Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Article Advocates Partisanship for Unionists

The article is has been clearly slanted towards edifying a Unionist point of view and neutral efforts have been removed:

see current https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=847502309&oldid=847502093

Versus

Neutral : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=740245108&oldid=740151872

Specifically

Bias:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK)[10] or Britain,[note 10] is a sovereign country in western Europe. Lying off the north-western coast of the European mainland, the UK includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands.[11] Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another sovereign state‍—‌the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to its east, the English Channel to its south and the Celtic Sea to its south-south-west, giving it the 12th-longest coastline in the world. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland. With an area of 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi), the UK is the 78th-largest sovereign state in the world. It is also the 21st-most populous country, with an estimated 65.5 million inhabitants in 2016.

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.[12][13] The monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since 1952, making her the longest-serving current head of state.[14] The UK's capital and largest city is London, a global city and financial centre with an urban area population of 10.3 million.[15] Other major urban areas in the UK include the conurbations centred on Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow and Liverpool. WHY IS THIS MENTIONED BEFORE CONSTITUENT COUNTRIES? OR WHY AT ALL? NO PARAGRAPH TO DENOTE IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUENT COUNTRIES The UK consists of four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[16] All but England have devolved administrations,[17] each with varying powers,[18][19] based in their capitals Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively. The nearby Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Bailiwick of Jersey are not part of the UK, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation.[20]

The creation of the UK resulted from the medieval conquest and subsequent annexation of Wales by the Kingdom of England, followed by the union between England and Scotland in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the union in 1801 of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[note 11] There are fourteen British Overseas Territories,[21] the remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in the 1920s, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land mass and was the largest empire in history. British influence can be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former colonies."

Neutral:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,[nb 8] is a sovereign state in Europe. Lying off the north-western coast of the European mainland, it includes the island of Great Britain (the name of which is also loosely applied to the whole country), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.[9] Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland.[nb 9] Apart from this land border, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to its east, the English Channel to its south and the Celtic Sea to its south-southwest, attributing to it having the 12th longest coastline in the world. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland. With an area of 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi), the UK is the 78th-largest sovereign state in the world and the 11th-largest in Europe. It is also the 21st-most populous country, with an estimated 65.1 million inhabitants.[10] Together, this makes it the fourth most densely populated country in the European Union.[nb 10][11]

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of governance.[12][13] Its capital and largest city is London, a global city and financial centre with an urban population of 10,310,000, the fourth-largest in Europe and second-largest in the European Union.[14] The current monarch—since 6 February 1952—is Queen Elizabeth II.

The UK consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.[15] The latter three have devolved administrations,[16] each with varying powers,[17][18] based in their capitals, Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast, respectively. The nearby Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Bailiwick of Jersey are not part of the United Kingdom, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation.[19]

The relationships among the countries of the United Kingdom have changed over time. Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1542. A treaty between England and Scotland resulted in 1707 in a unified Kingdom of Great Britain, which merged in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the country, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[nb 11] The UK has fourteen Overseas Territories.[20] These are the remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in the 1920s, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land mass and was the largest empire in history. British influence can be observed in the language, culture, and legal systems of many of its former colonies."

CAPS denote commentary of edits, not shouting. The first lines of final paragraph is quite condemning imho. *clearly slanted* as I said.

Dava4444 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion of talking about constituent countries before the cities has some merit, but I see no Unionist bias there, or in the "The creation of the UK resulted from..." paragraph. By the way, A WHOLE LINE OF BOLD CAPS IS SHOUTING, regardless of your explanation. Batternut (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Batternut. Setting aside the misleading section heading here, and the quite unnecessary and false accusations of bias, I think there is a strong case for mentioning the four UK countries in the lead before mentioning the cities outside London. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section, which is relevant but unfortunately doesn't provide much help on this point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree on the content. Since I note Batternut has the most edits, I elect you to make the changes (If you want me to do it I gladly will, just say). If someone wants to write a section on 'Metropolises of the UK' and move that line there.. I know I would be fine with that. have a good day! (I would include why I was thinking this way.. Partisanship .. but it would be totally off topic and so a big no-no) Dava4444 (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We got distracted by the unnecessary discussion below, and I would far prefer other editors to contribute to this substantive discussion before making a significant change to the lead of an important article. But if no-one objects, I'll make the change in a few days time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is un-controversial to reference the four countries that make up the United Kingdom in the lede, it would be controversial to call them 'constituent' -----Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

off topic side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IMHO, the UK should be described as a country (which it is) & its four major parts as constituent countries (which they are). BTW, we used to have an article called Constituent country, but someone unilaterally made it into a redirect. GoodDay (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC) It wasn't unilaterally made into a redirect, GoodDay. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituent country. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Jeez, its even worst then I thought. Deleted with no consensus for it, then re-created into a redirect :( GoodDay (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC) We went through a long process on this GoodDay and the references simply do not back you up. Persistence assertion of a position long after consensus has been reached, without presenting any new evidence is disruptive -----Snowded TALK 13:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Constituent could hardly be controversial seeing as that is what they are, arguing otherwise means arguing they aren't part of the UK, which is absurd. On the main point, I would think that stating the constituent parts of the UK first would make more sense than the cities, however when comparing to other articles Spains intro makes no mention of the highly autonomous Catalonia region or the Basque Country or Galicia in its lede, but does mention major cities. Germanys is the same in regards to stating cities but not states. So if it is the common manual of style then cities maybe should come first. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We established oh so long ago, after a lot of admin mediated effort, that the sources say country not constituent country. To say that the UK comprises four countries might we a way round this. At the moment Catalonia or the Basque-----Snowded ^TALK 14:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC) countries are not referenced as countries by their own government, or by the EU (which is the case in the UK)-----Snowded ^TALK 14:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It was just a casual remark in response to your statement. The issue here is about what comes first, which I addressed afterwards and will expand now: the way country is used in the UK is basically to refer to regions as none of the four countries of the UK are countries in the sense that the Republic of Ireland, USA, or Russia are. Or even in the sense that the federal states that compose Germany or the federal subjects and republics that compose Russia are and on that Russia also doesn't mention these in the lede though does mention cities. Just saying. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A country does not have to be a state - again we have been through this so many times -----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The words 'country' and 'state' are not clearly defined in English and are therefore open to different interpretations. As such they are a rich source of never ending discussions. The best we can do on WP is to decide by consensus which interpretation to use. Even when that is done the uncertainty continues because different articles will often arrive at a differing consensus. It does seem undisputed in UK WP articles that NIEWS are referred to as countries, and nothing else. How the UK is defined, or indeed places like Catalonia or 1945-1990 Estonia, is another matter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there.. but doesn't France's Republic also include French Guiana and New Caledonia?.. that's why the people of those countries are EU citizens along with French citizens. Dava4444 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

New caledonia is not part of the EU. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct, only French Guiana is. Also I don't see how whatever comes first can reflect an unionist bias. Such an absurd statement can cause one to assume it must come from an editor who has a nationalist bias. But whatever. Most country articles seem to state cities before regions if mentioning regions at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So we're down to 'region' and not country? man!.. y'know what I was happy when Batternut and Ghymyrtle were simply agreeing on the content itself..I seen a few articles now 'edited' in favor of unionist bias, and I just don't have endless time to argue with unionists, by changing a few simple lines that were agreed upon in the main talk.. we can get this on a more even keel. Dava4444 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The current wording stands unless and until there is a consensus to change it. It doesn't seem that is happening. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A quick check reveals that the America and China leads talk about regions first, the Russia lead mentions cities but ignores its regions, and India ignores both cities and regions. Batternut (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The US and China articles and entities are different beasts altogether. They simply state the various number and types of entities that compose them of which there are quite a few. They don't list each and every single one (would be overkill) and in comparison none of the UKs parts have the same status as any of those entities within China or the US. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on status is, at best opinion and irrelevant anyway - what matters is what the sources say and if we give it weight -----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland from the lead? per the USA, Canada, Russia etc articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever everyone else is happy with, I'm simply being a devil's advocate of sorts. At the end of the day it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to having E/W/S/NI removed, as you've suggested. Are they so shown, because there's just 4 of them? Noting that Canada has 13 & the USA has 50. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing. If you want to push a suggestion for adoption, propose it yourself rather than latch onto and misrepsent others comments please. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, for upsetting you. It wasn't my intention. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dava you're slanting the POV the other way. Believe it or not, about a third of people in the UK consider "British" to be their national identity (granted usually along side E/S/W/NI/I). This is according to the 2011 census. And it only drops to closer to a quarter in Scotland. The amount of people who feel no British identity at all is a minority in every one of the UK's countries (the census only asks about national identity, but see for example the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey).

I respect your concerns however, the reality is you have nationalists on every article pushing their own agenda, and by this I include British nationalists. But the same is true for England, Scotland, Wales, etc. I lost track of the number of times Saint Patrick's birthplace was removed from the lead of its article for no good reason, before it finally stuck. The trick they use is to revert your edit manually so you don't get a notification.

Anyway to give you an example, removing "country" from the lead. To me this can't be justified in any other way then pushing an anti-union agenda. The vast majority of sources refer to the UK as a "country" and using the niche and technical term "state" is definitely unjustified from a NPOV perspective. Equally I don't think the union of 1801 would be described as a "merge" of two states. I'd personally prefer "annexation", but can't fault "union" when that's what the act calls it. How is keeping to the words of the acts themselves not the most neutral way to address this?

