Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 May 5

Miscellaneous desk
< May 4	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 5

US Supreme Court Justices

I note from Wikipedia that US Supreme Court Justices are paid significantly LESS than Scottish Supreme Court Judges. Given that they come from all across America (which is a much larger country than Scotland which can be traversed by car in less than a day)do they (the US Justices) also get paid an allowance for maintaining a home in Washington; and do they also have maintenance, security, and housekeeping allowances for their real homes - wherever they might be; and do they also claim travel allowances between their permanent homes and their second homes in Washington? Are they provided with personal security staff and also chauffeur driven cars between their Washington homes and the Supreme Court House? Thanks. 92.236.250.88 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I don't know the answer t your specific question, but I do know that many if not most Supreme Court Justices in the US have considerable personal wealth, which may cover the gap you've identified in part or whole. Or there may be government funding neither of us know about, like I said I don't know. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article that goes into how Supreme Court Justices actually live - rather isolated, but not in any financial difficulty: [1]. Remember that the cost of living in the UK is insanely high by North American standards: the equivalent of 100,000 pounds a year is wealth here. Many live - heck, many raise good-sized families - on one-tenth of that. --NellieBly (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's roughly $20 K, or about $400 a week, before tax. Are you talking about the entire household income, Nellie, because that is poverty-line pay in Australia and lower than the government-regulated minimum wage. It would be a very tough ask for even a single person to get by on that, let alone raising a "good-sized family". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Different areas of the US vary widely, but here in Detroit, you can indeed live on $20K a year (I figure if I eliminated all the frills, I could live on about $7K a year). A large family would be difficult, but not impossible, on that. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do "frills" to be eliminated include health insurance , clothing, food and housing? I find the 7k figure hard to believe even in low-rent areas. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing eliminated on that list would be health insurance. The budget would be approximately $4k for housing and utilities (my current monthly rent plus utils is $350), $1.5K for food, $1K to keep a car running (this assumes I would have no job, so would drive very little), $0.5K for everything else. I can go into more detail, if you want. I currently spend around $14K, but that includes frills like a storage locker, Netflix subscription, phone line with Internet access, and dining out. StuRat (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I suspect this works out for maybe a year, but not for a lifetime. In that $500 you would need to cover clothing, shoes, laundry, soap, replacement dishes (and other household items - e.g. sheets, blankets, towels). And $1000 is not a lot to keep a car running for a year, either - again, did you think about e.g. car insurance, or factor in rare but high-price events like an accident? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it out in terms of "How little could I get by on, in an emergency, until things got better ?". Just to look at one item in detail, let's do the laundry. I have a home washing machine and dryer, and utils are included in that $350 a month. The only additional cost I incur is for detergent. I buy it at Dollar Tree, for $1, of course, per 64 ounce container. I use about 8 ounces a week, so that container lasts 8 weeks, and thus I spend under $7 a year on laundry. (In the frills category are bleach and spot remover, which maybe double the cost, but which I could eliminate if I needed to. I could also use less detergent.) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

They do get security; I know they have a US marshal traveling with them at all times. I believe they can retire on full pay, but few do.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above responses despite many of them drifting off topic. But special thanks to those pertinent to my OP. I did gather from Wiki that Justices retire on their pre-retirement salary though whether that is index-linked isn't indicated in the article. As to them being wealthy (in the main) having previously been Law Professors or Authors or Lower Court Judges or whatever, I once had to deal with an extremely wealthy British Judge who refused point blank to post a letter from his home to the Courthouse unless a clerk first sent him a single postage stamp and an addressed envelope of the appropriate size. He wouldn't accept multiples to cover future requirements as that "might be seen as him acquiring a pecuniary advantage" from his judicial position. They walk among us. 92.236.250.88 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure they get both security and transportation written off. Even comparatively lowly cabinet members get that frill in DC. As for their pay, the Chief Justice gets $220K a year, while the others get $213K a year.[2] That is a pretty solid individual salary in the United States; it puts one in the top 2% or so of all incomes in the United States. It is quite small compared to what a high-powered private lawyer could make, though (I have a friend who is a defender of white collar crime, and he regularly makes upwards of $10 million a year, to put it in perspective; he claims that this "doesn't make him rich" which of course sounds ridiculous to someone who makes substantially less than even the aforementioned justices), but for an individual salary it is really not bad at all, even in DC, which is comparatively expensive compared to the rest of the US. What makes all Congressional/Presidential salaries looks small is when you compare them to the crazy abundance of our gilded age, of what the lobbyists and hedge fund managers and so forth are making. But even if these people were forced to rely on their federal income as their sole income (which is rarely the case), it would still not be a bad income. (The above discussions of Detroit should be prefaced with the fact that Detroit is an extremely cheap city to live in on account of its crashed economy. DC, the city in question, is considerably more expensive, as is its immediate environs.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

