Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about United Kingdom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archives

Country/State debate archives

Terminology debate archives

Subdivision name debate archives

April 2008 – June 2008

Celsius along with Fahrenheit

Resolved

I feel that within the climate portion of this article all temperatures (which are currently in °C) should also be presented in °F. A simple parenthetical presentation of the temperature converted to the Fahrenheit scale would make this article more easily understood by persons who are unfamiliar with the Celsius scale and who do not have access to a unit converter.

-Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.228.83 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has access to google and can type in "32 centigrade to fahrenheit" - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just do the suggestion above. I mean, it's not exactly verbose, it's not difficult, and it will save time for a large number of people who are not familiar with Celsius. Indeed, by having the conversion they will become more familiar with it.

Unless someone can point me to a policy that states we should only use Celsius, then I second adding in Fahrenheit conversions. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a template available for this: Template:Temperature. Mucky Duck 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power

Resolved

I have read that the UK nuclear weapons cannot be fired without US enablement. Is this true? If so, obviously the sections referring to the UK being a "nuclear power" would need significant modification. (Sarah777 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

You are referring to the US weapons stationed on British soil (which also, incidentally, need British permission to be used). The independent British nuclear deterrent, based in submarines, is just that - independent. TharkunColl 10:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support that claim? (Sarah777 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Do you? TharkunColl 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

None. That is precisely why I question the inclusion of such statements in the article. It now appears I was correct to do so as you have de facto conceded that you have no such evidence of independence. (Sarah777 11:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

And I have read that if the UK wishes to fire its nuclear weapons, Gordon Brown must first drop his trousers, skip - still in his underpants - from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace, and then dance in the style of five farmyard animals whilst the Queen guesses what animals they are. The weapons can only be fired if she gets three right. As noone here has provided no evidence to the contrary, they have de facto conceded that this must be true and I shall therefore be adding it to the article forthwith. Bonkers. Totally bonkers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your scenario and mine are analogous. In fact, I might be able to find some reliable sources to support my contention whereas I doubt that would be the case re Gordon Brown's lapdance for the Queen. I like to tee these issues up in discussion before dropping them into an article - less shock effect. I only wish more folk would follow my example. (Sarah777 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

You're missing my point - your position seems to be that because noone has provided evidence that it isn't true, therefore it is true. I hope you can see that this is - to put it politely - a rather impractical burden of proof you are placing on your fellow contributors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read that, Sarah? Badgerpatrol 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember - maybe the Independent; it was in the context of the anti-war stuff around the time they decided to renew Trident - along the lines of "what's the point, the US controls the trigger". I made no edits on this issue as I have no refs to hand; I thought someone else might. I reckon there are some out there. (Sarah777 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The weapons are operationally independent in the sense that they do not require the permission, satellites or codes of the USA. However, the missiles are manufactured and serviced by the USA, so they are not fully independent in that sense (if the US refused to service them, they would be useless). See BBC [1] Astrotrain 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's more in line with what I thought. I'd certainly be interested in reading that article though if you ever come across it again, it's a subject I've often thought about. Badgerpatrol 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the UK owns and fits the munitions, it's the vehicles which are serviced in the US. If the USGov refused to service then there are firms in the UK which could service the vehicles if required. The lead time required to achieve that may lead to a period of difficulty.

But operationally, yes the deterrent fleet is independent.

ALR 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Nevis

Resolved

Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. True, but it hardly does it justice. And the pictures of skyscrapers are there specifically to illustrate the UK's economic growth. TharkunColl 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the United Kingdom; dragging in the RoI to boost the status of Nevis is aggravated trivialisation. Skyscrapers are often constructed during recessions so their existence in wherever the photo was taken is not a testament to anything. Maybe a potential "indicator" but a testament is way to strong and non-Wiki in terms presentation. The fact that the UK Government has a Defence Ministry means nothing; every country has, and every country calls their military "defence". But you will note that Wiki does not have to validate this euphemism; the term that avoids pov is "military expenditure"; which it is actually the term used in the actual link which appears as "defence spending" (Sarah777 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I would have to agree that "military expenditure" is a better term going forwards. I think citation would solve the other issues. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the statement about skyscrapers being a testament to the economic growth of the UK is an odd one, and very unencyclopaedic. The building of skyscrapers is actively regulated and discouraged in London to protect its skyline. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case it's generally perceived that the number of tower cranes/building sites in a city is an indicator of its current economic status, not the number of skyscrapers. Skyscrapers may well show that there has been a booming economy at some time previously but it gives little or no information about the current economic situation, particularly when you take into account the sort of local planning rules that the Red Hat mentions above. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NI not a Nation

Resolved

While I'm here, Tarkuncoll also reverted fixing the caption which referred to NI as a "Nation". How is NI a nation? (Sarah777 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree, it isn't (and for exactly the same reason, nor is the RoI). But England, Scotland, and Wales are, and to call them "entities", as you did, is just insulting. TharkunColl 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A nation is a group of people, not a division of land (though granted they are referred to as the home nations). I believe that they are all each constituent countries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A nation, whilst it is certainly a group of people, usually also possesses a specific area of land. So it is not incorrect to refer to countries as nations. TharkunColl 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is really! They're not the same thing at a scholarly level or below. It's this kind of sloppy English that confuses other terms, like race and ethnic group, which are also not the same. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kurds are a nation, though spread over 4 countries. Country is definitely not = nation. (Sarah777 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

