Talk:United Kingdom

The UK is not a country

You should probably clarify that the UK is not a country but a union. It is made up of 4 countries. The UK and Britain are not the same things either. The UK includes NI. Britain is the mainland island of Scotland, Wales and England. Please correct the mistakes in this page it looks sloppy. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bigbotnot2: I've lived in the UK for quite some time and, as stated in the country article, it is indeed one. It might be other things as well. You are partially right about the UK and Britain being not the same thing: the note against "Britain" in the first sentence gives a summary of the confusion, and United Kingdom § Etymology and terminology expands that. Your statement that the mainland island of Scotland, Wales and England is called "Britain" is wrong and sloppy: see Great Britain. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying you have lived here for quite some time is low key irrelevant respectfully as evidence needs to be fact checked etc. I will say thought that people who have lived here their entire lives will tell you this page is wrong. I have lived here my whole life. I know there is some confusion online but the UK is a union or sovereign nation or sovereign state and made up of 4 countries: England, Wales, Scotland and NI. I will try my best to explain why.

Britain the name for mainland island (England, Scotland and Wales) and is interchange with Great Britain but not the UK as this include NI which is not in GB. However, some people will use it in this way. The full name for the UK is “United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland”. This is why it is not accurate to say Great Britain to include NI.

If you say I am partially right then it should not feature in the first paragraph and should be referenced later on only as it is nearly not prominent enough. There is no need to get rude when you in fact say that you are not native to this country. This is what we were taught in British schools. Now I don’t know your age etc but you never went to primary school in the UK I’m guessing. Doesn’t matter whether you have lived here for a while it doesn’t give you authority to act like you own the page or disregard facts.

Factually, for a country to be a country there are requirements of course. They need “ a settled population, a defined territory, government and the ability to enter into relations with other states.” NI, Wales, Scotland and England each have their own “government”, defined territory, settled population and ability to enter into other relations with other states. For example, Scotland has relations with the United States, China, Canada, India and Pakistan etc. England and government is a little iffy but I will explain more later.

Furthermore, I literally do this at university and have written multiple essays referencing this topic. I have literally studied what makes a state, nation, nation state and country. Similarly, the evidence you have provided proves me right. Also, in the etymology link you sent “ Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.” This is partially incorrect and also agrees with me. Personally, I don’t think it is not completely right to call it a sovereign country as it does not fall under the guidelines of a country. With a lot of these things it’s subjective and own opinion but the one thing everyone agrees is that the UK is not a country in itself. According to academics it could be classed as a sovereign nation or sovereign state or sovereign nation state as all 4 countries have passed centralised sovereignty into the UK Government. There is a lot of discussion for which option especially since Brexit but that’s irrelevant in this but if you want some academic sources, I can provide. This system of partial centralised power is called a quasi-federal state. The UK itself doesn’t have a government but rather a centralised power structure acting as a governing body. NI, Scotland and Wales have their own governments through devolution. England does not due to the Conservatives as it was rejected in 2021. This is under the “English votes for English laws” and the West Lothian question. It was scrapped because the Conservatives wanted to “streamline parliamentary procedures due to Covid” not the fact that England is not entitled to that debate or their own government. A lot of the time, Welsh and Scottish MPs don’t involve themselves in English matters anyway. NI is not in question because since 2019 the government returned full powers to NI after they removed them for 3 years as Stormont was unable to come to a solution etc.

With your definition, it would mean the EU and other similar unions would be classified as “countries”.

This is because the EU has a similar system of centralised sovereignty. Member states of the EU have passed sovereignty into a centralised power to allow some decisions to be passed through for ALL EU member states or some EU member states. For example, the EU passed a law banning single use plastic by 2030 in all EU members states. I believe it’s called a supranational law but don’t quote me on that. Each EU member state has their own government and own laws that can pass through much like in Scotland, Wales and NI. Scotland has the highest amount of devolved powers including “ the economy, education, health, justice, rural affairs, housing, environment, equal opportunities, consumer advocacy and advice, transport and taxation” which is more than Wales. I am not entirely sure of the powers NI has but it’s more than Wales and I think Scotland. Arguably, England is also able to pass laws for just England due to the devolution of Scotland and Wales.

