Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

"Not an actual term" in the FAQ

I just noticed the following sentence in the FAQ (under Q4): "This phrase [constituent country], however, is not an actual term; ie Scotland is not a 'constituent country' in itself, but is one of the constituent countries of the UK." What does it mean to say that this is not an "actual term". That doesn't seem to make sense and, I think, should be reworded. garik (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not the best time to raise a new question. I'll come back later... garik (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Do these templates add any value to the articles they are in? That's main topic. Please comment, if you will. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic Section Badly Out of Date

Needs upgrading stat, the UK has dropped way down the list of countries by GDP due to poor economic policy between 2002-2010. India has over double the GDP and Brazil 10% more than the UK. Twobells (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, see below - the whole thing is a bit of a mess, not just here. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP

It should Trillion $ not Billions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.145.150 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

GDP figures.

Currently we have a bit of an issue with GDP figures, and how they are being represented across the articles on England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. The current situation as it currently stands: England - no GDP figures present. Why is this? No sources? I've tried to find some, but no luck. I blame London for this! Scotland - GDP figures sourced, (hooray - but currently marked as a dead link, but doesn't actually appear to be...someone more knowledgeable could investigate?) but the "GDP" per capita bit is clearly wrong, as it links to an article that has no mention of Scotland at all (List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita). Wales and Northern Ireland - Simply no source for the GDP figures given. Another point, though this sounds a bit picky, is why the figures are USD only...even the one which is apparently from a Scottish source on the Scotland article! I would like to get this cleaned up, but I really don't have the know-how. Thanks. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP is published on behalf of Governments. Therefore there is a GDP for the UK and the Scottish Government also publishes data, easily accessable on their website so not sure why you could not find it! For this reason there is no official stand alone data for England. Please don't make presumptions about 'London' or whinge about articles we are all capable of doing something about it.Tmol42 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A little unfair to call it a whinge, don't you think? Jonty Monty (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it was not a "Whinge" - I was not "Whinging". Don't be a prick Tmol42, thanks. And that's exactly why I raised a comment here - Because I CAN'T do anything about it. Now go troll somewhere else. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Total headline Gross Value Added (GVA) seems to have taken over from GDP. On the Wales page the 2010 figure (ref, p 10) of £45.5 billion is show in the Economy section and in the Lead. Couldn't find a source for GDP figs in the infobox. Perhaps the time has come to update it. Daicaregos (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say that GVA seems to have taken over from GDP I'm not sure what you mean. GDP figures are still regularly given. Jonty Monty (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In which case there should have been no problem finding references, which rather begs the question as to why they have not been found. You will have noticed they were not part of the stats set in the reference I gave. Please add the references. if you have the time. Or point us in the right direction, if you don't. Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay Daicaregos, I think I'm brave enough to eat a little bit of humble pie. Can I provide sources for my assertion? No. Are GDP figures given for Scotland and Wales? Yep, but I'm fu***** if I can find them. Look at these two sources [1][2]. In the first everything tells me that Scotland's GDP figures are there, but I'just can't seem to access the bloody thing. The second source tells us that GDP figures are given for Wales annually. Can I find them? Can I hell. That could be my incompetence, who knows. Not been much help but I tried. Jonty Monty (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Hopefully, someone will provide a definitive answer. Daicaregos (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this guys. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A country consisting of four countries?

Aside from the still raging debate over the terms UK, United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain and Great Britain, I also notice this in the lead: It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries. A country consisting of four countries? Really?? Not a hint of confusion there I see. MrZoolook (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG I think that we are all going to have a nervous break down if this is reopened at the same time as the above discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I already had my nervous breakdown, the 35th time it was aired, which was some time last year if I recall correctly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec):Simple fact - check out Countries of the United Kingdom for details ----Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is special being made up of four countries, whilst the situation is not ideal in terms of clarity the sources do show lots of use of "countries" for the four nations of the UK. There will be no consensus to change that sentence. Its a reasonable situation at present clearly stating the UK is a country whilst recognising the four nations are described as countries too, even though it would flow better if it simply said the UK is a country in its own right made up of four nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference used for "Countries within a country" - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 - is (as I've said before) an archived page dating from 2003, not current, and in my view shouldn't be used to support that wording anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, that source clearly states "On this site the term ‘Britain’ is used informally (my emphasis) to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Why not use that wording in the lead instead of incorrectly, commonly, sometimes, hardly ever etc. If it that good of a source for countries within a country, its good enough for that too... right?

Snowded, the problem telling me to look at the article Countries of the United Kingdom, is that the lead there cites a page that does NOT indicate 4 countries making up a country. It in fact clearly states "United Kingdom - Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." and "Great Britain (GB) - Often used to refer to the United Kingdom, though Great Britain only refers to England, Scotland and Wales (i.e., the United Kingdom without Northern Ireland)." No mention of "four countries in a country", and in fact clearly stating that "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - (UK)" is a sovereign state, a fact mentioned in THIS article's lead right before the "4 countries in a country" claim. Thus adding to the confusion!

BritishWatcher, are you getting the terms Nation and Country mixed up? You seem now to be saying that the UK is a country consisting of 4 nations. Taken in the context of the lead here, we now have the UK as a country consisting of 4 countries, a country consisting of 1 nation, a nation consisting of 4 countries, and a nation consisting of 4 nations. MrZoolook (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All true and if you check out the note at the top of the talk page you will get the details ----Snowded ^TALK 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also no shortage of sources available which give this description: [3].Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search term is flawed, producing everything with the words "United", "Kingdom", "country", "composed", "of" and "four" (the second "country" would be discarded as it is already in the list of words to match). The search should be United Kingdom "country composed of four countries" to look for the phrase. [4]. This gives a startling LACK of reliable sources. MrZoolook (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The search actually gives a large number of sources which state that there are four countries within the UK. Yes of course it also throws up results which are wholly irrelevant. Your search is excessively narrow using a single very particualr turn of phrase so it is no wonder it generates far less, including far less relevant results. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not disputing that the UK consists of 4 countries. I am disputing that the UK is a 'country' consisting of 4 countries. So far, the one attempt at a source points to a reference that states no such thing. MrZoolook (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are contesting the fact that the UK is a country.... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is that it would be less complicated to simply describe them as 4 nations of the UK, as many do think of sovereign state when they think of the term country. That was certainly my primary understanding of the term. But there are sources saying the UK is made up of countries so its justified.

The United Kingdom is a country, nation and sovereign state. England,Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland are countries and nations of the United Kingdom. In terms of text of the sentence it would flow easier to say nations of the UK, rather than countries of the UK. But there wont be support to have "countries" changed. And i strongly oppose any removal of the part of the sentence about the UK being a country in its own right, seen as the first sentence of this article forgets to mention it is a country too.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My passport states my nationality as British, not English. Where does the notion of the constituent countries being nations in their own right come from? MrZoolook (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From their history, their culture, their institutions and the constitutional and legal arrangements of the UK, which is not a federation but a union.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So they WERE nations? MrZoolook (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI MrZoolook, the underlying problem is that whilst Scotland, Wales and England are all clearly nations, and known as such, the status of Northern Ireland is heavily contested - and in addition, the current "nationhood" of Wales, Scotland and England are debated. Therefore the rather less debatable term "constituent country" or "country" has crept in. The UK and Irish governments also struggle with defining these concepts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the numb of it. It's a meaningless phrase that transmits no useful information to a global reader. The underlying point is that it was a "POV settlement". Scots/Welsh/Irish/NI/UK POV in a tangle all wanting to make sure their respective claim to the magical status of "country" was respected. But then it appears that wasn't just a WP problem because the sources were in the same tangle. So, in a sense, the ugly yet meaningless phrase reflects the mess the sources are in in the real world - which is what a WP article is supposed to be doing. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

'Country' and nation are not synonomous with 'state'. Extensively debated, mediated and resolved - you have the referenence to those sources and a brief investigation on your part would take you to the prior discussions. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We have been over all this many times. The word "nation" is to be avoided. Almost any use of the word in any context is likely to be contested. For some people a nation is the same thing as a country, for others it is not, and neither of them is necessarily the same thing as a state, still less a sovereign state. There simply is no agreement about what constitutes a nation. Enoch Powell noted that people belong to a nation if they think they do. Some people think Cornwall is a nation. Many of the Flemish think Flanders is a nation. Some Scots do not think the UK is a nation, but some UK politicians do describe it as such, while not denying that Scotland is also a nation. Nationhood is a matter of personal identity more than it is lines on maps or sets of constitutional arrangements; there can be all sorts of overlapping identities, and the only neutral thing we can do is to eschew the word nation altogether. So for want of a better way of describing what is a messy and asymmetrical state of affairs, we describe the UK as a country (which in most senses it is) but also its four constituent parts as countries (which is not entirely uncontroversial, but not as controversial as calling them four nations), hence "a country consisting of four countries". -- Alarics (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you are aware for future Wikibattles Alarics, "nation" can and does often mean something very specific, eg, a UN-recognised nation-state. It can mean loads of other things, but to some authorities it means the precise opposite of a generalised fuzzy "identity-state". One reason we've ended up avoiding the term though is because of the points you outline. The other is that Scotland, Wales, England and NI are not modern nation-states in the UN sense. At least, for the time being. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the UN, but if we are going to start citing international organisations, the EU certainly doesn't talk about nations or nation-states. It has "Member States", which leaves those Scots, Catalans, Bretons, Flemings, etc. who wish to regard the smaller-than-Member-State entities that they identify with as "nations" free to continue to refer to those places as nations in conversation without its having any legal force in EU law. And incidentally the Member State we are talking about at present is always called "United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni / Vereinigtes Königreich" in all official EU documents. -- Alarics (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does the UK compete in as a COUNTRY? The Olympics for starters. If the UK was not a country and instead was merely a union of countries such as the EU, then the four home nations would obviously compete separately. What kind of country has it's own parliament at the highest level (not local assembly) based in another so called "country?" Do you have a Scottish or English passport? I could go on... This will not change unless the region of Scotland votes to opt out of the UK in two years. Check out the BBC Country profiles for more verbiage supporting the fact that the UK is indeed a COUNTRY: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1038758.stm (82.44.72.174 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

The Olympics is pretty much the only international event we compete as a whole in. Football, Cricket, Rugby... all are competed on an international stage as separate countries. And the Olympics commentators and reports I have seen and heard, refer to the UK as a nation. MrZoolook (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And during those Olympic medal ceremonies when we won gold, our "national" anthem was played. MrZoolook (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think all here agree, apart from MrZoolook, that the UK is a country. That doesn't stop its four constituent parts from also being able to be called countries by those who wish to do so. -- Alarics (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case (which IS about definitions - sheesh) you are totally wrong - the "wishes" of people are nothing to do with it! This needs sourcing, authorities, etc. Luckily it has some - just hoping to get through about the basics of Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was merely trying to explain to MrZoolook why we call the UK "a country consisting of four countries" as a compromise with wide though not total support. And in reply to MrZoolook's latest comment, I have already said that many people do describe the UK as a nation but some others do not accept this (in some cases because they evidently cannot cope with multilevel or overlapping identities, or the idea of a nation within a nation). The fact that the UK is described by some as a nation does not stop it from also being a country. The "problem" raised by MrZoolook is not in fact a problem at all. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who think there is a simple definition of the word country should look at the UK and say to themselves "My definition is wrong", rather than saying "The UK doesn't fit my definition of country, so IT must be wrong". Find a better, less simplistic definition of country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is indeed a country, as confirmed by the Prime Minister: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19232685 93.186.23.82 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but not because our inexperienced and ignorant Prime Minister says so. The Prime Minister doesn't know dick. He thinks the Americans helped us win the Battle of Britain! The Prime Minister is not a reliable source. -- Alarics (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, the PM thinks the US helped win the B of B when he's in the US. Doubtless when he is in France, he will explain how the French won it. :) Although the US did (for the historical record) help out in some ways, not just those rather pathetic lend-lease ships, but also with lots of raw materials at bargain prices, some vital machine tools, some volunteer pilots, etc. Nothing like what Canada offered, but something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well OK but I think it was evident in the context that Cameron thought the US had already joined the war, whereas the whole point about 1940 was that Britain stood alone, a fact one might have expected a British prime minister to know. -- Alarics (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me that he's a bit clueless, it isn't the only factual gaffe he's made. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The only country `in Europe` in 1940 stood alone against Germany you mean!.. On UK four countries, isn`t it three countries and 1 colony aka Wales make up the UK? On a serious note, four countries or nations is the best way to describe the nations that make up the `United` Kingdom --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if any of the three countries of Great Britain has been settled over and over by colonists, it's England, boyo. The whole point of Wales is that 20% of us still speak the same language they were speaking there two thousand years ago;) You can't even say that for Scotland. garik (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of Scotland is that it isn't England, despite the best efforts of a string of unmentionables from Edward I to Oliver Cromwell to James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, to, the list is long... Oh, and BTW, 2000 years ago everyone on this island was speaking the same language as the inhabitants of what is now called Wales; witness placenames Penicuik (Pen y Cog) in Midlothian, Pen y Ghent in Yorkshire, Pen y Fan in Powys, Pen y Bryn in Cornwall, need one go on? 81.135.132.151 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't speaking Welsh, or even the British language, in all this island. The Pictish Language is thought to have no relation to them. Clay More47 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually what little data we have imply that Pictish was pretty closely related to Old British. It seems to have been thought of as a distinct language, sure (so our anonymous contributor isn't quite right), but then the same goes for Dutch and German, and no one would say the latter has no relation to the former. In any case, this is a tangent that sprang from my tongue-in-cheek response to Rockybiggs's tongue-in-cheek dig at Wales. Let's not let it get out of hand. garik (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Against my better judgement, but more for the sake of qualifying my above comment and forestalling a discussion of the relationship between Pictish and Brythonic...) Of course the emphasis should be on the phrase "what little data we have". Pictish has been hypothesised to be everything from non-Indo-European to a dialect of Brythonic, and it's very hard to draw conclusions. It's not even clear that all the data we have are in Pictish! But my impression is that the majority view's in favour of it having been a P-Celtic language of some sort (quite probably with a non-Celtic substratum—or other significant non-Celtic influence—although the same has been claimed for all the surviving insular Celtic languages too...). garik (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if it's already been mentioned - there's only so much I can get through - but England (country) and Scotland (country) joined together to make a united kingdom, i.e. one new country ... Northern Ireland was broken off Ireland and is a province (not a country) and Wales has never been a country but a principality, hence the Prince of Wales (not a country). So, the union of two kingdoms + two minor bits = one country (not four countries). Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Irish Free State broke off from the UK, and thus NI, not the other way round ;-) However I agree with the rest of your statement even if this discussion has ended. The UK is the one and only country as in sovereign state. They are only countries in the sense of geographical areas (or administrative thanks to devolution). Mabuska ^(talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to laugh at "Excuse me if it's already been mentioned..." Perhaps you should look through the 20+ pages of archives on this talk page, the article and talk page at Countries of the United Kingdom, the lengthy discussions at Wales, Northern Ireland..... etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum. Such fun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I can't help myself from noting that Wales is not in fact a Principality (read here for more). In other news, the people of Edinburgh don't live in a duchy, and no one lives in Wessex. In any case, the assertion that "X is a Principality, not a country" is a category error; you might as well claim that Switzerland isn't a country because it's a Confederation. The point (which has been reiterated many many times) is that no one claims Wales, Scotland, England, or Northern Ireland are countries as in sovereign states, but that's not the only meaning of the word. garik (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"no one lives in Wessex". You'll upset some people with that (all three of them)! DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, Frank. garik (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012

CINEMA Main Article - Cinema of the United Kingdom.

Many British actors have achieved international fame and critical success, including: Julie Andrews, Richard Burton, Michael Caine, Charlie Chaplin, Sean Connery, Vivien Leigh, David Niven, Laurence Olivier, Peter Sellers and Kate Winslet.

My edit requires the name of famous British actor "Roger Moore" should also be included in this list or sentence. Moore's contribution to British cinema should not be overlooked.

