Talk:United Kingdom (disambiguation)

Nonsense

Removed a nonsense entry 'or the United Kingdom of Great Britain'. No such entity exists, or ever existed. The phrase itself is akin to other poor phrases like; 'a pair of scissor', 'a pair of jean', -- Joe Hepperle July 6, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.221.143 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct! There was a Kingdom of Great Britain but nevr a UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain. There can be no UK without an Irish dimension.Christopedia (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom of England

Sources: 'The Anglo-Saxon State: Chapter 2' and http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandKings.htm.
Rob984 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source, as it continues to list monarchs after 1707. Those monarchs are British, not just English. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will just place these here for easier reference:
The Anglo-Saxon State, James Campbell
Our Shadowed Present: Modernism, Postmodernism, and History, J. C. D. Clark
Wind, Water, Work: Ancient And Medieval Milling Technology, Adam Lucas
Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Sarah Grey Thomason, Terrence Kaufman
Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, F. N. Forman
Gender and Power in Britain, 1640-1990, Susan Kingsley Kent
Rob984 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom this is clearly an historians way of expressing that the Kingdom was now united. Not that it was called or referred to in any nomenclature as a "United Kingdom" as it indeed never was. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is a "United Kingdom"? Surely the same could be said for any of the listed "United Kingdom"s, other than the United Kingdom (and UK of GB & I) itself? Frankly, they are all partial title matches with no demonstrated use of "United Kingdom" unqualified, other than the United Kingdom and United Kingdom (album). Removal all the partial title matches, or don't. If you remove them all then the page will need to be deleted, as a hatnote at United Kingdom would be sufficient to cover one alternative use. Rob984 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Sources: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/thanksgiving-and-lament/ and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/7327029.stm.
Rob984 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source, as it includes English monarchs (i.e pre-1707). GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated revision to incorrect usage of United Kingdom re: Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain etc

These are not United Kingdoms, they are kingdoms that are united.

As subtle as the difference is, one would hope that Wikipedia would help to clarify and not to confuse.

The term United Kingdom may be widely misused to refer to various British Isles kingdoms, as the contemporary United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland evolved directly from them. However, referring to any nation prior to the 1800 Acts of Union as a United Kingdom is incorrect and confusing.

The citations by Rob984 are either examples of possible misuse ('United Kingdom of England') or actual misuse ('United Kingdom of Great Britain'). It is poor practice to use obviously erroneous sources as citations, and I contend that the source cited for United Kingdom of England does not support Rob984's reasoning at all.

Where the term United does not belong to the title of a state, the sentence should be restructure to avoid incorrect association of the term. The easiest way to do this would be it use quotation marks, italicise, or de-capitalise the word 'United', or else remove it entirely - website users would not have reached this page if they were not already looking for clarity.

Don't be a revision nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is a United Kingdom? I have not seen a single source, reliable or otherwise, defining what a United Kingdom is. You are not the first editors to claim there is some definition of a United Kingdom. I'm unsure how the United Kingdom is more of a United Kingdom then the English kingdom.

2. It doesn't even matter. What's right and wrong is irrelevant here. We are here to disambiguate a term, not inform the reader on the correct use of a term.

3. You can't de-capitalise the word 'United'. It's the start of the sentence.

Rob984 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have never claimed that there is a definition of a United Kingdom. The point is that some kingdoms, e.g. the Kingdom of England, were never titled/styled as a United Kingdom, whereas others, e.g. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, were. That is the crucial distinction. I do not contend that the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Great Britain belong on this disambiguation page as it is a common mistake to refer to them collectively as the UK.

2. Are you serious? This is a quasi-academic website purporting to accurately inform, and you're telling me correctness doesn't matter? It does not disambiguate to incorrectly style historical entities.

3. Actually it isn't necessarily the start of a sentence, as it follows a colon and is presented in a list. Technically if it is supposed to be a full sentence in it's own right, i.e. in a list of whole sentences, each line should also have a full-stop.

4. What is the justification for including the term United, apart from the evidence you have already provided of other writers' error? Is it your intention to include every nation ever referred to in any literature ever as a 'united kingdom'? What about Spain?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk)

I agree entirely with your crucial distinction. The United Kingdom is clearly titled the United Kingdom. There is no evidence the Kingdom of England was titled the United Kingdom. Neither of those points are at all relevant here.

Please see WP:DAB. You don't see to understand the purpose of a disambiguation page. Believe it or not, it only has one purpose: to disambiguate the term. All meanings should be included. It is not intended to inform the reader of the correctness of the usage of any included terms.

...evidence you have already provided of other writers' error...

That is your interpretation of the sources. Your interpretation has no standing here. See WP:SYNTHESIS.