I welcome you to edit the article to address problems you see. Just keep it to one change at a time and be willing to discuss your rational here, with sources and whatnot. Its tedious but that's the way it is. Also often times you will find you aren't reverted, but someone will try to find a middle ground, i.e. constructive editing. This is why it's important to make changes individually, otherwise you will probably be blanket reverted. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Regards,

Rob984 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just read the latest revision by Dava. In my view it does not flow well. the UK is better described as a sovereign state than a country. To call it a country is confusing when it consists of other countries. It also grates when compared to Ireland that in this article is called a sovereign state. I think this discussion is becoming over discussed and we cannot see the wood for the trees. Why not just leave it as the UK is a sovereign state made up of four countries (or three countries and a province)? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the change was merely how the text is broken into paragraphs - quite minimal really. Batternut (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't go suggesting we adopt 3 countries and a province considering the absurdity in it, especially when Irish nationalists here and outside of here can't understand or realise that when the term province is used for NI that it doesn't mean a province of Ireland such as Ulster, but a province of the UK. Its also debatable whether you could call some parts of the UK countries and others not. Wales is hardly a country in any sense of the word. Heck, when did it actually officially stop being part of England? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To answer my own question the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 which officially declared that England meant England, Wales and Berwick was only repealed for the area covering Wales in 1967, and even then, ignoring the Welsh assembly, the legal jurisdiction today is still England and Wales. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To call it a country is confusing when it consists of other countries.

This is not in any sense a valid argument. I could spin it the other way around and say "To call them countries is confusing when they are part of a country". This country is a state, and the 4 countries that are part of it are top-level subdivisions, would you also prefer "Scotland is a top-level subdivision of the United Kingdom"? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't.

As far as debating "is the UK a country?", "is Wales a country?", "is Northern Ireland a country?", see WP:NOTAFORUM. Your opinions have no weighting. The UK is most commonly described as a country comprising 4 countries. Unless you have evidence of the contrary, the article will likely remain as is, in accordance with WP:RELIABLESOURCE and WP:NPOV.

Rob984 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

My point was purely about style: 'it is a country made up of countries' or 'it is a country within a country' makes no difference to my point. To use the same word in a sentence sounds a little odd. This is compounded by the fact that the word 'country' relating to these islands refers to not insignificantly different things. Using the term 'sovereign state' for the UK removes much of the problem. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To use the same word in a sentence sounds a little odd.

This is not the case though? The United Kingdom is referred to by various different terms throughout the article, including, "Britain", "UK", "country", and "state". I don't see any instances of "'it is a country made up of countries" or similar.

As far as I'm aware, the debate is over the term used in the lead, in which the four countries are not mentioned.

Rob984 (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Given your experience of articles in this domain Mabuska it is difficult to interpret your comments on Wales as being anything other than deliberately provocative and offensive. You know perfectly well that Wales has an Assembly and it designated a country by the UK and the EU. You know perfectly well that wikipedia is not a place for you to advocate extreme unionist positions so please stop, or even strike, those comments,-----Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't be so overdramatic. Reality can hardly be an extreme position. Pretty sure Wales is not a country in the same meaning as the Republic of Ireland or Spain. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I've never had a problem with countries being contained within other countries, as it happens all the time with other things. For example, the Great Britain is an island, but Belle Isle is an island within Great Britain. We have Russian dolls that contain other Russian dolls. I just don't think there is a problem. Given that wikipedia is supposed to be an educational resource, as well as other things, why not just see this feature of the UK as being an area where some people can be educated about their assumptions?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being dramatic in any way, let alone overdramatic Mabuska but I am disappointed that an editor with as much experience of the issues on this subject as you had could be so gratuitously provocative - you know better-----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a version to consider for the opening of the third paragraph: "The UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". -- GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't some of you just accept that both the UK and its four parts are most commonly called "countries", and stop trying to find a solution to this real world conundrum? The neutral way to address this is how we have done so under #Etymology and terminology:

Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states.

Anybody who is confused by the terminology used in the lead can refer to this section.

Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ditto, per Rob984. It's fine as is. Move on. Batternut (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: stating reality is hardly provocative. Jeeze I wonder how you'd react if someone was actually being provocative with something that is provocative.

Away from the nonsense I'm having to respond to, I agree largely with @Rob984:'s suggestion but would remove the "to a lesser degree". Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You may want to try and dismiss it @Mabuska: but you stated "Wales is hardly a country in any sense of the word". That is not reality per the sources and you know full well its provocative - you made a mistake have the decency to acknowledge it -----Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of pointless bickering going on here. An WP:IBAN or possibly a WP:TBAN might help.... Batternut (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're not a veteran of various disputes in British and Irish articles Batternut, or you might understand the importance of avoiding provocative statements. A lot of effort has gone in to resolving what were long running controversies over terms such as 'country'. We've had editors banned for long periods of time for making provocative comments. Things have been relatively calm for some years now and we need to keep it that way. Mabuska and I have worked together to deal with vandalism and other matters on several occasions, s/he does know better. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Capital Cities Correction

There's a minor problem with the following lines; "The UK consists of four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All but England have devolved administrations, each with varying powers, based in their capitals Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively."

The term 'respectively' would usually imply that the capitals listed are in the same order as the countries they are capitals of, but this is not the case. The order of the text accidentally implied then that Cardiff is the capital of Scotland and Belfast is the capital of Wales. The reverse is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.147.203 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. I see no error. Batternut (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Error or not, and I lean towards an error, the sentence could be improved. What do you suggest editor with no name? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"The UK consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Their capitals are London, Belfast, Edinburgh, and Cardiff respectively. All but England have devolved administrations, each with varying powers, based in their capitals." Or something similar (with or without the Oxford commas). And sorted to alphabetical order. Bazza (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been bold; probably needs tweaking a little more. Bazza (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would further tweak by removing the "based in their capitals" bit, as somewhat superfluous - capitals tend to be the location of administrations, by default. Batternut (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Batternut. It's also not very relevant to this article where the devolved administrations are based. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No problems with that. You're welcome to be bold as well! Bazza (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"The pound sterling is the world's third-largest reserve currency (after the US dollar and the euro)"

Actually it's forth-largest, see Reserve currency#Global currency reserves.--Tommywood (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed so. Updated. Batternut (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

UK govt and Britain v UK

Batternut has reverted an edit that clarified what the source used claimed and as such he has put back false information. The UK govt source says: Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy. The article says: Usage is mixed, with some organisations including the BBC and British Government preferring to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain. Pretty clear to me that the article states something but the source says no such thing. The term I used, namely, 'in most cases', is not ideal, but that can be improved quite easily by an editor with a preference first to ponder, not to press. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British seems simple enough. Usage is mixed, with some organisations including the BBC and British Government preferring to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain also simple enough. Use UK and United Kingdom when referring to the United Kingdom. You may use Britain when referring to Great Britain. Don't, obviously, use Britain when referring to the UK or for that matter "UK" when referring to Great Britain. Where's the problem? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That in the real world "Britain" often refers to the UK, and a government style guide's mere preference is not absolute. Wikipedia can take it's own position on this, as long as it's formal and accurate, it's at our discretion. Rob984 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I omitted the earlier sentence because it seemed unnecessary. The wp article says, more fully: The term "Britain" is used both as a synonym for Great Britain, and as a synonym for the United Kingdom. Usage is mixed, with some organisations including the BBC and British Government preferring to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain. The UK govt source defines GB thus Refers only to England, Scotland and Wales excluding Northern Ireland. (No problem there with anyone I assume). It does not claim or imply any synonymous or shorthand usage - GB, quite simply, does not refer to the island of Ireland or the UK. The site then mentions 'Britain' (as quoted above), where the source definitely does strongly imply that UK and Britain are synonymous, because it gives examples where each term refers to the same sovereign state. It gives a preference, except for its stated exceptions, to use UK, as default, over Britain, but does not say Britain is wrong. The term 'prefer' does not necessarily mean one thing is right and another thing is wrong. The wp article, that I changed, clearly says the UK govt prefers UK over GB. This is not at all stated or implied by the source. The wp article is confusing the Britain-Great Britain debate with the Britain-UK debate, both of which are quite separate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The article says that Britain is used to mean either GB or UK, but some, including specifically the UK government, have reservations over its use. Where we now say "preferring to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain", we could change that to "preferring to avoid using Britain when meaning the UK". It's a bit negative, but such wording more closely mirrors the government view - perhaps they take precedence. Batternut (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have re-read the note and it comes across as odd, so Batternut's suggestion is worth taking up, perhaps with a bit of rewording. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018

Change height of Ben Nevis in Geography section from 1,343 metres to 1,345 metres as it has officially changed OS Source: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/news/2016/gb-officially-taller-ben-nevis.html DominoDay (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm not sure how widespread OS is, but I would think that something coming from the UK govt would be a better, more accepted source. The article states "official height" but that "officialness" should be heard from the UK govt as well. Please provide any additional sources you can find.  spintendo  07:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Ordnance Survery is a 100% government-owned company so any changes to "official" heights should be considered OK. MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The OS is the official source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added the reference to the article. Bazza (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Sovereign country"

Can someone explain why this article uses this particular phrase, and not "sovereign state"? As far as I can tell this isn't a concept that exists anywhere other than this page. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it relates to the all the complications that arise from having four countries within the UK and from the ambiguous definition of such words as country, nation and state. This has been debated endlessly here and elsewhere and calling the UK a sovereign country seems to be the consented compromise. Personally, I think calling it a sovereign state would be better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign state or Country, would be alright with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, there appears to have been extensive discussion in 2011, which resurfaced in October and March 2017. As for the "compromise", it appears to have been a compromise made with several highly opinionated users who had forced through their personal views without reference to WP:RS. Personally, I think WP:RS and the encyclopedia should come first. Plenty of sources can be found with describe the UK as a "unitary sovereign state". If certain users want to war over the insertion of the word "country" without reference to any sources, they should get a block. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_31#Sovereign_country_vs_sovereign_nation. The problem arises from the use of "country" in the US to refer to the federation, the United States. As a defined area of land this is a reasonable usage, but as a synonym for the federal government is open to misunderstanding. The assumption that "states" are part of a country then flows from this, and people then try to apply this recent model to the historic situation in the UK. The Queen's estate (to use a slightly antiquated term) is the UK: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..." (see List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II#The_British_Isles). As she is the Sovereign, this must therefore be a sovereign state. To reiterate: people make a nation (eg the Cherokee Nation), geography makes a country (eg the West country) and a government makes a state.