DC has slums, where rents are quite low. However, most people with high incomes would choose to live in nice areas of neighboring Virgina and Maryland, where costs are higher. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the rents in DC vary a lot due to the large slummy sections. But there isn't a lot of middle ground — they go from very cheap to very expensive. Unless you are going to live in a real slum, the rents are going to be expensive. Food and driving and etc. are expensive no matter what one makes. I don't know what "most people" would do — the expensive areas of DC are quite nice. What matters more is if you want to live in a suburb or a city; there are ups and downs to each, and both are expensive out here unless you are in a slum. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For the level of status, and opportunity cost of being a Federal Judge, U.S. Federal Court Judges are paid pitifully low salaries. Of course they're not paupers, they're doing quite well by most standards, and many jobs of power require giving up some monetary gain. But I'm amazed everyone here's glossed over the conspicuous fact that the Chief Justice has been arguing for higher judge salaries for years (this is one example of many, just google it: [3]). And keeping up for corresponding salary increases, the judicial pay is quite low in recent years. And yes they get health insurance and benefits. Upon retirement age Judges may earn their salary for life as well. We have an article on this: United States federal judge. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the lousy job the court has done recently, such as interpreting eminent domain to mean it's fine to take property from the poor and give it to the rich, perhaps we should cut their pay. StuRat (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree with you about Kelo, as a matter of fact, but that discussion is way off topic. Shadowjams (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hence the small font. It's just like driving any crazy way you want to, as long as you have your hazard lights on. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

EU membership fees

Where do I find the membership fees of the EU member states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.41.91 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Budget of the European Union would be a good start. Tevildo (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.41.91 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no membership fees. Every country contributes to the budget (which is limited to 1% of the national GDPs), and the overall differences for contributions/receipts for ten years can be found at http://www.euo.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/ --Saalstin (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

They might not like to call it a "membership fee", but that's what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But since "membership fee" is not a term used anywhere to refer to EU member states' contributions, to describe it as such is mischievous. Why not just use the accepted terminology? --Viennese Waltz 12:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just speak the plain truth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Because no country is excluded on the basis of non-payment, which would be the case with a true membership fee. It's like how the USA refused to pay its agreed billions of $$ of dues to the UN for decades, but that had no effect on its ability to participate in the forums of the UN, including the Security Council. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor above said, "Every country contributes to the budget." Is that not correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From Fee: A membership fee is charged as part of a subscription business model.

From Subscription business model: The subscription business model is a business model where a customer must pay a subscription price to have access to the product/service. If applied to the EU, that is not the basis on which contributions are made. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