39.45.66.243 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any very good reason to extend a list which is already over-long. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Especially with Roger Moore: most famous for his wooden acting! DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two words in that sentence mean Roger Moore need not be mentioned: “and” and “including”. Many British actors have achieved international success. Many of those, perhaps too many, have been included as examples. The examples given are of some of those who have achieved international fame and critical success. Moore may not meet both criteria. Daicaregos (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing this edit request as Not done: per the above responses. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Devolved administrations

Under the above heading it states that "Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each have their own Government or Executive". Should it not say that they have their own devolved government or executive? --Jonty Monty (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Don't all jump in at once to agree with me. I know when a suggestion isn't popular. :) --Jonty Monty (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly agreeing that it was worth adding - it's kind of clear from the section heading, but there's no harm in being more specific in the main text as well. I assume no one else responded because it wasn't a controversial change. Silence doesn't always equal consent, but this is quite a watched page I think. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the change seems good to me. -- Alarics (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No objection/I'm neutral. It's about as non-controversial as it gets - why did you feel the need to get consent rather than just doing it? DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See this [[5]]. I wasn't certain I could make the edit without discussing it. I know now that small edits like this are fine. As I was advised, I became bold. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has a lot of history, and in the past some editors have taken a strong line in relation to the wording of constitutional issues involving the national administrations in particular. It's tempting fate somewhat to describe any change to wording on such matters as "non-controversial". I was waiting to see what comments were made before commenting myself, but as no-one did you were right to make the change. It will be interesting to see if any other comments are made now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - one should never underestimate, as I did in my own comment here, the ability of even the most minor clarifying changes to spark controversy, however odd that might seem from one's own perspective ... but we seem OK here (so far at least). More generally, going ahead with a small edit, unless it's blatantly going to be contentious, is usually OK - the worst that can happen is reversion. N-HH talk/edits 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I happen to think the change is unnecessary as the heading - devolved administrations - makes clear that the governments/executives are 'devolved'. That said, it is not a big enough deal to consider reverting. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, adds nothing but so what ----Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it adds nothing. It clarifies the type of government/executive, and that's no bad thing. Jonty Monty (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It adds nothing because it is already stated in the heading. Keep up  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, people read in different ways - some people's eyes will be drawn to, and take in, bold section headings (and hence, in this case, the "devolved" will hit them immediately); others, by contrast, if already focused on the main text, may glaze over the heading without taking it in. The additional clarification can do no harm, and may have some benefit. Anyway, you have your responses now! N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A thread of 12 posts (oops, 13 with this one) on an edit that no one wants to revert...I love this page! DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay then! I'll take the blame! :) (14) Jonty Monty (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Better, surely, than 101 posts about something minor and relatively trivial where you don't even get agreement, but still probably have the "wrong" content. As seen ad nauseam, here and elsewhere ... N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted Wales is not a country, it's a principality, quite teh difference please fix this since you're giving out false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.105.6 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wales is not a principality. Please read Countries of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the British Monarchy website here. The opening sentence read "The Honours of the Principality of Wales are the regalia associated with the Princes of Wales". I amsure that there are hundreds of other references to the "Principalty of Wales". When I last checked, Wales had a prince - his name is Charles. Martinvl Also check out this website. (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Principality is still in use, but said use is incorrect, something that the EU and others caught up with changing their designation to country. Sure Charles carries forward 'honours' from a period where the title had meaning, so what?----Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. The fact that "The Honours of the Principality of Wales are the regalia associated with the Princes of Wales" - which is referenced in the article to which I linked - has nothing to do with Wales as a place today. This and similar questions - including the fact that Wales is sometimes wrongly referred to as a principality - have been discussed many, many times before on this and other pages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Soft Power

On a related note to the above discussion, shouldn't the UK's recent ranking as the world's #1 soft power be mentioned in the article?

FCO

I'm surprised that the UK's soft power isn't even mentioned (directly, as "soft power") in the article at all at the moment! David (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Soft power" is mentioned, even if not in direct terms. But the page just hasn't trumpeted and highlighted one random survey in a lifestyle magazine (although a report on the survey is used as a reference for content in the lead, see footnote 18). Nor should it. N-HH talk/edits 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I amemded the soft power claim. It was subsequently removed by another editor, although its reference was retained. Personally I do not have a problem with it, in fact I rather like it. Whether it is noteworthy enough to be in the lede may be another matter, but it is referenced, and it is more specific than "great power" which is imo pure peacock and irrelevant in a world in which military expenditure by the USA far exceeds that of any other country. The term "great power" should have no place in the lede of any sovereign nation article. Viewfinder (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that it's just your opinion re: great power status! Just because you think no other power than the US is a great power/the UK is not a great power, doesn't make that so. Stop pushing your opinion. Reliable sources say that the UK is a great power and that the status is relevant today. David (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect David I am entitled to state my opinion on a talk page that "great power" is peacock. Sources are not unanimous. Just because some or even a majority of them uphold the opinion that the UK is a great power, doesn't make that so. Viewfinder (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soft power is a neologism. It's somebody's "clever" new word to describe, well, the UK, and nothing else really. It's newness, and seeming very specific use so far, means that it is a pointless descriptor. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soft Power sounds like a computer program that controls something. Martinvl (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think calling it a 'soft power' is doing the UK a bit of an injustice. As Quite Vived Blur points out above, the UK sent 45,000 troops to Iraq in 2003. If one takes into account its size, population, GDP etc, it starts to look like the UK made the biggest committment. Not forgetting too that the Royal Navy is one of the few blue water navies. The UK is not the global superpower it once was but it still punches way above its weight on the world stage.--Ykraps (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinion and analysis about who might be punching above or below their weight - or even getting involved in killing thousands of people, if one looks at it that way - is very interesting, but not relevant to the issue. N-HH talk/edits 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that if we are discussing the UK's power, how many troops she is able to deploy around the world is entirely relevant; and your insuation that I condone the killing of thousands of people is an erroneous assumption entirely without grounds!--Ykraps (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that the assessment of random pseudonymous WP editors about what troop deployment capacity, whether purported or real, might mean when it comes to "power" levels or categories is indeed neither here nor there. If you think otherwise, you are probably in the wrong place. N-HH talk/edits 01:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

N-HH what's with the personal attacks against Ykraps for making a perfectly reasonable comment? To me it seems that your mask has slipped and that you comments reveal a deep anti-UK bias, hence the positions you take on this talk page and the comments you make. Perhaps you are angry that your attempts to modify the article in line with your now obvious anti-UK bias have failed? Oh and by the way, those Iraq War troop numbers were not just plucked from the air, they originate from the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. Go see for yourself, unless you think that article is also lying. Quite vivid blur (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no personal attack involved; I was just trying to make the point that WP content is not based on the analysis or opinions of individual editors. I do get a little frustrated over this point because it should be obvious but I regularly come across people, on multiple pages, who don't get it. As for whether I have a "deep anti-UK bias" or am "angry" that I have "failed" in my bid to "modify the article" in line with that alleged bias, I can't even be bothered to reply to any of that, given how utterly nonsensical it all is, other than to point out - since you presumably have not noticed this - that it is other people in this thread who are currently asking for modifications, and indeed in the previous one about "great power", not me. And nor btw, despite your suggestion, did I claim that the Iraq war figure itself was "purported", I merely used the word as part of a more general comment, so I don't quite see what that little rant is all about either. N-HH talk/edits 15:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a point of interest, the concept of the UK punching above her weight is not the random assessment of an anonymous editor but something that has been the subject of much discussion among political analysts on both sides of the Atlantic.--Ykraps (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And often referred to as a "delusion", "vainglorious" and a "cliché", eg here and here. Many more examples abound, and not just from media columnists. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• This thread seems to be verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Is there actually a specific proposal to amend the article in relation to "soft power"? It wasn't very clear from the way it was opened and it seems to have gone downhill from there. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and apologies for contributing to that. To focus, and from what I can tell of what is being requested by way of change ..

• The current text: in the lead a) "British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories"; and b) "The UK ... retains considerable economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence internationally". There are further, similar reference scattered throughout the body (just search for "influence" and flick through). As often, they contain elements of subjective judgment and are simultaneously boosterish and vague but can probably be backed up as reasonable and verifiable statements.
• Soft power proposal pt1: to refer directly to the UK's "soft power" by using that term, which doesn't currently appear in the article. I agree it's a rather ugly (relative) neologism, but it's in pretty common use these days and it has a broad, understood definition. I can't see that it matters much either way whether we use the actual phrase or not.
• Soft power proposal pt2: to make specific reference to the UK coming first in the Monocle poll of soft power nations (it was briefly in the article lead before being removed, although the Independent report on was retained as a reference). Personally, I'd be very strongly opposed to this in an encyclopedic page about the UK. If it were some kind of definitive and respected academic assessment with some enduring point to make, that would be one thing, but this is a random one-off result from a random glossy magazine, whose pick-up seems to be limited to a couple of newspapers' news-in-brief items and a couple of websites' online commentary. I doubt the FCO or any WP editors would be trumpeting such polls if they placed the UK 49th. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think reference to "soft power" is particularly useful given that its ingredients are already referenced. It's a modish buzzword that doesn't feel encyclopedic to me - but that's just a personal opinion. I haven't any objection to it provided its reference is supported by a proper RS - which the poll in the Monocle, I agree, isn't. DeCausa (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "Soft power" just a new way of saying what we used to call "cultural imperialism"? -- Alarics (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"The UK is still referred to as a great power and a leading exponent of cultural imperialism"! Novel. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

London skyline

Good morning SabreBD,

The City of London is one of the world's largest financial centres

I use a Sony VAIO notebook which has a 17" screen, and having viewed United Kingdom on a conventional 4X3 set-up,
I can understand what you state in your edit summary this morning.
It does seem a shame though, if the image cannot be included within the article. Any thoughts? Cheers!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It means that we also lose the links to these two citations:- The City of London is one of the world's largest financial centres alongside New York City.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the photographer who took the photo in question, perhaps I'm not the best person to comment, but what exactly is the issue? I see that it was removed with the edit summary "Remove pic that creates sandwiching of text", but I can't see it doing that. It isn't so much how wide your monitor is, or what the aspect ratio is, it's simply how many pixels your display is capable of showing horizontally (but potentially also what you've set your thumbnail size in Wikipedia's preferences). I've tried resizing the width of my browser and I haven't been able to recreate the problem that has been reported. Until someone can explain (and possibly demonstrate with a screen capture or similar), I think the image should remain in the article as it has done for a number of years, because it is both valuable to the article and a featured picture. If it genuinely does cause a problem for the article, surely it would be better to move it than remove it? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why correspondence from my talkpage is being posted here without explanation of the origin, but since it it and pre-empts my raising of the issue her: I don't think we really need a screen capture to demonstrate that there is a sandwiching problem on some displays, since the editor who posted it excepts the point. More productively, I was going to suggest that we think about replacing the Bank of England image with this one, since it has the duel benefit of showing the London skyline and making the point about London as a financial centre.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just putting the record straight: on December 7, with this diff, was when the issue started –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

requested screenshot showing sandwiching. for benefit of dilif. This is my screen with natural setup - not jiggled to get the effect. The problem is not with the actual picture, just its position within the article. No reason why it can not be readded in a different place in article --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation/screen capture, but I still don't really see what the problem is. It looks like perfectly normal placement of thumbnail images among text. I assume by 'sandwiching', you mean that the left and right images are slightly overlapping, causing the text to be pinched in the middle? It just doesn't seem like a big problem to me though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no "sandwiching problem" in this case, nor in the case where User:Sabrebd deleted the image of Westminster Abbey on grounds that the image and the census table sandwiched the text. Any sandwiching in this case was minimal - the width of the table and image combined is small. I tried reducing the width of the window until I saw problems elsewhere in the article. At this stage the subsection on religion was still very readable.

For the record, I see no problems with the layout on the screen shot either - I believe that this is because at all times the text occupies at least half of the screen width and the steps where the text wraps around images is less than a quarter of the screen width. Martinvl (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether an editor perceives a sandwiching problem, but whether there is sandwiching and particularly the case of the table and the Westminster Abbey picture, there is sandwiching. The reason for having a guideline on this issue is because you can end up with something like this:

If editors disagree with the guideline they can open a discussion about it on the relevant page, but there is a guideline and I think that therefore we should stick to it. That said, the original issue I raised may have been lost in this debate, which was: should we replace the Bank of England pic with the London Skyline one? Or can someone suggest a different placement? A second issue now arises, which is: do we want to keep the census table or the Westminster Abbey image? If we follow the guideline then we are faced with alternatives, we cannot simply cram every picture and graphic we would like into the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:ACCESS, the lower limit of screen size we should cater for is 1024×768. Of course, it's the wider screens that will see more sandwiching. I agree that we should follow the guideline, as it exists, especially as pictures should be supplementary, and not essential to the conveyance of the text. Given the choice between the Bank of England picture and the London skyline picture, I think we should use the London skyline. It makes for a good companion to some caption noting London's economic prominence, especially in the financial sector (definitely one of the more notable aspects of the economy), as it can be linked to the financial district. CMD (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2011 Census results

Perhaps someone can update the demographics section with the release of the new census data? http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-interactive-content/index.html Duhon (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandwiching and the Westminster Abbey image

I have reinstated the image of Westminster Abbey and adjusted the positioning of the table and of teh image to ensure that there is no "sandwiching". For the record, the term "sandwiching" is not defined. I understand "sandwiching" to mean two images are placed at the same height on a page which results in the text between the two being squeezed into the space between the two images rather than flowing over one and under the other as the page is narrowed.

If other editors disagree with this interpretation, I suggest that we take it to the WP:IMAGE talk page for more detailed discussion - maybe this will result in the guidance beign improved. Martinvl (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is looking good to me. –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I define sandwiching as text between 2 pics, wherever the top of the two pics are. FWIW, on the screen I'm temporarily using at the moment I'm seeing sandwiching (although not completely) between the pic and the table - but the top of the table is dropped down 2 or three lines from the top of the pic. It doesn't bother me too much - as one side of the sandwich is a table it doesn't seem to have the same effect as 2 pics. DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion about having to get a ruling on the MOS talkpage before being able to implement a clear guideline, but it is not reasonable to reject an obvious meaning because it is not specifically defined. For the record, "image" and "text" are not defined in the guideline either. As DeCausa's comment makes clear, it is pretty obvious that sandwiching is meant to refer to the text, it is not reasonable to say that it is not sandwiched because you have moved one image down three lines. On my current display twelve lines are still sandwiched in this section. Moving the images at all tacitly accepts that you actually know what sandwiching is and that it is about the text and not about whether the two images are totally aligned. Once again, there is a very good reason for this guideline, it is a way of avoiding the overcrowding of articles with images and the creation of very small central columns of text on some displays. More importantly, if we accept that we can do this when we feel like it we have no argument for removing the many superfluous images that get added to this and other articles by casual editors and long term editors will be aware how much of a problem that will be. I would very much welcome other views on the issue.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I misunderstood what Martinvl was saying then. I thought that it was only my screen showing that it was dropped down just the 2 or 3 lines and that theirs was showing no sandwiching. There is no doubt about what the guideline means: there should be no text between the 2 pics. As Sabred says, just dropping the top down a few lines doesn't stop it being sandwiched. Nothing need to go to any talk page to clarify that. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the text means “No text”. As an example, please look at the article Mesures usuelles. This system of measure was introduced by Napoleon in 1812 and abolished by Louis-Phillipe in 1837. The images of the two rulers are at either side of the article.

If you expand the window (I have a wide-screen), the image of Napoleon will foul the sub-title “Permitted units”, the image of Louis Phillipe will run into the next section while there will be a 60% overlap between the two images. Reduce the window width to half of the physical screen, - the text is still more than half the width of the screen and the overlap has been reduced to about 25% of vertical distance.

If the window is reduced a bit more so that only one line of text is sandwiched, that line of text is still larger than either of the two images. Reduce the window a little more and all sandwiching disappears.

I think that this shows the impracticality of being absolutely rigid about sandwiching of text – one needs guidance which might well become very complex. Anyway, if SabreBD wishes to initiate a discussion at WP:Image, I will participate. Martinvl (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what your saying. All it shows is that someone's decided not to follow the guideline on that particular article for a reason which is not obvious to me. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If I have understood this it is essentially an other stuff exists argument. I would be happy to go to the MOS talkpage and open a discussion about the meaning of "sandwiching" if I had evidence that anyone else but Martinvl feels there is a lack of clarity about the meaning. Again, this argument tacitly admits that there is sandwiching here, since this is not an arguement about the whether the guideline is applicable, but clearly an argument about the validity of the guideline ("this shows the impracticality of being absolutely rigid about sandwiching of text"). That being so, it is for the editor that wants to modify the guideline to take it to the MOS talkpage. As DeCausa indicates, we should implement the guideline here as long as it exits.--SabreBD (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to understand why' sandwiching is a bad thing. It can be demonstrated mathematically that if one has a left-hand and a right-hand image, then for an certain window widths sandwiching will happen.

I

understand

the

problem if

sandwiched

text

appears

like this

but

I do not see the problem if sandwiched text looks like

this.

Explaining how to avoid one but not the other requires that editors bew aware of a number of constraints - the minimum and teh maximum number of pixels that should be catered for, whether one should cater for people who choose to have a larger default for thumb images etc.

Let me repeat that if you mix left-hand and right-hand images, then you can always get sandwiching if your window is the "wrong" width. I do not propose spending the next few hours explaining why - just, it does. If somebody wants to pen a full discussion in MOS space, I will cooperate.

Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis drew my attention (higher up on this page) to the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility which advises one to plan a layout so that readers with a 1024×768 screen can read it without scrolling. The page does go on to say "This is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen" which I take to mean "Sandwiching is permitted provided that at this resolution there are no ill effects". In contrast Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says "Do not sandwich text". Since there is no consistent approach (something which is very common in Wikipedia) , one cannot say that sandwiching is or is not permitted. Given this ambiguity, one should not remove pictures just because text is sandwiched - one should explain why sandwiching of text is uindesirable before changing or removing pictures. Martinvl (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous. There is no ambiguity and I've never seen anyone else claim there is any ambiguity. "This is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen" means what it says and nothing more. It does not mean "Sandwiching is permitted provided that at this resolution there are no ill effects". That's fiction. The MOS is crystal clear and everything you say suggests you just don't like it. That's completely legitimate - but then what you need to do is go to the Talk page there and propose to change it. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of religion in census table

The current table added to the religion section is actually misleading as the 2011 data for Scotland will not be released until the 19 December, meaning that data for England and Wales is being compared with that for the UK. I suggest we take it down for now and then revisit after the data is released and can be consolidated, but for reasons that should be obvious I do not want to be the one to remove it.--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should add the word "England" to the existing table until the Scots data is released and merged with the Englsih and Welsh data. It is only five days away! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, just put England and Wales only until the Scots release theirs. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Religion in the United Kingdom; it is currently an "apples and pears" false comparison, so should be removed. I'd remove it from this article, but it's locked, so I cannot. Perhaps Martinvl would try to remove it for us if he has a more privileged access. Curatrice (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since England and Wales account for 80% of the UK's population, this is not quite an "apples and pears" situation, but rather an "apples and Cox's apples" situation. Anyway, I have amended the table headings which can be changed once the Scottish are released. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The result is hardly any better. Tabulating data from different distributions in such a way as to imply direct comparability is very misleading. I'd rather it was deleted. What do others think? Curatrice (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Only having to wait five days I see little point in keeping this data in this confusing (or misleading) form. The issue I put in an edit summary originally still remains, that if we are going to state this in the text do we need the table?cmt The only point in having a table is if it convey more information than is in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to have a lop-sided and misleading table for 5 days. Unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can Martinvl (or anyone else with editing privileges in the article) remove it then please, given the weight of feeling against its inclusion. Curatrice (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't be doing it - since 88.5% of the UKs population live in England and Wales, it is highly unlikely the figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland will change the trend. Anyway, readers can see the caveat and make their own judgement as to what the figures mean. Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I now seem to have acquired increased privileges myself. so have actioned the changes as requested above, and similarly to the associated text. Curatrice (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have undone the changes. Please look carefully at what you do. You managed to remove all references to Moslems and to Hindus in your changes, never mind removing comments about the growth of these groups. If you want to be constructive, add something about whether these groups are evenly distributed across the UK, but do not just delete text. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All I removed was based on incomplete census data. The UK includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, the data was for just England and Wales. Curatrice (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was incomplete, it can still be useful. By flagging it as being only English and Welsh data, the reader can decide for himself how valid it is - we don't know why the reader wants that data, nor should we second-guess, all that we are telling the reader is that the two are not strictly comparable. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line - should we include the findings of a survey covering just Northern Ireland or just Yorkshire or just Anglesey? There is an article on just England and Wales, so there is no need to have that sub-set covered again here. Curatrice (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Martinvl because I'm not seeing consensus support for the dat's addition. It should not be reinstated until there is a consensus to do so. Apart from that, this article is about the UK and data on England and wales only is not only misleading it is simply irrelevant for this article. Additionally, it's just plain silly having this argument when the full UK is just days' away from being available. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If so many people are opposed to including the 2011 census figures, does anybody object to reinstating the section as it was immediately prior to the 2011 census fugures being releaased rather than just blindly butchering sections? Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Let's not waste any more time on this. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maybe Curatrice should take a lesson here on why not to just hack out sections of text. Martinvl (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that as a fair criticism of my actions here. However, maybe Martinvl, you could learn how to be less clumsy with your edits, and how to give less misleading edit summaries. Curatrice (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest going back to the pre-release version, so that is fine by me, but obviously we need to consider what we do when the full figures are released.--SabreBD (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I have reinstated the long standing third and fourth paragraph of the lead of this article since they were heavily modified without any discussion, let alone a consensus. If large scale changes are to be made to the lead they should be with a consensus on this page. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Date for Battle of Culloden

The Article states "defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1745...". The battle was in 1946. Could this be edited? (Battle was on 16 April 1746 per the linked page on Battle of Culloden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden) Dt69 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Martinvl (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

.uk used; .gb not used - Is Northern Ireland the real reason?

On this List of Internet top-level domains page, the following statement is made: “The use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. My general understanding of British history is that “Great Britain” was a far more common name for the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” than “UK” ever was (back in that pre-1922 era). Moreover, even today, I think lots of people use the term Great Britain to refer to the whole country of the UK (especially in the UK). Is there any ‘’’source’’’ that indicates that – at an official level – the reason “.uk” is preferred to “.gb” is because “[t]he use of .gb would exclude Northern Ireland”. I don’t think it would exclude NI. For example, other countries seem to have no problem with the equivalent:

• .ag stands for Antigua and Barbuda even though “.ag” clearly cannot derive to any extent from the name Barbuda
• .ba stands for Bosnia and Herzegovina even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Herzegovina
• .st stands for Sao Tome and Principe even though it doesn’t really seem to relate to Principe.

I would be interested to learn of any sources concerning official thinking on “.gb” versus “.uk”. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it is somebody mixing up the common name Great Britain which is the same as the UK or the island of Great Britain. We have lots of moves in wikipedia to try and ignore the GB=UK despite which it keeps appearing as a common name. I cant see why the UK would be given geographically restricted TLDs. Has it a reliable reference? nothing mentioned in our .gb article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement on List of Internet top-level domains is incorrect. .gb is the ISO ISO 3166-1 for the UK.

The history is explained here. It would appear that use of the .uk TLD predates the creation of the ISO-inspired list of ccTLD. Consequently, by the time that .gb came into being, .uk already existed and it was too late to roll it back.

The answer, therefore it would seem, is that the use of .uk instead of .gb is an accident of history. --RA (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And I bet the guys in Ukraine were really cheesed. But they got UA (for UkraniA) so it wasn't too bad. --Red King (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Power

The fact that I have not taken an interest in this matter for some time does not mean that I am happy with the lede claim that "the UK remains a Great Power" or that I no longer take the view that the term Great Power is peacock. I realise the strength of the nationalist POV lobby and that the term is upheld by some eminent commentators, and that its removal may provoke an edit war, but the commentators are not unanimous on the subject. Would anyone mind if I replaced "remains" with the wording used in the Great Power article: "referred to as", which is not quite the same as "remains"? Viewfinder (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally that a straight assertion about Great Power status is wholly inappropriate; and also think that even "referred to as" is a bit much, since even that is probably not true that often in 2012. The latest addition re "soft power" seems pretty daft as well, especially for the lead, based as it is on a news report of a survey in "Monocle" lifestyle magazine. N-HH talk/edits 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that too. I don't find the source for "great power" in the lead (an op-ed in The Australian) particularly convincing. There are a couple of slightly better sources for it in the Great power article. Without doing a full review of sources (maybe it's in the archive?) my guess is that the balance of sources would point to something like "once a global power, now a middling power" - which is effectively what one of the sources in Great power says about the UK.

But in any event, IMHO, "great power" isn't a term with much currency for any country. I believe it's more of a 19th century and 1st half of 20th century term. "Superpower", "regional power", "global power" and, perhaps, "middling/middle-ranking power" are the only "powers" that reference is generally made to these days I suggest. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked out the link afterwards and was slightly surprised to see that was what we were relying on (and there's nothing in the body to support it as far as I could tell, other than a free-floating and unsourced sentence somewhere way down). I was also going to say something about how to these ears/eyes at least, it's a bit of an anachronistic term, more commonly used, as you say, in the later Age of Empires. Given that we have a term that is both subjective and arguably anachronistic even in the best cases, and of both dubious and, more importantly, relatively infrequent application to the UK in 2012, I can't see a case for maintaining the wording as now. I won't edit it myself, and it may be worth waiting for other opinions/evidence, but I'd happily see someone else amend the wording or even take any form of the claim out altogether. N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd be happy with removing the specific words "great power" in the lede for the reasons given by others. But what is particularly important and noteworthy about the UK is not that its military and economic power is now supposedly "middling" (a meaningless term that we should avoid - it is far greater than most sovereign states) - it is that its cultural and "soft power" remains remarkably high - [6], [7], etc. - and of course that historically it certainly was a "great power". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The historical position is dealt with by the preceding sentence ("foremost power"). Suggest replacing the sentence in question with "The UK's economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence remains globally significant", and delete the new sentence on Soft Power based on the Monocle(!). DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, but I'd support a link to "soft power", maybe at the start of the Culture section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion having died down with at least a consensus against the existing version, I have made the change to the Great Power claim and reworded the soft power claim. I would tend to support further changes but leave them to others to make. Viewfinder (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the term great power from the lead of the article. The United Kingdom is still considered by most academic bodies in international politics to be a great power and is recognised as such at the United Nations Security Council, the G8, the G7 and so on. The Great power article refers the the United Kingdom as being as much of a great power as any other country which is considered to be a great power. The leads on the articles on France, Germany, Japan and Russia all include reference to those countries being considered to be great powers. I don't think the United Kingdom is seen as being any lesser of a power than those countries and therefore the article should maintain reference to the United Kingdom's status as a great power. Some here it seems only to want the removal or watering down of the statement that the United Kingdom is a great power rather than what is most accurate or best for the article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. I don't see any reason for it to be removed. — Jon C.^ॐ 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree also. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, although you can argue the phrase has a quasi-objective status, I think it's ultimately a subjective term and a bit peacocky; and I'm definitely not sure we can rely on arguing that it is "recognised" as a Great Power by virtue of its membership of the UNSC, G7 etc. The fact that the UK sits on those bodies is correctly noted. It seems to me that stating those simple facts is all we really should be doing, especially in the lead. I'd argue that the phrase should be avoided in the leads of similar articles as well. N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. As discussed above "Great Power" is a slightly outdated term for any country. It fits with the the Great Game, but in 2012 how often is it used in any context? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, even with the minor changes that were made following the initial comments after this thread was first opened, the lead still notes that the UK is sometimes "referred to" as a Great Power - the term hasn't been excised altogether, the article just doesn't assert it as an explicit and unqualified statement of fact anymore. I think it's pretty hard to argue that it should go back to doing that. N-HH talk/edits 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a POV attack against the United Kingdom article. The UK is a great power. There are plenty of references backing that up in the great power article. Don't remove it from the article until it is proved otherwise and/or there is consensus for it - all I can see here are two or so vocal editors who are pushing for the UK's great power status to be removed from Wikipedia. David (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is "great power" a peacock term?! It's a well-known and well-used term in power in international relations. And it's still very much relevant. The UN Security Council is a perfect example of it, an embodiment of "great power consensus" being required in world affairs. And the UK is still a permanent member of that Council and still has great influence in world affairs, from both soft and hard power. David (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see points already made about it being, in part at least, a subjective and anachronistic term, plus the argument that mentioning the UK's UNSC status etc surely speaks for itself without having to throw that term in on top of it. Sure, some sources describe the UK as a great power; plenty do not and would not. You can't just grab one source and say "proven". And what "POV" btw do you suggest I and others are coming from exactly? N-HH talk/edits 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument you put forward, about the term "great power" and Britain's great power status, are just your own opinions and conjecture. The sources speak for themselves. Please provide sources that Britain is no longer a great power or that the status is irrelevant today. David (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the suggestion that great power status - or the lack of it - does not exist as a verifiable, definite categorisation, amenable to being "proven" one way or the other, is an uncontroversial statement of the obvious, not simply my "own opinion" or "conjecture". And, despite that, you also seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the issue here - I am not asserting that it is not a great power, such that we are on opposite sides of an either/or debate. The point is that there are sources that might say that it is, and sources that will say it is not (or at least pointedly not assert that it is), based on their own definition of the term and then their assessment of where Britain fits in with that. If you really are claiming that sources that reject or qualify the description for the UK in modern times do not exist, as your demand that I present them suggests, please just Google for anything related to Suez for starters. A truly neutral representation of this question in tertiary source like WP would not take sides one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So why is the UK losing its great power status but, say, Russia its keeping theirs? Seems odd to single just this article out. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never asserted that to be the case either way in the real world, to the extent that such an assertion would have any meaning, nor would you expect me to debate that substantively if you'd understood anything I've argued above; nor have I suggested that the term has to be excised from this page altogether; nor has it been. Equally, this is the talk page for the UK, not for Russia (or any other country) - this page is being "singled out" for discussion here for that reason. And if Russia is simply being raised as a genuine comparison/talking point, I and others have already said that the term is problematic in all modern contexts for all countries, as a matter of possible anachronism and terminology, as well as any issues in relation to subjectivity. N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the "real world", just Wikipedia. Could've phrased that better, maybe. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying; but then see the latter part of my answer! The overall point for me is that people, including serious historians of international relations, write whole books arguing for different interpretations of what the term "Great Power" means - and whether the term even has any meaning in a "unipolar" or "bipolar" world, as some writers choose to describe it - and spend hours debating whether post-imperial Britain really is one, as even a cursory knowledge or review of the literature will reveal. This WP page, like all WP pages, should (succinctly) reflect the breadth of this or any other debate, not cherry-pick from sources that appear to back up one preferred option. The fact that the newest contributor to this topic has been canvassing for allies while making ridiculous claims about supposed "typical POV attack" reveals more about their POV than that of anyone else involved. <insert joke here about Britain no longer being able to act alone on the world stage in pursuing its interests> N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can we put back the word "sometimes". If it is OK to remove it on the grounds that it is weasely, it is OK for me to remove the term "great power" altogether on the grounds that it is peacock. "The UK is a great power" - in your opinion, David. Not all commentators agree. Viewfinder (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh? No, it's not my opinion, it's what many reliable sources say. This is getting ridiculous. And if you remove "great power" from this article because you reckons it's a "peacock" term (though it's not, again backed up by many reliable sources) then you must also remove it from every other country's article, or at least their leading paragraphs. David (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We can continue going round in circles if you wish. All your points have been responded to, more or less to the point of rebuttal, without acknowledgement or counter-argument from you, as follows: many reliable sources say it, but many do not and/or question the assessment, while many dispute even the value of the term altogether; in any event, the term is still there (albeit in slightly qualified form) and no one is currently suggesting removing it altogether; each page here stands on its own and other pages are other pages, and people are not barred from suggesting or even making changes on one page until they agree to do the same in every other equivalent situation. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has explained how exactly great power is a peacock term rather than an accurate description? And how is great power any more of a peacock term than those of superpower and middle power? Great power is a term often used to describe a country less powerful than a superpower but more powerful than a middle power. It often takes the form of major power or world power but nevertheless is it frequently used by academia and the media. Some here claim it is an outdated term but where are the citations proving that is any more outdated of a term than those of superpower or middle power? It seems the problem is only with the United Kingdom being referred to as a great power and not with France, Germany, Japan or Russia being referred to as great powers, nor for that matter with the United States being referred to as a superpower, China as an emerging superpower or any of the numerous countries referred to as middle powers. A modern example of the United Kingdom as a great power was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whereby the United States, a superpower, contributed 148,000 troops to the invasion, the United Kingdom, a typical great power, contributed 45,000 troops to the invasion, and Australia, a typical middle power, contributed 2,000 troops to the invasion, with numerous smaller powers contributing far fewer. Quite vivid blur (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out with regards to wp:peacock that the term great power is an academic term and not a personal opinion and therefore is not a peacock term. An example of a personal opinion and peacock term would be 'The United Kingdom is a great country.' rather than 'The United Kingdom is often recognised as a great power.' 'Great power' is an academic term and not just an unsupported personal opinion. I also agree with the removal of the word 'sometimes' as per wp:weasel word. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Academics devised the term "great power" in a world of European dominance that consisted of several more or less equal and definable powers. The fact that academic use of the term on the vast internet can be found makes it no less peacock. Incidentally, as far as I can see, all the upholders of the term "great power" here have been canvassed] by Dpaajones. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty much already involved with this discussion from my first comment on the 29th November. Quite vivid blur (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

People have explained endlessly above why "great power" is not necessarily an "accurate description" and why there are issues around subjectivity and anachronism. No, it is not pure peacockery, but it skirts very close to it, as anyone with a cursory understanding of the term and the voluminous academic literature around it, but without a nationalistic agenda, understands. And there has indeed been canvassing, even if you exempt yourself from it. N-HH talk/edits 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there has been canvassing of sorts - I felt I needed to alert others who have contributed to the great power article about this peacock term claim. I find it annoying how two or so editors can hijack an important article like United Kingdom and declare a long-established academic term (great power) as "peacockery" or whatever so they can remove it from the article. The discussion needs to include more editors and especially those who have contributed to the UK article, the great power article, and to other similar (other countries/international relations) articles. David (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For I think the fourth time – no one is trying to remove it from the article. A couple of people have suggested it might be better removed, but no one has insisted on that and no one has made such an edit. Nor has anyone disputed that it is a standard academic term; those who are querying the use of the term, or how exactly we should use it, have been explicit in pointing out that the peacockery, if there is any, is partial and/or mostly relates to the application of the term, which is indeed a subjective and much-debated choice. We seem to have built up a vast amount of text on these two "power" topics based mostly on strawmanning, scaremongering and forum-style debating. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am confused about taking the U.K.'s great power status into an question. Shouldn't we also be removing other Great power references or "neutralizing" them? Like from France, Russia, etc. If it is peacockery, then I think we should also remove the term "great power from other articles. Because if it is just the U.K. article being neutralized then it looks kind of like a personal attack and I worry that non-registered users might be confused about that. For example, France's military budget is fifth, but Russia's is third largest. But they are still called great powers without objection. The United Kingdom, which is fourth, is not without objection a great power. It just seems a little bit of a misconception. Does anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Census figures 2011

When do you update those data? Particularly on ethnic and religious make-up, there have been significant changes. From 71% the percentage of people describing themselves as Christians fell by about 12% to 59% between 2001 and 2011. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.97.140 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

UK ethnicity data is not available yet as the data for Scotland has not been released and is not expected until July 2013. see discussion above!Tmol42 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Census

Needs to be updated, now only 85% of Britain is white, when in 2001 it was 92% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, religious data has changed significantly - numbers of Christians have fallen, and those of atheists increased. 80.3.155.55 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See Census figures 2011, below, Same answer applies.Tmol42 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