Now try to get agreement without triggering an edit war or several acres of discussion! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Should just say country.....other add on words causes confusion..... add qualifier word that implies the country was not sovereign at some point. --Moxy (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There will be an element of imprecision in whichever description is used, but in the lead, where an element of formality over casual usage is demanded, 'sovereign state' is the least ambiguous. 'Sovereign country' sounds daft. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we should use the generally accepted term, which is sovereign state. I recognize that the individual words sovereign, state and country are ambiguous, but the term sovereign state is not. TFD (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It ought to read "sovereign state", as it does in every article for every other country. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The UK is a principally described as a "country", so it can be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV not to use this term in the lead. Other articles don't have this problem. "sovereign state" meanwhile is a rather technical, niche phrase. It's also not at all true that every other country's article uses the term "sovereign state". Rob984 (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

TFD, there's absolutely no issue with "sovereign country" in regards to your concerns either. Rob984 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Rob984, you are comparing apples with pears so your reasoning is, IMO, flawed: a country and a sovereign country are entirely different concepts, that happen to share the 'c' word. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, sorry but preceding a noun with an adjective does not alter the entire concept of the noun. That's frankly absurd. Rob984 (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is required, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The main issue we need to remind ourselves about is to keep asking the question "What do reliable sources say about the UK?", and if they disagree, we just need to find a way of describing the situation. What I want to see is almost a table listing the different terms (if any) used, and a list of reliable sources that use each of those terms. We are not here to do original research.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well we all know the vast majority of sources, academic or otherwise, refer to the UK as a "country" unqualified. The question is whether we use the ambiguous unqualified term, qualify it with "sovereign", or use the technical niche phrase "sovereign state". Primarily for NPOV reasons, we've long went with the most common descriptor "country", and qualified it for clarity. Ultimately all of these terms/phrases are acceptable and used throughout the article. Rob984 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Per User:Rob984's comment above:

• "it can be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV not to use this term in the lead": How?
• "sovereign state" meanwhile is a rather technical, niche phrase": Do you have any evidence that the term "sovereign state" might not apply to the UK?
• "UK is a principally described as a "country"": Of course the UK is frequently referred to as a "country", because it is a country. The UK is also a sovereign state, and this more precise language is surely to be preferred to the vague language of "country", which in the UK is also applied to the Home Nations (which are not sovereign states).

@Ddstretch: Can you explain how your table would actually help in resolving this dispute? No one is arguing that the UK can't be described as a "country". "Country" can be shorthand for any recognized or unrecognized state, or indeed entities like Scotland or Greenland. I imagine there many more sources available which describe Denmark as a "country" rather than a "sovereign state" or "constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy", for instance—but to suggest on that basis that we should revise the lead for the Denmark article so that it reads "Denmark is a sovereign country in Europe etc" would offend the commonsense of any reasonable person. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit: —and I would favour an RfC if we can't resolve this quickly among ourselves. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You are so far the only person to raise NPOV—I have no idea what this is alluding to.

I think it's pretty obvious that omitting the most common descriptor from the lead sentence, of which many dislike for political reasons, is a NPOV issue. There's been numerous claims made on this talk page that the UK is "not a country" contrary the overwhelming use in reliable sources.

Do you have any evidence that the term "sovereign state" might not apply to the UK?

Straw man argument? I never claimed so. Of course the UK is a sovereign state. But this clearly isn't a term you hear in common speech, hence a niche term. See MOS:JARGON.

The UK is also a sovereign state, and this more precise language is surely to be preferred to the vague language of "country"...

When "country" is qualified by "sovereign", it's no less precise then "sovereign state". I'm not understanding where the benefit is here to using a niche phrase in favour of qualifying the most common descriptor.

Rob984 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Per my initial response, this entirely misses the point. "Sovereign state" is not a "niche phrase" (what do you actually mean by that?), and "country" is no more the "most common descriptor" for the UK than for any other country. "Country" is a generic shorthand for any distinct national/political entity, and so of course it will be used more frequently when referring to places than "sovereign state". I agree that some readers might be childish enough to believe that describing the UK as a "sovereign state" implies that it is not a country, but they are mistaken, and this certainly does not mean that the article is inconsistent with the NPOV policy. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Repeated calling "sovereign state" a "niche phrase" does not make it so. Indeed, let's just consider your last argument: "sovereign country" is apparently easily understood, but "sovereign state" is not. Since the adjective is common to both phrases you are actually implying that our readers have difficulty with the noun. Most schoolchildren (well at least on this side of the Atlantic) will have studied medieval history at school and one of the great themes of the period was "church versus state". If a 10 or 12 year old ought to be able to understand the word, how then are you regarding our readers? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I'm arguing. My point is why should we use a phrase nobody actually says when it is no more precise then qualifying the most common description? It's jargon because it's unnecessary, not undecipherable to a portion of our readers. Rob984 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To be pedantic: you can't say "nobody actually says" if some people do use it. For example people here use it. The problem is that some people appreciate the distinction between the vague "country" and the precise "state", others do not. Should we use the correct, precise technical term or a loose woolly phrase? BTW, see Church and state in medieval Europe for examples of the use of the word "state". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would wager that the phrase "sovereign state" means more to most people than the phrase "sovereign country". We don't translate encyclopedia entries into vernacular English because we anticipate that some readers might not immediately grasp the concepts. The handy thing about Wikipedia is that if some readers don't understand the term "sovereign state", they can click on the embedded link and read the respective article about it. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rob984, I said above: Rob984, you are comparing apples with pears so your reasoning is, IMO, flawed: a country and a sovereign country are entirely different concepts, that happen to share the 'c' word. You replied: Nope, sorry but preceding a noun with an adjective does not alter the entire concept of the noun. That's frankly absurd. In this context, 'sovereign country' is a compound noun, so your reasoning is once again flawed. To treat it otherwise is, quite frankly, astounding. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Martin, "Church and state" is referring to the state in a strictly political sense. Countries are more then just political constructs.

We don't translate encyclopedia entries into vernacular English because we anticipate that some readers might not immediately grasp the concepts.

Endymion, once again refuting an argument I never advanced to begin with. Nothing to say to that.

In this context, 'sovereign country' is a compound noun, so your reasoning is once again flawed.

No it isn't. Makes absolutely no difference. You're not refuting what I'm arguing at all. You're arguments against "country" fall apart entirely when you take into account the fact that it's qualified so that it's in no way ambiguous. The most common description is "country". Never has anyone asked me "what's the weather like in your sovereign state?" or similar.

Rob984 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The term "sovereign XYZ" must be referring to a political concept why else "sovereign"? The UK is the political unit, it's a Kingdom after all! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rob984: No, actually. Our comments were all perfectly reasonable responses to what you had written. I would suggest that if everyone is apparently "misinterpreting" your comments, it's on you to write more precisely, or otherwise stop obfuscating and respond to our comments properly. In the meanwhile, this discussion isn't going anywhere, so I would suggest we wait for further contributions from other users before this thread becomes too long to read/navigate. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Misinterpretation is not a problem (see my response to Martin at 16:09), but when you continue to try to refute a point after I've explicitly stated I'm not arguing said point, I can't see it as anything other then using a straw man strategy to avoid addressing my actual points. Can you not just address the my point that "country" is the most common descriptor and with qualification is not at all ambiguous? All you've said so far is that it's a compound noun. If you'd like to elaborate on how that is at all significant, please do. Rob984 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

The implication of what I wrote above is that nobody is misinterpreting your comments, and that the problem here is your deliberate obfuscation. On several occasions you've responded to 100-200 word comments by quoting a single line or clause with "that's not what I've said", and no further elaboration.

Several users have explained how "sovereign state" is more precise/the least ambiguous term, and have referred you to the fact that not a single other article uses this bizarre phraseology. You've spuriously claimed that "sovereign state" is a "niche" term/WP:JARGON, when it's very widely used and features in most articles for sovereign states. At least two users have responded to your claim that we should use the "most common descriptor"—I did in the 15:24 and 15.52 comments. It is no more the "most common descriptor" for the UK than any other country. The comment about vernacular English was in response to your claim that we should use language all readers will understand, which has no basis in policy. In this case, you're using an absurdly expansive interpretation of a style guideline in support of a particular phraseology you support for entirely different reasons; namely, because you believe that not describing the UK as a "country" is non-neutral, which it categorically isn't. If "sovereign state" is WP:JARGON, so is "sovereign" (and a lot else besides). This is my last comment for now. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: What I am saying is that we should not be committing the wikipedia-defined error of synthesis by describing it as anything other than what it is being described in the reliable sources, and then using various hand-waving arguments of varying persuasive force to combine that into what appears to be a technical term that appears nowhere else other than on wikipedia including in this article. Instead, just let's see what the UK is described as in the literature, and if there is just one term, use that, if there is more than one, find some way of describing that situation. If it is never described in any reliable sources as "sovereign state" or "sovereign country", then we should not be using either of those terms as it would be an instance of synthesis. If for any number of reasons, some people find the terms not consistent with, say, some idiosyncratic usage when referring to the USA, then it is up to them to educate themselves, but we can assist them by judicious use of footnotes. I really do think we need to reacquaint ourselves with key and core wikipedia principles in this matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Britain as a Short Name and Dead Link

I'd argue against the terminology of Britain as coinciding with the entire United Kingdom due to the usage being controversial for the Hiberno-English population. But I'm more concerned for the citation linking it on the very first sentence (note 10) which is dead. I'd say this needs a new reliable source or be considered for deletion the entirety of the usage of "Britain" as a short term for the UK. At the very least, it definitely needs some rewording. 2600:8805:3B01:BC30:8107:FDCF:1B26:5BFB (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If contravertial detail was excluded from Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much left. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I never said exclusion should be the only fix here.2600:8805:3B01:BC30:D532:423B:ADD0:DD8D (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

As of 14th September 2018 the UK ranks 14th in the world in terms of Human Development Index. Paragraph 4 states it is currently 16th. Please change with the following reference. Chalkywoods (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

Religion in the infobox

According to the other Wikipedia article, Religions in the United Kingdom, Sikhs make up 0.7% of the UK while Jewish people make up 0.4% of the population. However, under religions on the side of the United Kingdom page, it only shows Judaism and not Sikhism. I do not appreciate how Sikhism is just considered as a part of "other" when in reality there are much more Sikhs in the UK than Jews. Please edit this part and say that Sikhism is 0.7% of the UK rather than including it as a part of "other."