airport tax

looking at flights from the UK to america, I find that I would be charged a £250 tax, which more than doubles the cost of some cheaper tickets, I am wondering then, since I live in a part of the country right close to various other countries, whether I could get a ferry across to, say, Belgium and fly out from there for an overall lower cost.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, so long as you are legally able to enter that other country and the ferry trip is cheaper than the tax. (I'm in Vancouver and people here cross into the US to fly cheaper out of American airports all the time.) Mingmingla (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in Bellingham; if I had reason to go to another continent I'd strongly consider flying from Vancouver, to avoid the fucking TSA. —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's good, does anyone actually know, though, about how much it would cost from different places? or at least where I could go to find out? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet would probably be to try one of the services like Hipmunk or Skyscanner (the latter is more UK-friendly) and try various combinations of dates and locations. However, I just had a go with Skyscanner, and found the UK to be cheaper than France and Belgium. Still, it might be different for your specific requirements. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a friend who flies regularly from Birmingham across to the Continent and from there to the US, as it is cheaper by some way. I suspect this may change with the impending demise of BMIBaby though. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Flight prices are just weird - it's often cheaper to set off from Brussels and change at Amsterdam rather than flying directly from Amsterdam on the exact same flight (i.e. the Brussels-to-Amsterdam leg of the journey has negative cost, even after taxes). 59.108.42.46 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So that's three different price comparison sites I've looked at now, and they all give totally different prices for the same journey from here to america. anyone know a better option? do airports have their own websites? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what a travel agent used to be good for, to keep track of the illogical and constantly changing rules and fares, and knowing specifically which options are best, starting from your city. If no travel agents remain in your city, I'd take the lowest quote from each site, assuming they include all the fees, taxes, and such. Those sites which don't include them should be ignored. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You could go straight to the airline websites for times and prices something like Delta or KLM who operate from Amsterdam to the US and is served by cheap easyjet flight from the UK (and tax UK to Amsterdam would be £13). MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

However, at least in the US, there is no mention of things like airport fees until right before you hit the BUY button, so you'd need to go almost all the way through the process. StuRat (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

or I could get the ferry over, since amsterdam might well be closer to me than the airport. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The last time I got a ferry to Ostend it was actually quite expensive, and if cost is your main factor in this, it may not be the best option. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked on Direct Ferries site, and got two quotes for travelling Tuesday 8 May from Newcastle to Amsterdam: one is £111 and the other is £116. Still interested? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the longer routes (and the OP appears to be a long way from Newcastle) - I had a quick look at P&O ferries from Dover to Calais, and there seem to be return tickets for 1 adult foot passenger for as low as £6.50 (provided you travel at night). Travelling to one of the ferrt ports, and then to the airport, might well be more expensive than the ferry itself. If you're willing to hunt around for cheap bus services, and maybe wait a long time between connections, this might be a feasible way of finding a cheaper option (though the more complicated your journey gets, the more likely you are to miss a connection and waste the cost of your tickets). 130.88.73.65 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Drivers here suck

I often here people complain that drivers in X place are terrible drivers. This really annoys me, because it doesn't make sense that people in an entire state, for example, are bad drivers compared to those from another state. It's not like bad driving is in the water, or something. So my question for you is, am I wrong? Has there been any research done as to whether people in one place are better (whatever that even means) drivers than other places of comparable sizes? Comparing a large metro area to a small town might not be informative, but comparing large metro areas to each other. Thanks! 67.164.156.42 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about research, but anecdotally, certainly a lot of people I know in my UK home city who've moved here as adults comment that we're an unusually aggressive bunch of drivers - over the area of, say, an American state, it's harder to maintain a stereotype, but in a single city I can certainly see how a culture develops - as we see many people jumping lights, speeding, tailgating, not letting people out at junctions etc, we see it as the norm; having been the victim of it, we give it back, which perpetuates it (and leads to my boss complaining that I expected to go through a light where she thought the car in front really should have stopped) --Saalstin (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's the different driving culture in each city that many from other cities find objectionable. I was recently in New Jersey, where the norm seemed to be for anybody trying to pull out of a driveway to push right into traffic, making them slam on their breaks to allow you out. This seems both dangerous and rude, to me, so I thought of them as bad drivers. Then, when it was my turn to exit a parking lot, those behind me couldn't understand why I patiently waited for an opening, and blared their horns. In their opinion, I was the bad driver from another city.

Another issue is differences in conditions. Those unfamiliar with snow and ice, for example, often cause accidents. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing that can vary greatly by state or metro area is infrastructure. Boston drivers, in my experience, are not as bad as legend has it, but the Boston-area infrastructure is total crap, and a recipe for "bad" driving behavior (sudden lane changes, frustrated drivers, weaving, etc.). I've found Washington, DC, drivers to be substantially "worse" than Boston, on the whole, and whether this is about infrastructure (which isn't too bad, but is definitely over capacity and is rated for much slower speeds than people drive), or because of the high number of international drivers (another explanation I have heard), I don't know. (Huge amount of tail-gaiting, speeding on small parkways with poor visibility, lots of honking for people who aren't 100% sure of what they are doing, regular accidents.) I put "bad" and "worse" in quotation marks here because obviously these are pretty imprecise categories.