If it's the people, not the land, then NI is TWO nations; each belonging to part of a different bigger nation. Can't agree RoI isn't a nation; it might not encompass all those who consider themselves part of it but is is a nation; and a sovereign one; unlike Scotland or Wales. So how do we improve the caption; "Three Nations and an Entity"? Sounds good to me. (Sarah777 13:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Well Northern Ireland as a territory, or division of land, is very much a constituent country, and citation supports this. The "Northern Irish" could be described as two nations, but there are more groups within its population than just the age old prodys/loyalists and catholics/nationalists (such as American students, chinese migrants, cross community peoples etc), and that does pertain to the people, not the land; simillarly England could effectively be described (in point of view terms) hundreds of nations if we begin to divide its inhabitants according to creed and colour. They should all be described as "countries" in the caption (constituent is not necessarily a term of art). -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have less problems with "country" than "nation" except that "country" usually implies sovereignty. I suppose the root problem isn't just NI (obviously neither a country or a nation by any normal definition); the problem is trying to apply a common name to all four. Scotland is a nation; but arguably not a country. Wales is a Principality, is it not? England is the closest of the lot to approximate to the term "country"; but not quite there; the COUNTRY is the United Kingdom. You can't have; "COUNTRY, the United Kingdom is subdivided into four COUNTRIES."

How about "Statelets"? (Sarah777 14:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

No - statelet is pure OR sorry. There's no reason why a country can't be divided into countries! Why can't that be?... Indeed it's the approach of the UK's various official literature - [2]. Scotland is not a nation, its a constituent country. The Scottish people are a nation as has been established. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a nation or country it is a province of the UK, which is how the British Government has discribed it numerous times over the years.--Padraig 14:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands I've provided citation for "country". If you could find suitable citation for province?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the same website [3] --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Barryob. A point of communication; I'm not contending NI is a province or not, I have also heard the term used, but citation suggested "country", and "nation" was bad English.... So, which one is correct? Both are citable. Any other sources to support either term? -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here [4][5][6][7].--Padraig 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even the PSNI call it the province [8] Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service [9].--Padraig 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Province" refers properly to Ulster, not Northern Ireland. See Provinces of Ireland. --John 18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly can have a country contituted of countries. The reference here , gives the UK government's take on that. Mucky Duck 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The British government and it departments have always refered to Northern Ireland as the province.--Padraig 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Padraig, qualify your conjectures with citation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is House of Commons Hansard good enough [10].--Padraig 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the UK annexed Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan without anyone knowing then the sources that Northern Ireland is referred to as a province have been provided --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it "The Province", in poetics, or "a province"? Hansard is an OK source, but with context, doesn't make anything official - it documents debate, nor does it quite assert that "The British Government have always called NI the province". Some of the other sources provided are blogs, personal columns and local websites. Surely something better can be found? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take stock of where we are before looking for more citations - there is more evidence for "Province" than "Country" and we all agree "Nation" is simply wrong. So edit to "Three Countries and a Province" unless and until we find a better solution. Then move on. There are other problems with this article that need fixing but I'd like to close off current issues before raising them. (Sarah777 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

If it helps, meetings in the UK public sector at which organisations from each of the four "entities" are present are usually referred to as "four countries" meetings - at least, certainly in healthcare. That's from personal experience so is essentially original research, but here's a citation to back it up. I've tried a few Google searches and the most popular words that are applied to all four are countries or territories. If some find referring to N.Ireland as a country objectionable, would referring to all four as territories suffice? I think it would be good to find one word that could be applied to them all, and "territories" seems to fit the bill. Waggers 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam before and the consensus was to leave the wording as 'countries'. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NI isn't a country. Perhap the reason it is discussed "ad nauseam" is 'cos the alledged "consensus" is ludicrous? (Sarah777 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, the consensus isn't alleged - it's real. A quick look in the dictionary for the definition of the word 'nation' should show you clearly that Northern Ireland is, in fact, a nation. So are the England, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Padraig, your assertion was, "The British government and it departments have always refered to Northern Ireland as the province." This is simply untrue. --Mal 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No Northern Ireland is a province, (look it up) England and Scotland are Kingdoms and Wales is a Principility. (Electrobe 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

NI not a Nation (2)

Resolved

"Territories" makes England sound like the Gaza Strip or something. Why do we have to use the same word for all four? Clearly NI is not a whole country in the same way that the other three are. "Province" is widely used - it's true that NI not the whole of Ulster, but it is based on Ulster, and "province" is in common use. As for the other three, "nations" is in widespread use. TharkunColl 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea folks, let's leave the article the way it is and was agreed to. The UK is a country, made up of four constituent countries (the four components are equal). Let's not beat a dead horse, please. GoodDay 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree; NI isn't a country. We can't be creating stuff on Wiki as I'm constantly told when objecting to the term "British Isles"! But do agree with you re flogging a dead horse - what we should do is bury the deceased. (Sarah777 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