1.3% Hindu 0.7% Sikh 0.4% Jewish Arensaini (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

These figures should not be in the infobox anyway. They are far to detailed and no less important they are un-sourced. The survey data reference given is a primary source that is merely being quoted as such by The Independent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've made the change, as I agree in principle that if the infobox is going to list 0.4% Jewish people separately it should also note 0.7% Sikh rather than lumping them in with 'Other', but whether the reference provided suffices and/or whether the information should be there at all at this level of detail is a separate issue. Fish+Karate 13:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that the figures originate from this publication produced by the ONS the day before the article. They only refer to the religious makeup of England and Wales. The numbers for scotland are here and NI is here. This UN source seems to give the correct UK wide figures. Eckerslike (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Good find. I've used that UN data directly in the infobox, with a reference. Bazza (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

sug min kuk }} 83.68.249.39 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

83.68.249.39 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No request given. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is it not mentioned that it is a Commonwealth Realm?

I read the article but it was not mentioned to be a Commonwealth Realm which, as I think, it is. I think this a rather large omission. in my opinion it should be stated in the first part of the lead, like the way it is done in the articles about other realms. Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It says in the lead that the monarch is Elizabeth II and the UK is a member of the Commonwealth. By definition, that is what a commonwealth realm is. There is no reason to explain the obscure terminology of Commonwealth members in this article. TFD (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't arrive at this article directly but because I was reading about the Terminology of the British Isles. That still left me a little bit confused about the relationships between the UK, Great Britain, the overseas territories and the countries that share Elizabeth as their queen. Therefore I went to the main article about the UK but it didn't get much clearer there to the point that I couldn't find the relationship between the UK and other countries in the Commonwealth. I can understand how easy it is for someone who actually knows how it is to think that this would be clear to anyone. But it isn't.

I knew that there must be more to it because I know that there are so many countries that have the flag of the UK somewhere in their own flags. I did figure it out in the end but it would have been more helpful if the article about the UK would have at least mentioned the Commonwealth. I thank you for your explanation/clarification but I still think that the Commonwealth should be mentioned here. An encyclopedia is after all there to learn the things we don't know rather than to leave people guessing about the things they may be supposed to know but don't (I really didn't know that the Commonwealth was only about the throne). Mentioning the Commonwealth certainly wouldn't harm, neither would that be superfluous so I see no reason not to do so. Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is commonwealth realm mentioned in any of the other 15 realms-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is in all except for Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and the UK. Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is mentioned in this article, as is the fact that 15 other countries share the same monarchy. We could mention in the "Politcs" section that members of the Commonwealth that share the monarchy are sometimes referred to as Commonwealth realms. I don't know that other articles should guide us. I thibk you will find that one or a very small number of editors added the term to all those articles. TFD (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be enough, I guess, to change the sentence "The monarch is Queen Elizabeth II." into "As a Commonwealth realm, the monarch is Queen Elizabeth II." Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't this just underscore the fiction that somehow places like Australia and Canada and Tuvalu have their own Monarchy of Australia when the plain fact is that HM is Queen of the UK and by that reason alone she gains the title Queen of All the Other Places? I don't see why we have to dig up the British Empire and recreate it on Wikipedia in some sort of net-existence not reflected in the physical world. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I added a brief mention with is the most I think is required, if it is required at all.[1] It's not a fiction that other those monarchies are separate: it was decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and the Law Lords and the fiction of the indivisibilty of the Crown was laid to rest. Australia btw has its own succession law, so its monarch is not determined by who becomes sovereign of the UK, although because the succession rules are identical the same person would become monarch of both countries. Anyway, this is too tangential an issue for discussion in this article. TFD (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted as we've already got commonwealth realms in there, as a redirect from commonwealth countries. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking "Commonwealth countries" to the article "Commonwealth realm" is not very helpful to readers, since most Commonwealth states are not Commonwealth realms. Why not keep my edit and move the link? TFD (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I merely changed Commonwealth countries to Commonwealth realms, as she's not Queen & head of state of the other 37 members, which are Commonwealth republics. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nw you have changed "Commonwealth countries" to "Commonwealth realms." But you shouldn't insert jargon and expect readers to click on the link to understand what it means when it is just as easy to use understandable language. TFD (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to Commonwealth realms, because Commonwealth countries cover all 53 members. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think though that if we use jargon we should explain what it means. Perhaps I could have phrased my edit better. TFD (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be resolved :) GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realm article says that a CR shares Elizabeth II as its head of state. Elsewhere on wp the thing shared is the monarchy. Shouldn't we clarify that first? Which is it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's both. She's monarch & head of state of the UK, as well as the other 15 realms. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the point. In the CR article it implies the term relates to her personally based on her coronation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We had 'monarch' & 'head of state' in the intro at the realms article, up until a week ago. There's a discussion opened up about it, there. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the discussion belongs there. I prefer the term monarch because head of state because technically the Queen is the state and governors general as sometimes referred to as heads of state. TFD (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no dispute about the terms "monarch" or "sovereign", but there is about the Queen being head of state in any nation but the UK. This is because the head of state is seen as representing the nation, and Canadians, Australians, Bermudans and so on find it hard to see an English lady as being a credible representative. The UN, for example, explicitly names governors-general as the "chief of state", though noting HM in brackets.[2] Clearly the matter is problematical. --Pete (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A discussion at WP:POLITICS (Archie 17) was held months ago & the consensus (backed by sources) was overwhelming, that Elizabeth II was Australia's head of state as well as head of state of the United Kingdom & the rest of the commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not explaining myself or I am missing something, but what I mean is this - in the CR lead it says "In 1952, Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II's accession used the term Realms to describe the seven sovereign states of which she was queen", and in context it implies that this is where the term Commonwealth Realm comes from. If so it looks as though that could be a personal honour given to her, one that does not apply to the monarchy itself. I am not saying that is what I think, just that there is some ambiguity here that we should clarify. Similarly, there is a difference between the UK monarch becoming monarch of other countries by default and the other places choosing to have the UK monarch as their head of state, as is the case with Oz, as has been mentioned. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This really should be discussed at Commonwealth realm, as there's no dispute over who the UK's head of state is. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the term "realms" was meant to refer to Commonwealth realms, which were then referred to as dominions. But it is not relevant to this article. It is not a generally known or used term. TFD (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth II 'also' head of state of the 15 other Commonwealth realms?

In relation to the preceding discussion & perhaps related to an Rfc at Monarchy of Australia, there's a dispute over Elizabeth II being head of state of the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A real-world dispute, it must be mentioned. Contrast the head of state entries for the United Kingdom, and the various Commonwealth Realms (such as Australia, Antigua, Canada etc.) here: [3] The point has been a matter of public dispute for decades. At one point Canada's Governor General declared that she was the head of state, and other Governors-General in other realms have done the same. --Pete (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

But you're making edits that deny Elizabeth II as head of state in those other Commonwealth realms. You're not being neutral with your deletions & changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Am I saying that HM is not head of state in the Commonwealth Realms? No. I'm saying that she is monarch there. Are you seriously saying that if the Queen is head of state somewhere, she is not also the monarch? Is she the president of New Zealand, maybe? --Pete (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're continuing to delete & change that she's head of state of the 15 other Commonwealth realms. Please stop it. You can at least wait for others to give their input. This habit of yours of changing things & then inviting debate, is annoying. Just because you've gotten away with it at Monarchy of Australia, doesn't mean you should try the same thing at other articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're continuing to reject my attempts to state the matter in a phrasing that is both accurate and complies with WP:NPV.

1. HM is monarch and head of state of the UK.
2. HM is monarch of the various Commonwealth Realms. Whether she is head of state in each of those places is disputed, not least by the UN.

Why are you not even discussing my various attempts at alternative wording?:

Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch and head of state of the UK. (She is also the monarch of fifteen other independent countries. These sixteen countries are sometimes referred to as "Commonwealth realms".)