You certainly can have different driving cultures — visit China or India sometime if you want to see an entire nation that drives very differently than Americans do. That there would be different local or regional practices, cultures, etc., seems pretty par for the course for human beings.

Anecdotally, I found that people use freeways differently in the Northeast than they do the West, in the United States. In California, people use all lanes constantly, no matter what speed they are going. It is not uncommon to have three drivers going the speed limit taking up the entire lane, to the frustration of drivers who want to speed in the fast lane. In the Northeast, there was much more of a habit of slower drivers moving right, reserving the far left lane for people who really wanted to speed, with incredible tail-gating as the enforcement mechanism. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "taking up the entire freeway". Note that some states have laws stating that the fast lane is for passing only. Of course, this requires enough capacity for all the traffic to fit in the other lanes. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Another effect is confirmation bias. That is, when you see a bad driver from your state, you don't blame it on the state, but when you see a bad driver with another state's license on their car, you're sure that is the reason. (Although, technically, the state where the car is registered isn't necessarily the state where the driver originates, as with rental cars.) StuRat (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is true that drivers in different places act differently. Whilst people say things like 'you can't make generalisations, other people make statistics a business. The differences are more noticeable the further away you travel. In some countries bicycle riders are targeted by drivers who are later charged with manslaughter, people are shot to death by other drivers, and so on. Not the same in other places. There are places where young children take motorcycles into traffic, wheelbarrows and handcarts are a common sight, and drivers are all cool with that. Across parts of Europe, large cars and large engines count for nothing, and a car with an engine that has a capacity of more than one litre just won't sell as well as the less than 1 litre varieties. Sitting in such a car with a few friends going very very slowly up a hillside in Greece with another car behind you is OK because the car following also has an 700 cubic centimetre engine and nobody is in any hurry to get anywhere in those places. Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Different places have very different standards of driver education, and it has varied dramatically over time too. Some insist on considerable time spent with a qualified instructor. Some require none. Some require considerable numbers of practice hours as a learner. Some require none. That MUST make a difference in the skill levels of new drivers. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words, a video? India driving. :) Royor (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Very high levels of skill and spatial awareness on display there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And do you know what, not a single collision. On that sample Indian drivers are the best drivers in the world!! Richard Avery (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Drivers do best when facing conditions that they are familiar with and where other drivers' actions can to some extent be predicted. On a recent trip to Hanoi in Vietnam I was amazed by the ability of traffic turning left at a major junction to pass through an equal amount of traffic that was going straight on coming the other way. There were no collisions, because all the drivers acted in a predictable manner and everyone moved to fit in with everyone else. Crossing the road as a pedestrian is much the same - you step out and move steadily across three lanes of moving traffic, which all avoids you. The only problem comes if you do something unexpected like stop, or break into a run. Mikenorton (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While agreeing with most of what's written above, and there are definitely different driving cultures depending on the area, there are also better driving areas and worse ones, although I'm not prepared to defend any particular example. I would say while driving styles change, most people in most places figure out how to drive at about the same level of safety, however let's say you have an area that's predominately new drivers compared to an area where you have predominately experienced drivers, it's safe to say that, for the time being, one group of drivers are "better" at driving than the others. Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I can say with absolute certainty that there's a huge difference in culture between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. But it's more or less necessary. In New Jersey traffic is simply more bunched together and people looking for the Pennsylvania ideal of never getting in the way of the next person at all would simply never get into the road! A person learns quickly enough to adapt - it's all a matter of what people expect their rights to be - whether it's the right to pull out fairly closely in front of someone or the right to drive along expecting not to be pulled out in front of. The environment adjusts the trade-off. I don't call either bad driving. Wnt (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying London, United Kingdom instead of London, England