UK is now 7th largest nominal GDP

Either that or they've changed the name to Brazil - 3rd paragraph.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.89.210 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. I already changed that once, since all available data say the same thing. The IMF, UN, World Bank and CIA all say the same thing, the the UK economy is the seventh largest, and that's what said in the article to which the claim links. Despite this, some misguided Brit almost immediately reverted. Let's assume good faith, but if it goes one, it should probably by reported as vandalism. Claiming that the UK is the sixth largest economy without having a single source and willfully ignoring all the data from the IMF, UN, World Bank and CIA does look pretty bad.Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All I am saying is, Provide the references and include them! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you provide references for your claim of the UK being the sixth economy? It is common practice in introductions to link to lists such as List of countries by GDP (nominal) in which all the necessary references can be found. That is done for several countries and that is precisely what has been done on this article for a long time. All I'm doing is updating it so that it reflects the actual situation and doesn't contradict the list to which it links. Would you kindly explain why you feel we now have to provide references for this claim when none were needed in the past?Jeppiz (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument is counter-productive and a waste of all your efforts. If new material is avilable that can be added, AND it can be done by using the accepted wikipedia requirements of providing references (that is, all additions should be sourced), then do so. We all know that there is plenty of unsourced material on wikipedia, and there should be efforts to reduce it. Then this is one way of doing so. If we adopted the approach that "if it wasn't sourced before, we don't have to source it now", then hardly anything in existing articles would change, and there would be no improvements, would there? Do not get all angry if someone reverts an apparently unexplained change. Just realise that you made a slip-up and change back with the references. No need for this drama that has the potential to transforming itself into an edit-war!  DDStretch  (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Second that. Point well made. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hear, hear!"
Exactly the point that I have been making to the IP:92.24.89.210 and Jeppiz
Cheers!
some misguided Brit aka
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back. The template is clearly not intended to show a citation for ranking. I've just tried to add one in and it won't come out as a normally formatted citation number. The rank number automatically links through to the list(which is sourced.) I think it should just be changed to 7th and not waste any more time on this. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. However, note that the main points I was making remain valid, and in this instance, they have only been "defeated" by the particular features of a template. It may well be that the authors of the template should be contacted to see if they intended this strange "feature" or not.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The code of the infobox makes it complicated to accept references due to the need for wikicode, which the template will try and put in a pipelink and such (the infobox was made back in the early days of wikipedia, when verifiability was far more relevant than individual sourcing on every page). However, like everything in the WP:Lead, items in the infobox can be referenced in the article text. Alternatively, if anyone's good at coding, they can add a separate field to work similarly to the Gini field. CMD (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to the opening paragraph

In the past few hours, there has been an attempt to change all the introductory paragraphs to countries which are members of the EU to just state that that are a constituent state of the EU, removing terms like "country", "sovereign state", etc. The edit was quickly reverted for United Kingdom and I reverted some others. After comments on the editor's talk page about how it was very likely to be contentious, it was suggested that a discussion be opened on either Talk:European Union or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. I invite people to watch out for such discussions if they think they have something worthwhile to add to any discussion. DDStretch  (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you've already sensibly pointed out to them, these things are not a matter of any one person's claims as to what constitutes the "truth", even if they can find one or two people out there in the real world who agree with them. It is of course about the standard basic descriptions across reliable and authoritative sources – most of which would not dispute the sovereignty of the UK and European countries or equate EU member states to US states. (There are of course genuine broader issues here around EU membership and member-state sovereignty, but they should not lead to such simplistic assertions; and that kind of edit does nothing to illuminate them anyway). N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The absence of any authoritative or reliable sources to back up what is wanted to be put in the articles makes it seem to be a failure of WP:NPOV, and even a case of WP:OR. I think one should be able to uphold the principles of wikipedia here, no matter what one's own (possibly biased) opinions on the matter are.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Main native languages

Hi there,

it is unbelievable, but this article doesn't say which are the most common native languages. Sarcelles (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is already a section entitled Languages if there is something missing suggest you add what you believe is needed. Tmol42 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to write, that there are non-indigenuous languages including Polish and Punjabi have more native speakers in the UK than do any of the Celtic languages. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/30/polish-becomes-englands-second-language,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#cite_note-McDonnell-21 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language)Sarcelles (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You made that exact edit yesterday evening, but without your references.
I reverted you with this edit summary ... (Reverted good faith edits by Sarcelles (talk): Needs references before re-instating. (TW))
Now that you have them, I suggest that you replace your revision and add the references this time
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

wait a moment! The Guardian article doesn't say what Sarcelles is saying. It says the 2nd biggest language in England and Wales is Welsh, followed by Polish. In England alone, it's Polish. There is no comparison between Punjabi and the celtic languages at all. The language section of the article needs to be updated to bring in the importance of Polish and Asian languages, but it needs to be done accurately. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for that. I was sceptical to say the least with regard to Welsh being overtaken, which was why I made the revert yesterday. It is a very different Wales today compared to the one when I was growing up in the 1940s. There was no encouragement to speak Welsh in those post-war years.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a very great whole in the language section that there is no mention of Asian langauges and Polish. I've corrected it. In so doing I've turfed out some sentences on the origins of English and its spread via the Empire. I think in order to not lengthen the section unnecessarily it's better to lose that - which are more relevant to articles on the English language than the UK. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article says (United Kingdom#Languages) "According to the 2011 census, Polish has become the second largest language spoken in England and Wales and has 546,000 speakers." This is untrue, and not what the source says. The Grauniad article says “The first ONS language figures, recorded from a survey of 56.1 million residents of England and Wales, show 546,000 speak Polish. There are still slightly more Welsh speakers in Wales at 562,000.” Therefore, according to the 2011 census, Polish is the third largest language spoken in England and Wales. As this article is about the UK, rather than about Wales or England, is this statement relevant here? In the meantime, I have deleted “and Wales” from the article. Daicaregos (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the question about Welsh speakers is skewed. In Wales, the question was "Do you speak Welsh?", not "Is Welsh your native language?" Unlike Waler, the census form in England made no provision for people to record any languages other than their native tongue".

I agree. The census figures from England are not comparable to those from Wales. Figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included either. The question here is, of course: is the fact that over half a million people in England speak Polish as their main language notable in the United Kingdom article? And if so, is it stated correctly and with NPOV. I would have thought that a figure for the number of Polish speakers in the UK as a whole would be preferable. Sadly, because of the way the census was phrased in England, no census figure is available for the number Welsh speakers in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If a native language is a language native to the country, the number who speak that native language is the number who speak it irrespective of whether it was their 'mother tongue' or a language learned later in life. Therefore had the question been "Is Welsh your native language?", it would only have counted those for whom Welsh was their mother language and not also those who had acquired it later. Those speaking Polish are not speaking a native language of the UK. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. But how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country. I understand the question in England was 'What is your main language?' (not 'What is your native language?'). And in Wales, the question asked was 'Do you speak Welsh?'. Any ideas? Daicaregos (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion without having the time to make any comment. I think I can make one now: The simple answer to the question "how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country?" is a very familiar type of question for me (though not this paricular example), because I worked as a consultant in research design and statistics for many years at University, NHS, and Research Grant Awarding bodies in the UK. The simple answer, especially given that we are talking about Wikipedia, is that (a) you can only do this in a small set of circumstances, (b) you usually have to make various kinds of assumptions and/or interpretations in order to do it, and (c) therefore (the wikipedia bit) because you have to make interpretations and assumptions, as some of you have been doing, it would constitute Original Research from the point of view of Wikipedia, and that is a no-no. The question then is "How should this be dealt with?" I suppose the answer is a brief description of the problem (different questions), and a brief report of the data with the different questions clearly marked. I suppose some combination of text and footnotes would do. What do people think of this?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(ps: the "technical terms" for these kinds of situations are that the two kinds of information are "incommensurable" or "non comparable": the problem is a major one that constantly thwarts good research design and "meta-analysis" of different pieces of research. Also, read Wikipedia policy on Synthesis, though don't be misled by thinking you only have one source here: the seprate and different questions for each country makes each census for each country distinct from each other when the corresponding questions in each ask about slightly different things: a major design flaw of the census, in my opinion..)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a flaw in the census, it is a flaw in the census summary that was published on the internet (a bit of b*****t supplied by the government to keep the newspaper editors happy). Somebody needs to go to a major library and look at the paper copies of the census reports where they will be able to compare like with like. According to the internet reports, the census questionaires in Wales differed from those in England by have the question "Do you speak Welsh?" as an extra question, not an alternative question. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, you are correct, and I misunderstood what was being claimed. However, be careful in doing this, which is what Wikipedia's advice about using Primary Sources also states, because we are supposed to be using reliable secondary or tertiary sources. You might also usefully point out the misleading nature of the government Internet report, if it can be verified as being misleading, in a footnote to help prevent any future changes relying on what can be reliably said to be misleading.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy on primary sources states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." My understanding is that if one is merely extracting and repeating what is in the tables, that is OK. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind, and why I mentioned primay sources in the way I did in my previous message.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The main language questions in Wales and in England were different. Question 18, Language (p8), asks 'What is your main language?' Responses are 'English' or 'Other'. However, the note shown below question 19 says “Note: In Wales, the first response category in the main language question will be 'English or Welsh'. The ONS' figures and commentary sometimes note that figures given for English include Welsh e.g. “Figure 9: Households where not all usual residents have English (or Welsh in Wales) as a main language”, “Notes for - Household language: English or Welsh in Wales.” Sometime they don't. For example, Key statistics (published 30 January 2013) says “Ninety two per cent (49.8 million) of usual residents aged three years and over spoke English (English or Welsh in Wales) as their main language.”, but the 'Welsh in Wales' caveat is not given for subsequent stats. This matters in particular for stat #4 “The second most reported main language was Polish (one per cent, 546,000)” - implying that the most reported main 'language' was English and Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I consider that my original point then fully applies, and you must be extremely careful in interpreting and synthesizing, comparing and contrasting any of the information from the English and from the Welsh versions of the census. It may appear that one can infer something if we assume people behave rationally, but my own experience, and those of others, tells me that these inferences (on what people ought to do if they behaved rationally) are often not backed up if one tests them out. I think you could be in danger of doing unacceptable original research and synthesis (according to wikipedia) unless you limit yourselves to reporting just the bare facts here. I think doing that, and using footnotes to explain the problem might be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to nail the issue regarding the questionnaires and questions in use in the UK for 2011 and results published so far as not everything said above is in fact correct. 4 variant questionnaires were in use, one for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In the later case the questionnaire was also available in the Welsh Language. The questionnaires in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were in a similar format. All three asked the identical question: What is your Main Language? English / Other write in (including BSL). In Wales an additional question preceeded it. Can you understand, speak, read or write Welsh? In NI an addtional question followed this: Can you understand, speak, read or write Irish or Ulster-Scots? The Scotland census followed a different format and asked different questions. Rather than asking first about the main language it asked: Which of these can you do? Tick all that apply -for each of-: English, Scottish Gaelic and Scots: Understand, Speak Read Write English. It also asked a supplimentary question dealing with the part of the question in the other questionnaires not so far addressed. Do you use a language other than English at home? Tick No, English only, Yes BSL, Yes other please write in. I think this latter question has been carefully designed to ensure a UK-wide statisitcal assessment as to the main language spoken can be determined.

Regarding the results published so far, to date Scotland's Census have not yet published their results relating to language and nationalities so there is no UK wide data available yet on what is the main language spoken. This is not due until later this year at which time the ONS will publish a consolidated report for all the constituent countries in the UK.

So on the one hand though there is data for the number of people of Welsh and Polish origin living in England Wales and Northern Ireland and what the main language spoken we do not have any of this data published as yet for Scotland. As far as the Welsh language speakers are concerned as indicated at the start of this thread there is only data available for Wales and where Welsh is the main language spoken in England, Northern Ireland and (when published) Scotland. Care needs to be taken when referencing the journalists who may not have interpreted the data about the Welsh and Polich language speakers correctly. I kept numbers out of this so far but if anyone wants the data looked up happy to do so. Hope this helps? Tmol42 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add one direction to music?

I'm not a fan of one direction by any stretch of the imagination, but you can't deny that they have been astonishingly successful worldwide, and therefore, whether we like it or not, deserve a space in the list of recent British musical successes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.182.46 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is that, because the UK have produced so many successful acts, the more recent acts need to achieve over 30 million sales to get into the list (which is stated in a hidden note next to the text). Do you have reliable sources that indicate that One Direction managed this yet?--SabreBD (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Apart from which, they've been around only what, a couple of years? 'Popular' heavily-manufactured acts like this come and go every few years. No one will know who they are in 2-3 years. I can't see any reason to mention acts that haven't had at least a decade or two of success.--92.162.235.175 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure of the value of the last sentence in that paragraph: it seems a bit strange having a lower threshold for inclusion because the act was recent. Is it logical for a "recent" act with 31 million sales to be included but a longstanding act with a 190 million sales to be excluded? DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a way of spreading the time period of the section. The point is not to list the most successful acts over time, but to demonstrate that the contribution to music continues. Inevitably more recent acts have sold less records: less records in general are sold and they have had less time to sell them.--SabreBD (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Formation section

Unresolved

 – See 'Current unresolved issues'

I don't know why the 'Acts of Union 1707' is mentioned in the formation section if the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' is not, seems unfair to mention how the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed but not the Kingdom of Ireland as are both predecessor states of the United Kingdom. Also the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' has nothing to do with the formation of the United Kingdom. I would advise either removing the 'Acts of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' from the Formation section or including the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' and possibly changing the name from 'Formation' to 'History'. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The comparable act is the 1801 Act of Union, and it is mentioned.--SabreBD (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood what i wrote, i'm not saying the article states anything incorrect, what i am saying is that the 'Act of Union 1707' is as relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom as the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' is and that the title 'Formation' is not really appropriate as the 'Act of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' have not directly formed the United Kingdom. Rob (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1707 Treaty created a united kingdom that covered two of the three kingdoms in the British Isles, which was extended to include Ireland in 1801. That is why the story of the cretion of the UK starts then. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The Acts of Union 1800 were new acts and were not an extended version of the Acts of Union 1707. The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states 'That Great Britain and Ireland shall upon Jan. 1, 1801, be united into one kingdom'. This suggests that both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland are successor states to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the Kingdom of Ireland joining an existing union. Therefore the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and it's formation is not directly related to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks Rob (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of Rob's logic. The Kingdom of Ireland clearly is the other predecessor state. If the unification of Great Britain needs to be mentioned, then the unification of Ireland is no less significant. However, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 is not the moment of unification, rather it marks the end of papal authority over the Lordship of Ireland. Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, to show the unification of Ireland you would have to use the 'Norman invasion of Ireland'. Personally i think the 'Acts of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' are not related enough to be placed in the info box and definitely should not be labelled under the 'Formation' section as this could confuse the reader into think the country was formed in 1707 which it wasn't. Rob (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not as clear cut as you imply. The process of stitching together the three kingdoms that were to form the United Kingdom started in 1707 when two of them joined together. It is presumably for this reason that sources abound that state that the United Kingdom is over 300 years old. The article as currently written makes clear the events of 1707 and 1801, allowing the readers to make their own conclusions. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

For example :"The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England." from 'Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom' by Professor Allan I. Macinnes as quoted on the BBC website [8]. We can debate about whether we agree or disagree with the point but, as I said above, it is not as clearcut as you imply. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fishieheler2 on the infobox and 1707 ad 1801 (which I didn't realise we were discussing). I have no objection in principle to mentioning the Norman invasion of Ireland in the text, as we do Scottish unification. However, Ireland was not really united by this act and had to be "reconquered" several times, most notably under Elizabeth I. We really do not want to get into all that detail here. A lot of time and effort has been put into making this section as concise as possible and I do not wish to see that undone.--SabreBD (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So, general consensus is to have the 'Acts of Union 1707' and 'Acts of Union 1800' but not 'Anglo-Irish Treaty'? And also to have the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' in text and the article edited to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a separate state? Thanks Rob (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The article does not require to be "edited to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a separate state". The article sets out the details accurately and no further interpretation needs to be added. Readers can come to their own conclusions. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The article currently misinforms the reader that the Kingdom of Great Britain is the same legal entity as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 suggests that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a new state which is a sucessor of both the Kingdom of Ireland the Kingdom of Great Britain. In my edit, under the 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections i had made it clear that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't understand why you think the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a union of 3 kingdoms when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 clearly states it is a union between 2 kingdoms, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. I agree that the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain is significant to the United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland however to say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formed in 1707 is inccorect and suggests that the Kingdom of Ireland was annexed by the Kingdom of Great Britain which legally, it was not. Please consider implementing the changes i made in 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections. Thanks Rob (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you think the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a union of 3 kingdoms when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 clearly states it is a union between 2 kingdoms" - well maybe because one of the kingdoms was itself a union between two kingdoms? Anyway, I can't understand the logic of arguing that the current version suggests that "the Kingdom of Ireland was annexed by the Kingdom of Great Britain". The USA started with 13 states and covered considerably less territory than now. Does that mean it annexed all the other states that subsequently joined the USA? Should the formation date of the USA be 1959 when Alaska became the 50th state? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with what Rob is saying. The article was much better until a few weeks (or was it months?) ago when the etymology section was edited so that the stuff about "the United Kingdom of Great Britain" was given much greater prominence at the beginning of the section. It's quite misleading (and wrong in constitutional law) to give the impression that the state was founded in 1707 and the Kingdom of Ireland was added to it. But this is an old argument, and some editors have stuck to the 1707 point of view doggedly. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2, your missing the point. Under-law the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed by a union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Under-law the Kingdom of Great Britain did not annex or take control off the Kingdom of Ireland, nor did the Kingdom of Ireland join the Kingdom of Great Britain. Weather or not after the union was created Great Britain took complete control over Ireland is irrelevant, the Act of Union 1800 states clearly that it was a union and thus both states are predecessors. Rob (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support editing this article to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a predecessor state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support removing the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' from the formation infobox. Thanks, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support adding the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' to the formation infobox. Thanks Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rob. I think the reason you are not getting much a response to this is that no-one else seems to want to change the infobox. I may have missed something, but I think the only suggestion in this thread outside yourself is that we think about mentioning the Norman invasion of island in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently, i can't get a clear understanding of what people support and don't support regarding these issues, that why i posted the polls. I would appreciate it people would show what there clear opinions are on these issues.