Could you respond to these points, please, instead of blindly reverting without discussion? --Pete (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you continue to 'delete' head of state, concerning the other realms? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See above. Could you comment on my proposed wording given above, please? --Pete (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

pls see page 106.--Moxy (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And there are sources saying the Governor-General is the head of state. The Commonwealth has itself listed the G-G as HoS from time to time. See [4] and [5], for example. The point is a matter of real world dispute. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble finding any academic publications that really goes into detail about this.... many clarify it but no one seems to be disputing it. You know of any academic writer's that I can look up to find this? --Moxy (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The uk monarch is head of state. When HM is not in a given realm her role as monarch is taken by a GG. Therefore, the GG is then head of state. What's the problem? When the queen is in a given country, she becomes head of state for the duration of the visit there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, Elizabeth II is head of state of the UK, as well as the 15 other Commonwealth realms. The governors general merely represent her. FWIW, a related discussion is occurring right now, at Monarchy of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The position of Australian Governor-General was created in 1901. As a matter of clarification, the position was not one of representing the monarch so much as representing the British Government, and when the Statute of Westminster came into force that role was then taken up by a High Commissioner. But in the century or so since Federation, the Governor-General was given many additional roles and powers by Parliament, ones that were not given to the monarch, but in his own right. Monarchical representation is now a minor part of the job. I imagine that this would be true for any Commonwealth Realm Governor-General - their parliament would give them powers and functions as a matter of simple convenience, that would not be given to the monarch. In 1953 when the Queen visited Australia, the then Prime Minister wished her to perform various functions such as opening Parliament and it was pointed out that she didn't actually possess the powers to do the things desired, as these had been given to the Governor-General and not the monarch. Hence the Royal Powers Act 1953, which allows the monarch when physically present in Australia to exercise the specific statutory functions of the Governor-General, in effect acting as the delegate of the Governor-General![6][7] --Pete (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Would love to see this analysis by any scholar......find this POV fascinating....lots of 2 + 2 =5 but still interesting.--Moxy (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is an arcane subject. David Smith has the benefit of providing his sources, and they are worth reading. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe you brought up Smith, his book & lectures at the 2016 rfc in WikiProject Politics, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So this is about only Australia? not the other Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I cannot speak for other realms. I've been following this subject for over twenty years in Australia, through the republic referendum and so on. I am unable to devote much time to following the situation in (say) Bermuda, or Antigua or other places. Doubtless there are scholars in those places who may be approached for their views. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So, were you removing 'head of state' in relation to the other Commonwealth realms, because of Australia? In other words, throwing out all 15 eggs, because you didn't want the Australian egg, but couldn't get rid of it without the others? GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article's wording talks about "… fifteen other independent countries." Do you think that it's appropriate to discuss constitutional arrangements in all of them individually? This is an article about the United Kingdom, and this wording is really just a minor tangent. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good got a name.....Smith. ..so what do others say about Smith Peter John Boyce (2008). The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-86287-700-9..--Moxy (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Views are divided on the point, that's all. There's no dispute that the Queen is monarch of the various Commonwealth Realms, and that she is head of state of the United Kingdom. I'd like to find accurate and non-contentious wording. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Does Smith's declaration that the governor-general is head of state, make it so? Interesting GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What part of "views are divided" do you not understand? Australian legislation does not define the title of head of state, nor has any court been asked the precise question, so of course it's a matter of opinion. On that point, the High Court - composed of five justices all of whom had been active in drafting the Constitution - gave an opinion that the Governor-General was the constitutional head of the Commonwealth.[8] I refuse to make any definitive claim, but I certainly encourage others to investigate this fascinating (if somewhat arcane) matter for themselves. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with removing 'head of state' from this article, concerning all 15 non-UK commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the United Kingdom, not the realms. Do you think we should examine tha various and different constitutional arrangements of each of the fifteen non-UK realms here? It is accurate and undisputed that the Queen is monarch of them all, but we really don't need to say more than that. If you want to push a particular barrow, why not choose a more appropriate article? Commonwealth realm, for example. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we completely delete mention of the 15 other Commonwealth realms entirely from this article? If so, I would support that. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording. I think it is interesting and educational for our readers to know that HM is also Queen of various other independent nations. But I don't think we need to go into nitpicking detail in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think we need to deny or hide that she's head of state of the 15 other Commonwealth realms, if we're going to mention them in this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Follow the logic. If we say that she's both monarch and head of state, surely that's redundant. Or are you admitting the possibility that she might not be both at once somewhere? --Pete (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, as you wish to show that Elizabeth II is the UK's head of state, but not head of state of the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No. That is not my intention. I reject your assertion. The monarch is explicitly defined as head of state in several of those realms. New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, for example. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is the head of state of each of the Commonwealth realms. Why are you trying to hide that? GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

My problem with that view, coming from you, is that it doesn't seem to be based on any particular research. Others commenting here have looked into the law and the sources, and I don't mind if people come to different informed conclusions. God knows, I might learn something from their learned discourse, and that's what Wikipedia is about. Your own views - your persistent views - don't seem to be based on anything other than your own personal feelings. If you were to emulate the examples of others here, who at least provide cites to reliable sources and give their reasoning, we would all be better informed.

"Head of state" is a term coined relatively recently, and for most countries, it is obvious who the head of state is. In the UK, it is the very British Queen Elizabeth II. She embodies the national spirit in a way that few others can do. The French, Germans, Americans and so on are all equally well served. There is no dispute about their head of state. But we in the old colonies are no longer British. For many, it grates to have an Englishwoman representing the nation. She is not one of us.

In Australia, we've had a fairly bitter debate over the head of state. A majority prefer it not be the Queen, but we can't come to any workable arrangement for removing her from our affairs. Oddly enough, in the republic referendum campaigns, it was the republicans arguing that the Queen was head of state so as to promote a desire for change, and the monarchists pushing the Governor-General - who is nowadays always an Australian - so as to hold fast to the status quo. So when you say that there is no question about the matter, GoodDay, you speak from a position of ignorance. There are certainly strongly held views for the Queen and the Governor-General as head of state, and it is not so much a matter as Wikipedia picking one or the other, but recognising the divided views. I get the feeling that you and perhaps some others here are just cheering on your chosen side in the debate, rather than accepting that there is a debate. Wikipedia isn't some sort of football match; we recognise diverse views, including the fact that there is a diversity.

The reason I prefer to use the term monarch when referring to the Queen's role and position in the Commonwealth realms is because there is no question about it. Every Australian, every republican Canadian, every Jamaican accepts that. But there are a diversity of views as to the head of state. Governors-General increasingly perform the functions of the monarch, and increasingly they do so in their own name and with their own statutory powers. "Monarch" or "sovereign" is a term that is accurate and doesn't offend anybody. "Head of state", not so much. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to stand back & let others chime in, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I smell an armchair lawyer interpreting both the law and other people's comments about the law. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Geez. I can't win with you. If I just provide the reference to an interesting paper, you may not read it. If I provide enough of a teaser to spark interest, suddenly I'm an armchair lawyer. For what it's worth, I think Sir David is being a little precious here, and "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth", while a powerful view from five framers of the Constitution, is not equivalent to "head of state", which was not a term in general use in 1907, and would not have carried the same meaning as it does today. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No offense intended. Proved interest is always welcome in my book. I just try and take a step back to see that the idea that the queen is not head of state of Australia or any other of the 15 countries is so left field as to be not even remotely feasible. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It might "be not even remotely feasible" in your mind, but as another Australian, I can assure you that the matter has been the subject of extensive debate over several decades in Australia. I have no solid view on the matter, and would be interested in what wiser minds have to say. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiser minds have answered with silence. There is an article, the Australian head of state dispute. It seems to be pointless semantics. Why is anyone surprised that ambiguity arises considering the term was coined in the 1960s to equate monarchs and presidents and not based in English law? TFD (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We should remember that this article is about the UK, not about its sovereign or her relationship with other states. If people are interested about the legal position of Queen Elizabeth in other countries then they can read the article about her. I don't think we should go beyond saying that she is sovereign of 15 other countries. TFD (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have it in the article that's she's also the UK's head of state? then it must be shown that she's also head of state of the other Commonwealth realms. Otherwise, don't mention the other Commonwealth realms, at all. There's no splitting hairs here, if 15 other CRs are included. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring's UN[9] red herring ("A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue: It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion."): As before stated (22:57, 2 March 2016, Who is Australia's Head of state? (Talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_17) , "the internal UN document is to guide the UN secretariat in protocol matters, and not determinative of the constitutional position of the monarch or any other person of a Commonwealth realm. As said by another commenter.... For the UN doc, the Queen is listed first, then GG underneath, fully consistent with all other commonwealth monarchies, including NZ where Queen is HoS in constitution." Qexigator (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign inconsistency

I know the term "sovereign country" has been agreed for a single use in the lede, but it's led to inconsistent usage which needs to be cleared up: "...sovereign country lying off ... shares a land border with another sovereign state‍ (what was the first?) ... the 78th-largest sovereign state in the world. The sovereign state (which?) is a constitutional monarchy...". It looks bad to muddle up definitions this way. If it's " sovereign country" once, it should be all the way through. Bazza (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dog's dinner but there are some who will edit war to enforce the description of the UK to be a "country". I strongly suspect this comes from an area of the world where 13 non-sovereign states united into a federation. ;-) The two terms refer to different things. A country is essentially an area ("Indian country", "the North country"). A state refers to a governing body (originally I believe from the "King's estate"). Unfortunately US practice is to refer to the federation as a country rather than a federation and thereby conflate the land and authority. The upshot is that there has long been an insistence that the UK has to be called a country to obtain consensus. Best WP:DROPIT and let sleeping dogs lie. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:DROPIT is the correct response to my comment as it doesn't appear to be covered by that essay. I'm not proposing any position unpopular with a number of other respondents, just pointing out that the article, as it stands, contains unhelpful inconsistencies in its introduction which should be dealt with for clarity. I may consider how to do this without treading on toes, but if anyone else has good ideas to discuss here, so much the better. (Your definitions of "country" and "state" are not ones held by all reliable sources [10], [11].) Bazza (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason why country isn't used for the UK? is because it's being used for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. I've tried (in the past) to have constituent country used for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, with country for the United Kingdom? but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be a settled WP convention for the use of "country". It is public knowledge that the United Kingdom is not a country (clarify below* 08:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)) and never has been: it is a state that, from 1800, has been constituted by treaty and acts of parliament, and as such is capable of making international treaties with other sovereign states such as République française, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Repubblica Italiana, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, and other member states of the United Nations, including the United States of America (U.S.A). An article in Wikipedia, (owned by Wikimedia Foundation located in one of the USA's constituent states), describes USA , not as a sovereign state but as "a country composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions." The article's template is headed "United States of America" and for "Government" writes "Federal presidential constitutional republic". The preamble to the constitution promulgated at the Federal Convention of 1787[12] reads "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Sometimes, the name of a sovereign state and of a territory are practcally the same, such as in Canada's article, that reads "Canada is a country located in the northern part of North America... a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II being the head of state." Then again, "Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. It is the largest country in Oceania.... " Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