I don't know why you say United Kingdom, instead of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. I'm so angry with how often this rubbish happens, that I was actually close to tears of extreme anger. Velociraptor888 20:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland actually being the name of the country. The 4 nations which comprise the UK are lesser entities compared to that. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know that the UK is a country made up of four countries, but I get a bit aggravated and annoyed and upset at seeing it. I'm not being rude to you, dude, but I probably asked a stupid question... Velociraptor888 21:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Heck, I get annoyed and aggravated by seeing any country name tacked on to "London". There's only one original. The others need the disambiguation. --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) But it's just a fleeting and minor irritation: I can cope with it. Now, misuse of apostrophes... that really gets my goat. :-)

The best thing to do is to work on changing your perceptions, recognising that you are choosing to be upset, and to work to gain control of how you feel about things, for example ideally, if you are in control of yourself emotionally, nobody can 'make' you upset, regardless of their actions, but if you walk through life and every little thing anyone says or does makes you upset, that is like being a robot with lots and lots of buttons that everyone can push, you end up as something of a puppet.

Work on thinking about choosing how to feel, think of a subject, and then choose to find many good things about it until you think it is a good thing, and then choose to think of many bad things about it until you see it is a bad thing, practice like that. Then choosing not to be bothered by things that you can't change will make you happier, and make life easier for you. Penyulap ☏ 21:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