Stating that Spain is a united kingdom is slightly different to referring to the English state as 'the United Kingdom of England'. There are multiple other sources too:

Our Shadowed Present: Modernism, Postmodernism, and History, J. C. D. Clark

Wind, Water, Work: Ancient And Medieval Milling Technology, Adam Lucas

A Dictionary of British History, John Cannon

Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Sarah Grey Thomason, Terrence Kaufman

Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, F. N. Forman

Gender and Power in Britain, 1640-1990, Susan Kingsley Kent

Rob984 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! References to the united kingdom of England (your various sources - note lack of capitalisation; did you read them or just google?) and the united kingdom of Spain (my source - incidentally a page on a website that you already cited) are not different in the slightest! Thank you for eroding your own position!

As you have so clearly put it, the purpose of this page is to disambiguate. None of these articles is ambiguous - the term 'united kingdom' is not capitalised and therefore is clearly being used to describe the socio-political allegiance/relations a region i.e. England, and not to make direct reference to the state entity of the Kingdom of England. If this had been intended, the K of Kingdom would have been capitalised in those sources. This is not my interpretation, this is plain English.

Your capitalisation of the word 'United' where it immediately precedes the proper noun titles of various state entities is ambiguous, and has been justifiably challenged a number of times. Wikipedia users find this confusing, some have said as much, and they are repeatedly overruled by you, yet you have made no effort to justify your own use of "United".

With all due respect, your superior attitude is repugnant. You have personally failed to acknowledge the significance of a distinction between a properly titled state called the United Kingdom and a region described as a united kingdom. It would disambiguate far better if this page acknowledged the difference between things that are "United Kingdoms" and things that are called "united kingdoms", as it seems to have acknowledge (for whatever unknown reason??) that some are in Western Europe and others are in Northern Europe or elsewhere. How can this be a more worthy distinction?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting way too much emphasis on the capitalisation. The capitalisation is irrelevant. Each entry on the page begins with a capital letter. Each entry on every disambiguation page begins with a capital letter. It implies nothing.

If this had been intended, the K of Kingdom would have been capitalised in those sources. This is not my interpretation, this is plain English.

Again, I will remind you that your interpretation of sources holds no standing here.

My use of capitals was completely irrelevant to my point. I will repeat my point, which you have completely ignored. There is a difference between describing a kingdom as 'a united kingdom of England', and 'the united kingdom of England'. The former is simply using 'united' as an adjective to describe the English state. The latter is stating that the English state is 'the united kingdom of England'. This is 'plain English'.

You correctly point out, most sources I provided describe England as the 'united kingdom of England', not the 'united Kingdom of England'. I would not object to de-capitalising the 'K'.

Rob984 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please indent your comments using colons (:::...), and sign using four tides at the end of your comment (~~~~). Rob984 (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify my objections.

1. There was never such a thing as the United Kingdom of England, etc. There are no articles on Wikipedia with this, or respective, title. Disambiguation pages are intended to distinguish between articles on Wikipedia, not the use of a term in language.

2. There is no need to describe kingdoms that are not called or known as United Kingdoms, as united kingdoms for the purpose of disambiguation. Doing so does not reduce ambiguity, it increases it. Your unwillingness to include the united kingdom of Spain shows that you understand this, but you have not offered an adequate explanation why you would preferencially allow the use of united kingdom of England over united kingdom of Spain.

Note: you have repeatedly told me that my interpretation of sources holds no standing, yet seem to believe that your own interpretation, and distinction, between identical uses of a phrase does hold standing. I am curious as to how you justify that view.

3. Since Wikipedia prohibits beginning new list lines with a/an/the in disambiguation, it is appropriate to present sentences/fragments in a way that is not ambiguous. The use of the adjective 'united' as a prefix to a kingdom that is not known as or called a United Kingdom, on a page that is intended to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles about the various uses of the term "united kingdom" is confusing and inappropriate.

4. Capitalisation is used, albeit ambiguously, to indicate a proper noun. It is poor practice to begin a sentence or sentence fragment with a capitalised adjective coupled with a compound proper noun, as this creates uncertainty about the compound proper noun - e.g. "Fat Tony Benn" vs "Tony Benn, a fat person".

For the same reason it is not appropriate to decapitalise the "K" in "Kingdom", as in these cases Kingdom belongs to the compound proper noun.

Lastly, I hope you are now satisfied with my conformation to Wikipedia formatting standards. Perhaps we can now stay on topic?86.18.224.239 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was never such a thing as the United Kingdom of England, etc. There are no articles on Wikipedia with this, or respective, title. Disambiguation pages are intended to distinguish between articles on Wikipedia, not the use of a term in language.