A summary of my issues are:

• The article suggest that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britian, which it is not.
• The info-box suggests that the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which it was not.
• The article downplays the significance of the Kingdom of Ireland in the union. To fix this i would suggest adding 'Norman invasion of Ireland' to the formation info-box, however this is only a suggestion.

I apologise for bringing up all these issues in one discussion. Rob (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That the Crown of Ireland was vested in the same person as the Crown of England is irrelevant to the constitutional development of the country. It is only when the Crowns were merged in 1707 and 1801 that the constituent countries were merged. Notice that when James VI of Scotland became King of England two countries remained separate. TFD (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No longer suggesting that, instead i feel the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' is what cause the formation of the Lordship of Ireland which then went on to form the Kingdom of Ireland. Thanks, Rob (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(resp to Rob) concerning the poll (which I find incomplete), I also support the usage of the Kingdom of Ireland as a predecessor to the UK. I support keeping the Anglo-Irish Treaty & the 1800 Union Act. I oppose keeping the Norman invasion of England & the 1707 Union Act. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Current unresolved issues

The article suggests that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain

The Union with Ireland Act 1800 shows that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a sucessor state of both the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Legally the Kingdom of Great Britain did not annex or take control off the Kingdom of Ireland, nor did the Kingdom of Ireland join the Kingdom of Great Britain. In my edit, i did not remove any information from the article and only restructured the 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections to make it clear that under-law the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Also, I would suggests adding some information about the formation of the Kingdom of Ireland as i think this is significant to the formation of the United Kingdom. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you on this. The concept of the United Kingdom began in 1707 and the addition of Ireland eas analogous to the process by which the USA grew from 13 states to 50. If your logic is correct, I'd be interested to know whether you think the USA was formed when Alaska and Hawaii joined? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A union between two states is much diffrent to a state joining an existing union. The USA did not unite with Alaska and Hawaii, Alaska and Hawaii joined the existing union, therefore the USA was a continuing state. The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, therefore suggesting that it was a union between two states, not a state joining a existing union. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob. You say "The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland". I couldn't find where it said that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland" - where is that quote exactly? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting it, i summarised it. Here's the quote: 'the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Forgive me but that doesn't mention anything about successor states etc - that bit is your interpretation. If you want this article to state that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the successor state you believe, you will need to find a reliable third party source that says it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of the phrase 'of the United Kingdom created since the union' and 'of the United Kingdom created after the union' in Article Fourth suggests that the new state was a successor to the previous states. Thanks, Rob (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. The state created in 1707 was already a union - indeed already a united kingdom - and unless you can find a source that states that the United kingdom og Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state, you interpretations count for nothing. Sorry, but that's how wikipedia works. regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that a new state was not created in 1801 or that there was a new state but it was not a successor state? DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the situation is not as clear cut as some editors are suggesting and therefore the only way forward is to provide a reliable third party source to support the suggestion that the United Kingom of Great Britain and Ireland is a successor state to Great Britain. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But my question is source for saying the in 1801 a new state was created or specifically successor state? DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - if the claim is that the state formed in 1801 was a 'successor state', then that claim should be supported by a source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - I was just checking to make sure that no one was doubting that the 1801 Act created a new state. That's clear cut and there's a ton of RS on it. "Successor state", on the other hand, has a specific legal meaning. While I wouldn't personally doubt the UK would qualify as a successor state I equally wouldn't be confident in finding an RS that expressly says that - there would be little call for it. Thanks for the clarification. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Rob, you need a secondary source that says Ireland was a predecessor state of the UK of GB and Ireland. Using the 1800 Act is original research, because it does not use that terminology and the concept of successor states did not develop until later in the century. It is anyway a concept in international law, while the Union Act was domestic law. I doubt Ireland could be considered a predecessor state because it had no international legal personality, as it had been in personal union with England since Norman times, and therefore had no rights and obligations separate from those of the UK of GB. TFD (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, however this article still needs to be changed to show that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created in 1801, not 1707. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD is quite wrong there. The Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state - see this for instance, and had beeen so since the 16th century. It was in personal union with the English crown in the same way as the Kingdom of Scotland was 1601 to 1707. Although because of Poynings' Law most of its life it had less legislative freedom of movement, but this wasn't always so eg during the time of "Grattan's Parliament". I don't think there's much doubt that the 1801 Act invoved the amalgamation of two states to create a new third state (here's a source for the "new state". So, we have sources for Kingdom of Ireland being a sovereign state that was merged with GB to form a new state , the UK, in 1801. Sounds pretty close to being a predecessor state to me. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source explains arguments advance by nationalists, not actual legal status. In the 1700s, Ireland was not sovereign. The same page says "a from of legislative independence had been wrested from London." Ireland was a dependency of the UK of GB, just as Alaska was a dependency of the US and the change of Ireland's status did not create a new state any more than the US became a new state in 1959. In any case you would need a source that said it did. This is not about fairness, but about what the law was. TFD (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an WP:RS for that please. You've misread the first source. As you can see the second source I provided, a constitutional law book makes clear that in 1801 a new state was created. That's the standard mainstream legal analysis. Your confusing the legal position with political realities. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points here. Firstly, even during the time of Grattan's Parliament, the Kingdom of Ireland can hardly be considered a sovereign kingdom; it was governed by officials appointed in Westminster. The Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the rest, were appointed by the English and then by the British government. Compare to Hanover or to Scotland before 1707, which were genuine cases of personal unions of separate states. I'd add that a purely legalistic view is probably not the best way to look at these things. Yes, formally what happened in 1801 was the merger of two kingdoms into a single new kingdom. But in fact what happened was the incorporation of Ireland into the existing Kingdom of Great Britain - or, to be quite honest, what really happened was the abolition of the Irish Parliament and the incorporation of Irish representative peers and MPs into the Westminster Parliament, given that, otherwise, the administration and legal system of Ireland remained virtually identical. john k (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for that? Also, I think your description of 17th century Scotland is incorrect. It was very much ruled from London through institutions like the Lords of the Articles and effectively viceroys like Middleton, Rothes and Lauderdale. See this source which says that the post-1707 government was the same as the pre-Union one: "still directed from the South".DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source at the moment, and admittedly my knowledge of Scotland is not all that great. That being said, I was not arguing that Scotland was not largely ruled from London between 1603 and 1707. The question is who was ruling it from London. My understanding is that for Scotland, this was always done explicitly by the King in his capacity as King of Scots. Lauderdale and the rest were royal appointees, appointed on the basis of their personal loyalty to the Stuart kings. Neither the King's English ministers nor the English Parliament had any authority over Scotland. The same was even more true of 18th century Hanover - all government officials there were appointed by the King, who kept a separate Hanoverian chancery with him in London to conduct Hanoverian business. In 18th century Ireland, on the other hand, officials were appointed by the King on advice from his Prime Minister, who was a British minister with no connection to Ireland. There was no requirement that any officials have the confidence of the Irish Parliament, but, in fact, they did have to have the confidence of the British parliament, which is why by the late 18th century Viceroys and Chief Secretaries were coming in and out with ministerial changes in Westminster. Until 1782, at least, the Irish Parliament also was not independent of the Parliament in Westminster. The various Irish viceroys, unlike the Stuarts' Scottish ministers, were Englishmen with no previous connection to the island. john k (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is how it is explained in Territorial Organization Of European States, pp. 92, 94, "The conquest of Ireland began in the 12th century.... In 1541 Henry VIII is recognized King of Ireland. From that time on the English held control....[B]y force of the Acts of Union of 1800...the Kingdom of Ireland was included into the state, and the name of the state changed for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1927 once again the name of the state was corrected...."[9] I suppose one could say it was a "new state", just as the French Fifth Republic is a new state, but really it is just a renamed state. Scotland was different. As this source describes it, "The countries were tied into a real union [in 1707], and instead of the two states...the new state arose" (p. 94). While it could be that de facto union occured in 1603, de jure it occurred in 1707. Bear in mind that Ireland unlike Scotland had never been considered a separate state in public international law. TFD (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a loose way of describing it, which is true enough in terms of real politik. It's not a bad effort from a Polish survey on a wide variety of complex issues across Europe, of which this is just one, and then the section you refer to is an introductory background description for the main point of the chapter. But, that's all it is "not a bad effort. It's not a high quality RS for this and doesn't match mainstream UK Constitutional law sources: WP:UNDUE applies. Btw, "Public international law" is not something that was around in the way you imply in the 17th century. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

:If we want to say that a new state was created then we need clear sources that say that. A lengthy legal opinion on Scotland's possible independence posted to HM government's website, p. 75, says, "36. We note that the incorporation...of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law."[10] Note the writers are not expressing their own opinions but noting the consensus in legal opinion.

BTW I was not implying that public international law was "something that was around in the way you imply in the 17th century." That is why I said "Ireland... had never been considered a separate state in public international law." The reason is that the law did not develop until after Ireland was clearly a UK dependency. Whether or not it was a sovereign state before then is moot, since it predates the modern law. TFD (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an opinion on how the Act of Union 1801 should be treaty as a matter of modern day international law, not what really happended under domestic law. Rob (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a good source I admit. But, in response to your comment that "If we want to say that a new state was created then we need clear sources that say that.", you ignored the source I provided earlier: p.11 of Prof. David Feldman's English Public Law - a very mainstream authoritative constitutional law work which unequivocally states that 1801 created a new state. And there are others. The authors of your source are equally credible I agree, although a standard text which goes through more than one edition I would suggest is, in general terms, a better source than a one off publication written for a specific purpose. But that's a marginal point and your source has the advantage of, as you say, claiming to provide a survey of opinion rather than just a statement of the position. The only curious aspect to it is that the summary of opinion is limited to "Scottish and English writers". I wonder whether there is a significance in that? The other point of interest is that at paragraphs 35-37 they discuss the alternative view to MacCormick that no new state was created in 1707 and Scotland was amalgamated into England under a new name. Annoyingly, they only say "it is not necessary to decide between these views". DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You will note that I stated above that the situation is not clear cut and the above contributions make clear that there are sources to support both positions (though I side on the view that the date 1707 has more significance than 1801). Anyway, a compromise position is to deliberately not take a view as to when the current state began, but to merely set out the details for others to interpret. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To make both positions clear, i belive we should restructure the history section have three sub-sections; 'Before 1707', '1707 to 1801' and 'Since the Acts of Union of 1800'. In the 'Since the Acts of Union of 1800' sub-section we could include that a new state was created under domestic law howevever most see the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with that suggestion, I'm afraid. A before 1707/after 1707 split is perfectly sufficient. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What about a paragraph about the Acts of Union of 1800 within the 'Since the Acts of Union of 1707' section? 81.132.8.1 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article suggests that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain (cont.)

DeCausa, I read your source. It says, "In 1801, there was a formal political union of Great Britain and Ireland (which had been under the rule of English, and later British, monarchs since 1155). The new state was named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Your source does not explain what it means by "new state" nor provide any sources that would help us understand it. If they are saying that a new state was created under public international law, then we need to know which were the predecessor states and which state(s) was extinguished.

Or are they saying that sufficient constitutional change had occurred that for domestic purposes it was a new state, just as France by adopting new constitutions has been a kingdom (twice), and empire (twice) and a republic (5 times), while maintaining the same international personality? In that case, the commonwealth, restoration, and revolution could be considered new states.

Or are they just saying that the country changed its name?

You need a source that clearly explains this.

TFD (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Union with Ireland Act 1800 suggests that under domestic law a new state was created however a legal opinion on Scotland's possible independence posted to HM government's website suggests that under modern day international law the state kept the same international personality. Rob (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The info-box suggests that the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Resolved

The 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was not involved in the formation of the United Kingdom, and only the succession of part of the state. Possibly the 'Formation' section could be renamed 'History' or the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' could be removed from the formation section and mentioned in the article instead. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of history. 'Formation' surely refers to factors that have led the United Kingdom to be what it is today, and the leaving of most of Ireland is a factor that is directly relevant. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, however it's not directly related to the formation of the United Kingdom as a state. The problem with your interpretation is that many factors have led the United Kingdom to be what it is today, such as the fall of the Empire, which are far more significant then Irish succession. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The Empire was a possession of the United Kingdom (or of the crown of the United Kingdom). It was never part of the United Kingdom. The '26 Counties' of Ireland were part of the United Kingdom - and then they weren't. It's the only change to what is or isn't in the United Kingdom since 1801 (well, material change - there is the Island of Rockall Act 1972!) Incidentally, our History of the formation of the United Kingdom article includes a section on Irish independence. DeCausa (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, i understand, apologies. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Anglo-Irish Treaty certainly was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom:

• Formation 1 [mass noun] the action of forming or process of being formed
• Form 2 ... [no object] (be formed) have a specified shape

The current "shape" of the UK is defined by that treaty. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"national" administrations

Regarding this edit, while I appreciate there is a desire to emphasise the 'country-ness' of Scotland and Wales, the term "national administration" is ambiguous with regard to the UK. Additionally, the term "nation" is (lets just say) 'not as appropriate' with respect to Northern Ireland as it is to England, Scotland, Wales or the UK itself.

Adding the term "national" to "Devolved administrations" adds nothing practical but does introduce unnecessary (and easily avoidable) issues. It can just be left out. --RA (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. "National" is completely inappropriate for Northern Ireland which, whatever it is, is not a "nation". Brocach (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of ambivalent either way, and don't think it's "inappropriate" as such, but do agree that it doesn't really add much that's actually necessary while nonetheless adding the risk of generating disputes. Plus I'd suggest that out in the real world "devolved administration" in reference to any of the three, let alone Northern Ireland specifically, is a lot more common a phrase than "devolved national administration". N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. To explain, that edit was merely returning the version to the previous longstanding version. I remember way back when the decision to insert national was first made was to make clear that the subsection was dealing with the devolved arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and was not about the devolved London administration. 'National' helped make that distinction. I hope this clarifies the original intention and why I brought it back to the article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree and we all know from elsewhere that the NI position is not black and white so its pretty harmless and makes the position clearer ----Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Ireland is a country; Wikipedia says so. And it is certainly a nation (even Catalonia is classed as a nation) so the current section heading is fine. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary; WP acknowledges the difficulties re terminology in relation what the region is, and specifically quotes authorities rejecting the term "nation". The devolved administration in Northern Ireland does not describe itself as "national". There is no need to introduce (or reintroduce) this controversial and wholly unnecessary term. Brocach (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"... we all know from elsewhere that the NI position is not black and white ..." Agree. "...so its pretty harmless and makes the position clearer." Huh? If the NI position is not black and white, how does this adding terms like this make it clearer? Stormont is certainly a "devolved administration". On that everyone can all agree. Whether it is is a "national administration" is a whole-different-kettle-of-fish.

In any case, there is the wider (non-NI-related) ambiguity of "national administration" in the UK (e.g. is Holyrood the "national administration" in Scotland or is Westminster the "national administration".) --RA (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of Countries of the United Kingdom states; The countries of the United Kingdom are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It's a country. Unfortunately some people don't like it, and won't acknowledge it. I see no problem with the word "national" in the section heading. The term nation is broad enough to cover everyone's POV, I would have thought. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether it is a "country" or not is neither proven by the text content of any WP page – or indeed provable at all, surely – nor immediately relevant to the point at hand. The bottom line is that there is never certainty one way or the other with such subjective and malleable terms and categories as "country" or "nation", and all we need to think about here is whether the use of "national" here adds net clarity and/or is commonly found as a description of the administrations in question. As noted previously, I'm kind of agnostic overall and not sure it's worth getting too excited about, but I doubt whether it passes those two tests (although I hadn't factored in the London point initially). As a side point, it's not an accident I suspect that Scotland has a "Parliament", Wales a "National Assembly" and Northern Ireland an "Assembly". N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, use the sources. This UK government site does not use the word "national" - it refers to "the devolved legislatures", "devolved administrations", and "devolved territory". In the absence of any more neutral reliable source, I suggest we use that terminology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources are available to support any POV. Take this one, for instance: [11]. Can someone please explain what precisely the problem is with the word "national", unless it's to do with all this baloney about NI not being a country and some people finding such a suggestion "offensive" - We know all about that. The Roman Candle (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the term "nation" has multiple meanings, it is best to avoid it because it creates ambiguity. It can mean for example a sovereign state recognized under international law, may include overseas territories of that state, may mean an ethnic group within one or more states, or may mean a geographic region associated with that group. TFD (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's used all over the place in Wikipedia. Like masses of other terms, yes, it has multiple meanings. That doesn't mean we should avoid it. It's pretty clear what it means in the current context. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what it means in the current context. TFD (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Devolved administrations section includes only those for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It should either be expanded to include the London Assembly, or revert to a more appropriate section heading, such as Devolved national administrations. Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Daicaregos, as I indicated above, that was the point of the original heading which I have since restored: to make clear that the section was only discussing the devolved arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not the arrangements for London. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So leave it as it is, or expand the section to include London then it covers all the devolved power areas? I'm OK with either of those. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted, the current version of the page includes the phrase "national" in the heading, which has been retained while this discussion takes place. IMO, the contrast with London is probably the only really strong justification for having it, as, although it can be found in some sources and descriptions, it would not seem to be the usual terminology applied to the administrations. That said, I'm not sure about including London quite so explicitly alongside the others. Although it is sometimes included within the "devolution" framework, it isn't always so described, and in the end it's only a local urban authority with boosters. N-HH talk/edits 11:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we have more than enough references to clearly establish that Scotland and Wales are countries, and also references to Northern Ireland as a country (plus sources for others). That means national is legitimate and given the level of powers devolved its reasonable and the nature of the UK. The delegated powers are variable - for example Northern Ireland and Scotland have unique legal systems but Wales hasn't since the 13th C so that is not really a criteria, ditto London. So distinguishing that section makes sense. OK some editors have a real hang up on Northern Ireland being a country so the nation word is assume triggering the same reaction. We could say Develoved Parliaments and Assemplies? Would that keep people happy? ----Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If London is sometimes seen as a devolved administration, it should get a mention in the devolution subsection, although perhaps not to the same prominence. Adding qualifiers such as national or parliaments and administrations won't help our readers at all unless there is something to compare them against. Readers (well, the majority) won't see the subheader "Devolved national administrations" and go "Ah, that means it doesn't include London", and similarly I doubt they'll see "Devolved administrations" and think it should include London. CMD (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say "Devolved national administrations" is absolutely clear, but disliked by some editors. "Devolved parliaments and assemblies" is somewhat ambiguous. I suggest we don't include London in this section. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Greater London Authority was established during the 1998 devolution era and its creation was called "devolution". But, it is not "devolution" on a par with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is questionable whether it is "devolution" at all (e.g. "The Greater London Authority: Devolution or Administrative Decentralization?"). It is not usually counted among the "devolved administrations" of the UK.