A similar discussion with greater consequences is that of Taiwan and Hong Kong with China. As well as, some believe also Puerto Rico with the US. However, with the sovereign nation of the UK it is far more clear cut and everyone agrees on the definition within the UK.

If needs be I am totally happy to provide more evidence but I did not watch to overload you because I have written a lot. Sorry about that, I waffle. I might be able send you any material from my uni course but I haven’t figured out that yet. The Cambridge one is from my Uni course but I am not entirely sure if you can access it but fingers crossed 🤞🏼. If you need me to reword or explain something again just let me know as I know my grammar and explaining skills aren’t that good. I hope you have a lovely rest of your day :).

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2021/05/the-uk-is-one-of-the-most-centralised-advanced-democracies-its-time-that-changed

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs/article/abs/state-sovereignty-and-international-human-rights/455EEF88258C4568D5E8EDB88BD7FA99

https://evanevanstours.com/travel-guide/london-guide/is-the-uk-a-country-the-union-explained/

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-united-kingdom-great-britain-england/ Bigbotnot2 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bigbotnot2: As you know nothing about me other than what is on my user page and what I have said above, I don't think you're qualified to make up facts about me, such as where I have lived, or where I went to school, or how old I am. Your guesses or suppositions above are wildly inaccurate.

Neither my opinions nor yours, on what terms should be used for what are of any use and what each of us prefers, are irrelevant. Wikipedia wants reliable sources for statements made, and this article has them in abundance.

There have been many discussions on this talk page in the past (see the archives) about the use of the word "country". I pointed you to the article body, in particular United Kingdom § Etymology and terminology, but your inaccurate lecture above suggests you have not read or understood the detailed explanations about the country (or state or union) and how it has been described by other sources. The text, as currently published, is the result of many editors working in collaboration over the years to agree the wording presented; describing it as "sloppy" was unnecessary. You will also find links to other article which have further details. I also recommend Terminology of the British Isles, whose second sentence sums things up nicely. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually my assumptions were based on your own rude message. If you don’t like how you are perceived don’t write it🤷🏻‍♀️. You said “I have lived in this country for quite some time” this shows you aren’t native or you would have said as such. That is also completely irrelevant as Wikipedia though as relies on factual information rather than baseless opinions as I said previously. This Wikipedia page largely agrees with me. It just does not have references for the things I am highlighting as inaccurate. My message accurately explained why the top paragraph is incorrectly worded with references below. The references you provided and in the page are nearly not enough to make it prominent for it to be at the top. If you feel so strongly it can be mentioned further below with better references but factually the Uk is not a country as per the guidelines referenced in my lengthy comment as well as in the Wikipedia page. It is sloppy because the references used do not contradict or prove my references wrong. The references also used prove my references right when you do proper due dilligence. My references are used by academics and lecturers who are the best in their field. If you don’t like my comment then I don’t know what to tell you as it is backed with lengthy knowledge from academics and scholars with decades of knowledge etc and not some random subjective google search. The fact you did not bother even reading my comment shows that you do not even read this page as most is as actually referenced in the page. Again the reference you provided agrees with me. Similarly, there is zero reliable reference stating that the UK is a country. Therefore I am correct in highlighting it. See the definition of Developed country, Country and Sovereign state if you need further evidence of my research. I will not go into an edit war with you because 1. You are rude and a bully 2. Will not even read my evidence where I am explaining what I mean backed up with evidence. I will happily calmly debate with you and explain but I won’t do this. It is a shame that you have turned into a bully instead of just listening to criticism and coming to an agreement that will be agreed by everyone. In the UK we do not reference it as a country. The page is sloppy, that is a fact. It contains controversial unbacked information at the top. It can be mentioned further down and named a union at the top as this is correct no matter the overall conclusion. I hope you have a lovely rest of your day :) Bigbotnot2 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You mean you've lived in one of the countries that make up the political union that is the united kingdom, (England I'd guess). One cannot live in a political union. Your take on it being a country is incorrect and is not a subjective matter either. 76.28.67.122 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The UK is indeed a country. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not as per the guidelines and evidenced provided. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Erm okay. I’ll explain again. I think the UK is a sovereign state which means “a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power.” I do think a “sovereign union” or just “union” could also be used. I think we can agree that the UK has centralised sovereignty within the government.

