Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Foremost power, great power, superpower

An anonymous editor is continuously engaged in changing the opener to read that Britain was a superpower during the 19th century (and also that it is now one of "the eight" great powers - both claims unsourced). I have changed the article to read how it used to, which was that Britain was the world's foremost power during this time. I believe it was changed at some point because an editor suggested it was unsourced, so I have also provided a reference. Hopefully "foremost power" negates the need for the contentious use of the term "superpower". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The term superpower wasn't invented until the 1940s. And the UK didn't stay a superpower much beyond the end of WW2. But I think it's accurate to call the UK a Great Power during the time of its Empire. Just needs a source. But it is also often used to describe the UK today due to its combination of economic and military power alongside others including the US, France, Russia and China. Italy and Germany are most often discounted because while their economies are very powerful they don't have much military projection capability. --AJKGordon 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The new term "hyperpower" is now used when talking about the UK in a hisotorical sense, and when talking about the Unites States currently. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it has been used recently in this manner. But it is by no stretch of the imagination a standard term. (Has anyone except Ferguson used it to describe the British Empire?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did! Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The term Great Power is evidently continuing to divide editors; there is clearly no consensus in favour of including this unsourced and peacock term. If a clear majority of editors insist on its inclusion then so be it, but please let us debate the issue and not add it back unless or until such a majority emerges. Viewfinder 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Today, the UK IS a Great Power, really. No longer a Superpower, obviously, but Great Power is the actual correct term here. It describes nations like the UK, France, Russia, China and the US (also a Superpower, but still counted). I think it is a worthwhile inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me Great power is a term looking for a definition. The term definitely had context in the pre WWI and to a lesser extent pre WWII worlds. Is Britain still a great power today? Do great powers still exist? (Other than of course the USA) The Wikipedia article on the subject, which is very poorly referenced, defines a great power as a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale. Does this really apply to Britain? The article does mention Britain as a global power, but does not reference it. I would suggest the use of this term in the article requires a significant contemporary reference. Otherwise it reads like a bit of patriotic puffery. --Michael Johnson 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page FOR Great Power, you can see the criteria, and Britain fills them, including things like a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and other such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not in themselves to be used as references for other Wikipedia articles. And the UK's presence on the Security Council dates from a time when indeed it was a foremost power. The question is would it get a permanent seat today? --Michael Johnson 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would. Being one of the five main nuclear powers, having the second largest defence spending, operating the most aircraft carriers outside of the US (that alone is a trait of global power projection), and having one of the highest economies, GDP etc. It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that, and both the UK and France are Great Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of course it would" - who says so? You? According to the article Great Power, Germany and Italy are considered "middle powers", despite having similar populations, GDP and defence speding to the UK. "It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that", again who says so? Germany has a higher population and GDP and Russia has a higher population and considerably more land and natural resources. Besides which, until an authoritative external source can be found in support of the claim that the UK is today a Great Power, the claim should not be reinstated in the article. Viewfinder 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia's not part of Europe though, strictly speaking. Militarily, France and the UK are more powerful than any other nation in Europe. They are, that's fact. If you want to look at every individual piece of military information on the countries (and you probably will), then you will see that is true. Besides, you can't use the article Great Power, we've established that. Many scholars have said it (particularly from Cambridge University) and you can again spend your time looking them up if you so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your edits using four tildes, as instructed. "They are, that's fact" - no, it's POV. Russia has many more military personnel and considerably more European territory. "Many scholars have said it": before you use that claim to reinstate the claim on Wikipedia, you need to provide verifiable evidence in support of it. Viewfinder 23:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most things are POV. The very idea of powers are POV. See the middle powers. See certain notable exceptions, the five main nuclear states. They therefore have to be great powers. Are you saying the UK is not a power at all? It is, and it is, by definition, a great power. And if you want to see patriotic puffery, look at the United States, it's full of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the UK and France wield more international clout than Germany because of their permanent UN seats and nuclear weapons. I am sure you will have more to contribute to this discussion, but Wikipedia policy demands that you provide reliable sources in support of your claims. And please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: the UK's nuclear, UN and G8 facts are all quite properly mentioned in the lead section. Whether or not they makes the UK a Great Power is a matter which we should leave readers to judge for themselves. We at Wikipedia are about verifiable fact, not the POV opinions of one, a minority or even a majority of editors. Viewfinder 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The British Empire (although of course not the UK alone) was one of the entities designated as superpower when that term was invented in 1942. FWIW. laddiebuck 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell ofcorse Britain is a great power. We are part of the G8, UN security Council and are a nurclear power! We are great friends with the United States. 2nd highest expenture of miltary in the world. 2nd biggest navy. We share everything with the US. We have won every war in the 1900s and 2000s(unlike america on this one). And you are saying we aint a great power omg. And for a small island i tell u its pretty good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff123098 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone change it back to Second highest miltary spending becasue it is by about 5 billion USD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales123098 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces

This should be changed to third largest defence budget in the world, see wiki link on page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.253.202 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For any summary of the armed forces of the UK to be complete, it needs to be mentioned that there exists not one but two armed forces in the UK - The "British Armed Forces" (strength aproximately 429,500 men as of 2006), and, entirely sererately, the only private army in Europe, the Atholl Highlanders (strength aproximately 100 men).82.10.108.49 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

UK/Britain

Resolved

Should one really state that Britain is a synonym for the UK? Though Tony Blair used it often it has never officially recognised...and it sounds rather too like GB for my liking. It makes the subject even more difficult for people trying to grasp the whole England/Scotland/Britain/GB/UK thing! --Camaeron (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While it might not be official, it is used as a synonym very commonly and so should be reported as such. The reason is probably because the adjective "British" is correct and so logically "Britain" is mistakenly thought to be too. It is certainly more acceptable than Great Britain or England as a synonym for the UK. AJKGORDON«» 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Synonymous ... but only if you mean it like that (we can split hairs over whether it is technically the island, and GB the political union on the island, although both have been used as the name for the island at one time or another ... etc. etc. etc.) I'm one for manuals of style - and the IMOS one has been useful for Ireland-related articles. There has been an attempt to start one (essentially over to what to call people from the UK) but maybe this would be a good place to start: should we have a manual of style for what to call the UK, when to use Britain, what to call the island (which consensus seems to have settled fairly solidly on Great Britain), etc. so that we don't have inconsistency and confusing running across articles.

If it is done, as I've said before, I would strongly suggest liaising with the IMOS, or creating a British-Irish IMOS. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What to call people from the UK? You're kidding, right? AJKGORDON«» 09:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No joke - and quite bitter, too. See the proposed (and failed) UK MOS and a resurgence of the same (with much less bitterness) on the Bios MOS. It's also mentioned above on this page. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that! AJKGORDON«» 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, not this again... Britain is a perfectly valid short form for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would suggest that if the Prime Minister uses the word Britain to refer to the country (and he does... my god he does... he does it so frequently that it almost looks like he's in a "Who Can Mention Britain The Most" competition), then to suggest that the name is not "officially recognised" is disingenuous, to say the least. If the leader of HM Government thinks it's a valid synonym, that is a de facto official recognition. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... disingenuous, no. But yes, you're right - "Britain" is valid for the reasons you state. However, in an encyclopaedia, I would suggest that the "United Kingdom" or "UK" are the only acceptable short forms. AJKGORDON«» 09:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAA the only people who regularly use "Britain" as a synonym for the United Kingdom are The Economist newspaper, and Labour Party politicians. Of course the reason that Labour people use it is due to their long-standing support for Irish re-unification, hence when they say "Britain" an innocent bystander may understand it as meaning the whole UK, but it is really Labour-speak for "Great Britain", ie. sans the "North of Ireland". (I seem to recall that The Economist is also in favour of Irish re-unification by the way.)--Mais oui! (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! north of Ireland is a re-direct! Forget this UK/Britain thing ... can we use that in articles!? (By the way, I don't think that use of Britain implies a hankering for a united Ireland. Margaret "as British as Finchley" Thatcher used it quite liberally.) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just The Economist and the Labour Party? Hardly. It's also used by the BBC [[1]], the Guardian [[2]], the Telegraph [[3]], the Times [[4]], the Scotsman [[5]], the Herald [[6]], the Irish Times [[7]], the Irish Independent [[8]], the New York Times [[9]], the Australian [[10]], the Age [[11]], the Times of India [[12]] etc etc... 64.236.80.62 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I neither work for the Economist nor am I a labour party politician and I use "Britain" regularly. In fact most Britons I know use "Britain" - "UK" is rather a modern, albeit more accurate, fashion. Even "Blighty" is still quite popular especially among the military. The only time I don't use "Britain" is when I'm speaking French (a lot) for obvious reasons. Then I tend to use "Grande Bretagne" even though I know I shouldn't but that's just because most French understand that term more than any other - besides which I find "Royaume Uni" not especially easy to pronounce. Actually "England/English" ("Angleterre/Anglais") are synonyms for "UK/British" in France no matter how many times visiting Scots protest! (I'm aware this is entirely anecdotal.) AJKGORDON«» 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An outsiders view: In my area we often hear Britain as a short form for the United Kingdom. Frustratingly we also tend to hear England aswell (which annoys me personally). GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Most Americans seem to use "England" or "Great Britain" as do the French. I think it's fairly rare to hear foreigners use "UK" or "United Kingdom". I tend to go with the flow except in cases where it's technically important or if I'm with non-English Brits in France. It is amusing listening to French reporters talking about the rugby sometimes. "Out of all the English teams, England is the strongest although they were beaten by Scotland last year" is probably my favourite! AJKGORDON«» 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a Briton livin in Germany: Here Great Britain (Großbritannien) and England are often used as synonyms for the UK. I am continually correcting people. Even officials think "English" is a nationality...mind you so do many Brits...! --Camaeron 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms

Resolved

I think it's important that the fact the British monarch is head of state of the Commonwealth realms should be included in the introduction as the UK is the only country in the world whose monarch is still monarch of many countries around the world. Also I'd like to add that Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of the United Kingdom and so inherits the crowns of many former parts of the British Empire which have remained as realms to the British monarchy. It's important to note that Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Commonwealth realms and so is also Queen of the United Kingdom (as some parts of Wikipedia have made it look) but is Queen of the United Kingdom and so Queen of the countries in the Commonwealth who have remained as realms to the British crown. Signsolid 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

UK is the only country in the world whose monarch is still monarch of many countries around the world. Ummm.. hardly. Each of the sixteen countries under EIIR have a monarch who is also monarch of many other countries around the world. The UK is nothing special, in that regard. --G2bambino (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's mentioned at the beginning of the Government and politics section. As the article is about the United Kingdom and not solely or even principally about the Monarch it is not appropriate to mention it in the intro.--Gazzster 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Whils Signsolid may be correct in some cases, he/she is not correct in particular reference to Australia and Canada at lease. QE2 is Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Australia as separate, distinct and equal realms. In the unlikely event of loosing her crown in the UK, she would legally retain it in Australia and Canada. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Signsolid is making the point that the historical reasons for the Queen's position as monarch of the Commonwealth realms is because she is the heir to the British throne, not that she just happens to be queen of them all, including Britain. This is a very good point and should be made in the appropriate places. Having said that, this article did not imply anything to the contrary, to the edit summary "Incorrect, the British monarch is monarch..." doesn't make any sense. Neither does the idea that countries can be "realms to the British crown". Canada, etc. used to be British Dominions and are now realms of the Queen. Historically, this is because she is the British monarch, but now the crowns are no legally treated separately.

But that is not really the issue here - the question is simple whether the 15 other Commonwealth realms should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the United Kingdom article. I really don't think their existence is important enough to the United Kingdom as a country to do this, but in the interests of discussing, rather than warring, I will not remove it until we have heard more views. In the meantime, I will simply edit it for accuracy and readability. JPD (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded it so that it doesn't read so badly. However, it is worth reading the whole paragraph/section, not just the sentence, when you add a new clause. It is bad enough that the other realms get mentioned before things like the 5th largest economy in the world and the permanent seat on the security council, but it is plain bizarre to mention them before the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. Even if we don't agree to leave it to the government section as Gazzster says, wouldn't it be better to at least move the statement to after the sentence which ends by mentioning the British Empire? JPD (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed it. I don't believe it is a key fact about the UK, especially considering the many other things that could be in the intro and are not (eg, London is the capital). The fact that the British monarch has many other roles is not a key fact about the UK (although it is about the monarch). The Queen is head of state of the Commonwealth realms independently of her role as head of state of the UK. There is no guarantee that any future British monarch will be head of state of those countries, or incidentally that they will be head of Commonwealth. In other words, it is not a feature of the UK that the UK head of state is also head of state of other places, merely a feature of the current Queen. It's worth mentioning somewhere of course, as the Queen is important to the UK, but not right at the top.Hobson (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call.--Gazzster (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No Northern irish flag!