+ The use of "country" for articles about sovererign states has resulted in editors resolving the politically sensitive use of "Ireland" by writing in one article "Ireland also known as the Republic of Ireland is a country in north-western Europe occupying 26 of 32 counties of the island of Ireland in the North Atlantic", while writing in another "Ireland is an island in the North Atlantic." Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

++ Clarify* UK not a country in the sense of "town and country" or physical geography, but is one of the "countries" listed in Countries in the International Organization for Standardization. Etymologically, In English the word has increasingly become associated with political divisions, so that one sense, associated with the indefinite article – "a country" – through misuse and subsequent conflation is now a synonym for state, or a former sovereign state, in the sense of sovereign territory or "district, native land". On the question of sovereignty in Great Britain, see the section Country#Sovereignty status. Qexigator (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So simple ...just follow the sources in the article already .......Opening should say The United Kingdom is a sovereign state consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. done!!!! --Moxy (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if links are consistent:

• England "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. It shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west."
• Northern Ireland "is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland, variously described as a country, province or region."
• Scotland "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern third of the island of Great Britain."
• Wales "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain.
• Great Britain is a large island in the North Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe."

Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah great, this topic is back again, and the exact same arguments which have already been discredited, if you simply took the time to read past discussions.The UK is a country by most sources, and by common knowledge. If you ask someone, what is the UK? You reckon they're going to say "a sovereign state"? No, they're going to say "it's a country". That's about as much as I have to say for now, considering the premise of your entire argument here is based on the UK not being commonly called "a country", which is preposterous. Rob984 (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to the OP, no, there is no issue what so ever with using various accurate terms to refer to what the UK is. Rob984 (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't my original question/statement. I have no trouble at all with using various terms, although reading the above it seems that some people have, ignoring my original observation: I'm not interested in that. I am interested in clarity and good writing, though, and (for example) stating the UK is a sovereign country then, a few words later, referring to it as a sovereign state is sloppy. I will work on this and other similar issues to ensure clarity as needed. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies. You aren't questioning what the UK is called in the article. You're just asking that whatever it's called in the article, that 'term' be used throughout the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Religion in United Kingdom

I would just like to point out that the figures for religious attitudes in the UK are outdated and incorrect. The recent figures from the Pew Research Center, which has high levels of factual reporting, puts the Christian population at 73 percent and the nones at 23 percent which was reported this year. Here are the references. . Joetlee99 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe 73%, but I guess it depends on the definition. How does Pew define a Christian? HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I could not find a concrete definition given, but that is not surprising due to the complex history of what one considers to be a Christian. For example, certain Christian groups label themselves as Christian, but other Christian groups would not describe them in that way. From the survey though, 73 percent labeled themselves as Christian, but this could include many different views. This reference could help. I can further investigate this issue if you need a concrete definition. This is what they state in the reference, " To measure religious identity, the Pew Research Center survey asks: “What is your present religion, if any? Are you Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else or nothing in particular?” The wording of this question may result in more respondents giving a religious affiliation (saying they are Christian or Muslim, for example) than previous surveys in some countries, particularly if those surveys used what researchers call a “two-step” approach to religious identification. For example, the European Social Survey (ESS) asks: “Do you consider yourself as belonging to any particular religion or denomination?” Only respondents who say “yes” to this first question are presented with a list of religions to choose from. The two-step approach tends to find smaller shares of people who say they are Christians (or belong to some other religious group) – and larger shares of people with no religion – than are found by surveys that use a one-step approach to religious identification, as Pew Research Center does. Both approaches are valid, though the results may differ." . Joetlee99 (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

UN report on austerity

Some fairly hard-hitting stuff here. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/16/uk-austerity-has-inflicted-great-misery-on-citizens-un-says Is there a good reason we shouldn't use this in the article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

2601:444:8480:2504:BD0B:1848:B02E:D832 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, i would like edit permission to let Wikipedia thrive with my knowledge P.S I’m not cocky boi

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Re recent changes to infobox

Just to say that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (my emphasis)--Ykraps (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see that point's been made. Sorry, not very quick at typing.--Ykraps (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Was revert due to the fact that they're not even mentioned in the article. Wonderful example of bloating and info box for no reason.--Moxy (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wish this point was more widely known among sometimes quite prolific editors (usually those who seem to be intent on cutting content, sometimes drastically). I find I often have to repeat myself in countering arguments that an article body need not contain any information which is found in the infobox. For editors of UK articles, please watch out for these spurious reasons for cutting content in article bodies.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Debt

Total UK government debt rose quickly from 44.4% of GDP in 2007 to 82.9% of GDP in 2011, then increased more slowly to 87.5% of GDP in 2015.[245][246]

This is factually incorrect. This is just the government's borrowing.

No. The last comment is incorrect. UK Government Debt did indeed increase from c 35% of GDP pre-crash to c 85% of GDP post-crash, at which level it has more or less stablised. Government Borrowing has fallen from c £145 billion per annum in 2010 (i.e. 10% of GDP) to c £60 billion per annum now (i.e. 3% of GDP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2017‎ (UTC)

External Debt: The comments re the UK's external debt are misleadingly one-sided and ignore the fact that the UK is also one of the world's largest creditors. Its "Net International Investment Position (the sum of its external borrowing and loans) is modestly negative and very much in the middle of the global rankings.

I agree with the above comments. This whole economic section seems determined to present a negative view of the UK economy. The UK's NET INVESTMENT POSITION (which is what really matters) is actually in credit. The fact that the country is both a major creditor and a major debtor reflects its large financial sector and is arguably a sign of strength rather than a sign of weakness. Also, whilst it is true that UK inequality has widened since the 1970s, the situation has stabilized since the late 1990s and has in fact improved since the 2008 crash. Thus, for almost a decade now, inequality in the UK has been narrowing, not widening as this article misleadingly suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2017‎ (UTC)

For example, it owed 5,010 bn in pensions with no assets [unfunded] as of 2010.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.83.28 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)

FYI, those in credit are the private institutions that are lending money, in most cases to businesses abroad and thus the UK taxpayer receives no benefit, those in debit are the Government, or more accurately, the UK taxpayer, who have seen their taxes thrown away on failed privatisations, and sweeteners to businesses, not to mention that wasted in an attempt at privatising the National Health Service by the back door, whilst the bottom 25% of the UK population attempt to get-by on the minimum wage, and the less fortunate, including the sick and disabled, get denied benefits because of the new 'Universal Credit' system and end up losing their homes and are forced to resort to sleeping in doorways - something that was almost unheard of in the UK ten years ago.

The Government debt (sic) is the result of Mrs Thatcher destroying three million jobs in the shipyards, mines, and steel industry in the 1980s, and replacing these well-paid income tax-paying jobs with low-paying non-income tax payable 'service industry' jobs at the minimum wage. Of course the country's in debt, all that tax revenue has been lost.

When Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 there were around 750,000 unemployed. By 1986 there were over three million. To reduce the increased-cost of paying benefits the government then changed the benefit laws to make claiming benefit harder, they also changed the method of counting the 'unemployed' to only count 'those out of work and claiming benefit', thus by denying benefits to as many people as possible, the unemployment figures appeared to go down. In addition, because of the introduction of the Right to Buy' many better-off people bought their council house, but what is not usually mentioned is that the government also forbad councils from building any new council houses, thus the numbers of council houses available to those on low incomes - the group for whom council housing was originally implemented for in the first place - fell. The result was a rise in homelessness.

If that was not bad enough, the new Universal Credit system no longer pays rent directly to the landlord of a claimant's accommodation as the benefit system did previously, instead it is paid into the claimant's account and he/she then has to pay the rent to the landlord themselves, leading many already receiving insufficient money to pay for food, to neglect to pay their rent, including mentally-handicapped and mentally ill people - who are supposedly receiving 'Care in the Community' (sic) - thus leading to rent arrears and private landlords who has previously been eager to accept benefit claimants, as their rent was guaranteed to get paid, no longer being willing to accept benefit claimants at all when renting out accommodating. Thus people claiming benefits can no longer find anywhere to live as now there are no council houses for the people on low incomes to rent, and neither are there any private ones.

A 'negative view' is therefore quite justified to anyone not living in cloud cuckoo land. After the post-war economic recovery of the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, the country is effectively bankrupt again, as can be plainly seen by anyone not wealthy enough not to have to use or access any of the Public Services, which amounts to around 95% of the rest of the UK population.

... one of the criteria for a diagnosis of insanity is the patient repeating an action over-and-over again and expecting different results. By this definition the UK electorate, who presumably would prefer things to get better for them rather than worse, qualify with little room for doubt. Perhaps they would just prefer to carry on as before voting the same people into power until sufficient people at the bottom become desperate as they did in Germany in 1933.