The countries in the UK are semi-autonomous countries technically since they are not independent. They are not independent because of colonialism and different acts passed through government. England had Wales since the 16th century and Scotland joined through the Act of Union as well as Scotland shared a King with England in short. Northern Ireland joined the Union in 1920 through Government of Ireland Act. This is why it is more accurate to refer it as “sovereign state” or “union”. They are 4 countries who are joined together in an act of union rather as one country. Through this act of union the UK Government was made which acts as the highest point of authority over the devolved powers.

A country has requirements yes but strictly speaking “country” means a piece of land or geographic area regardless of its political status. Like e.g West Country in England, Basque Country in Spain can be argued are “countries” in line with the original “correct” etymology definition. Country can also be synonymous to “land” or “region” which is not the UK. In most cases, English speakers would say “country” meaning sovereign state except with the UK this would be incorrect. This is because in the UK there are 4 constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, NI) and they have semi-autonomous COUNTRY status and together they make a sovereign state.

“Countries within a country” isn’t a thing because joining countries together becomes a union. If you looked up “countries within a country” that would be an enclave but that isn’t what the UK is. It is a “United Kingdom” of separate countries joined together in a political sovereign union. Like for example, the EU is a political union which carries sovereignty over its member states.

To be honest “country” is quite a vague word and is not used within International Relations or in high-level academics often. As I said before the original definition means a geographical area or piece of land regardless of political status and doesn’t really mean anything else. This is why certain countries exist as a country and geographical region but is debated whether it is a “state” as they don’t have an official governing body in the eyes of the UN. For example, this accounts for countries who want independence as well as anarchist countries.

Another example of a sovereign state is the “Kingdom” of Denmark which is the political union to describe Greenland, Faroe Islands and Denmark. Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands are semi-autonomous countries in their own right like e.g Scotland. The “Kingdom” part signifies a political association headed by a King or Queen. As already said, a country is a geographical area or territory as the etymology says it just means “land” or “rural area” in short and is not political; just a strip of land. As the UK is a political union, it is unable to qualify as a country. It is in more recent times that country is synonymous with “state” and “nation” and therefore can be confused. To summarise, a country or geographic area that has sovereign polity etc is a nation state and a union of countries is a type of “partnership” or shared agreement. In the UK’s case it is also a sovereign state.

According to BBC, the first UK government leader was in 1924 under Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour Party so not even that long ago. Wikipedia says the first PM of Great Britain (not UK as no NI) was William Pitt in 1801. Still not that long ago in the big picture. This does mean that the UK technically would only exist as a sovereign state since 1924 as only then did they have an independent centralised government as we see today.

Therefore it is only logical and more accurate to call it a sovereign union or sovereign state because it is a grouping/union of different countries with an overarching body with the highest authority (UK Government) which controls the countries. Since leaving the EU, UK has become a more sovereign state as they have withdrawn from the centralised government power and power was passed back. It is recognised in many places like the Ordinance Survey and Countries of the United Kingdom as such. However, since we are not completely dependent from the Council of Europe rulings there is still some debate around it. Yes the UK used to ignore a lot of the rulings made they still had to adhere to most. ECHR should still have power over the Supreme Court to deem whether the UK has breached EU Laws.

Thats why political union or sovereign union is probably more accurate right now but in years ahead as we move away from Brexit and the EU a lot of retained EU Laws will be “removed” and put in to UK law so the ECHR lose the power they have over the UK. It will then become more of a sovereign state than it already is. It’s similar within the UK. Through the removal of the act of Union or the Government of Ireland Act, countries can gain independence and be removed from this sovereign state or union. Thus, the UK is not a country but rather a sovereign state for the most part or a political union of countries.

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-great-britain-and-the-united-kingdom

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/whats-the-difference-between-uk-britain-and-british-isles#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20a%20sovereign,also%20included%20all%20of%20Ireland.

