2014 feels very in the time it was written and could be easily cut, the whole area needs a re-write and update but that's a bit of a big task. (also get rid of the table in Ethnic groups and replace it with a pie graph like in Religion!!) Tweedle (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that these sections can be cut down, but I disagree with the suggestion to replace that table with a pie chart, which I suspect will make for less accessible presentation (see MOS:ACCIM). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Are Wiki-embedded Pie charts affected by MOS:ACCIM? The linked section is for images, regardless I point that out only because we 1: we do better detailed statistics at the main demography page and 2: the text in the section basically summarises past results anyway (although could do with a re-write for better flow, bit jumbled at the moment) and I suspect most people will only want to see the most current figures. Perhaps if people want to keep the table then we could just get rid of the 2001 numbers to save space. Tweedle (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's point 3 that I was referring to, but now that I pay more attention, I see that the religion pie chart has the numbers displayed as text in the key, which I think is fine. I was imagining a chart with the numbers embedded in an image. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, I'm not sure how easy it is to represent sub-groups using a pie chart compared to the existing table. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it that's fair, perhaps it could be done similar to what we have in the infobox? So White, Asian, Black (main groups) etc. I know that removes a bit of detail from the Asian section but we are already missing the sub-groups for White and Black so perhaps such detail could be missed. Tweedle (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• A quick win for me is the Dependencies section. It's baffling why we have such a detailed section (with the largest and most WP:UNDUE graphic of the article) when the section's second sentence includes the phrase "but the Territories and Dependencies are not part of the UK". QED. The most that's needed is the first paragraph with the links to the subsidiary article sans pic and graphic. DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Can the coat of arms be changed to File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (1837-1952, variant).svg 2601:47:4301:67C0:5DFD:F597:5886:F7A5 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been no announcement that there will be a reversion to the 1837 coat of arms. It has been announced that the depiction of the Crown (outside of Scotland) is changing from St Edward's Crown to the Tudor Crown, however images released so far have continued to use the 1952 harp. For example, see here. Unless there are further announcements then the escutcheon will stay the same as the current (1952-) version. As the arms used in Scotland already used the Crown of Scotland there will be no changes to the Scottish version of the arms. Therefore a change to the 1837-1952 arms would be incorrect. Ebonelm (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Royal coat of arms of Scotland

Why is the royal coat of arms of Scotland situated above the map in the info box? A.) And why isn't Wales and Northern Ireland's coat of arms there as well? B.) Other countries with constituent countries, such as the Netherlands, don't have their own separate coat of arms for each constituent in the monarchy. So what gives? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wkpdsrnm2023: Read the linked Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom article to have your questions answered; in particular, the sections on Scotland and England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bazza (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand. Hoping you might be able to clarify. Is it because a separate coat of arms is used in Scotland? Thanks Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wkpdsrnm2023: Yes, as the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom article states in its lead: "A Scottish version of the royal arms is used in and for Scotland." Bazza (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I kind of got that from the section, but I still don't understand why it's located where it is in this article. It's definitely footnote worthy and should be situated somewhere in the article, but it doesn't represent the entire sovereign state, so does it belong at the very top in the infobox? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wkpdsrnm2023: Neither coat of arms "represent" the entire state. A previous version of the article had both adjacent to each other. Bazza (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, it's just a little different from many other countries' infoboxes and I was curious. Thanks! Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

UK is not a country

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.

---

the UK is a sovereign state comprised of 3 countries and a region. Writing up that it's a country is false information. Sjf1010305 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You've missed that particular boat. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: have their been similar RFC and WP:CONSENSUS on the England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland articles? ChefBear01 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No idea. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DeCausa and Cordless Larry:, the discussion has reappeared here on the United Kingdom article and the Scotland article ChefBear01 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Q1 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2023 (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.