Its inclusion, however, misses the point about "national administrations". It is equally valid, for example, to talk about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as being "sub-national administrations" or talk about "devolved national administration" (singular, not plural) in relation to the UK as a whole. I know that will rub some people up the wrong way, but it just depends on POV.

So better to just leave it out and avoid making a statement on what is the "national administration" (in Scotland, for example) and use the simple and far more common "devolved administrations" instead. That doesn't normally count London among its members, but I wouldn't oppose a passing mention in context. --RA (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's misleading, they are not assemblies in a regional sense but in a national one. OK in Northern Ireland country can be used but so can province etc. However country is a legitimate term. So given this is a collective heading it seems reasonable to leave it there. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That all depends on what one counts as being the "nation" or the "national administration". In the UK that's ambiguous and depends on one's POV. A heading like that is a blunt instrument. We can be far more adept at balancing these POVs against each other. --RA (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't depend on your PoV, country is referenced and national is the normal linguistic form. The particular obsession with what Northern Ireland is called, is I know a particular passion for you but here its a sensible general term to use as a heading. The text of the section is very clear and well supported. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, the only people in this thread who have a "particular obsession" with Northern Ireland is you and Roman Candle. The point I am raising is that the term "national administration" is ambiguous in the UK, just as the word "country" is. "Devolved administrations" does the job just fine, there's no need to push your own nationalist agenda (however heartfelt) perspective. --RA (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RA, that last comment doesn't WP:AGF - you may want to reconsider the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've altered the wording. I don't doubt Snowded's genuineness, so there's no need to assume a lack of good faith on my part either. --RA (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I know some of us "know" each other of old, but we need to try to avoid this spiralling unnecessarily. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I made this change removing the word "national" and adding copy about London to the devolved administrations. I believe this accords to a consensus above (those who agree that "national" should be removed and those who say London should be added, if it is removed). --RA (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The change has subsequently been reverted, but I support it being reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with that change as well, but I do think RA needs to calm down a bit, use of strike outs rather than straight deletion is a lack of good faith ----Snowded ^TALK 12:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, as discussion has not concluded and no consensus had developed. Some doubt has been noted above as to whether the London Assembly is any more than a glorified council. I am currently agnostic on the issue of whether London is included or not, and await further argument. Whatever is decided, the History section should retain national to denote the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland i.e. Around the end of the 20th century there were major changes to the governance of the UK with the establishment of devolved national administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.. Daicaregos (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my preference is to leave it as it was with 'national' included. However my energy for what I consider a petty minded attitude to the designation of Northern Ireland is low on this article so I would accept a compromise which included London. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection to exclusion of the word "national" in the subtitle. However, I don't agree with the inclusion of London in the section. The first sentence spells out precisely what it's about, so let's leave it at that. I note the continuing pressure from numerous editors to degrade the status of Northern Ireland (this is really what it's all about, isn't it?). The Roman Candle (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Including the London Assembly, which may or may not be appropriate, naturally gives the title Devolved administrations. Excluding the London Assembly, it should be titled Devolved national administrations. Readers would wonder why the London Assembly was not there if the section were titled Devolved administrations. Should the London Assembly be included? Daicaregos (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The word 'national' grates here only because of the inclusion of Northern Ireland, which is not and does not aspire or purport to be a national administration. London shouldn't be included here - it is merely a region of England, not one of the four parts of thge United Kingdom. It is already covered, in enough detail for this article, in the "Administrative divisions" section. Brocach (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am to understand that it is acceptable to describe Northern Ireland as one of the Home nations but its 'nation' status does not extend to the use of the word 'national' to describe irs devolved administration? The title 'devolved national administrations' was the previous consensus before being removed last year without discussion. If a better term that national could be found to describe the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I would accept that instead, but this is the most appropriate word. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That better term exists - it is "devolved administrations". "Home nations" is irrelevant here as it is a purely sporting term. Brocach (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, that term is ambiguous as London could be viewed as a devolved administration when this section is looking at the devolved arrangements for the different nations. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"The title 'devolved national administrations' was the previous consensus before being removed last year without discussion." Or to put it another way, the title "devolved administrations" has been consensus for a year and it was changed without consensus.

Looking at the picture as a whole, the section is about devolved government in the United Kingdom. So (reservations about the appropriateness of the term with regard to London aside), devolution to London does deserve mention in the section. A happy consequence of that is that issues with the phrase "national administrations" go away (since we are all agreed "national administration" isn't appropriate for London). --RA (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a section that deals with local government - London's system of government fits in there. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

UK govt. description

The official UK govt. website consistently refers to "devolved administrations" and explicitly says the NI, Scottish and Welsh administrations are "known as the devolved administrations". On the back of this I'm going to revert to the stable version for the past year and add this reference.

"In a similar way to how the government is formed from members from the 2 Houses of Parliament, members of the devolved legislatures nominate ministers from among themselves to comprise an executive, known as the devolved administrations..."

"Devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". United Kingdom Government. Retrieved April 17, 2013.

--RA (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine. There did seem to be agreement on the point. However, what is this nonsense about a "stable version"? The term is used here and all over the place. This is a wiki, so there is no such thing as a stable version, no matter how long a version has been in place. It seems to me that "stable version" is just used as an excuse to push a favoured version. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In a section entitled Devolved administrations, readers would expect The London Assembly to be referenced; unless it can be demonstrated that the London Assembly is not a devolved administration. Otherwise, Devolved national administrations (a phrase that is often used) should be the section title, if only to explain the London Assembly's absence. Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert it then, and continue the discussion here. I agree with what you say, but it's a minor issue, I think, especially if the point is clarified elsewhere in the article. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

UK govt. don't seem to share the same qualms. London isn't counted among the "devolved administrations" in their description of devolution and governance in the UK, linked above. The term "national administration" introduces ambiguity (deliberate?) and disagreement with with respect to its appropriateness. If in doubt, leave it out. --RA (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

When we are talking about power that is devolved from the UK government, it is reasonable to use "devolved administrations" only for those administrations that the UK government describes as the devolved administrations. It doesn't use that term of London so it doesn't fit here. Brocach (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention British isles here

An editor reverted this addition [12], which was in the etymology and terminology section, just after the para on the meaning of British. Given all of the ink spilled over this term, and the fact that it is used several times in the article, I think it's rather strange to not mention that (1) UK is part of the british isles and (2) this term is controversial - especial since it is used again and again in the article itself. 875 characters is not too much to ask, with links onwards to the more robust discussions of same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we should mention the British Isles at that point. The article is about the UK, and there's plenty of material about the British Isles here. Perhaps further explanation in the Geography section is merited, if it could be included without endlessly banging on about the naming controversy, i.e. not mentioning it at all, given that there's an entire article about it, and it is of little or no relevance to an article about the UK. I note that the disputed paragraph does not appear in the Republic of Ireland article, so if finally it goes into this article, then it should go in there as well, surely? The Roman Candle (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes; that para is in Geography of Ireland; I do agree whatever we cook up something similar should be put in RoI page. I just felt that in the section on terminology that explicitly talks about the meaning of the word British, we should mention British isles - I agree it's not worth lots of ink, but I could see it being worth just a mention. We could shorten it, to something like: "Great Britain and Ireland are part of the British Isles, a term which is controversial in Ireland." (and then just link to the BI page and the controversy page, no references needed). Would that be acceptable? Or, keep naming controversy in a footnote? I do agree it doesn't need a lot of prominence here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Republicanism in the United Kingdom

Some additional input is required on the discussion page of this article. There is currently a sentence that seems to claim that 54% of people wanted to abolish the monarchy in 2009. The poll in question is actually a survey of readers of the Guardian newspaper, rather than a formal opinion poll. Any thoughts about whether it is appropriate to include this would be appreciated. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitals

Why are Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast listed in the UK infobox? It should just be London (and without "UK and England") - it is THE capital city of the UK; the others are capitals of their respective constituent countries. David (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this edit introduced them. It's now been corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2013

The demographic of the UK for the 2001 census in the information box is wrong. the correct figues are in the section of demography 82.33.143.101 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. It looks correct to me. The info box is for all of UK (63M), and the text has England, Scotland, and Wales broken out seperately but it looks the if you add them up they come to the same number. Please clarify what exactly is wrong and what the fix is. ("Change X to Y" format, please). RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Per cent" and consistency

There are ten instances of "per cent" and four of "percent" on United Kingdom. If we are to employ one usage on this page for consistency, we should prefer the traditionally British English per cent. Inglok (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Burchfield, in Fowler's Modern English, says of per cent: "Always so written in British English, but usu. as percent in AmE." Inglok (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Oh, and my recent, comprehensive British English dictionary lists per cent with no mention of percent. Inglok (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. We have to pick one and, although both are used, per cent is more common in British English.--SabreBD (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer then. Would somebody like to do it? -- Alarics (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I did earlier but it was reverted. I'm going to change it back. Inglok (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, "percent" is much more common. It's probably something similar to "billion", where the theoretical UK usage and the practical UK usage are different Bluap (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that common British usage, based on the original Latin per centum, is the separated words per cent. The statement about 'theoretical' UK usage of billion etc. is entirely out of date. The UK agreed a convention in 1975 to officially recognize the previously US idea of a billion - this was a convention adopted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey, who presumably thought that the smaller numbers would make his balance of payments look less bad than they were. Therefore since 1975 in the UK we have accepted that the term billion is applied to 1 X 10^9, which had previously been called a billiard (a term not used much) and in place of the old billion which was 1 x 10^12.Moonraker55 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Moonraker55. It is not similar to billion at all. This is a red herring. There is no difference between theoretical and actual usage for billion in the UK. Per cent is far more common in newspapers and books written in British English. Every British dictionary and style guide lists per cent, not percent. Inglok (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My query would be about the claim that English is the official language. As with most oddities of our constitution the only 'official' languages in the UK are those that are recognized in specific areas and which have to be adopted alongside English in public announcements or sign-posting, such as Cymraeg in Wales. There has always been a presumption of the use of English since it replaced most of the earlier languages of the courts or governance, although Norman-French is still used in Parliament when announcement is made of signifying the Royal Assent to Bills making them Acts of Parliament and at the time of proroguing and dissolving Parliament. The United Kingdom is then, ironically, the only English speaking nation whose official language is not English, because we technically don't have one except by custom.Moonraker55 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Before 1707

The article refers to the early settlements of these islands and states: "By the end of the region's prehistoric period, the population is thought to have belonged, in the main, to a culture termed Insular Celtic, comprising Brythonic Britain and Gaelic Ireland.[46]" The reference refers to a book on the development of the Celtic cultures in these islands, which was the dominant idea for many generations. More recent work on tracking migration patterns through DNA analysis has indicated that the South-East and East of England was probably more likely to have been populated by peoples directly related to the groups that we later came to know as the Anglo-Saxons and it was their 'tribal groups' in the south-east which the Romans first met when crossing in the Julian and Claudian invasions. This analysis reflects some of the historical evidence that has for a long time been guessed at, and is forcing a reconsideration of various aspects of English history, although much less so, the histories of the rest of the UK. For example the late Roman Liticus Saxonicum Saxon Shore may now be reinterpreted as not so much a defence against marauding Anglo-Saxon invaders as the protection of that area already populated by them. The Roman histories themselves hint at the relationship and kinship between the Atrebates, Belgae and others with the Germanic tribes that were not merely the Germans across the Rhine but also those occupying the vast swathe of north-eastern Gaul that would now be described as Pas-de Calais, Belgium and surrounding territories. See: Stephen Oppenheim, 2006, The Origins of the British, Constable, London. DNA technologies are making a great many historians and geographers rethink the established histories, this is an example.Moonraker55 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is specifically Oppenheim's thesis. But it's not relevant to the sentence you quoted: "the population is thought to have belonged, in the main, to a culture termed Insular Celtic" (my emphasis). That's not about "DNA", that's about culture. The culture is one thing, genetic origins another and the two aren't the same by any means. The specific theory on the 4th/5th century Saxon Shore is a separate question again. It's relatively limited in time and geography compared to the broader statement that the region was "in the main" Insular celtic "by the end of the ... prehistoric period" i.e. pre-Roman Britain.DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Census 2011

Can we not now update many of the outdated figures from the 2001 Census to those of the 2011 Census, particularly demographics such as ethnic groups and religious groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.130.182 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2013

If the data is available from a reliable source, sure we can. But you need to identify specific text that needs to be changed in "change X to Y" format before using the {{edit semi-protected}} tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsure how to use that tag unfortunately, basically the entire religion section (6.2) needs updating to reflect the 2011 census figures found on the official government Office for National Statics website ( http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-religion.html#tab-Changing-picture-of-religious-affiliation-over-last-decade ) Mind I've realised this cites England & Wales as opposed to the whole UK similarly to the previous source for the 2001 census — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.184.89 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Are the Scotland figures now out? If not they only cover England and Wales.--SabreBD (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity and other such data has not yet been released for Scotland by the General Registrars Office for Scotland, so aside from population there is no other relevant data that can be updated for Scotland. Looks like it will be late Summer or October before we have access to it.Tmol42 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case we will have to wait.--SabreBD (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013

Please change

"Forms of Christianity have dominated religious life in what is now the United Kingdom for over 1,400 years.[315] 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,[316] while immigration and demographic change have contributed to the growth of other faiths, most notably Islam.[317] This has led some commentators to variously describe the UK as a multi-faith,[318] secularised,[319] or post-Christian society.[320] In the 2001 census 71.6% of all respondents indicated that they were Christians, with the next largest faiths (by number of adherents) being Islam (2.8%), Hinduism (1.0%), Sikhism (0.6%), Judaism (0.5%), Buddhism (0.3%) and all other religions (0.3%).[321] 15% of respondents stated that they had no religion, with a further 7% not stating a religious preference.[322] A Tearfund survey in 2007 showed only one in ten Britons actually attend church weekly.[323] The Church of England is the established church in England.[324] It retains a representation in the UK Parliament and the British monarch is its Supreme Governor.[325] In Scotland the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is recognised as the national church. It is not subject to state control, and the British monarch is an ordinary member, required to swear an oath to "maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government" upon his or her accession.[326][327] The (Anglican) Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920 and, as the (Anglican) Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1870 before the partition of Ireland, there is no established church in Northern Ireland.[328] Although there are no UK-wide data in the 2001 census on adherence to individual Christian denominations, it has been estimated that 62% of Christians are Anglican, 13.5% Catholic, 6% Presbyterian, 3.4% Methodist with small numbers of other Protestant denominations such as Open Brethren, and Orthodox churches."

to

"Despite falling numbers Christianity remains the largest religion in England and Wales in 2011. Muslims are the next biggest religious group and have grown in the last decade. Meanwhile the proportion of the population who reported they have no religion has now reached a quarter of the population.

In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population). The second largest religious group were Muslims with 2.7 million people (4.8 per cent of the population).

14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.

The religion question was the only voluntary question on the 2011 census and 7.2 per cent of people did not answer the question.

Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent). There were increases in the other main religious group categories, with the number of Muslims increasing the most (from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent).

In 2011, London was the most diverse region with the highest proportion of people identifying themselves as Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu and Jewish. The North East and North West had the highest proportion of Christians and Wales had the highest proportion of people reporting no religion.

Knowsley was the local authority with the highest proportion of people reporting to be Christians at 80.9 per cent and Tower Hamlets had the highest proportion of Muslims at 34.5 per cent (over 7 times the England and Wales figure). Norwich had the highest proportion of the population reporting no religion at 42.5 per cent."

Source: Office for National Statistics, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-religion.html

31.103.254.110 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the United Kingdom and the data you refer to from the 2011 census relates only to England and Wales. The 2011 data for Northern Ireland has been released but that for Scotland it still not available and will not be released until autumn 2013. The ONS will release UK wide data on religion shortly following the Scottish release. Whilst some of the statements in your proposed wording may still apply in any case to the UK as a whole we should wait until the overall picture regarding religeous observance emerges before makng the relevant changes.Tmol42 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: per above 786b6364 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Are ".uk" and ".gb" the only UK domain names?

The above is the question. I ask because the Northern Ireland article lists .ie, a domain name corresponding to the ISO code for Ireland, the sovereign country. Should ".ie" be added in in the UK infobox too? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No. .ie is the TLD for Ireland, which is a different country to the UK. The Irish TLD is used by some people and/or organisations in Northern Ireland, a part of the UK, because of the particular political situation there. The only national TLD used by the United Kingdom is .uk; .gb is reserved (because it is the ISO code for the country) but it is not used for internet domains. P M C 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Please replace this text in the Economy section 'The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing the nation's currency, the pound sterling.'