Countries of the United Kingdom

https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559 Bigbotnot2 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced & so I don't agree with you on this topic. Also, a consensus was already reached on what to call the UK & that consensus is country. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough references and I have proved my point to be correct. People in the UK do not call it a country and it is incorrect according to the guidelines and definitions of country, state, nation and sovereign etc. Similarly, I provided the etymology definition of a “country” and educated you. It is literally in the guidelines and definitions this isn’t based in my opinion. You do not need to agree; I am not searching for your opinion or approval. Any opinions are in fact irrelevant as this is rooted in facts. I am in fact educating you and everyone else who seems to ignore facts and believe the UK is a country. Wikipedia is meant to have factual and accurate information but failure to correct the mistake on this page just continues the idea that Wikipedia is unreliable. International relations scholars and academic around the world recognise the UK to be a sovereign state and do not use “country” as it is inaccurate for this description. It seems to me that no one on this thread is knowledgeable on this topic. Please could you provide factual and academic evidence that the UK is a country that is not based in opinions and is from a reliable source. This Wikipedia page does not have any reliable sources that prove that the UK is a country and all my academic sources disprove this misinformation. The only one on there is disproved on the same website and on Wikipedia. If you do not believe the UK to be a sovereign state please read Great Britain List of sovereign states and reference the UN website. You say there was a consensus to call the UK a country? Evidence please? The UK government calls it a sovereign state and recognises it as a union. Another name for the PM is “The Minister of the Union”. So no there is no consensus if the government recognises that I am correct.

The reason Rishi and some MPs/diplomats refer as the UK as one country or as a country is to push the agenda of not allowing Scotland independence. Many believe this behaviour has links to colonialism and therefore believe it is also rude to call it one single country or a country as it erases history. So I do find it hard to believe that a “consensus” allowed for the UK to be called a country as there is deep rooted history denying this fact. However the majority do not call it a country as they know it is incorrect to do so.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19353544.government-staff-told-call-uk-one-country-avoid-talk-four-nations/

Here is further evidence proving I am correct:

Great Britain

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

https://www.etymonline.com/word/country

https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-does-the-united-kingdom-differ-from-england-and-great-britain-n/?outputType=amp

https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-are-the-sovereign-states-of-england.html

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-UK-Great-Britain-Whats-the-Difference/ Bigbotnot2 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree with the changes you want to make, so you're wasting time repeating your position. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough information. It’s shocking that you have no shame. The consensus doesn’t mean anything if relevant people were not involved. Please listen to the UK government. They have said it is a union or a sovereign as it is a political piece of legislation making it invalid to be a “country”. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay is correct of course. These complex terminological issues have been discussed many times before at enormous length, and the article as it now stands represents the resulting consensus. Also Bigbotnot2, you keep mentioning the ECHR (Court of human rights). This is a Council of Europe body, entirely separate from the EU, whose job is to interpret the Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty to which the UK is a party. It has no bearing on the nature of the relationship between the UK and its constituent parts. -- Alarics (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Bigbotnot2: You confidently assert that "People in the UK do not call it a country". You are mistaken. They do. -- Alarics (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We don’t. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think we do. 95% of us understand why it is not a country. Not sure why you have spoken over a native British person sat in the UK. Not even on the news is it called a country. It is a sovereign state or a union. The Act is literally called “The Act of Union”. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bigbotnot2: Maybe @Alarics is, like me, a "native" person sat in the UK and, like me, calls the UK a country? Our preferences, though, count for nothing against previously agreed consensus to use "country" in this article, as you have been informed several times.

I'm interested in your figure of 95% of "us" saying it's not a country — who is "us" and where is "95%" published? Bazza 7 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You aren’t because in the UK we don’t. The government has already set out words for us. The 95% clearly was an estimation.

Also, the page also claims that Britain is a synonym of the UK which it isn’t. Britain or GB is a landmass. The government refers to the UK as a sovereign state or union and therefore the only correct way is to follow the guidelines already set out.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/whats-the-difference-between-uk-britain-and-british-isles

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-great-britain-and-the-united-kingdom Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In the UK, it is referenced as a sovereign state or a union by the Uk government as I mentioned earlier with evidence. The SNP has already said they do not appreciate it being called a country as it links to colonialism as it stops them gaining independence.

I don’t think the consensus holds any power of the literal parliament and I doubt anyone British was apart of it. Clearly everyone I have spoken to is not British and doesn’t understand the law of the land. I provided etymology definitions proving that “country” is inaccurate and yet non-brits are set on keeping this mistake up.