Add Bermuda Dollar To currencies

France has CFP franc in its currency list because its used in some of is overseas territories, i see no reason why the bermuda dollar can't be included on the list since bermuda is part of the UK officially. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda is not part of the UK officially. BOTs are treated very differently to French territories. CMD (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda is not part of the UK; it's a British Overseas Territory, but it's not part of the UK itself. French overseas municipalities are in a different situation; they are Departments of France proper, send MPs to the French Parliament, etc. Their position is closer to that of Northern Ireland, albeit geographically much more distant. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda is a BOT, not part of the UK. France may have integrated some of their colonies but the UK has not. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The map is not proper.

United Kingdom#/media/File:British Empire 1921.png

Please check the above link, if we notice, the colonized countries of Africa's present borders are shown, but, if we look at the Indian subcontinent, there is no present borders which leads to a confusion.

Kindly fix it ASAP. 2406:7400:51:2FD8:C144:9984:1104:4968 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The borders are supposed to be as they were in 1921, not now. Worth looking at the history of the file at Commons:File:British Empire 1921.png and maybe starting a discussion there if necessary. WaggersTALK 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are definitely not current borders in Africa. CMD (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's pre-1934 because of the way Libya and the Libya/Sudan border is shown. I think the confusion is caused by "internal" borders of the British Empire in Africa being shown (which largely equate to current borders) but not the princely states in India, which is arguably inconsistent. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not remove all borders? The Falkland Island Dependencies are not all shown. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

In the healthcare section, there is a source at the top which needs to be lined with the text. 213.122.240.20 (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom has evolved from a series of annexations ... of constituent countries"

I am not sure what the justification is for the claim that the United Kingdom developed from annexations of constituent countries in the lead section. The United Kingdom has a simple matter of historical fact never officially annexed any constituent country directly - within the British Isles the territory controlled by the UK changed only with the acts of union and Irish independence, and outside the British isles typically territories were annexed into colonies (e.g., the Boer Republics became colonies that were then annexed into the Union of South Africa). Whilst certainly there are people who would claim that various things constituted annexations, the lead section is hardly the place to address these controversial claims.
This appears to be a reference to a reference to the conquest of Wales by England? But then this is not the development of the United Kingdom, which was created hundreds of years after that happened and would not anyway substantiate the use of the plural annexations. As the article itself states, Scotland was not annexed despite attempts to do so by England during the medieval period.
I know this is a bit WP:WAXy, but, for contrast, all of the steps that lead to the present United States are summarised in the lead section with the single short sentence "The country began expanding across North America, spanning the continent by 1848". A similar formulation here would be something like: "The United Kingdom evolved through a series of expansions and separations from the 1603 Union of Crowns onwards.". FOARP (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty dodgy and anachronistic sentence ... the implication being that England did the annexing, which, while arguably true of Wales, in no way applies to Scotland. If anything, the Scottish crown absorbed the English one sequentially. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - it would be misleading (and unusual) to limit the UK's creation to the final stages only. For that reason, "annexations and unions" would be accurate. I don't think technicality of the Acts of Union 1800 or the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 can alter the fact that both Ireland and Wales were originally taken by conquest by the English crown. (The Statute of Rhuddlan literally says the former Principality of Wales was "annexed" to the crown). DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I read it as annexations (Wales, Ireland) and unions (Scotland); I don't think it implies Scotland was annexed. Also, "expansion" is somewhat problematic as it sounds like England only expanded -- in some cases it conquered, but in other places it joined in union (which isn't accurately an "expansion"). Jr8825 • Talk 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's correct legally in the context of Wales, and Ireland too if you include military invasion, as DeCausa points out. I think the sentence is fine as it is. The final formation of the UK was legalistic but historically its formation did involve conquest. Jr8825 • Talk 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's odd to talk about the United Kingdom in events hundreds of years before its formation. It fixes the POV that the UK = England. FOARP (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's just historical fact that the UK is a product of a long process of English conquest and union with Scotland. I don't think there's anything controversial about saying that. DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that this is basically the Celtic nationalist POV: that England and the UK are synonymous. Looking at our article on History of the United Kingdom, it begins with the formation of the United Kingdom. De Causa talks about the act of union of 1800 as a "technicality": we should not write something that is "technically" wrong in the lead section of the article. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What?? None of that makes any sense. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What part? FOARP (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The first and last sentence in their entireties. DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that the historical annexations you are talking about were how the Kingdom of England was formed, not the UK. The two are not synonymous. The "technicality" of the Act of Union 1800 means we should find better language for summarising how the United Kingdom actually formed than referring, in the lead section, to annexation. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You've lost me. I don't see a problem with the current wording. The UK has come about because of a process over 100s of years. I don't get the problem that you think needs to be fixed. DeCausa (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) England was a precursor state to the UK, and Wales and (Northern) Ireland make up large parts of the UK, so how they came to be part of the UK is a relevant and important part of a historical summary. Jr8825 • Talk 15:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that a reasonable historical summary involves opening up a discussion of hundreds of years of history before the actual subject you are discussing existed, particularly in a sentence that makes no distinction at all between things done by the UK and things done before the UK existed, and can indeed be read as the UK doing the annexations. Our History of the United Kingdom article does not do this - it begins its coverage with the start of the UK. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That's because, by definition, it only needs to cover the period after the UK was formed. If you want to talk about how it was formed then you talk about what ahppened before that. That's why Formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland explains how Wales and Ireland ended up in the UK. I think you're making rather heavy weather of something actually quite straight forward. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"그레이트브리튼 및 북아일랜드 연합왕국" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 그레이트브리튼 및 북아일랜드 연합왕국 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 그레이트브리튼 및 북아일랜드 연합왕국 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince Charles in Aotearoa (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford Comma

"Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are the national capitals of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively" should be "Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast are the national capitals of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland respectively", no? Literally speaking, the former implies that Cardiff and Belfast are/is the capital(s) of an entity called Wales and Northern Ireland. StrawWord298944 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't: that would be Edinburgh and Cardiff and Belfast are the national capitals of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, with no requirement for respectively. Were that the intended meaning, it would need recasting for clarity (Edinburgh is the national capital of Scotland, and Cardiff and Belfast that of Wales and Northern Ireland)

I have no problem interpreting the current wording as its intended meaning of three capitals for three countries.

See MOS:SERIAL. Bazza (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

'current' Prime Minister does not need qualifying date.

Suggest amending the text where it says "The current Prime Minister, at October 2022, is Rishi Sunak" - to remove 'at October 2022' as that is duplicative and not necessary. Alternative would be to say: 'since 25 October 2022' JSergeant (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Stating anything "is current" is always slightly risky as nobody has any obligation to keep it up to date when the prime minister changes. For that reason, I think a simpler statement of fact would be "Rishi Sunak became prime minister on 25 October 2022".

In reality it's very unlikely that this particular article would remain un-updated for long after the next prime minister is appointed, but Wikipedia is littered with "is" statements that are no longer true, so it's better to avoid them and use wording that will always be factually accurate. WaggersTALK 10:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Previous request removed for spurious reason. I'm sure there is a very good reason why Special:Contributions/109.144.0.0/16 is only partially blocked, most probably because the range also contains good-faith editors such as me who are nothing to do with WP:LTA/BKFIP.

Please revert this addition. What the source says is Below it appears the motto of the Sovereign, Dieu et mon droit ('God and my right').

That the sovereign's motto is also the UK's motto has been rejected at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 1#Motto, Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 9#Motto - "God and my right", Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 18#Motto, Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 20#Motto, Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 22#Motto. 51.219.150.210 (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Not spurious, we have a policy called WP:DENY. I've alerted an admin to this IP for further checks, in the mean time given the lack of personal abuse I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though the IP geolocation swapping between Worcester and Bolton leaves me suspicious. Edit has been actioned, if I'm wrong I'm happy for my comment to be deleted if someone wishes to remove the entire thread. WCM_email 09:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)