It could be regarded as a "province" of GB&NI I suppose. (Personally I like the word 'territory' as it implies "occupation" - but I'll not push that!) Also Unionists habitually refer to "the Province" as much as "the country" (I accept that it isn't a full Province in Irish terms). Nationalists refer to it as a State or Statelet or Entity but I realise Nationalist usage is POV on Wiki whereas British pov merely reflects objective reality. So how about "The Three Countries of Great Britain and the Province of Northern Ireland"? (Sarah777 22:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The UK's four components are equal. However, if some persist in disputing this? please continue to keep the discussion here (in other words no edit wars). We don't need the UK article being locked. GoodDay 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In what respect are they "equal"? Citation please, as the comment appears to be ridiculous. The only thing we have established, and appear to have some consensus on, is the NI is not a country. Fact. I will amend the article accordingly. DO NOT revert or YOU will be edit warring. (Sarah777 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

The UK's four components are far from equal they where from a period from 1973—1997 equal but are not now. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sarah777, you come across as very negative. Please try to be more engaging and accomodating with your discourse and negotation. There is no rush; we can all talk about this issue like adults and make sure we have a fair outcome. It might take a few days but there's no need to start threatening each other; we're all free to edit, but bound to work out a consensus.

Now, the most official and quality citation suggests that NI is a (constituent) country. I'm not saying there aren't any sources that say province, or territory, or part, or land, or evil British occupied territory of the beautiful emerald isle, but they are not of the same standard of citation as the number10.gov.uk cite. Rather than all scrambling for Google and finding weak and obscure sources (by which I mean blogs, personal webspaces, commericial cites, personal columns) to support our cause, why don't we attempt to find something in a proffessional atlas, or a high quality British history book? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut! I am very negative when an editor tries to impose pov over factuality and warns me against edit warring when I have done none. NI is not a country, period. It meets no dictionary definition of the term and clearly "province" is better referenced - despite your claims. Read this thread - there is general agreement. Heck, you think I'm negative; I think you aren't neutral. So let's both keep such personal opinions to ourselves, eh? (Sarah777 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Nobody accusing anybody of 'edit warring'. I simply advised both sides, to keep discussion here, that's all. GoodDay 23:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see no evidence at all for a consensus that "NI is not a country. Fact." I do see statements like "NI is not a country, period." but these do not amount either to evidence or to consensus. Mucky Duck 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beg to differ. You clearly advised me. Re the interventions by yourself, Red King and Jza - I notice that British editors in all these Irish/British issues argue up to a point and when confronted with a point they cannot refute resort to simply saying "this is how it is going to be - end". All three of you have said just that in slightly different ways. (Sarah777 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I said if some persist and I warned both sides (for the sake of the article). Honestly, you're being paranoid. GoodDay 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sarah777 please slow down. I've not editted the article, I've just discussed the citation. I can't help being British - I didn't ask for it. Hell with my mixed ancestry, I can't even claim to be a constituent countryer. However, my nationality shouldn't matter and I certainly shouldn't be persecuted or frowned upon for it. I'm not neutral no - none of us are, but I at least engage with you and provide citation; I've not reverted your changes, nor even said you're wrong! We shouldn't be here to push POV content, we're here to look at the evidence, discuss it as a team, then once agreed proceed with the edit.

I totally agree there is material to support "province" but it is also verifiable (not necessarily true) that NI is a constituent country. Sarah, you're making a sweeping claim that NI doesn't meet dictionary definitions of a country. Can you provide some reasoning why you think this is so? Can you also explain your reasons why you think "country" might not be suitable, when say, it is for Wales? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

May I remind Sarah that per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, she "may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks". Some of the rhetoric above is close to being anti-British and I suggest she refrain from making such comments in future. Astrotrain 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wales has been recognised, both by virtually all its inhabitants and all outside it as a country for nearly a thousand years. NI was merely part of a country, Ireland, until 1921. It then became part of another country, or certainly of a different country to the rest of Ireland. A huge minority of the people living there have contested its creation since its inception and that remains the case today. There is no parallel in Wales, Scotland or England; though I would argue that they are not countries either they are different in these respects. A truly non-pov article would state that they are different parts of a country, the country being the UK of GB and NI (UKOGBANI). The claim that UKOGBANI is a country and also some constituent parts are countries is complete and utter nonsense. But they have all been widely called countries. NI has not. It has been widely called a state, a statelet, an entity, a province. But not a "country".

Astro, I'm discussing, not editing. And telling the truth can't be anti-anything. But I do note your are resorting to threats. (Sarah777 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I have no problem with the term territory, and don't think it implies occupation. After all Canada contains territories as well as provinces. As for the four constituent parts of the UK being equal, where is the basis for that. That's never been the case and never been implied before. England is the strong partner in the kingdom with Scotland as a poorer partner and Wales coming in third. NI has always been more of an overseas territory than a full equal partner in the union, a view held up by UK laws. NI often has it's own laws, isn't included in many mainland UK things, often had no governance of its own and no power to alter things in Westminster. I don't think anyone seriously believes the four components of the UK are equal. I also don't think there is any reliable source that has ever described NI as a country (other than one odd entry on the Number 10 website I recall seeing many years ago) unlike the other three constituent parts, and it certainly has no basis in law. It's always been very dubious as to what official status should be applied to NI in that instance other than it is part of a larger nation/state/country of the United Kingdom. Ben W Bell talk 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I understand your point of view, but it is only that without source material. Could you qualify your statements about the inequalities of the terms of union between Eng/Sco/Wal/NI with some citation? Re Sarah's points, its certainly the first time I've ever seen someone use the phrase "a huge minority" in a discussion, but non-the-less, I must make a point of clarity; I understood things a little differently regarding NI; that it was the territory of NI that remained part of the United Kingdom, not become a new part of it in 1921. Indeed it was the Irish Free State that seperated from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, becoming a new state... of course. Quite verifiable.