I think you have misunderstood. We signed up to the ECHR as a requirement for being an EU member state but this is separate. This was already mentioned in my comment. Respectfully I’d appreciate if you read my comment and don’t correct me when I have already written that. I also never said it had no bearing on the UK and its constituent parts???Although, the ECHR can step in if the UK is breaking EU laws against any constituent country or even an individual person. Your comment makes zero sense and has a clear lack of research. The ECHR does still have a small presence and can step in to say if the UK have broken EU laws. This is separate from leaving the EU. The ECHR stopped the first flight to Rwanda.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bigbitnot2, posting WP:WALLOFTEXT with your unsubstantiated, ill-informed opinion and making absurd assumptions about other editors is becoming disruptive. I suggest you stop before you are made to. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What. I literally cannot explain it shorter. Also not an opinion it’s literally said by the government. You are not very nice at all. I am literally being bullied for having the correct facts. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It says on the page that if you want to change something you put it on the talk page. I literally have a learning disability so I struggle with explaining things which I wrote already. I am being hounded for trying to explain what we do in the UK and saying it was more accurate to call it something else. None of you have ownership over this page and I am more than welcome to try and explain how we do things here. I do not appreciate the aggression that you have others have shown. This is being ostracised for showing evidence that doesn’t align with other belief’s. I am allowed to explain my pov. Similarly, on the page there is no citation next to country showing that is it backed up. And as said previously the UK and Britain are not synonyms. I have not accused anyone of anything. All I said was the person commenting isn’t native which is what they said. I do not appreciate you saying my “opinion” is unsubstantiated and ill-informed as it is literally what the UK government calls the UK in the constitution as evidenced with multiple references.This is a false accusation. You cannot threaten me like you just have. I am allowed to share my opinion but I have been belittled in a manner that is not acceptable. Please refrain from any contact. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The UK government has not said the UK is not a country, "95% of us understand why it is not a country" is nonsense (assuming by "us" you mean the British, but who knows) and "I am being hounded for trying to explain what we do in the UK" is even bigger nonsense on multiple levels. The only thing you need to post is a link to a reliable source that claims explicitly that the UK is not a country so that that could be discussed. You have failed to do that. All you have done is make fairly obviously ill-informed statements and link to online sources which don't even back up your claim. DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay United Kingdom is an country and inside it are constitutional "countries" which aren't independent Depotadore (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't denied what the UK is. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom is self explanatory it's a nation that has united (kingdom of england (wales is part of Kingdom of england), kingdom of scotland) and yes i'm including the kingdom of great britian. Depotadore (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

England* It has a capital because it is a country. 81.170.67.3 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@81.170.67.3 *Constitutional country Depotadore (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The UK is a political union. 76.28.67.122 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is like saying the United States isnt a country but a union LuckTheWolf (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

'United' Kingdom by name, not by nature. The only people that regard the 'UK' as a country are English that seek empowerment or gratification from plucky Scottish tennis players. 81.170.67.3 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is composed of four countries: England Scotland wales and Northern Ireland. It was formed/created in 1912 and still continues to exist today. Now to wrap this debate up the United Kingdom is classified as a country and is apart of the North Atlantic treaty organisation NATO and the United Nations. Have a nice day 2A06:5906:206:4500:21ED:3717:3AFD:D152 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the consensus that was reached regarding the UK articles.ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The UK, or United Kingdom, or Britain, is the shorthand WP:COMMONNAME for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as the US, or United States, is the shorthand common name for the United States of America. Similarly we say North Korea and not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As a native British person, if asked, I always refer to the UK, or Britain, as the country of my birth (occasionally Scotland, If say I'm supporting the football team - no laughing at my expense, please!). Even the United Nations refer to the United Kingdom and the United States by their shorthand titles. Bill Reid | (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

UK/GB are not countries

The UK is not a country. It is a Union of 3 countries and a Principality.

GB is not a country either. It is the name of the island of which the UK sits. 2A00:23EE:1710:5F0D:B33E:D88C:5D94:7588 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The UK is a country. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The UK is a country and Wales is a country. Deal with it! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country and wales, scotland, england and northern ireland are constituent countries Depotadore (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming that Great Britain is a country. IP, you're confusing GB with UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you happen to be American by chance? Framdon (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Geolocate takes me to Scotland! HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

See my comment in the UK is not a country section, there is consensus on the on the articles regarding defining what they are. This conversation has been long running on all the U.K articles and always ends I believe with the same outcome the UK is a country and England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are constituent countries or constituent parts (a version of this).ChefBear01 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

The United Kingdom is not a country, but four countries united in one democracy. The article needs to reference that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island are all countries in their own right with centralized governments and borders, and can also independently vote to leave the United Kingdom at any time if they desire. 173.59.11.65 (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The UK is single country with one central government, i.e. a unitary state. It has four sub-divisions which would be better described as states. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have regional governments, who conduct specific governmental affairs on behalf of the central government. England does not have its own government.