London is the capital city of and largest city in the UK. It is also in England, but it is a British city, not just an English one. If something only applies to England, then you are right that people should say England, but when something applies to the whole UK then they should say UK. The big problem is people using "England" to mean to whole UK - people in the UK very rarely do that, but I hear people from the rest of the world do it quite often and it really annoys the Scots (the Welsh and the Northern Irish don't seem to care so much!). --Tango (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Man Who Never Was was a WWII film, based on real events, about a dead British soldier whose body was used in an elaborate ruse to trick the Germans into taking their eyes off Sicily. The soldier was Scottish. There's a scene in which someone in authority (Clifton Webb?) is talking to the soldier's father (played by Moultrie Kelsall) to get his permission to release the son's body to be used in this way, making it clear he may never see the body again to give it a proper burial. The official was saying how the father could be comforted in the knowledge that an "English soldier" rendered invaluable service to the Allies, and would not have died in vain. The father then launched into a broadside about how "You English always think everyone in Britain is English" (or words to that effect) and how insensitive the other person was at a time like this, when he was saying goodbye to his proudly Scottish son for probably the last time. Great movie, well worth repeated viewings. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the real one was actually called Glyndwr Michael and Welsh. Alansplodge (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone needs to accept that the United Kingdom is an insanely complicated geopolitical entity, and be prepared to happily accept all confusion that arises from that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, accept, anyway (not too sure about the "happily" bit). A lot of the confusion would be eliminated if people would only say what they mean and mean what they say. That, and also get educated about things they think are the case vs. things that actually are the case (such as the non-existence since 1707 of any such office as "Queen of England"). But the Brits have to accept most of the responsibility for these things. They're the ones, for example, who agreed to the creation of an Olympic team representing the entirety of the United Kingdom, but calling it "Great Britain", which is a large part, but still only a part, of the actual UK (which happens to include Northern Ireland, which is quite some distance across the Irish Sea from the island of Great Britain). There may have been good political reasons for this back in the day, but they have long since passed into history. This matter has been the subject of ongoing controversy, and I'm sure it will attract further commentary in this Olympic year, in which the Games will be held in London, the capital of Great Britain .. er, the United Kingdom. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics things seems like an obvious part of a long-term strategy to solve the Irish problem. People born in Northern Ireland are both British citizens and Irish citizens. If they become athletes, they can either compete as part of Great Britain or as part of Ireland, with both teams named for and representing an island rather than a country. This seems part and parcel with the citizenship stuff, and the lack of real border control. I think everyone is hoping that the citizens of Northern Ireland will just gradually get used to being Irish and not British, or migrate over the water to Great Britain, until the jurisdiction can be quietly handed over. Of course, it's not been a terribly successful tactic, thus far, but maybe in another 50 years... 86.140.54.3 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I might be jumping to conclusions here, but I suspect that Velociraptor may sympathise with those seeking to dissolve the Union. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"[no] Queen of England" - that might explain why Liz I had "the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You got me. Such a crown did exist, but it lost its separate existence 305 years ago. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This has always (having been born a Londoner, technically in Middlesex) been one of my pet peeves in Wikipedia. I never say "London, Canada", always London, Ontario. Nor do I say, "San Francisco, USA" or "San José, USA" to distinguish them from San Francisco, Argentina and San José, Costa Rica. And I wasn't born (thank you very much) in London, United Kingdom but London, England. I got into endless fights about this at the Sister Cities section of New York City, and finally decided the best way to get around this (and similar arguments or potential arguments about Beijing, China vs Beijing, P.R.C., or the correct homeland for Jerusalem) was just to drop the countries entirely, since almost all of the sister cities (e.g. Rome) are nearly-universally known already. And oddly enough, the outside nationalist editors (with no interest in New York) who'd swoop in to delete England for U.K. (or St. George's Cross for the Union Jack, when the table showed flags) were not ardent, diehard Unionists but Scots (and I think Irish) nationalists who one would have thought might object to London sharing a country with them, but happily let it be England's alone. ¶ I know that it often depends on your location: Wikipedia lists three different San Franciscos in Colombia, so no doubt Colombians would never say "San Francisco, Colombia" but distinguish them by province or department while calling the Californian one "San Francisco, EE.UU." —— Shakescene (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's simply a matter of convention. There's no right or wrong answer for this. Arguing about it is as productive as arguing about spelling conventions on the internet. 173.32.168.59 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah. Spelling arguments are a lot easier to resolve. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a simple solution: Found a town of London in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland (Londonderry doesn't count). At that point, London, UK will become ambiguous, and everyone will need to call it London, England again. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We can do better than that. Adopt the Greenville Paradigm. Set up places in every county in England and call them all London. Then it'd be London, Lancashire vs. London, Somerset vs. ... They still wouldn't get to 49, though. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside to Velociraptor's OP, is it America.....or is it USA-----------or maybe even US? 92.236.250.88 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jingoistic crowds a political rally or sports event in the United States are far more likely to chant "U S A! U S A!...." than "U S! U S!.." Saying "London, England" sounds far more unexceptional than "London, UK" just as "Dallas, Texas" sounds more euphonious than "Dallas, USA." Someone living near a lesser-known US place with a famous name can cause confusion by omitting the disambiguating suffix. I've known cases of someone saying the are from "Manhattan" meaning the one in Kansas or Illinois, and listeners assuming they are from New York City. If the listeners were in Riley County, Kansas or Will County Illinois, the listener would assume the local Manhattan. In the US, it does sound quaint and provincial when someone says he is going to travel tor "London, England and Paris, France," as if the listener might assume he is flying to Paris, Tennessee (pop 10,000) after he visits London, Kentucky (pop 8000). Edison (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem comes in when you are near a smaller London or Paris (Southern Ontario has both). Then, if unqualified, does it mean the nearby one or the original one ? StuRat (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing regarding the UK is straight forward as this very informative and humourous video, the Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained, reveals. ENJOY! Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's a very political issue at this moment, and one that causes a great deal of angst in some folk. Personally, I'm slightly annoyed by those who try to pretend that the United Kingdom doesn't really exist. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I spotted a few errors in the video, for instance about nations rather than countries or provinces or principalities and the Republic of Ireland is a description of the state of Ireland so he should have said Ireland is in Ireland :) If we follow the example of Washington DC shouldn't it be London, Greater London, how about London G.L? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a different attitude about this in the U.S. - saying "San Francisco, USA" would not be in any way offensive. State nationalism took a beating in the 1860s... Wnt (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not offensive as such, but definitely odd, not something an American would say. --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for someone to create a patriotic song about the United Kingdom. We have There'll Always be an England, and Scotland the Brave. We need UK the Glorious or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule Britannia! could fit the bill, although it was written before the Union with Ireland and maybe a bit bellicose to boot. Land of Hope and Glory and I Vow to Thee, My Country both neatly sidestep the issue by not actually mentioning which land or country they're talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And the Order of the British Empire is still going strong. I've long thought it should be quietly retired, to join the likes of the Order of the Indian Empire, the Order of the Star of India, the Order of St. Patrick and others. If they want something more relevant, how about an Order of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee would be a good time to promulgate this. Get to it, Palace. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well there you go, Tammy. Great minds do think alike.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The correct term for the entity previously known as the United Kingdom is the Disunited Queendom. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit premature since the Scots Nationalists haven't had their referendum yet, and all of the Northern Ireland Border Polls so far have gone for the Union (helped in 1973 by the Nationalists staying away on principle). So neither North Britain nor West Britain have completely flown off the handle yet. There is Power in a Union. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that in much of American culture England is regarded in much the same way as the base of a latex paint: a neutral, unnoticeable, sort of vague background against which everything else is contrasted but which doesn't exist independently and isn't worth mentioning. To an American ear, "London, UK" sounds more factually accurate and more culturally sensitive than "London, England", which has a strong whiff of the ignorant phrases "queen of England" and "government of England". (Remember that in the US someone who's 15/16th English and 1/16th Irish will usually self-identify as Irish-American.) I would expect many of the Americans I know to piss themselves laughing at the idea that England has a culture at all. Ireland, Wales, Scotland: sure. England is nothing more than some *thing* that these "real" countries are compared against. It's not pretty or correct but that's how many Americans think. --NellieBly (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The 15/16 part might have some sense (America rebelled against England, not Ireland or Scotland, and so Americans forfeited being English, but not the other parts). The rest, well, it sounds like someone is a bit biased. Though we should remember that the first Irish Republican Army attack against England was launched from Buffalo, New York. ;) Wnt (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