BTW, the UK Government has just agreed to pay £33 million of UK taxpayer's money to Eurotunnel - a private company - over a lawsuit that Eurotunnel filed because the government - made up mostly of lawyers - mishandled a ferry contract applicable after Brexit. That's £33 million that won't get spent on schools, roads, the NHS, the benefit system, the police, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

33 Million is probably a bargain as the expected fines that the government could have got had it gone to court would have been a lot more. Also Eurotunnel have made some agreement on what infrastructure changes the 33 million will be used to make life easier. But I dont really see what this has to do with article improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You are quite correct on the first part, but as for the latter, it's called 'context'.

.... and it doesn't say much for the Government lawyers who drew-up or agreed the contract in the first place. Still, it wasn't their money they were risking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC news item on the UN's Special Rapporteur on Poverty on the state of poverty in the UK stating the UK's social safety net has been "deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos" here; [13]

"The report cites independent experts saying that 14 million people in the UK - a fifth of the population - live in poverty, according to a new measure that takes into account costs such as housing and childcare".

"In 2017, 1.5 million people experienced destitution, meaning they had less than £10 a day after housing costs, or they had to go without at least two essentials such as shelter, food, heat, light, clothing or toiletries during a one-month period."

Should unitary be replaced by "devolved" in the infobox?

I've noticed that the infobox refers to the UK as a unitary state, which while true isn't as descriptive as using the "devolved" adjective instead, because this more precisely describes the UK's arrangement. I haven't seen any other country's infobox use the term "devolved", so it seems wise to consult others before making such a change. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 04:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Whilst some specific responsibilities of the unitary state have been devolved by that state to other authorities, it still remains at the top of the tree, as it were. That, as well as the guidelines for infoboxes on keeping them simple, suggests that the current wording is fine. Bazza (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because no sovereignty has been ceded to the devolved parts. They are creatures of the parliament of the unitary state, which retains the power to abolish them. They are more equivalent to municipalities. TFD (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks. While I favour more descriptive wording, I respect consensus and your perspectives. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Languagess in the infobox

Opinion welcome - It is not accurate to have English described as official and the others as recognised. The others fall into different catagories and cannot be treated as the same. As the infobox stands, Welsh has official status within a part of the UK so it should be in the same section as English. Cornish, an extinct language with a revived form practised by a negligible number of enthusiasts, is acknowledged as making a contribution to the culture of one UK region, in its extinct or revived form, making its entry into the infobox misleading. The other language fall somewhere between these two extremes. We should either recreate the infobox template parameters to be more specific, or stick only with English, the one UK-wide official language. If we take the second approach, "Welsh (in Wales)" should not be included because that would imply the languages have the same degree of official standing in Wales, which they do not have. All these other languages can be dealt with in the article itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We had those arguments years ago & what you have in the infobox is the result of those arguments. Do you really want to open up this can of worms again? PS: FWIW, I've been tuning into the UK House of Commons debates concerning Brexit. The only language I heard all the MPs using, was english. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I was not party to those discussions. Consensus can change with time. All I see is an infobox containing detail that is misleading. That is what happens when you try to squeeze too much detail into the infobox that shouldn't be there. The place that sort of detail is in the body of the article where any nuances and potential misconceptions can be handled properly. Reference to the EU charter in the infobox is what is opening that can of worms you speak of, not my suggested change. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay I agree with Roger. This should be changed. If misleading information is in the infobox, then it's got to be changed as Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, not a site for utter codswollop. In regards to your MPs thing, are any of the MPs native Welsh speakers? Nope. So if it isn't necessary, then just why? Good day, GoodDay. SamRathbone (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Any infobox exists in order to summarise key information that is set out in greater detail in the article - not to go into detail. The administrative arrangements of the UK and its nations are extremely complex, and for an infobox a certain amount of simplification is required. In this case, it is supplemented by a footnote that gives more specific information. Welsh is spoken occasionally in the UK Parliament, though it is unusual. There is no need to change the information now in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle explains, the footnote is adequate. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The UK govt states that: The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter that it recognises that Cornish meets the Charter’s definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter.

The infobox note states that: Under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Scots, Ulster Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic and Irish are officially recognised as regional or minority languages by the British Government for the purposes of the Charter.

Ummm..not quite the same thing. Should we re-phrase the infobox note or just leave mention of, and interpretation of, the charter, especially in regard to Cornish, to further down in the article? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Britain

The reason I flagged this is the use of the word "more". There are six names to consider:

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2. The United Kingdom
3. The UK
4. Great Britain
5. Britain
6. GB

Obviously (1) is a formal name, rarely used in conversation. Based purely on personal feeling I also suspect that (4) is less common. However I would want to see evidence before asserting that any one of the other four is more commonly that the others. No-one doubts that the names are used (albeit that 4-6 are technically incorrect), it is the assertion that one dominates that is problematic. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked the sources for Britain.

1. BBC - Britain (aka Great Britain) is made up of England, Scotland and Wales; the United Kingdom also includes Northern Ireland.
2. British Government - Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy.
3. Oxford Dictionaries - The island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. NightShadow (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In the EU charter for minority languages [14], the UK govt refers to mainland Britain and Northern Island. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The position of the British government is clear, they do not use Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom. I removed the note. The note says: "Usage is mixed", but sources are not given. NightShadow (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

All of this is discussed at the article on Terminology of the British Isles. I suggest that any further discussion starts with that article, rather than this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The note arised out of this argument over whether the use of "Britain" meaning UK is universal. NightShadow seems to be at the other end of the spectrum and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have added sources to cover this. -- Eckerslike (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There were no sources for positive usage, only negative (BBC and British Government). Then you added the sources for positive usage (Guardian and Telegraph), thank you. It is important to use "sometimes" because the use (Britain) is mixed. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NightShadow (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the long-standing version. You will need to find a source which positively claims that "Britain" is "sometimes" used interchangeably with "United Kingdom", rather than vaguely reference usage in the Telegraph and Guardian, which is a borderline WP:SYN. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted you because the long standing version includes Britain as a name in the lead. If there are reliable references that sometimes refer to the UK as Britain then it stands to reason that Britain is sometimes used. You cannot put your fingers in your ears and pretend that it not used at all. In fact, there is a reference for every major media outlet in the UK. -- Eckerslike (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Eckerslike cited many reliable sources. NightShadow (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You do not have any references which positively claim that "United Kingdom" and "Britain" are used interchangeably, as implied by the former phrasing. "Known as" is needlessly vague, so I have replaced it with an actual description of usage. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

On p9 here [15] it says In writing and speaking that is not especially formal or informal, the name ‘Britain’ is used. Is the source, an OU publication, strong enough? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: Given that it's the first example anyone has offered of exactly the kind of source I have been asking for, the snide question at the end was really rather unnecessary. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It was not meant to be snide. The book source did not appear to be particularly academic despite being an OU publication, which is why I made the comment. I can see how my post could be misinterpreted though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The GFA gives a reason why some outfits only use Britain for GB and not the UK. This is especially true of the UK govt. It would be interesting to see govt usage pre-GFA. The same political reason applies to the re-naming of the Lions some time ago. It raises the question of whether WP should follow politically inspired sources that are at odds with use by οἱ πολλοί. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The main table to the right is gerrymandering and unethical because:

1. You erroneously claim that religion is the ultimate hypernym of any possible personal opinion. You are wrong. The correct hypernym is "metaphysical worldview". Metaphysics as defined academically, and not strictly supernaturalism or spirituality which are hyponyms.
2. Then you merged the atheists with the irreligious, certainly because you are a nontheist yourself and you want to present a bigger number. You gerrymanderingly merged all non-theist opinions as irreligion, but you didn't merge all religions as religion, because you trapped us by erroneously using religion as the ultimate "personal opinion" and not the term metaphysical worldview. Atheism is to be certain that personhood as a quality isn't related to the overall control and creation of our universe. Irreligion might be a disinterest, or even atheism, but as an option. You didn't merge the Christians with the Muslims as religion, because you the statistician, are irreligious, and you want to present us a larger number, constituted of different opinions which shouldn't be individually respected, because that would had harmed the political oomph of irreligion.

• Don't merge the indifferent with the atheists

Why to merge what you wish and not something different? Write an essay elaborating on why metaphysical differentiations, against their common enemy religion, seem inferior through a politically motivated prism. You can merge cohorts below 2% for presentation economy. Now you have no excuse.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4107:f900:d0a:3e42:9db8:eba6 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a comment on the use made of United Nations statistics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Same comments for a problem which is not fixed aren't the problem. We should fix the problem, not those who report it when they find it.