The regions cannot vote to leave without approval of the central government, as they have no sovereignty. GAAEditorIE (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of "Britain" in opening paragraph

I am aware that "Britain" is used incorrectly as a synonym for the UK. However, this is only done on the island of Britain, not the entire UK. In fact use of "Britain" to mean the UK in considered offensive and a sign of unintelligence in one UK constituent region.

Given that there is widespread confusion (domestically and internationally) about what the UK is, I propose that text is added to show that "Britain" is an incorrect term used to describe the country but remains in common use. GAAEditorIE (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not confuse Britain with Great Britain. I'm not aware that using "Britain" as a synonym for the UK is incorrect; who says it is? The footnote in the opening sentence clarifies what is acceptable or preferred. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not confusing it. Britain is merely short for Great Britain (also stated in the footnote you cite). GB can mean two things: i) the main UK island; or ii) the entire territory of Scotland, England and Wales.

Neither of the above two meanings include Northern Ireland, and therefore Britain cannot be used in place of UK. The reference that you cite literally says that Britain should not be used. GAAEditorIE (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@GAAEditorIE: You're literally making stuff up as you go along. The footnote states Usage is mixed. The Guardian and Telegraph use Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom. Some prefer to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain. The British Cabinet Office's Government Digital Service style guide for use on gov.uk recommends: "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."

I cannot see in the footnote or any of its references "Britain is merely short for Great Britain".

I can see "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." but not "Britain should not be used". Bazza 7 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You've just cited the text of the footnote - "Some prefer to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain" GAAEditorIE (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Britain" is ambiguous as it has two common meanings: 1, a synonym for United Kingdom; 2, an abbreviation of Great Britain.

However, "British" only has one common meaning: it is the demonym for the United Kingdom in its entirety - the whole of it - it only ever means belonging to or relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or its people. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Britain" is used to describe the United Kingdom & it's irrelevant if anyone is offended by that. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is often used to mean that, but as I say above, it is ambiguous as it has two common meanings. For clarity, it is better to use "the United Kingdom" or "the UK". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really. There are c. 30 uses of "Britain' in this article all of which clearly mean the UK. When GB is meant, GB is used. There's a couple of anomalies (eg "Roman Britain") where it obviously doesn't mean the UK. Context is all. There is no issue. Nothing to see here. DeCausa (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Go to Northern Ireland, UK and tell them you're in Britain, see what reaction that gets. Very weird that you do not even care about offending your fellow citizens. Britain does not mean the UK, I have set out the only two meanings. I agree that British is the demonym for the whole UK.

How can the UK be referred to as "Britain" when 25% of the constituent regions are not on the island of Britain? GAAEditorIE (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet it is so. That's the strange thing about a living language. There are no rules, only real world usage which defies that which it should be. WP follows WP:RS nomenclature, however distasteful to some. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with 'Britain' remaining. I accept it is widely used on the island of Britain. I just feel that the page will be most accurate if a few words are added to reflect that it is inaccurate and against convention.

The section on 'Etymology and terminology' sets it out very well, but those who do not read the entire page may be ill-informed. GAAEditorIE (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing your multiple WP:RS citations establishing the WP:DUE assertion that it is "inaccurate and against convention". Or should we just take your superior knowledge as our bible? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No need for the attitude. See WP:civility

Per WP:NPOV

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts

Prefer nonjudgmental language

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views

The main body does an excellent at complying with the above. The lack of clarification in the lead section conflicts with that. GAAEditorIE (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's offensive, isn't the best argument. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is offensive. There has been controversy regarding the corporate name of the Olympic team. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37058920. Note the opening line "In the run-up to Rio 2016 it was the most-Googled question - why GB and not UK?"