With

'The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing all notes and coins in the nation's currency, the pound sterling. This is approximately 7% of the total currency in circulation at any one time within the UK. The remaining 93% is issued by commercial banks as loans, by a process called fractional reserve banking.'

The present paragragh in the article is incorrect. The Bank of England only issues paper and coins, which is only 7% of the approx 2.2 trillion pounds in circulation at this time in the UK. The remainder (digital money) is created by commercial banks when they issue loans. This process is called fractional reserve banking. This article needs to be rectified in order to accurately reflect this fact.

Please see the following websites which explain the process

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/where-does-money-come-from

http://prosperityuk.com/how-is-money-created/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_supplies_around_the_world

109.153.4.146 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If our Currency article is correct (?), there appears to be two legitimate meanings to "currency". One is as you define it and the other is limited to notes and coins. I think the average reader is likely to assume the latter. Whilst I think your suggested change is, I'm sure, technically correct if one uses the former definition, my view is it results in too much detail for this generalist article. Presumably the UK's "fractional reserve banking" is no different to any other western economy - the proposed amendment will have readers scratching their heads as to why the UK's central bank is responsible for only 7% of the currency. Really, all that we need to convey here is who issues the notes and coins. If it's a point of ambiguity I would suggest going with "The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing the nation's notes and coins". DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems sensible without going into the ins-and-out of fractional-reserve banking. --RA (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I support DeCausa's suggestion. -- Alarics (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as there are no other comments I've implemented (slightly tweaked) as "The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing notes and coins in the nation's currency, the pound sterling." DeCausa (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

British coins are produced by the Royal Mint, rather than the Bank of England, are they not? P M C 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Connection/Connexion

Connexion is the British spelling of the word. Regardless of whether it's common or not. Go to the Oxford dictionary online, and type in connexion. On the left of the work it will have BR. English. This means it's the British spelling.

(WareMiekal (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Connection is nevertheless the more common spelling in UK English. --John (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand it may be more common, but it is not the British spelling. Also, if this page is written in British English, you can't pick and choose what spelling you pick because it's "more common" (WareMiekal (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Connection is British-English. Connexion is just a rarely used alternative spelling of the word. Better therefore to stick with the more common spelling and it appears the overwhelming majority of people think the same. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Connexion is an alternative British/UK English spelling of 'connection'. Usage of the word 'connexion' is rare compared to the widespread use of 'connection'. On the OED website, when one enters 'connexion', it shows the result for 'connection'. [ http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/connection?q=connexion ] Therefore 'connection' is the word to use. Jmccormac (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Connexion may once have been the British spelling, but it has been obsolete for at least the last 30 to 40 years, and was moribund for a long time before that. See, for example, Peters, Pam (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Or wouldſt thou have us retourne to all our older formes of rightful ſpellyng, where ſuche might verily be ſhewn to be free of colonial attaint? P M C 23:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This hardly needs to be added, given everyone else's responses, but I can't help but note two points that others haven't: 1) If the Oxford Dictionary says "BR", that does not mean that it's "the British spelling". That means that it's a spelling mainly used in the UK. There may be multiple British spellings, as in this case. And it happens in this case that the standard British spelling is also the standard spelling pretty much throughout the English-speaking world; 2) the words "more common" are in fact crucial. What we want is the preferred British spelling in standard registers. That means the most common British spelling in standard registers. WareMiekal seems to be under the bizarre impression that "the British spelling" means whatever spelling, if any, happens to be mainly restricted to Britain. This is false. garik (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are exceptions. The OED says "authorize", etc., but UK residents spell those words with an "ise" ending. TFD (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not this one. "Authorize", "organize", etc. If it's Greek-derived, then I go for "-ize". Bazza (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"connection ... (British also connexion)"[13]
Oxford lists the x spelling as secondary to ct. All arguments for Oxford spelling using x, and all arguments against using Oxford spelling to avoid the x spelling are moot.  —Sowlos  07:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems WareMiekal mistakenly assumed a British spelling to be the British spelling. WareMiekal hasn't posted in a couple days so I think this debate is over. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

I sincerely hope that I am not opening up old wounds or anything, but I have only now browsed through the archives to review some of the past discussions - of which there are many! There are a number that I would take serious issue with as historically or geographically inaccurate, but I am new here so will not simply rock boats. However, I shall mention that the discussion previously about the Coats of Arms are factually inaccurate, even to the titles! The United Kingdom does not in itself have a 'coat of arms' nor an Armorial Bearing, but HM The Queen does, which is what the caption against the arms actually states on the page. Her armorial bearing is used by government and other official institutions because they are acting, constitutionally, on behalf of Her Majesty, and the Arms are used solely in that context. The Armorial Bearing used by Her Majesty (and those so authorized to wear when acting on her behalf) in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, is that described as the Arms of the UK. The Arms of Her Majesty for use in Scotland are different, but they are not lesser Arms than the other, merely those used in a different geographical location by Her Majesty The Queen. When the next sovereign succeeds to the Throne they are perfectly entitled to make changes to the Arms, since it is their personal Armorial Bearing - the Arms have remained largely unaltered since the Accession of Queen Victoria, but each of her uncles, and her grandfather, great-great grandfather etc. each had different ones, reflecting the territories that they nominally ruled over, including during the Georgian period, the Kingdom of Hanover. I noticed that someone mentioned that Wales is included within the Arms used in England and Wales; that simply is not true and has been a bone of contention for many a long year. Whereas England, Scotland and Ireland are represented because these were the Kingdoms that were united, whereas Wales was never a Kingdom, but rather originally a group of smaller kingdoms and later a principality, that was conquered by a King of England and absorbed into the Kingdom of England in law.Moonraker55 (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The caption says "royal coat of arms." Since it is the coat of arms used by the UK I do not see that it is misleading. Technically of course, HM is the personification of the state. TFD (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The full achievement shown in the infobox at the top of the article is typically used only by the Palace, whereas the British Government generally uses the slightly lesser version without the helm, mantling and crest, as shown below here. This is also the form of the arms as used on British passports.

Coat of Arms as used by HMG

Might this version of the arms, being the version associated with the country's government, be better suited to the article? P M C 22:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

British Passports use Her Majesty's Royal Coat of Arms. I think this signifies that it is the standard Coat of Arms for the country, rather then Her Majesty's Governments Coat of Arms. Regards, Rob (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No - definitely the 'lesser arms' as above, with just the crown instead of the full helm etc:

P M C 06:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But the passport also shows the "ground" the animals are perched on, whereas the proposed coat of arms does not. Nothwithstanding that, I would go with the "lesser" version as proposed, and cite its use as [14] (bottom of the page). Bazza (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Coat of Arms on the passport is the same as the Governments Coats of Arms. Also see the one pound coin. Possible using just the shield might be best. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sovereign of the United Kingdom from a constitutional point of view is indivisible form that of the state. The government is subordinate, hence 'Her Majesty's Government'. The United Kingdom uses the arms of its monarch; the Queen, period. Please see: Arms of Dominion. The different versions, with minor inconsequential differences (which makes no difference heraldically speaking) is used, in accordance to their own preferences, by different agencies within the said government. The point being that heraldically and constitutionally the images are the SAME (shield, crown, supporters, motto), they belong to the Queen, the represent her and her governments/institutions. Minor differences in shield shapes and grassy compartments come from the modern concept of logos, which is not the same as heraldry. I repeat not the same as heraldry. The UK is not represented by a logo but by a heraldic achievement. The Queen's full and most updated heraldic rendition is the one used by the United Kingdom. To use a minor version such as the one preferred by HM's government or only the shield of arms, would be a downgrade of what the full depiction constitutes. This is unbecoming of a sovereign nation. Sodacan (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point Sodacan makes with regard to there only being one coat of arms, heraldically speaking, is of course valid. However, it also true that the same arms can be depicted in different ways and, when it comes to the arms most commonly displayed by the organs of the British state, the version almost invariably chosen is the lesser achievement as shown above. This can clearly be seen on any of HMG's websites, their publications, passports, in the arms displayed on podia during diplomatic conferences, etc. The only exception that I can bring to mind are the Courts of Justice, which seem to use the greater arms. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter which version of the arms this article uses, for the reasons Sodacan has given. Nevertheless, for what its worth and given that we have a choice of two very good images, I would suggest that as this is the article about the British state, we use the version of the arms most often used by that state here. The image showing the full achievement can be put to very good use on the articles about Elizabeth II and the British monarchy, where I think the lesser arms would be less suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Group Demographics?

I don't know how the British census works, but the article is still using demographics from 12 years ago. I assume 2 years after the last census the racial demography is probably going to be released soon, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.17.247 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

the UK wide 2011 census ethnic groups stats are not due to be published until the Autumn of 2013 as Scotland's census authority has not released then yet. Tmol42 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: UK is not a country it is a ...

46.7.165.103 posted this comment on 4 February 2013 (view all feedback).

UK is not a country it is a membership of nations. England has its own flag, Scotland has its own flag, Wales has its own flag .Each nation has own national team ie.Rugby ,Football extra in four years time scotlands citzens will be voting on staying within the union of Great Britain .One things for certain UK is not a country and would you please respect that fact Ireland is island in which only 6 counties that are part of united kingdom. Northern Ireland has over 400'000 nationalists who mainly only see themselfs as irish ,remaining citzens within the 6 counties of Ulster are Northern irish they to have own flag and see themselfs different nation to England ,Scotland,Wales but they are all members of the British union and the flag for such is Union Jack a membership not a country .Rep of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom & is not a member state .Please correct the above its no wonder so many Americans can't pin point own nation on a map, when wikipedi has the UK down as a country. Scotland is not England .One can test that fact just go tell a native scot that England is scotland and i be very surprized if they agree . Please correct the above UK is not a country .

Any thoughts?

Istuart0 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Belgium isn't a country because it has 2 parliaments (not assemblies but parliaments), neither is the USA. According to your thought process, America isn't a country because it has 50 states. So let's go on. According to you, Italy, Spain, Australia, Russia, Germany, Canada etc etc etc. none of these are countries!!

As we know, the UK is indeed usually referred to as a country. It's not a Wikipedia invention, and reflecting that fact does not imply that "England is scotland" or that "Rep of Ireland" is a "part of the United Kingdom". Nor does the page say either of those things explicitly at any point AFAIK. In fact, I'd argue that this page and other related ones for the most part currently describe and set out the complex arrangements and distinctions that apply between the UK, Britain and Ireland fairly well. There might be issues with emphasis sometimes but I've rarely seen outright errors stay for any length of time. N-HH talk/edits 12:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a nation state, but is considered a country in its own right. The difference between 'Nation' and 'Country' is slight and as such they have become interchangeable. Consider that 99% of the British population consider the United Kingdom as a country and so do the rest of the world, therefore why is it wrong to refer to the UK as being a country here on Wikipedia? In addition, there is much literature referring to the United Kingdom as a country. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

nb or note?

Not sure what 'nb' means, but I've noticed 'note' is used on many articles. Is there any preference? Personal, I think 'note' shows the reader what exactly the tag is, whereas 'nb' is a little confusing. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

NB essentially means 'note'. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I've never heard the term 'Nota bene' be used, thus had no idea what the tag was until I viewed it. I think 'note' is more appropriate, and understandable, but I wont change it without consensus. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nota Bene — translates as Note Well.
The phrase first appeared in writing circa 1721.
Often abbreviated as "NB", "N.B." or "n.b.", nota bene comes from the Latin roots notāre ("to note") and bene ("well"). It is in the singular imperative mood, instructing one individual to note well the matter at hand. In present-day English, it is used, particularly in legal papers, to draw the attention of the reader to a certain (side) aspect or detail of the subject on hand, translating it as "pay attention" or "take notice".
While "N.B." is often used in academic writing, "note" is a common substitute.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin abbreviations such as nb are commonly used in encyclopaedic and academic works for convenience.  —Sowlos  20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After I moved from the UK to the US, I noticed that a lot of Americans do not understand "NB", "ie" and "eg" Bluap (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have said that those are the three abbreviations that are most common and most commonly understood in the English language (even if people don't know exactly what they stand for, they know what they mean). Maybe that's a bit UK-centric of me, and there may indeed be a US-UK element to any confusion, but I wasn't aware that was the case and assumed that held good for all varieties of English. N-HH talk/edits 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not a big deal, I really just wondering for when editing other British English articles and trying to keep consistency. As a Brit, I personally didn't know what 'nb' meant and was confused when I first came across it, and 'note' is not exactly long winded. Also taking into account wikipedia policy that international recognised terms should be used, it may be advisable not to use it if it's a British thing. If it's as per consensus, I will change it, if not, then I will try to use 'nb' across British English articles. I'm currently working on some articles about historic states and including notes/nbs in the info-box to get rid of the long notes section at the bottom. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a British thing; it's just a bit formal. (It may be that the average British person is more likely to recognise it than the average US person, but that's not quite the same thing.) It certainly appears in US legal and academic writing, although I'd say it's becoming less common both sides of the Atlantic. garik (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My preference for Wikipedia is for "note". My reasons are two fold:

1. I am surprised how few (even educated) Americans know what it means. Whilst this article should be written in British English that doesn't mean we should not be courteous and avoid terms that are obscure to readers accustomed to other dialects.
2. NB (which should be capitalised as an abbreviation) means note well or take special note. Advising people to take "special" note (as opposed to just normal note) of innocuous facts such as what other countries drive on the other side of the road or also have uncodified constitutions looks to me as being OTT.

In any event, if NB is used, can it please be capitalised as an abbreviation?

--RA (✍) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord of The Rings is not a "Hollywood movie"

At "Cinema" it says: Many Hollywood movies have been based on British stories or characters, like Titanic, Lord of The Rings.. Lord of The Rings are written by an English writer and the movies are written directed and produced by British and New Zealand people and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.17 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that "Hollywood movie" in this context means the Hollywood style of movie (akin to Bollywood etc) as opposed to actually being made/commissioned/financed by a Hollywood studio. WaggersTALK 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a U.S. production (New Line Cinema). TFD (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain (disambiguation) merge proposal

I'm proposing merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to Britain. See Talk:Britain#Merger proposal. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth would anyone choose to do that?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See discussion. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

Given how rapidly the UK's demographics are changing, the 2001 ethnic survey on the table is quite severely out of date. Can someone please replace it with the 2011 census? Kapitulasjon (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I'm unhappy about the reference to the UK being "a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe." In one sense it's obviously true; the problem is that it mixes a geographical description with a political one. The state is in Europe, politically. It is located on islands which are, geographically, "off the coast" of the continent. The wording used in this article is being used on other disambiguation pages, where the scope for confusion is much more apparent. Suggesting that the state itself is (or can be seen as) in some way separated from Europe by a stretch of sea is, in my view, a particular political POV. I've changed the wording accordingly, but anticipate further discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the fundamental problem with identifying a political entity by reference to its geographic location. The two concepts are not entirely discrete after all, and a state occupies a space. I also don't see anything incorrect or even egregiously POV about suggesting the UK lies separate from continental Europe (although the emphasis on that point can be argued to lean towards a POV). Equally, if we're going to lead with describing the UK as being in a part of Europe, one could make a case that the UK is in "northern Europe" as much as it is "western Europe" when those terms are simply contrasted with southern and eastern Europe respectively. That said, and given that we're not talking about "right" or "wrong" descriptions as such, I equally don't see anything wrong with the change, not least because it offers a bit more detail. N-HH talk/edits 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The original statement was more accurate and correct. The UK is in both northern Europe and western Europe, it is both north and west from the centre of Europe. It's even located in the UN's Northern Europe region so to say its more politically correct is wrong. It also doesn't take into account the fact that the UK is located on islands, and it is debated as to whether islands are part of continents or not. It also explains that the UK is located on islands, and how far from Europe it is located. The whole idea is to give the reader a decent idea of where the state is located, the original statement made this far clearer. Regards, Rob (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - but the problem is less with the wording of this article, than with the argument that identical wording needs to be used on disambiguation pages like Britain - where the need is to disambiguate between meanings rather than wording definitions in a potentially ambiguous way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

... the problem is that it mixes a geographical description with a political one.

I must also disagree with this. All sovereign states are tied to geography. If this was not true, speaking of where states such as the UK or Czech Republic are located would be incomprehensible nonsense.

Rob, be careful about using the UN geoscheme in this case. The UN has clearly indicated it is for statistical convenience only and should not be considered to indicate political affiliation or the most proper geographic grouping for states. —Sowlos  10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've reverted Ghmyrtle's rewording. All opinions raised thus far seem to disagree with it for one reason or another. I—personally—am not against tweaking the wording if it bothers some, but it obviously needs more discussion first. —Sowlos 

You seem to be ignoring N-HH's comment...("I equally don't see anything wrong with the change, not least because it offers a bit more detail....)... but, anyway, obviously I agree that some locational description should be used. What I object to - and it is clearly a non-neutral POV - is the suggestion that in some way the UK is not part of Europe. It is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not suggesting that the UK is not part of Europe. I don't know why you think that. It's also not suggesting that it is part of Europe. Whether the UK is part of Europe is debatable, as islands are only part of continents by convention, and not by the actually definition of a continent. (being a continuous landmass) Also, north-western, western and northern Europe are huge regions. The north-western coast of continental Europe is a very specific location, with only two sovereign states located there.

I also don't understand what you mean by 'need is to disambiguate between meanings rather than wording definitions in a potentially ambiguous way.' How is the description used on this article inappropriate for use on disambiguation pages?