I really can't see what you are going on about - and you should tone down the edit summaries. Wr report published statistics, if you think there is something wrong with them find a third party reliable source to support that view. Otherwise you're just wasting energy -----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lot's of people are atheists but belong to a religion. They're called clergy. TFD (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We cannot judge false self-report on a particular survey. This is a problem to be mentioned academically on the statistics page and on the opinion poll page. Of course we can mention false-report in a particular page if we have proof or even some links, but then we will judge their quality.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

in the uk we like to drink tea and fish and chips is are cultrall thing Tomynom (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this article links to the more detailed article British cuisine which goes into more detail about tea and chips. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Current U.K. Political Status Consensus Discussion

Hello, I wish to edit the article and add citations to well-known, respected sources questioning the UK’s current political status. The position of a number of both left and right publications suggest that there is a question mark over whether the U.K. is still a democracy following the stated refusal by many MP’s to implement the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum The referendum in question has primary legislation attached to it so this is a absolutely huge political story and worthy of addition. I do not plan to suggest that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but purely reflect the sources question mark on the country’s political status. In closing, this is not a political discussion about the validity of said referendum or the EU, just a discussion about whether the sources should be added that there is a on-going debate among the political class, the electorate and the 4th estate as to whether the U.K. is legally still a democracy. Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What does "legally a democracy" mean? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What are these “well-known, respected sources” you wish to cite? You say that you want “just a discussion about whether the sources should be added” without saying what these sources are. I don’t believe you will be able to cite a WP:RS seriously proposing that Britain is not a democracy based on the premise you put forward. Your edit to the article wrongly cites the Robert Saunders’ New Statesman article to support your contention that there is a “question mark” over whether the UK is “still” a democracy. That is not what Saunders is saying - his argument is making a different and more subtle point. Read it again. DeCausa (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Theresa May isn't technically PM anymore; she has officially resigned. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She's resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but not as PM. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is she being shown as acting leader of the party? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but while a new leader is being elected she continues as acting (or caretaker) leader. This is quite distinct from her role as Prime Minister which is a Royal appointment. When a new party leader emerges May will formally ask the Queen to relieve her of the office of PM and will offer advice as to whom the next PM should be. The requirement for a PM is that he should be able to command a majority in the House of Commons in order to effectively govern. In practice that is the leader of the largest party or else of a coalition. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Would've made more sense for her to resign as party leader upon the election of her successor. Oh well, I reckon it's a done differently in the UK, as compared to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's done differently in each political party: in this case the Conservative Party. How and when a party's leader is picked is nothing to do with the country's constitutional arrangements. Bazza (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a commentary on the whole acting party leader bit & how it would've been avoided, if May had stayed on until her successor was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Could be worse. In 1940 Churchill became PM and not party leader. Chamberlain stayed on as party leader for another 6 months. -- Eckerslike (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That of course was the war-time coalition (WWII in Europe was 1939-45). The Labour party would not accept Chamberlain as the leader and so (eventually) the King appointed Churchill as PM. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Are we a democracy? Let's vote on it! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Commonly referred to as England

I'm proposing that in some way the first sentence should mention that the United Kingdom is commonly referred to as "England". Although this is a partially inaccurate term, since England is a subdivision/country in the United Kingdom, many people still use this term to refer to the UK. Even in the media the UK is sometimes referred to as England, not because they are the same thing, but because England is the largest "country" in the UK and is the more well known than Scotland and Wales. Maybe the first sentence could say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Britain, and sometimes inaccurately referred to as England", or something like that. Bill Williams (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a weighting issue. I wouldn't say it was commonly used, although there are places where it would not be uncommon either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about worldwide, but in the US a very large number of people refer to the UK as "England". Most US children definitely think England is the same as the UK, and use it as if they are synonymous, but even many adults colloquially refer to the UK as "England". Bill Williams (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is mainly because England makes up most of the UK's area and 80% of its population. It is also administered directly by the UK parliament, so it isn't really as independent from the UK as Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Bill Williams (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is British and English, it really grates on me as very uneducated whenever people (mostly Americans) do that. It is inaccurate and I'd love to see what would happen if they tell a Scotsman or Northern Irishman they are English! We have to remember that Wikipedia represents a world view, not just one that may affirm an incorrect American assertion. So no, we should not put such an erroneous statement in the lead sentence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"I don't know about worldwide, but in the US" It is the same here in Greece. In the 19th century, a pro-British political party in Greece literally called itself the English Party (Αγγλικό Κóμμα, Anglico Comma) in contrast to its rivals, the pro-French French Party and the pro-Russian Russian Party. In a similar situation, most Greeks use Holland in reference to the Netherlands. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to people as uneducated who say England instead of the UK shows an ignorance of what led to this widespread usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it being “erroneous” is that relevant. If there are WP:RS that can evidence that a pars pro toto usage exists, then it should be covered in the article. It’s a question of producing the sources. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying the term is accurate, since England is obviously not the same is the UK, but it is very widely used. Most people do not even think that England is the entire UK, but it makes up 83% of the population and over 50% of the area, so it's by far the most well-known and influential. Another related example of a country misnomer is in the article on Holand, which says "Holland is a region and former province on the western coast of the Netherlands. The name Holland is also frequently used informally to refer to the whole of the country of the Netherlands." This is almost the same thing with England and the UK, except Holland makes up only 38% of the country's population and 34% of the area. Even though Holland is no where near most of the Netherland's area or population, it is still listen in Holland's article as a misnomer for the Netherlands. And Holland is a misnomer used far less than "England". I think a good way to describe "England" when referring to the UK is "The United Kingdom... sometimes inaccurately referred to as England," and that could go in the lead in some way or another. Bill Williams (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think adding this to the article in the first sentence would actually help educate people, since it would clear things up if you said "sometimes inaccurately referred to" and people would realize that England is not the same as the UK. Bill Williams (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on this in Terminology of the British Isles, I dont think it needs any more prominence then that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources saying that "England" is used as a synonym for the UK (rather than just some examples of RSs using it in that way) then I think it should be included. Also, if it can be reliably sourced as in common usage, then it should not be characterised as erroneous, but as an alternative term. The English language isn't regulated, and what were thought of as "incorrect" usages, become "correct" with time, whether we personally like it or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an idea—rather than speculate about whether there are sources which claim that "England" is a "synonym" for, or is interchangeable per "common usage" with, the "United Kingdom", perhaps you could find any relevant references and post them here. "England" is only used erroneously in reference to the United Kingdom, and for the record I would be completely opposed to inserting any clarificatory point into the lead. There is no precedent for doing this (see Netherlands). It would also be entirely unnecessary. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion here is that people are confusing colloquial shorthand with formal/common usage. People might casually refer to the Netherlands as "Holland", or might have referred to the former USSR as "Russia", but this differs from "common usage". Americans may colloquially refer to the UK as "England", but I doubt many US newspapers do this, for example. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the term is inaccurate, but you are incorrect in your assertion that it is not commonly used. People frequently referred to the Soviet Union as Russia, since it was the principle nation, and most people believe Holland is just a nickname for the Netherlands and use it as such. I know it sounds like I'm just doing original research, but I'll try to see if I can find articles on the usage of the term "England" later on. Currently I can't access most websites, so I'm not able to cite any sources at the moment. Bill Williams (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the UK as "Britain" is similarly inaccurate, since Britain does not include Northern Ireland. That misnomer is still included in the first sentence. Bill Williams (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, "Britain" can also refer to the United Kingdom as well as Great Britain. This usage is very common and is generally accepted, unlike "England" as shorthand for the UK which is generally regarded as erroneous. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Google search scholar and books for "Prime Minister of England" and you will find countless examples of England being used to refer to the UK by quality sources. That includes prime ministers after the creation of GB and the UK. Incidentally, the Dutch frequently call the UK England and their own country Holland. Colloquial or not, it matters not one jot: reliable secondary sources is what counts. There has been a strong shify in the last fifty or so years within the UK to stress the separate identity of its constituent countries and that shift has not been reflected to the same extent elsewhere. I think this might have something to do with the frustration expressed by some of our editors. Look at a photo of the crowd at Wembley in the 1966 final [16] -- Union flags everywhere and barely a glimpse of the Cross of St George. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Go and find some sources then, per my previous comment (WP:GHITS is not good enough). Let's see if you can demonstrate that "England" is a widely used and accepted synonym for/common usage term in reference to the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and should therefore record common/accepted usage, and not elevate mistaken or colloquial shorthand to a formal/accepted status it does not in fact have. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If the lead were to be changed to state that the UK is commonly referrred to as England (something I wouldn't support without several high quality sources), I would expect that the result would be a steady stream of corrective edits from outraged IPs in Scotland, Wales, NI and also England. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hair-pulling enough, that CNN personnel continue to use 'England' when mentioning the UK. Best we don't encourage such misinformation, on this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need quality sources to reference any such insertion in to the lead? Wouldn't that be covered by pedantry? Whether we like it or not, it happens. I think if we do insert some comment it should be carefully worded to hold off the hoards of tartan clad IPs that would be finger punching their mobile phones. Thank you GD for yet further confirmation of its use in the media. ...sometimes (instead of often or commonly) incorrectly referred to as England, especially by people outside the UK... is an idea? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought: how happy are people from the southern states of the US at being called "Yanks" or "Yankees"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a nickname used by some people, and we couldn't care less. Yankees refers to the North, and it's just a nickname, but it used to be slightly pejorative 150 years ago, if you only read things from then. That is a real nickname for the Northeastern US, but it isn't used to describe the US as a whole. Many people describe the UK as "England". They are incorrect, but many know that England is not the entire UK, they just use it because England is more well known and nicer to say. Bill Williams (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: I'll re-post part of my previous comment, hope this helps: Let's see if you can demonstrate that "England" is a widely used and accepted synonym for/common usage term in reference to the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and should therefore record common/accepted usage, and not elevate mistaken or colloquial shorthand to a formal/accepted status it does not in fact have. (Interesting though that we've gone from "follow the references" to "we don't need references", how extraordinary)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Britain, or sometimes incorrectly referred to as England, especially by people outside the UK, is a sovereign country located off the north-western coast of the European mainland.", is clearly a massive improvement, so thank you for that. I will refrain from commenting any further for the time being, and hope that commonsense prevails here. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Notability of Clarks shoes

I see there is a picture of a pair of Clarks shoes in the article for the United Kingdom. Can anyone explain to me why this image is important enough to represent Britain to the world, or has it just been placed there for marketing purposes? Clarks are not mentioned in the text of the article.Regularuk (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to assume good faith, Clarks have been making shoes in the UK since 1825 and the image is just an example to show what has been an import industry sector for a very long time by using one from a long established company. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthem subtitles

At 0:35 you can see timing along with the anthem text in the subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.137.21 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)