Sarah, you stated earlier that NI doesn't conform to the definition of a country. Well, (I'm citing sources now) my cursory research suggests a country is "the territory occupied by a nation".[11] or "In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical entity, a territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation". Am I right in thinking you retract that statement based on this material? For the record I have no problem in working that issue out, but as a user I must see citation if we wish to proceed on nulifying the term "country" for NI.

It seems that "A province is a territorial unit, almost always a country subdivision". So if we proceed with this for NI, then why not for say Scotland? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Northern Ireland being refered to as a country, I merely mentioned that Britain regarded it as a province of the UK rather then a seperate country, I think this comes from the fact that from 1921 to 1968 British politicans basically ignored it and left it to the devolved parliament to do its own thing, and it was only with the onset of the troubles when Britain was forced to intervene did they pay any attention to the place.--Padraig 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that NI had its own Governor shows that it was not treated the same as Eng/Sco/Wal its was treated as a colony with a great deal of autonomy for most of its history --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the opperative word there is was. That arrangement ceased in 1973. It must be remembered that when NI was first set up, it was intended to exist in tandem with Southern Ireland - each with their own House of Commons, but with a joint senate. NI was never intended to be an entity in its own right, because both it and Southern Ireland would have remained part of the UK, with a large measure of internal self government. That things didn't work out this way was largely a result of WWI. TharkunColl 11:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody earlier said 'Northern Ireland' seperated from Ireland and joined the UK, what? Actually, the rest of Ireland (which eventually became the Republic of Ireland) broke away from the UK. Afterall, from 1801 to 1922, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also raised this point. I'm assuming it was a misunderstanding on that user's part. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been sorted before, to everybodys' satisfaction. Sarah, you state incorrectly, that Northern Ireland does not fit any dictionary definition of the word country. Clearly however, it does:

a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
the territory of a nation.
the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.
the land of one's birth or citizenship.
rural districts, including farmland, parkland, and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities or towns: Many city dwellers like to spend their vacations in the country.
any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.
a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.
the public.
Law. the public at large, as represented by a jury.
country music.

–adjective

of, from, or characteristic of the country; rural: a winding country road.
of, pertaining to, or associated with country music: That Nashville station plays country records all day long.
rude; unpolished; rustic: country manners.
of, from, or pertaining to a particular country.
Obsolete. of one's own country.

—Idioms

. go to the country, British. to dissolve a Parliament that has cast a majority vote disagreeing with the prime minister and cabinet and to call for the election of a new House of Commons. Also, appeal to the country.
put oneself upon the or one's country, Law. to present one's cause formally before a jury.

--Mal 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to start a row, Mal, but Northern Ireland doesn't quite fit any of those definitions as it is not self-contained in either geography (having no natural border with the Republic) or people (most obvious point being citizenship) - nor is it considered a historical "country". I'd stick with "constituent country" for the lot and "province" specifically for Northern Ireland. That said, I think it's in flux and in a couple decades more, "country" will be a fair enough term for NI (e.g. rise of "Northern Irish" as a declared identity), but not right now. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest cities/towns

Resolved

Eagerly trying to get their favourite city or town into the list largest cities/towns, some editors are restorting to including the entire population of city councils or their equivalent: Newcastle upon Tyne and City of Sunderland are the latest to try and squeeze in. Taking into account the comment in the article's text just above and below the list — See main article for the precise figures. They are urban sub-divisions according to the 2001 census, not local authority districts. — and the notes at List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population, I have removed any below the 200,000 mark. Bazza 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think eventually, the whole section will have to be deleted. It has become a 'favourite city' battle ground. GoodDay 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I find it odd when there are lists in some articles which simply duplicate the information on another "List of..." page. Perhaps just replace it with (e.g.) "There are twenty-two cities or towns with a population over 200,000." Bazza 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go for that. GoodDay 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is more that editors are ignoring the comments placed in those locations for exactly that reason. There's no reason for the 200,000 - 250,000 group to be removed if people actually read the comments and the daughter article. If this list is to be removed, then so should the conurbation and LUZ ones too - which would be a shame as they add valuable information to the article. Fingerpuppet 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I've been bold whilst you were typing. Agreed about conurbation lists going the same way, but is there a similar UK-only LUZ list as well? Bazza 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. Perhaps someone would like to write one, though getting the actual definitions of all the LUZs might be a little tricky. So, do we restore the city list, or remove the other two as well? Fingerpuppet 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to list the largest urban areas and urban zones without having the cities in. There may be strong arguments for saying that urban area boundaries are as meaningful, and perhaps more meaningful, than city boundaries - however, I think most readers would be more interested in cities and expect to see that information in there. People are more likely to have heard of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc, and to have some interest in them, than in the West Midlands or West Yorkshire. They'd expect to get some idea of the major cities of England in the England article. The fact that the cities list has apparently led to difficulties in terms of editing the article is not a reason for removing it, although I understand why an editor took it out. I also think that having both Urban Areas and Urban Zones in is overkill, as aren't they the same thing defined in slightly different ways? However, if anyone feels both lists are needed then I wouldn't argue with that. But I do think cities should be in there. Hobson 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban Areas are conurbations; whilst LUZs are City-Regions and are agglomerations of local authorities. To give an example, the West Midlands conurbation includes both Birmingham and Wolverhampton and is defined by the extent of the built-up area, whilst the Birmingham LUZ does not contain Wolverhampton and is defined using economic factors. Fingerpuppet 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My main point though is that it makes sense to have the list of cities in, even if it seems to inspire problematic edits.Hobson 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not much discussed about colonisation