Resolved

Someone with editing privileges should put the Northern Ireland flag in the infobox under the 'Symbols' section where it lists the patron saints and national flowers of each UK country. Thanks, Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no official Northen Ireland flag. This issue has been hammered to death. If you aren't trolling then please take a look at the section above headed "Ulster Banner".Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

UK "significant/major" influence

Resolved

The statement about the UK wielding "major" or "significant" influence in economic, cultural, military and political spheres is dubious, peacock wording and POV (see Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The only country that can be safely said to have "major" or "significant" influence in these aspects is the USA. That the UK retains "significant" or "major" influence on these aspects is arguable and POV. It is not a fact that can be proved. It is better to let the hard facts (membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) speak for themselves.--Miyokan (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic here. I've changed the wording so it drops "major", but certainly the article asserts that it is a major economic, cultural (etc) influence, and thus the lead should get some leeway to express this per WP:LEAD. That said, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a source that UK is a major power, in which case, "major" would be mentioned. Certainly a source should be provided to sustain the claim, but I'd have to ask if you have resonable grounds (ideally a source) that asserts it is not? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I also make you aware that you have made three reverts within the last hour. If you revert the article again I will report you to an administrator. A policy exists at WP:3RR explaining that you cannot make more than 3 reverts within a rolling 24 hour period. Please consider this an explicit warning not to revert the article again. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the formal phraseing was along the lines of "not so minor".Geni 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if you find a source that says the UK is a major power, it is that sources opinion/POV. You say that the article asserts that it has major influence on these things - that is your opinion/POV. Someone else can look at this article and come to the conclusion that the UK's influence is minimal. Do you understand why now Wikipedia encourages to let the hard facts speak for themselves? By the way, I am well aware of the 3RR rule, I don't intend to violate it.--Miyokan (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You just did violate it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't.--Miyokan (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I've since seen your talk page has a number of warnings for 3RR in the past. If a source is found, then that is what goes into the article and lead - Wikipedia is built on verification, not truth. If someone comes to a different conclusion (that influence is minimal) then that is their unsourced opinion. It appears however we should seek to get a consensus on how to take this issue forwards and would welcome input from other users. I certainly believe the statement should stay. Perhaps a source could be found by a member of the editting community? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The UK's "power" or "influence" should be demonstrated by hard facts we can point to (the size of the economy, membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) rather than peacock terms.--Miyokan (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A cursory Google search finds multiple sources asserting the UK is a major power and global influence:

• UK becomes first major power to scrap 'dumb' Cluster Munitions
• "The United Kingdom is a major power in the world"
• The United Kingdom is a major power with global influence
• The United Kingdom is a major power with global influence (page 101)
• "Britain is a major power"
• "The UK is a major power (in world space)"
• The UK is a major power with global influence.

I'm sure I don't need to go any futher, but there are more. The ownus is now on you to assert the UK is not a global power. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase we are debating here is that the UK has "major or significant cultural, economic, political, military influence", not whether the UK is a major power or not. Saying that the UK has "major" or "significant" influence on economic, political/military/political influence imparts no real information. Show us HOW. From Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it should come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing."--Miyokan (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to make yourself more clear in future then. Certainly your opening lines appear to object to the use of "major", "power" and "influence". So, your not objecting to the phrase "The UK is a major power with global influence" then? If not, then that's what we'll have to go for until each point is sourced. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The UK's nuclear, UN and G8 facts are all quite properly mentioned in the lead section. Whether or not they makes the UK a "major" power is a matter which we should leave readers to judge for themselves.--Miyokan (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? What convention are you pointing to? One could assume you wish to hide or downplay this verifiable statement. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole whether the UK is a Great power (Major power redirects to Great power) has already been debated here [13] and on the Germany page [14], with the result that it was removed, and has been removed from every other article that the claim was on (Italy, Russia, Germany all used to say that they are Great powers in the lead) because it was deemed POV. The term is primarily applicable to the powers that existed in the 19th century. Today there is one superpower (with a defense budget of about 10x that of any other country) and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV.--Miyokan (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was implying that you haven't provided a policy or convention. Is there one that is relevant as to why WP:V isn't applicable for this particular statement? You didn't cite one, and individual editors do not set rules. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please decide on what you're going to say and then stick with it. Editting seperate sections of your comments over and over again is stopping others replying (via edit conflicts) and makes it difficult for others to reply to your contentions in full. You're also not providing edit summaries, furher confusing the history of the discussion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cited several, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are trying to source a peacock term. Furthermore, WP:V is not satisfied because none of the sources you cited can be said to be reliable sources. British Ministry of Defence calling itself a major power? World Socialist Web Site? An online dictionary definition? A major power (but in world space) from a UK website? Fellow Commonwealth member and ally Australian government website? Ha. If that's the best you can do then it's clear that there is no well-known concensus that the UK is a Great power. Furthermore, none of the sources talk about the concept of Great power, they are a ragtag collection of random snippets where they are discussing some other topic.--Miyokan (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Major power is not a "peacock term", and is verifiable. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we have to hide it as a POV term; that's not what NPOV is for. As has been stated, that's a cursory Google search. Do you have a source that states the UK is not a major power? Why are you now objecting to this when you said you were not? What policy do you have that states we cannot put this verifiable term in the lead? Can you please use edit summaries in future too and STOP re-hashing your comments over-and-over again for the reasons already stated - I'm replying to your points and then you are changing your original post. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that I was not objecting to major power. First I was objecting to the UK's "major/significant" influence on economics, etc etc, then you started talking about the UK being a major power for some reason. "Great power" was not a peacock term in the 19th century, but it is today, where there is one superpower and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV. The collection of dodgy sources you provided attests to that, considering that the UK as a "Great power" it is not widespread in the major news media.--Miyokan (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources include governmental documents that wholly meet WP:RS. I've provided sources (reliable and otherwise), you have not. Again, do you have a source that states the UK is not a major power? "There is one superpower and several middle or regional powers", um, isn't that your POV? Your logic isn't consistent here. "Considering that the UK as a "Great power" it is not widespread in the major news media" - What? POV? Where is your source? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any breach of WP:3RR. I have vigorously resisted the use of the term "Great Power" because it is peacock, POV, unnecessary, has jingoistic overtones, and expert opinion points out that other terms are now more frequently used. But at present, the article points out the UK's decline resulting from loss of empire, then lists G8, nuclear, UN, etc. The "bridging" clause about retention of significant global influence, which has been sourced above and is imo indisputable, seems to me to be OK; its removal risks inflaming those editors who want to restore "Great Power". I hope this helps. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I too agree that Great Power shouldn't be used; it's a term with specific technical meaning. However, I'm still inclined that we should keep a note on the UKs influence and power, culturally, economically, politically or otherwise. Certainly "the UK is still described as a major power with global influence" is a truism. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There will certainly be lots of reference to say that the UK is a major/significant power, etc. because it is, but that is not what's relevant. What's relevant is that we say, "The UK is a major power because ..." In leading through with the "because" we should put the UK's power into context i.e. it is comparable with other large nations of Europe (directly comparable to France, Germany, even Italy and Spain). Peacock words should be avoided, not because they are false, but because the are unhelpful. Explain what you mean, openly and honestly, then discussing the "major/significant power" of the UK will no longer be problematic. In fact, when this is done, there will be no need for banalities such as saying that the "UK is a major/significant power" because whether it is or not will be obvious for all to see. Let the facts speak for themselves. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully independent?