The UK is moving away from the old pre-1801 name. For instance, UK replaced GB on the white oval stickers for cars in 2021. GAAEditorIE (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't care if it's offensive. We're not here to right great wrongs. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

DeCausa and GoodDay are correct. GAAEditorIE is mistaken. "Great Britain" is not the same thing as "Britain". "Britain" normally means the United Kingdom unless the context shows otherwise. It may seem paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that "Britain" (which includes Northern Ireland) in its usual meaning is a larger entity than "Great Britain" (which excludes Northern Ireland). -- Alarics (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Without appropriate context or without sufficient understanding of the complex history of the terms, "Britain" can be ambiguous. On the other hand, "United Kingdom" (or just "UK") is not. So why would we choose to use the potentially ambiguous terminology when there is a straightforward alternative? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia reports what is, not what should [not] be. As the footnote in the lead notes, The Guardian and Telegraph use Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom, so it's reasonable to note that some people consider this, even if your own preference, like gov.uk's, is otherwise. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I never commented on which was my preference, I just pointed out the "Britain" can be ambiguous, whereas "UK" is not. Is "UK" ever ambiguous or incorrect where "Britain" is not? It's similar to the "Holland"/"Netherlands" situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I was commenting on your "So why would we choose to use the potentially ambiguous terminology when there is a straightforward alternative?" in which I interpreted "we" to mean Wikipedia writers. Apologies for not making that clear or misunderstanding your question. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You were correct to interpret it that way, it is a valid question though, but does not imply any preference on my part. I'm looking for a convincing reason to ever use "Britain" rather than "United Kingdom" or "UK" when referring to the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a word that's popularly used. Wikipedia's role is to follow, not to lead. If it's ambiguous, we explain the ambiguity (which we do here in that footnote), we don't censor the word altogether. WaggersTALK 09:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about clarity of language, not etymology, though. Sure we can describe the ambiguity somewhere, but there is no apparent need to use the ambiguous word in general prose when there is a perfectly adequate and much clearer term that can be used.

Surely we should be aiming to produce clear and unambiguous prose, and not using unclear or ambiguous terms just because we can or just because other publications do. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "Britain" outside of the phrase "Great Britain" and the "commonly known as" bit, is only used twice in the lead, both times in links to other articles. One of those articles is literally called Roman conquest of Britain so it seems reasonable to use that text in this article. The other is a link to Economy of the British Empire, piped as "Britain's economic power". Is that single instance of the word what all this fuss is about or am I missing something? WaggersTALK 12:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Replace the The United Kingdom's topography map with this image (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@Tim O'Doherty, regarding this edit:

1) It reads softer and more natural because you rarely see a noun without a verb following in a flowing text, thus creating a better reading flow. I never wrote it was "needed" or wrong without it.

2) I contest that as I read "pre-[...]" far more often than "pre[...]". Anyway, regardless of that: The article already uses the variant with a hyphen several times, and since there should be consistency throughout the same article, this edit should be restored. Or you change all the other instances of the article to remain consistent.

3) This is just false. I quote from MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments which should not end with a period. However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period."

4) Why is the tag incorrect? The caption claims that the city occupies certain places in a ranking of financial centres, but does neither cite a source nor state which ranking this is based on. Since there are several rankings of financial centres based on various metrics, this information is absolutely necessary and the tag therefore needed.

5) Fine, but the links were all potentially helpful to readers: "Financial centre" is an important key term, and the link about the most populous cities in the past provided context. Therefore, as long as you have nothing against them, I suggest they should be restored as well.

6) "We operate on BRD: your bold edit was reverted." Yes, I know, and I have no problem with people who revert my edits. It would just be nice if they would at least explain why they did so instead of making vague statements and only justifying their revert when asked about it, which is way "bolder" than what I did.

Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910, @Tim O'Doherty:

1) the verb is not needed; it's inclusion can suggest the main sentence is a result of London's size

2) no hyphen: [1]

3) the captions are a complete sentence so a terminating full stop is required.

4) whatever

5) WP:OVERLINK: "financial centre" is common enough so no link needed Bazza 7 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Could you elaborate why? I fail to see how it would imply that.

2) Both writing forms are correct. I can refer to the exact same source you used: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/post-war. Like I already wrote, regardless of which form is used (I actually don't care which we use), it should remain consistent and not be mixed, i.e., switching between "postwar" and "post-war" like the article does now.

3) Exactly. Good you see it too. Should definitely be restored.

4) I think there's not much to discuss here. The removal of the tag was clearly inappropriate and it should be restored.