Nope. 'United kingdom of England' is a term used by reliable sources to refer to the Kingdom of England.

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia.
–MOS:DAB

You have one source where the writer describes Spain using two adjectives: 'a single, united kingdom of Spain'. I have multiple sources referring to the Kingdom of England as 'the united kingdom of England'. Should we create a disambiguation page at Unified kingdom, for all kingdoms that have been described as 'unified'? No.

Please cite where in policy it is indicated that the current revision of this page is inadequate.

Rob984 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How pathetic that you've failed once again to acknowledge the legitimacy of my concerns.

How sad that you have dissuaded me from trying to contribute to improving Wikipedia in future.

You are a bully, a revision Nazi and a moron. I will waste no more time talking to you. May your testes wither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns would be valid on an article. This isn't an article. Disambiguation pages are entirely mechanical, and designed to navigate readers, as oppose to inform them. If you have concerns with my behaviour then you can start a discussion at WP:ANI. Rob984 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're using isn't reliable. If it's meant to be a history of monarchs of the British Isles. The source excludes Scottish & Irish monarchs as predecessors to British monarchs, while including English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we decide if a source is reliable, but nonetheless:

The Anglo-Saxon State, James Campbell

Our Shadowed Present: Modernism, Postmodernism, and History, J. C. D. Clark

Wind, Water, Work: Ancient And Medieval Milling Technology, Adam Lucas

Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Sarah Grey Thomason, Terrence Kaufman

Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, F. N. Forman

Gender and Power in Britain, 1640-1990, Susan Kingsley Kent

Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those sources are not claiming that England was called the United Kingdom of England. Merely describing the Kingdom of England as a unified result of its predecessor kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. A disambiguation page disambiguates the uses of a term. When multiple source refer to the state as 'the united kingdom of England', it is clearly a term used to refer to the state. Whether the English state is being called 'the united kingdom' is irrelevant. The term is being used to refer to the state, not simply describe it. Rob984 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree. It's the Kingdom of England & so that kingdom should be removed from this page, as United Kingdom of England is misleading. As we're likely to only go in circles about this, it's best to allow others to respond :) GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well England was originally called Engla land 'land of the English', then after the formation of the unified English state, it was additionally referred to as Engla rice 'kingdom of the English' which has since gone out of use. 'England' is the only surviving name for the English state. 'Kingdom of England' is simply a modern way to refer to the state. There's no evidence that the state was called 'the Kingdom of England'. This is also the case with the Kingdom of Great Britain. Have a look at legislation. It's unlikely you will find the term 'the Kingdom of England' or 'the Kingdom of Great Britain' in any legislation. Note the name of the parliaments: 'Parliament of England' and 'Parliament of Great Britain', and 'Parliament of the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' and 'Parliament of the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. I don't understand the distinction you are making between 'Kingdom of England' and 'Untied Kingdom of England', both are terms used to refer to the state. Neither are the name of the state. Rob984 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. In context, the King and state were considered one in the same, not separated as in modern times. The King's title reflects the title of his Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, your commentary's wonderful. Now a reliable source? Rob984 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sovereignty, in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation. In layman's terms, it means a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies" from Sovereignty.

Think on it.86.18.224.239 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So 'Kingdom of England' is the name of the English state based on that? Right. Why is WP:SYNTHESIS so difficult to understand? Your conclusions hold no standing here. Rob984 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect me to provide, a reliable source that says "'Kingdom of England' is the name of the English state from the 10th Century to 1707"? If that's all you want, I suggest you look to wikipedia's article England. I could list several other sources that refer to the formation of the Kingdom of England in the 10th Century, and you'd respond by pointing out that none of them specifically said that 'Kingdom of England' was a state. A Kingdom is a state! You need to get your head examined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I HAVE provide multiple sources that refer the formation of the United Kingdom of England in the 10th Century! LOL. Rob984 (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I literally laughed. You have proven my point entirely. Rob984 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have utterly confounded me with your nonsense. I shan't bother to correct you again as you are clearly incapable of cohesion of organised thought.86.18.224.239 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our distaste for one another aside, you currently have not proven, using reliable sources, that 'Kingdom of England' is somehow different in nature to 'United Kingdom of England'. There really is no point in correcting me with what you think, because it holds no standing here. Even if you know your right, your wasting your time. Rob984 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

Except for United Kingdom (album), all the other entires of this page are partial title matches. Are there any other uses, except the album, of the term "United Kingdom"? Is the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves ever referred to simply as "the United Kingdom" for example? Rob984 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Now sufficient number of entries other than partial title matches. Rob984 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]