Resolved

How are the commonwealth nations "fully independent"? What kind of sloppy sweeping talk is this? Do they not interact? No trading? No cultural links? No alliance in NATO, UN? Are they not dependant on each other for economic or political reasons? It's a very foolish claim to make, and stick by. Needs addressing. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "several other" commonwealth realms. Not all of them then? Grammatically correct? Whatabout grammatical redundancy? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Droops made an edit that resulted in the following sentence:

(She is also monarch of several other, entirely independent, Commonwealth realms.)

Jz undid the whole edit stating only that the sentence violated basic grammar rules. As there was not grammatical issue, I assumed that the issue was either the terminal punctuation being inside the parenthesis or the comma use surrounding "entirely independent". I reverted explaining that both usages were correct. Jz reverted asserting that full stops come after closing parenthesis and that "entirely independent" is inaccurate. As to the first issue, I only have American usage and style guides to go by. Garner's Modern American Usage says that for complete sentences, the closing punctuation goes inside the parenthesis. If predominant UK usage is to the contrary, obviously that should prevail. The second issue is not a "grammatical", style, or usage issue. Removing "entirely independent" should have been done in a separate edit or been brought to the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your talk page subsection title with this edit and placed it into this section (where it belonges per WP:TALK). Firstly, why does the sentence need to be in brackets? - it fits (and has done for a very long period of time) perfectly fine as part of the previous sentence. Secondly, how are these states "fully independent" or "entirely independent"? - that's a grammar issue. Thirdly, is the Queen head of "several other" commonwealth realms, or all of them? - again, a grammar issue. Fourthly, my username is Jza84, User:Jz does not exist. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it fits...perfectly fine as part of the previous sentence." Until quite recently there was no reference at all to the other Commonwealth Realms in that paragraph. User:Signsolid recently added them to it. I think mention of these other commonwealth realms interrupts the flow of the paragraph considerably, but on the other hand I was reluctant to remove the mention altogether since Signsolid felt so strongly about it. Thus I put the remark in parentheses as a sort of compromise — they make the paragraph flow more smoothly.

With regard to your other comments, I would argue that they are not points of grammar but of semantics. That said, I will be happy to try to find a wording that will be agreeable to you. Cheers, Doops | talk 23:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)