It is a real surprise why colonisation is not discussed while discussing United kingdom. I think it is very important to discuss this issue as it is by far the biggest and longest invasion, massacare ,cultural invasion religious invasion ,and looting the world has ever seen. Most of Latin American and African cultures were wiped out and people were converted to christanity . Asia too suffered heavily . IF you notice these areas still remain undeveloped and poverty is a major problem in these regions. These three continents were looted for nearly 4 centuries by European countires like spain, france ,Holland and the British . These countries were offically selling slaves caught from their colonies. The kohinoor diamond which is still adore crown of queen Elizabeth is a loot from the tresure of Mhaharaja of Punjab. If you have to be honest with the histroy of England it is very important to admit that much of the money used for the industrial revolution was generated by clolonisation.

The prosperity and wealth of England and most of the european countries is based on the looting happend during the colonisation peroid I am not writing this by forgetting the great contributions by England in the areas of litreature science or democracy . It is a great country but it has got blood on itss hands during the peroids of colonisation and it must accept the fact that the prosperity it achieved during 17th to 19th centurty is basicially from colonisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.130 (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this in the talk page on the British Empire, which is perhaps a more appropriate place. Thanks for raising the topic, though personally it seems more appropriate for me to take responsibility for my own actions than for those of my great grandparents. That's not to deny history, but how far back do we need to go? Should I hold today's Germans responsible for wrecking British cities and killing British citizens in the 1940s? Should I blame the Italians for the Roman invasion, or the French for the Norman conquest in 1066? --Chris Jefferies 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that myself. As much of what we see in England today was enabled by exploitation of the colonies it should feature heavily in this article; it is certainly more relevant than some of the trivia here. I'd cite examples but I'm barred from making "anti-British" statements; and what constitutes "anti-Britishness" is being interpreted very liberally to include reference to incontrovertible facts. (Sarah777 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Jesus Christ, this talk page is a tedious trolling ground. Malcolm Starkey 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well don't tell us about it, tell Jesus. GoodDay 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He's the last person you want to tell. He'll just start feeding them even more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains quite a few articles documenting British colonisation round the world in detail. As long as this article links to them, directly or indirectly, there's no need to duplicate the information from them beyond the usual brief summary given to the other topics with their own detailed articles which this overview article contains. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Should I hold today's Germans responsible for wrecking British cities and killing British citizens in the 1940s?" Hardly, but the Germany article has a section on that period. It's hardly trolling (though the choice of language could have been better) to point out a glaring omission. This article is on the state that at one time ran the largest empire the world has ever seen, and it only gets a passing mention. It's like the Mongolia article saying nothing about the Kublai Khan. Or the Italy article making only a passing and oblique reference to Caesar and the boys.

A glaring ommission, and 38.99.101.130 deserved a blushed thanks for pointing it out. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And unlike the case with Germany, where the current state is not a direct legal, linear continuation of the imperial state; the UK is. No more than that can I say 'cos of Sony's gallant efforts at Arbcom. Grrrrr! (Sarah777 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, not sure if most people (for which read "any sensible individual") would agree that there is any comparison between Nazi Germany and Imperial Britain, even at it's worst. Not sure if that's what you're trying to imply- if you're not, apologies for misconstruing. Badgerpatrol 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; replying to Sarah) That's still no reason to apportion blame to today's UK citizens for the acts of our forefathers, if that's what you're trying to imply, Sarah. The UK today is a vastly different place from the UK of the empire in terms of culture, policy and outlook. That we arrived here through democracy and debate rather than through wholesale revolution is is hardly a reason to hold today's Britons responsible for the UK's actions decades and/or centuries ago. Waggers 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's right that the United Kingdom article should consider history in general - and that includes colonial history. But the detail on all of that should go into an article on the history of the UK, or an article on colonialism, or an article on the British Empire. The United Kingdom article paints with a broad brush; it should give a summary and point to the others as 'Main articles'. That's how to make Wikipedia ever more useful as a reference work.