America rebelled against England, specifically? That's never been my understanding, Wnt. United States Declaration of Independence says:

• The Declaration of Independence was a statement ... that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire.

There is a reference in the Declaration to "abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province" but otherwise it's all about Great Britain. To wit:

• We, therefore ... solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies ... are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Acts of Union 1707, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain, came about 70 years before the Declaration of Independance. The reference to English laws is because there were, and still are, separate legal systems in the consituent parts of the UK (England and Wales are grouped together, but Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems). The American colonies were governed under the English system, I believe. Ireland, on the other hand, didn't become part of the United Kingdom until about 20 years after the Declaration, though, so Wnt's point still works, you just need to remove the reference to Scotland (which wasn't relevant to the particular example being discussed, anyway). --Tango (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite any nominal union, I doubt that Americans really thought of Scotland (let alone Ireland) as having equal partnership in the UK. As we see from Highland Clearances, Scotland was a place that you think of people being exiled from, to the American colonies, for rebelling. Incidentally, I have a suspicion about the strange rituals of the Ku Klux Klan, which pretended to follow older traditions of the Scottish clans... I have this notion that somewhere, lost in history at the very beginning, it must have involved people exiled from Scotland who swore never to forget their heritage or mix their blood ... with that of the hated English. Of course, its subsequent representation of "white" heritage would make this supremely ironic. Wnt (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How come Longfellow didn't write about "The English are coming"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See Paul Revere. What he actually said was "The Regulars are coming out." The King's Regular Army, that is - which is to say, the English king's army. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Kinda mundane. Luckily, Longfellow had renewed his Poetic License. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no "English king" by then, Wnt. There was a King of the Kingdom of Great Britain, i.e. a British king. The person actually on the throne was George III, whose immediate predecessor, George II, was born in Hanover and whose first language was French (then German, then English). George III may have lived in London and spoke English natively, but he was no more particularly an English monarch (as opposed to a Scots, Welsh or Irish monarch) than the current queen is when she's wearing her "Queen of the UK" hat (as opposed to her "Queen of Australia" etc etc hats). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if velociraptor didn't get so uptight about this non-issue, they would then be able to maintain a civil interaction with other Wikipedia editors - something they have been cautioned about on more than one occasion. Astronaut (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Go easy on the guy. I was close to tears too. Although the fact I was peeling onions might have had something to do with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)