5) The familiarity of a term is not the only yardstick by which we should judge whether we link something or not. It's also about how much the average reader knows about it. In this case, I think most readers have a rough idea of what a financial centre is, but not necessarily what its exact criteria are and what role it plays in a national or international context. Also, I still think the link to the most populous cities in the past provides valuable context to readers. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that you already correctly restored 3). Thanks. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Unnecessary word: perhaps you could justify its inclusion, rather than us its removal.

2) Hyphenating things like this seems more American to me. This is, of course, a British article.

3) A full stop should not be there per MOS:CAPFRAG. It is a description, not a standalone sentence. "HMS Invincible returns after defeating Argentine forces in the Falklands War, 1982" does not work as a sentence. If it was styled "HMS Invincible returned after defeating Argentine forces in the Falklands War in 1982" then that might work, although I'm not sure what the point of that statement would be in a caption in an article about Britain. ""HMS Invincible returns after defeating Argentine forces" is just a description of what is happening in the photograph, and as such does not require a full stop.

4) The tag, if one does need including, should not be an "according to whom" tag: at a push it would be a cn.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1) I already justified its inclusion. To quote myself: "It reads softer and more natural because you rarely see a noun without a verb following in a flowing text, thus creating a better reading flow."

2) You still don't seem to understand the issue. Again: I don't care if it's "postwar" or "post-war". What I do care about is that the writing form is consistent throughout the article. And since there are multiple instances of the article using "post-war", we should either change the one instance of "postwar" to that as well (which seems more stringent) or change all the other instances accordingly. However, mixing the writing forms like you did with your revert is clearly inappropriate.

3) It is both a description and a gramatically complete sentence, containing a subject and a predicate, and therefore needs to stop with a period, as Bazza 7 has correctly confirmed. "MOS:CAPFRAG" only applies to sentence fragments, not complete sentences like we have here. Anyway, that one doesn't matter anymore since the caption has been changed to make it more clear that this is a complete sentence and ends with a period now.

4) Wrong, it doesn't necessarily have to be a "citation needed" tag since it would be sufficient if the ranking (with its year) would be stated and, if it has an Wikipedia article, linked. Anyway, even if we'd agree that this has to be a "citation needed" tag, simply removing the supposedly incorrect tag without replacing it like you did with your revert is clearly inappropriate because such a statement definitely needs to be verifiable. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading this discussion incorrectly. So far, I'm not seeing a consensus for Maxeto0910's proposals. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Right. That's why I only restored the things to which there has never been an objection in the first place and which were reverted without any reason, such as the link to the cities by past population and the tag (which was not opposed as such, but merely the type of the tag, which is why I'm fine with the tag being changed to a cn tag in case someone does). Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I just saw your revert. No, your assertion is false. There has never been an objection against the link to the cities by past population. Tim O'Doherty literally wrote "I don't care about the links" in the edit summary of the revert. There has only been one objection from Bazza 7 against including the links to financial centre because of MOS:OVERLINK, which I therefore didn't restore. I would therefore politely ask you to undo your revert. Maxeto0910 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The next thing to restore would be the writing of "post-war" (or instead changing all instances of "post-war" to "postwar" as well) since there shouldn't be a need for a consensus to simply fix an inconsistent writing form. It's frankly insane that I have to justify fixing an inconsistent writing form because some people are completely misunderstanding the issue; it has never been "post-war" vs "postwar", but about keeping a consistent writing style throughout the article. What's next? Needing a consensus for fixing a typo? Sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous and I hope you understand my irritation here. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that you undid your revert after I asked you to do so. Thank you for that. However, I noticed that you also removed the tag which I added to the caption. Was that an accident? Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice the tag. Feel free to re-add it. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is easily sourced but a little dated.... Is anyone even looking for the source? In 2024 they rank 10th now Global Financial Centres Index is where you can find the most recent rankings along with the sources. Moxy🍁 03:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My opinion - 'both are possible but 'being' is not a verb. The sentence is poorly constructed and should ideally be two sentences. Britain being the main naval power and London being the largest city are not connected in any way, so it shouldn't be written as if they are. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2024

change term "country" to "political union" as the former term may be confused with the status of countries comprising the United Kingdom. Robert Birkett (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per lots of past conversations. CMD (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)