I did thank 38.99.101.130 for raising the topic, those thanks are repeated now. --Chris Jefferies 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just read the article myself, and would have to say the British Empire gets a rather tardy reference in the history section. You wouldn't know the British ruled the worlds largest ever empire from reading the article, let alone any indication as to how it came about nor how it dissolved. The Commonwealth is mentioned, but no mention how that grew out of the Empire. --Michael Johnson 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think perhaps a bit of structure in the history section might help a bit. The section is also a bit congratulatory. Mucky Duck 09:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rugby World cup

As much as it pains me to say it, presumably the sentence "England is the current holder of the Rugby World Cup." should be removed. 86.159.83.93 11:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And surely it should have been "England are the current holders of the Rugby World Cup" anyway. Untidy grammar. PS- We should put the FIFA rankings in. Now that Scotland are doing well I have recently developed 100% confidence in this flawless and unassailable test of a football team's mettle and ability. Badgerpatrol 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And exactely why shold the sentence England is the current holder of the Rugby World Cup be removed? Anyway it should now say England was teh previous holder of the rugby world cup, now that south Africa have it. (Electrobe 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Northern Ireland

This article lists Northern Ireland as a constituent country (which I agree with), however at Northern Ireland constituent country is omitted. Shouldn't this be corrected (either here or there)? GoodDay 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been restored, hopefully the dispute is at an end. GoodDay 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, the articles should be consistent Thunderwing 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrative subdivisions

This artice applied status to each of the home nations based on a website [12], which is far as I can tell is a page put up by a computer science department to demonstate HTML, it has no merit as a reference on a geographic article and fails WP:VERIFY, I have removed the column [13] Fasach Nua 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell...

Became an american citizen & invented the telephone in the america & yet he is in the list of british inventors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, one of the strange things about being British is that you don't stop being British even when you take out citizenship with some other country. In fact you remain British even if you deny it. It's easier to change your sex than to change your Britishness. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

800 years we've been telling them, Chester - and we're not even from Britain! ... it's true, easier to change your sex! Of course, if you have ever looked sideways at anything that might be green (even turquoise will do, or any other colour that's not green) and you risk winding up on this list! --sony-youth^pléigh 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd steer clear of mentioning Bell as 'the' inventor anyway. As Telephone#History states, the invention of the telephone is a matter of dispute. Maybe it could be omitted or modified? Rossenglish 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Even more frustating -~~ We can't call him a British inventor, it's gotta be Scottish. GoodDay 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

... he was European. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay- making sarcastic comments about people who use the word "Scottish" is not constructive. I'm getting sick of this pettyness. Be civil. Lurker (said · done) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic (for what it's worth, I'm of Scottish descent). I'm merely pointing out, Bell's citizenship/nationality etc, has to be consistant with his article Alexander Graham Bell. GoodDay 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

At times I forget the 'sensitivities' involved with the UK's internal politics - I should word my postings more carefully to avoid misunderstandings. I apologies, if I've offended anyone. GoodDay 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a cite which I think clears it up. Wait to the end. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

Resolved

Astrotrain there is no consenus for the use of a non-national flag in this article, you have failed to produce any sources to support its inclusion either here or on the mediation debate on the issue, so please refrain from edit warring on this issue.--Padraig (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved above to include all flag images. And sources were discussed and agreed at mediation. You have already been warned about edit warring and given a formal warning under the arbcom against continuing to edit war on flag articles. I suggest you pay attention to that. Astrotrain (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, this is really a non-issue. Northern Ireland currently does not have a flag. We don't make stuff up on Wikipedia. Some parties may use one flag or another to represent Northern Ireland, but this has about as much consequence as one party or another using the tricolour to represent the whole island. The simple fact is that Northern Ireland currently does not have a flag. Don't make one up. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is an unofficial flag used for Northern Ireland, which is what the article states. Astrotrain (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Northern Ireland does have a flag - the Union Flag. Source material proves this. However let's be mindful that a survey (and yes I know it was a survey before you hang me) indicated that the majority readers wanted the flag included with a footnote. That stance also asserted verifiablity. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@Jza84 - RE: Union Flag, yes, indeed, but we are talking about a flag uniquely for Northern Ireland. So the consensus was to present false information with a footnote explaining that it was false? Hmmmm ... ingenious stuff. How about a counter-proposal: let's not present false information.

@Astrotrain - the use of flags to represent Northern Ireland is not an issue to be taken lightly. If Ikea can't erect the flag outside their store, just how de facto can it really be? Published sources say Northern Ireland has no flag, let's not make things up. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In many contexts, it is a flag used for Northern Ireland, especially for sports, local government and the Unionist community. That it is why it is explained and shown. The text explains the situation and an image of the flag is shown so people can see what it looks like. And as Jza84 explained, consensus was agreed above for that positon. Astrotrain (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its use by a couple of Unionist/Loyalist dominated local Authorities out of 26, dosen't equate to use in Local government, nor is its used by Loyalist extremists either.--Padraig (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Astrotrain, you say "In many contexts, it is a flag used for Northern Ireland, especially for sports, local government and the Unionist community" - correct - but in many of contexts, it is not the flag used for Northern Ireland, especially for others sports, the vast majority of local government areas, all NI assembly and UK government circumstances and the Nationalist community. check and mate.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sony, chillax! I didn't even vote - everyone else did. It's not my fault that the editting and reading community wanted the flag there with a footnote. Don't shoot the messenger. Hell I even said the flag was the Union Flag.... but its strange, according to your user page, you "oppose the ongoing campaign" to remove the flag.... again, don't shoot the messeenger. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, in the mediation on the issue you failed to support your claims with any WP:RS, a mediation which you have now seemed to have abandoned, yet you are trying to claim some sort of consensus for its use here. May I remind you that consensus cannot be achieved that ignores WP policies, especially WP:RS, as that is WP:OR. So stop edit warring and continue with the mediation, and prove your case there.--Padraig (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<--- This is ridiculous. There is no official uniquely NIrish flag, so the Ulster banner shouldn't be displayed in the same way as the Union Flag, the St George's cross, etc. It's covered in the NI flag article and the accompanying controversy article. Making shit up is just unacceptable. AJKGORDON «» 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It isnt the Flag of Northern Ireland, it has no official recognition, its isnt flown or used by the British Government and even unionists says its not the flag of NI.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have strong views eitherway (other than it should not use the Irish tricolor or a map). But I do acknowledge that when we asked for input from the wider community as to what they felt was most useful to readers, they overwhelmingly stated they wanted the flag included with a footnote. This isn't "making shit up", it's providing context and describing point of view with consensual backing. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that is actually true - is the talk page of United Kingdom a neutral place to discuss the status of the Ulster Banner? especially when it has been shown on the Northern Ireland talk page that there is no concensus to use the UB as the FofNI, additonally if you read the mediation I think it is pretty clear that Astrotrain has failed to demonstrate any credible argument that the UB is the FofNI. Like AJK says, you cant just "make shit up" - we do have WP:OR.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is "making shit up", consensus or not! The Ulster Banner isn't the flag of NI. Putting it in the article alongside the other three national flags and the Union Flag intimates that it is. Usefulness is irrelevant. How can false data be useful? We can't be subjective here. We can explain all about controversies and be scrupulously diligent in explaining why NI doesn't have an official unique national flag. But we can't go around stamping the Ulster Banner all over articles like this giving the impression that it is official or even de facto. It clearly isn't. This is an example of where consensus at Wikipedia gets it so hopelessly wrong. AJKGORDON «» 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