Regards, Rob (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You claim that "whether the UK is part of Europe is debatable". That illustrates precisely why I am concerned about this series of edits. It is not debatable at all. It's not part of continental Europe, but it is unquestionably, by all definitions and all reliable sources, part of Europe. The basic definition of the UK needs to make that clear. It needs to make clear that it is located on islands that are separated from continental Europe by a stretch of sea. But, the UK as a political entity - which is the only meaning the term has - is part of Europe, and its definition should be unequivocally precise about that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Its within Europe both politically and geographically and we should amend it to make that clear. Sounds like trying to win a 'get out of Europe' referendum by proxy ----Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The European Union and Europe are too completely different things. Europe is a geographic region and I personally think the UK is part Europe, but I don't think that is 'not debatable at all'. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need to make that clear? The fact that a political entity, the United Kingdom is part of a geographic entity, Europe is not important at all. The point is to make clear the location of the state, in relation to other geographic entities. Not to describe what geographic entity it is part of. I think that the current statement describes the location of the state much clearer then the proposed statement. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I also have no idea how Europe is a political entity. It's use in a political sense is obsolete, the only pan-European organisation I can think of is the Council of Europe. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a very limited definition of "political". Perhaps "socio-cultural" would be a better term. "Why does it need to make that clear?" - because we are writing an encyclopedia, and "making it clear", not confusing readers, is what we are here to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be upfront about this. I really don't think you're considering my points, but rather picking out little things that really don't matter. My key problems with your suggestion are:

• The UK is in north-west Europe, it is both north and west of the centre point of Europe, north-west Europe is a smaller region then west Europe and thus is more informative. So if we were to change the terminology, 'north-west Europe' would be more appropriate.
• The current terminology does not suggest that the UK is not part of Europe, if anything it suggests that it is by the use of the term 'continental Europe', if it wasn't part of Europe, you wouldn't say that it was off the coast of continental Europe, but instead that it was off the coast of Europe.
• The current terminology also is more informative overall, it explains that the UK is located on islands, and how far from continental Europe it is located. I don't see how the fact that the UK is part of Europe is even important. What is Europe? A region of Eurasia in which the only political entity operating solely across the region is the Council of Europe. How is this important? I agree that it's the best region to describe that it is inside of, however why is describing that it is inside a region any better then describing that it's next to a region?

The fact that I see no reason to describe the state as inside Europe, and the fact that describing it as being next to continental Europe is more specific without increasing the length of the lead by a significant amount, I don't want to see the lead changed. Apologies for my rudeness, Rob (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But you do want reference to it being a part of Europe removed from other pages. Europe is the recognised geographical and political region, something you can't really escape from. Continental Europe smacks of the famous "Europe Cut off" headline in the Daily Express. You have said elsewhere that the language should be the same on multiple articles, well then this one needs changing. Any modern geographical reference uses Europe, not 'off the coast of continental Europe' and that really does settle it, unless the motivation for this is a political dislike of Europe? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Both versions mix "a geographical description with a political one". If people decide they wish to first describe the UK's relation to Europe in wholly political terms, the sentence should describe the UK as a sovereign state within the European Union. Whether such a statement is more important in the lead than describing where the entity lies, is a matter for debate. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I inadvertently confused people by referring to a "political" definition of Europe. What I meant was the conventional socio-cultural definition of Europe, as shown on that map over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>

The UK is not "off the coast" using that definition. It is coloured white, within Europe. I agree with Snowded that the argument that the UK is not part of Europe is one that is pushed by a particular political party, so it needs to be treated with caution as a non-neutral POV. The problem, incidentally, is less with this article than with other articles, such as the disamb page for Britain, where Rob is seeking to confuse rather than clarify by insisting that a definition identical to the one in this article should be used for disambiguation purposes. The solution is either to refute that argument on that article's talk page, or to accept the validity of the argument by using a more precise definition in this article, along the lines of the wording I have suggested here: "The United Kingdom... is a sovereign state in western Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of the continent." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the current terminology does not suggest that the UK is off the coast of Europe. I don't why you think it. If anything, it suggests that it is part of Europe, as I explained above. I also am not insisting that on disambiguation pages a definition identical to that on articles should be used, I've said twice now that 'Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it.' This is in order to keep consistency and ensure the best description is used on all pages. As Sowlos has said, this discussion is taking on a circular nature, and it really isn't helping by completely ignoring my reasoning and suggesting that my opinion is somehow politically motivated. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Many good points have been made, but the discussion appears to be taking on a circular nature. If I may, I suggest we slow slow down, start over, and make sure we're all on the same page and arguing about the same things. Lets start with:

• The UK is a northwestern European state
• The UK is composed of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and several other associated islands
• The UK is physically located a short distance off the coast of continental Europe

1. Is there disagreement over any of the above three bullets?
2. Do we agree that all should be communicated in the lead's introductory sentences?
3. If 'yes', in what way do you see the current lead as effectively or ineffectively communicating the points?

 —Sowlos  17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that the fact that the UK is a European state should be communicated in the lead, even though it does already suggest this. Although I agree that Europe is the most predominate region that the UK is part of, I see no reason as to why we need to describe that it is located in a region, when instead we could describe what region it is located near as this is more informative in this case, as I have explained above. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that, for a global audience, it needs to be communicated, first of all, that the UK is in Europe - not "off the coast" of Europe. One definition of the UK is that it comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No more and no less - a point that is communicated in the full name of the state. An alternative phraseology is that it is located on the island of Great Britain, part of Ireland, and smaller neighbouring islands. However, it is confusing to state that it is "composed of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and several other associated islands", because those "other islands" (Anglesey, Shetland, etc.) are themselves part of either Great Britain in a political sense (that is, England, Scotland and Wales), or Northern Ireland.

Re "...physically located a short distance off the coast of continental Europe" - setting aside the argument that the islands are clearly part of the same geological landmass (Eurasia), I would much prefer a statement along the lines of "the UK is located on islands that are situated a short distance off the coast of continental Europe". But, as I said, I had no real problem with the wording of the opening sentence of this article before Rob started making wholesale edits across a large number of pages of which this was just one. I would prefer a wording that improves the current wording here, but if established consensus is against making changes to this article, then the focus should be on making sure that disambiguation pages such as Britain do disambiguate rather than, as it were, ambiguate.

Rob seems to think that changes to the wording at Britain should follow the agreed wording here. That is wrong - the purpose of the opening sentence of an article like this, to give an accessible overview, is quite different to the purpose of a disamb page like Britain where quite subtle variations in definition need to be distinguished in order to direct readers to the appropriate article. Discussions about Britain should take place on that article talk page, not here.Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you think it needs to be communicated that the UK is in Europe, you are simply repeating your self after I have already explained why I am against this.

Regarding ways of expanding on the current statement that it is 'situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe', I really don't think it needs to be changed as proposed suggestions don't give the reader any better idea of the location of the state. Although concise, the current description gives a very accurate description of the states location because the region 'off north-western coast of continental Europe' is not a very large and pretty much entirely compromises of the UK and Republic of Ireland.

Lastly, you talk about how 'quite subtle variations in definition need to be distinguished', and I completely agree, however I would say this applies to both disambiguation descriptions and lead descriptions as they both have to be concise and allow the term to be quickly distinguished. I think the description here is perfectly suitable for use on disambiguation pages, and is more appropriate then any others however if you disagree then we can have a separate discussion at Britain, effectively repeating this discussion, but taking into account factors that you may think are exclusive to disambiguation pages, however I would appreciate it if you would wait until consensus is reached here, as I believe the outcome will speed up the discussion there.

Regards, Rob (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, like I have said many times before, the current terminology does not say that the UK is located off the coast of Europe and actually hints that it is part of Europe by the fact that it compares the state with a region within Europe, when comparing it to Europe would be appropriate otherwise. Rob (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "You still haven't said why you think it needs to be communicated that the UK is in Europe" - because this is a global encyclopedia where these basic facts should be set out, and the continents are generally regarded as the clearest first stage in describing the global location of countries. Simply "hinting" that it is part of Europe is utterly inadequate. As I have said previously, I believe it is confusing and misleading to mix political (or socio-cultural) with physical geographical descriptions in a single sentence, in terms such as "...a state located off the coast...". But, if you were to abandon the idea of changing the disambiguation terms at Britain so as to use phrases that could confuse readers rather than clarify, this discussion could be concluded very quickly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for Ghmyrtle's wording, though still think that both versions mix political and physical definitions, and that's not in itself wrong in my view. (I also personally think that if the opening line stated that the UK was a sovereign state located within the Eurovision Song Contest, a good proportion of readers wouldn't notice there was anything amiss, but then perhaps I'm being a bit cynical this morning....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

'continents are generally regarded as the clearest first stage in describing the global location of countries', so we are going to go with whatever most common rather then distinguishing what is most appropriate? I hear this argument too many times on Wikipedia, what other Dictionaries/Encyclopaedias/Sources use to describe the location of this state is not necessarily most appropriate. What is used here, should be based on what we think best describes the location of the state by how understandable, accurate and concise it is, not by how common it is. Also I don't understand how 'Europe' is more socio-cultural, or political then 'continental Europe'. From what I can see, they are both geographic regions, and both are well known however the use of the term 'continental Europe' makes describing the location of the state more accurate and concise. I'm not sure what exactly you are inferring by 'if you were to abandon the idea of changing the disambiguation terms at Britain so as to use phrases that could confuse readers rather than clarify, this discussion could be concluded very quickly', but if you are not against changing the lead on this article as long as descriptions on disambiguation pages are not changed, then you are on the wrong talk page, and instead should debate whether the terms should be changed on disambiguation articles at Britain, however I'm pretty sure I would be arguing the exact same points, as most apply to both descriptions. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason as to why we need to describe that it is located in a region, when instead we could describe what region it is located near as this is more informative
— User:WheelerRob

I don't follow your logic. Describing where a thing is located is always more informative then describing what it's near to. Furthermore, communicating that the UK is in north-western Europe is no different than stating that Germany is "in western-central Europe", Ukraine "in Eastern Europe", or Russia "in northern Eurasia". The only motivation I can see behind wanting to break with convention is if you are of the opinion that the UK is not European, but simply a European neighbour, and therefore try to avoid wordings emphasising European-ness.

I believe it is confusing and misleading to mix political (or socio-cultural) with physical geographical descriptions in a single sentence, in terms such as "...a state located off the coast...".
— User:Ghmyrtle

I disagree that the two can be segregated. Firstly, the definition of Europe itself can be considered political. Secondly, the definition of a state is intrinsically tied to geography. After all, there can be no state without the land.
My personal position is: the UK should in some way be indicated to be European (all wordings so far seem to do this), it also should be indicated to be physically detached from the mainland, and "northwestern" is more accurate than "western" in the UK's case. —Sowlos 

The current terminology isn't more informative because it describes what region it is located near, however describing what region it is located near allows a shorter more informative description. As I have already said, the phrase "located off the north-western coast of continental Europe" narrows down the location of the state very precisely, and also makes clear it is detached from continental Europe but is also concise. Current proposed suggestions are either very concise but inaccurate such as "located in north-western Europe" or are very long-winded but don't acutually give the reader any better idea of the location of the state, such as "located in north-western Europe off the coast of continental Europe". Apologies for the confusion. I think maybe using "mainland Europe" instead of "continental Europe" (which could be mistaken as "the continent of Europe") makes clear that the UK is part of Europe. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at the wording in the articles on neighbouring states/countries would help bring clarity (from south-west to north-east so that the view is more than just London based):

• France officially the French Republic is a unitary semi-presidential republic in Western Europe
• Belgium, officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a federal monarchy in Western Europe.
• The Netherlands is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of twelve provinces in North-West Europe and three islands in the Caribbean.
• Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany is a federal parliamentary republic in western-central Europe.
• Denmark , officially the Kingdom of Denmark, is a sovereign state in Northern Europe, ...
• Norway, officially the Kingdom of Norway, is a Scandinavian unitary constitutional monarchy whose territory comprises the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula,...

Also the other similar European island nations (excluding those in the Mediterranean):

• Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state in Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland.
• Iceland is a Nordic island country marking the juncture between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

-- PBS (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the present wording would be improved by stating up front that the UK is part of Europe, not merely "situated off" the coast of Europe. In my view, Rob is wrong about this. -- Alarics (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the precise wording is off the coast of continental Europe, which is accurate, even if it can be taken as suggesting distance from Europe politically. As usual with this kind of thing, I'm not sure there's a need to read too much into what are ultimately equally valid alternatives, based simply on which one we happen to prefer. Ghmyrtle proposed a more comprehensive version with this edit, which includes both options. It might be slightly more ungainly overall, but it surely should keep everyone happy? N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made clear why I'm against any change to the current lead apart from changing continental Europe to mainland Europe to reduce confusion. I still see no reason why we need to show that the UK is part of Europe, Ghmyrtle has only justified his claim by the fact that other sources describe the state as being within Europe, and ignoring that the lead is suppose to provide a concise and accurate description of the location of the state. The entire lead should be concise, and the fact that the UK is located within Europe is irrelevant. Rob (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's a rather germane fact that the UK is part of Europe in a geopolitical sense? I'm not sure one WP editor's insistence that it somehow isn't overrides what serious real-world sources regularly choose to highlight as a defining characteristic. The fact that those others sources do exactly that strikes me as being better justification for our including it here than one person's bald assertion "I don't think it's relevant" is for excluding it. Indeed, per WP practice and guidelines, it's very much exactly the justification we need. N-HH talk/edits 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH. -- Alarics (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I must agree as well. Only one editor seems to be contesting the validity and/or relevance of defining the UK as European. It is clearly relevant (and encyclopaedic) to identify what region a state is part of.

Still, multiple editors have raised issues with the current and proposed intros. I would like to offer some potential compromise intros for consideration. Each places the UK in "northwestern" rather than simply western Europe and each retains mention of the UK's non-contiguous location.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in northwestern Europe, located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) from the mainland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a northwestern European sovereign state located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) from the mainland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in northwestern Europe, located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) off the coast of France.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a northwestern European sovereign state located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) off the coast of France.

 —Sowlos  08:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All those make sense to me, although I'd rather avoid the construction in options 2 and 4, which leaves us effectively with three adjectives in a row ahead of state. Beyond that, I'd prefer 1 I think, maybe amended to say "continental mainland" for uber-clarity. N-HH talk/edits 08:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any of those, simply because I think the over-precise measurement of distance is wholly inappropriate for an introductory sentence in an article like this. I reiterate - I don't have a big problem with the current wording in this article. It's not perfect, and I've suggested my preferred wording - "The United Kingdom... is a sovereign state in western Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of the continent" - but I find many of the other proposals, including those by User:Sowlos, worse than what is there now. What I have a bigger problem with is the insistence by one editor that, because a particular wording is used in this article, identical wording should be used on disambiguation pages. But, as far as I'm concerned, that discussion can take place elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm would prefer the terms 'continental Europe' and 'mainland Europe' rather then 'the mainland' or 'the Continent' as these are ambiguous. Also as Ghmyrtle says, the precision is not needed. I would suggest:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state located in north-west Europe. Located[Situated] off the coast of continental Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-east[ern part] of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

This gives a reasonably accurate description of the location of the state, with the requested inclusion that it's within Europe. (which I still disagree with but, life's too short) I also changed 'north-western' and 'north-eastern' to 'north-west' and 'north-east' to make the lead more consistent and flow better. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK (not perfect, but OK), so long as "the north-east of the island of Ireland" is changed to "the north-eastern part...". Stating that a place is "north-east of..." somewhere suggests it is outside that place. A clearer wording would be, as I suggested, "the north-eastern part of...". "North-west Europe" is fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point about the over-precision when it comes to miles, now you mention it, although I guess that could be tweaked out. I'd be broadly OK with Rob's suggestion too, subject to the "part" addition; although the double "located" and double "Europe" in quick succession aren't ideal. N-HH talk/edits 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The double occurrence of "located" is easily dealt with -- just delete the first one of them, as it is entirely redundant. "Located in north-west Europe" just means "in north-west Europe". -- Alarics (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See edit. Could also changed 'Located off the coast of' to 'Situated off the coast of'? Rob (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the double 'Europe' is necessary. Calling it 'the Mainland' or 'the Continent' is ambiguous. Rob (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with removing the first "located"; but prefer "located" to "situated" for the second occurrence. I don't think "the continent" is ambiguous given the piping, and it's less clunky than using the full term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference is 'mainland Europe' as I think it is most internationally used, and to some, 'continental Europe' or 'the continent' could be seen as meaning the whole of Europe, as the British Isles are part of the continent of Europe, thus suggesting that the UK is not part of Europe. I agaist 'the mainland' as this is completely ambiguous and its accuracy is debatable. Rob (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think 'includes... ...the north-east of the island of Ireland' could be misunderstood as meaning outside that place. Because it is preceded by 'includes... ...the', I don't think 'ern part of' is necessary. Something including the north-east of something else, would never mean something outside of that. My preference currently is:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-east of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Rob (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more a question of style and, perhaps, grammar. "The north-east of the island of Ireland" is not a construction in common use, and it is capable of being misunderstood. "The north-eastern part of the island of Ireland" is a more commonly used and preferable form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of Ireland, and many smaller islands. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact as we state "and many smaller islands" we don't even need to state that Great Britain is one as the end of that sentence should imply that Great Britain and Ireland are islands. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

...or, as we say "includes", we could simply remove the mention of the "other smaller islands": The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we should ignore the fact there are smaller islands around the United Kingdom apart from the two main islands. I am also concerned about the implications of that proposed change. That would do away with the current second sentence which starts "The country...". I see a sentence further in the introduction saying the United Kingdom is a country in its own right has already also been removed, not ideal wording at the time i accept but it at least made a clear statement of fact. The removal of country from the second sentence would result in additional misunderstanding by some people, and be yet another example of the UK being degraded and undermined on wikipedia, even though in this case it would be unintentional. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm currently with:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Great Britain (GB) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Rob (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)