All WikiProjects and noticeboards connected with the British Isles and even some vexilogical projects were contacted to pass comment. I did mean the wider community when I said it (!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jza84, describing POV and consensus is fine. Presenting it in a way that suggests that something false is in fact true is simply wrong. Sure, it might be useful in some way, sure it's aesthetically pleasing to have all four bits represented by a flag. But none of that gets away from the unalterable current truth that NI doesn't have its own unique flag. Presenting the Ulster Banner as if it is, footnote or not, is surely clearly unencyclopaedic to the point of bringing this site into disrepute. AJKGORDON «» 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this argument usually ends when Padraig pastes the text of the contents of a discussion in the House of Commons which outlines the recognition of the flags of Wales, Scotland and England and is resoundingly silent when it comes to Northern Ireland and the Ulster Banner, then Padraig asks for a source that shows the Ulster Banner has official or even de facto status as the FofNI outside of limited sporting contexts - then all goes quiet.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I kind of thought this would have been debated to death already! But from a neutral perspective, it's so obvious. AJKGORDON «» 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I've just looked at your user page, Vintagekits. I'm agreeing with a goddamn devolutionist! AJKGORDON «» 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

:) AJKGORDON «» 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it and fluffed up the note. AJKGORDON «» 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to make that change and it will be reverted. We have already discussed this in mediation and above- and a majority of editors wish to use flags with an appropiate text footnote. Astrotrain (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain consensus is not required to remove unreferenced content, don't start edit warring on this issue.--Padraig (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You have already been formally warned about edit warning under the arbcom- I have not. The content is referenced in any case, you only object to the image as wish to censor Wikipedia to suit your Republican POV. Astrotrain (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz! This is becoming very boring. Astrotrain, your argument has been torn to shreads at the mediation. Its time to let go of your OR and POV and face the facts.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, I simply removed false information. Where is the consensus that the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland? I don't mean the consensus that the Ulster Banner should be used as the flag of Northern Ireland. I mean the consensus that it is the flag. Any other consensus is irrelevant in the context of that table. Putting the UB in the same column as the other three national flags is quite clearly elevating the UB to something that it is not. AJKGORDON «» 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We all know that the NI flag controversy is hugely complex and divisive. The history of Ireland and the UK, the religious and sectarian violence, the political landscape, the flying of different flags by different communities to show allegiance to one ethnic group or another... And you propose papering this all over with a hugely provocative symbol of all that is wrong with Northern Ireland? For what hubristic gain? To "help" the odd reader who thinks that every national issue should be neatly parcelled up for his consumption? Please. Either have the NI flag left as blank or have no flags in that table at all if the aesthetics bother you. The facts are plain for all to see. There is no NI flag. Don't use something that is both incorrect and likely to incite tension. AJKGORDON «» 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that this flag does not exist and it is not used as a flag for Northern Ireland ? The consensus above showed that people want to know the status of the flag, but also want to know what it looks like! Astrotrain (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not trying to say anything. I am saying that "this flag" is not the flag of Northern Ireland. AJKGORDON «» 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong way to think about this and the wrong way forwards. Surely the inclusion of the flag with a footnote that this was the former flag of NI actually shares more knowledge and educates more readers about the status of the UB, rather than leave it ambiguous. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no concensus above, infact, since the E option was added it has received more !votes than any other option! the poll is 1. not binding and 2. flawed.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the UB isnt accepted in the same way as the other flags, neither does it have the same official recognition as the other flags - because it is different than the other it should be treated different!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. All I care about is the truth. If the flags of the other parts of the UK are included in the table, then a brief note explaining that NI doesn't have one but, look, here is a whole article dedicated to explaining why not, is perfectly acceptable. We should stay on the side of factual reporting and not indulge in OR over such a sensitive subject. AJKGORDON «» 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are uses (accusations?) of OR, and POV. Please be mindful not to use these terms so freely; it can be seen as inflamatory and undermines them in times when they are really applicable - which isn't strictly so in this instance. Clearly the UB in the table is having it's point of view described with context. Clearly the UB is not official and is described as such - this isn't anything about original research - it's a point of contention over what is the most useful approach to readers. It is devisive, it is politicised, but we only need to mention these things to satisfy policy rather than hang users for something they think has the article's best interests at heart. Please keep this in mind and focus on how we can find a compromise. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS that states the Ulster Banner is the Flag of Northern Ireland then maybe we would get a compromise. --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jza84, I'm not trying to be inflammatory but the inclusion of the UB as if it is the FofNI is OR.

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

It can't be anything else. While it may be the closest thing NI has to an official or de facto unique flag, it isn't. It is just one of those exceptions that doesn't fit nicely into aesthetically pleasing tables and will always look odd. While I, like others on here, would love to be able to use a flag to represent NI (because it undoubtedly is a useful graphical aid), there isn't one that we can use. So we don't. It really is that simple. (Unless I've completely misunderstood the NOR policy, which is entirely possible!) AJKGORDON «» 08:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple reality is that the Ulster Banner is not the de facto flag of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is currently without its own de jure or de facto flag. The Ulster Banner is used on a limited number of occasions, by a limited number of organizations - sometimes letitimate, sometimes by illigetimate - to represent Northern Ireland. This gives it about as much legitimacy as the tricolour has to represent the island of Ireland! That symbol too is used on a limited number of occasions, by a limited number of organizations - some legitimate (e.g. GAA), some illigimitate - to represent the whole island.

Having a note to explain that (how/why) Northern Ireland is currently without an flag is far more helpful than presenting false information with a note explaining how it is false. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. AJKGORDON «» 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no change in the status of The Ulster Banner since the consensus to include the Ulster Banner as a symbol of Northern Ireland in the symbols section. If consensus can be undermined so easily on wikipedia we may as well call the whole project a dead duck and forget about it.

The symbols section is nothing to do with "official" status. It is a section, arguably a pretty worthless section, on four of the most recogniseable symbols of the four nations of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland ceased having its own official flag in 1972. England ceased having its own official flag, along with having its own government, in 1707.

If it was a section for "official" symbols it would be empty of sub-national flags entirely.

Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biofoundationsoflanguage, the English flag didn't cease to exist in 1707, the St Georges Cross just like the Welsh and Scottish flags are still recognised by the British Parliament and Government as National flags, see The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom, therefore your arguement is invalid.--Padraig (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The St George Cross is de facto the flag of England. As you probably know, that's a common theme in the UK - London isn't officially the capital, there's no written constitution, etc. The flag is officially permitted to be flown from government building in certain circumstances.

As such, it is official.

The same cannot be said of the Ulster Banner. It was official but even then it could not seriously have been said that it represented all of Northern Ireland. Now it is merely historical and displayed in only very specific cases - i.e. certain sporting contexts and by communities out to prove a point.

While the table might not be a list of anything official, listing the UB in the same way as the other "official" flags intimates that it is in some way official. A blank space with a note describing that NI doesn't have a flag and why seems to be the most sensible option, is non-POV and non-OR, and, of course, adds the information that there is no flag!

Biofoundationsoflanguage's claim that it is listed as only a symbol is not what is intimated by its inclusion in the table.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why there is a debate about this. WP policies are very clear. AJKGORDON «» 16:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The references to a claimed consensus by "Biofoundationsoflanguage" and others raise a profound problem. Even if there were some sort of consensus (which is less than clear to me given the amount of opposing argument) then surely consensus cannot override solidly referenced fact. The source currently referenced in the article makes clear that England, Scotland and Wales have national flags while Northern Ireland does not. Furthermore it makes clear the divisive nature of symbols in the context of Northern Ireland. This is formal guidance on the current statutiry position issued by the Parliament and Constitution Centre of the House of Commons - a fairly authoritative source on constitutional matters I would think. If there is a need to find sources to further support the fact that there is no universally agreed symbol for Northern Ireland and that a large part of the population firmly reject the Ulster Banner then the only problem is sorting which ones to choose from the profusion available.

If consensus is ultimately allowed to override fact then the credibility of Wikipedia will surely be fatally undermined. Even if there has been a past consensus on an issue that must be allowed to change if evidence is provided to establish an alternative position. The claimed consensus to have a symbol for Northern Ireland seems to have arisen from a feeling that one was needed for design/layout reasons and/or from the pushing of a distinctly loyalist POV - neither of which are sustainable arguments. I support the view that there should be no symbol against the entry for Northern Ireland and a short text explaining why. That is factual AND supported by reference.

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Circusandmagicfan, thank you for your input. I do believe that concensus can change but the straw poll here was handled badly and there was no discussion about what options should be put forward and how it should be handled - also hosting it on the UK talk page could be seen by many as an "away game" and not a neutral venue, and since additional options were added to the straw poll there has been anything but a concensus. There is also another"concensus" here on the Northern Ireland talk page that shows that the UB shouldnt be used and there is a more in depth reasoning and discussion also rather than the "it seems to be the best" reasoning given by a few on the above. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)