Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Napoleonic Image

Why, at the beggining of the History section, which details the Act of union, is there a picture of the Battle of Waterloo to the left of the paragraph? Surely the image would be better place next to the paragraph that talks about the Napoleonic wars?

78.151.143.167 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Images of the British Armed Forces

Hello I was wondering as the section related to foreign relations and the armed forces is showing the different types of equipment that is used by the British Armed Forces, then would it not be better to have an image of a Challenger 2 also? as it is the main battle tank of the United Kingdom. This would show then images for the British Army, Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Just a thought. SuperDan89 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

defense typo in 3rd paragraph

I noticed the misspelling of defense in the "defence spending" link in the 3rd paragraph (of the en.wikipedia.org entry). Just created my wikipedia account to post this, so a complete newbie. Apologies if I went about this incorrectly and please flame gently

Sbbeachvball (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, you've done nothing wrong. In the UK, defence is spelt with a c rather than an s, and wikipedia has a policy that articles about subjects with a strong tie to a particular country should use the local variations of English. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Difference between UK and England

I have a question. This may sound crazy, but its important also. What is the diference between England and UK? JMBZ-12 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does sound crazy! If you read the article you will see that England is only one, though by far the most populous, of the four countries that together constitute the United Kingdom. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, other than not reading the article, I don't blame him/her for not knowing the difference. Far too often England is used instead of Britain or the UK in the media. Jack forbes (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was tempted to put a call in to Larry King Live last night. The kept putting on the bottom of their screen Queen of England; it made me kick & scream. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles explains it in detail. Bazza (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"And in other news, Barack Obama, President of California, today met with the Queen of England..." -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand normal people getting confused about the United Kingdom and England but it really does bother me how little research American news agencies do. I was watching Fox News and kept hearing the same thing, these are huge international media corporations and they make such a basic mistake. They have wonderful stats like this is the 11 US president the Queen has met, ud think they could get the country right. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is the US media do actually know the difference but are either too lazy to correct it or think Queen of England sounds better than Queen of the UK. Americans seem to love their English history. Of course, that's no excuse. Jack forbes (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying, the American media says Queen of England while also saying British Prime Minister; grrrr. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was especially amused to hear someone say once: "He must be from England; just listen to that British accent!"

But before we get too smug, I do remember hearing an English girl on a train to Edinburgh talking to a Canadian. Not only did she not seem very clear that Canada and the US weren't the same country; she seemed surprised to hear that Canada was in North America. She was exceptionally ignorant, no doubt, but there are plenty of mistakes that are more the rule than the exception. Most Brits, in my experience, use Holland and the Netherlands interchangeably; and it's pretty common to hear the USSR referred to as Russia (that said, Russia itself wasn't always entirely clear on that one). And let's not forget that strange conceit that the UK is somehow not actually in Europe. garik (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Jack forbes: I also think that Queen of England would be better than Queen of the UK :)

And we are not immune from the world's confusion as to whether England stands for the UK as a whole, for parts of the UK that don't actually include England, or at what point in history England first existed - see the Folklore section under England#Culture for an example. With 'King' Arthur somehow becoming a folk hero to the invaders he fought against. The second paragraph is particularly amusing, implying that not only the Romans, but the Saxons, Jutes, and Angles all managed to invade England. Perhaps using their time machines. Priceless. Daicaregos (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack forbes, just a small remider, I am a he, as in male. JMBZ-12 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, let me chime in with a few pennies of my own. I too get bothered by the incorrect nomenclature and shear ignorance of the media and my fellow man. Let us agree that history, geography, and contemporary politics are not strong points with many people.Gary Joseph (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, why is it that the UK is referred to in this article as a country? The UK is comprised of four counrties, and is not in itself a country. This article is very biased, as are some of the posts in this thread. Excuse, of course, my American ignorance, but I am of English ancestry, not UK or British ancestry; my family has been in Kent for at least one thousand years. Radiopathy •talk• 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, not again. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith. Radiopathy, the UK is a sovereign country, England, Wales etc are countries. There is no bias, the article is factually accurate. Any ignorance is of course excused, but if you read countries of the United Kingdom you will get the detail and thereafter, ignorance will not be excused. OK? --Snowded (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was being facetious in referring to my "ignorance", seeing as so many natives of your soverign state tend to stereotype Americans in that way. As for which article applies here, I like Subdivisions of the United Kingdom a little better. Radiopathy •talk• 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have read "Sub-divisions" then you should have known the answer to your question. Actually reading around the talk pages of any of the country articles would have told you. Oh, and I was being ironic ... --Snowded (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

This article is a little muddled and disjointed for one of such importance. I'll gladly do what I can in seeking references and making general improvements, though there's nothing more annoying than having one's hard editorial work reverted, which, from experience, I caan testify happens a lot on such high- profile articles. My most radical proposal (yet!) is to break up the intro. It's far too long and detailed. the complex information could easily go into sections- I'm an A- level politics student and I think some it's over- complicated, imagine how it looks to Joe Bloggs! Any objections, speak now(ish!) or forever hold your peace! HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think the intro is probably about the right length considering the length of the article but it has been stable for a considerable time so I would advise that it would be an idea to flag up any changes you propose in this talk page before you make them as otherwise they are likely to be reverted. If you check the archives, you will see that a lot of discussion has gone into the introduction as it presently stands. Cheers for now! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Gibraltar#History

Hello. I'm posting this here as my experience of the normal RFC procedure is a waste of time (noone ever comments), and this is probably the best audience for contributors that might wish to share their opinion. I am requesting comment regarding this information. The question is whether or not the death of a Polish general in a bomber that took off from Gibraltar is relevant to the History section of the Gibraltar article. Comments at Talk:Gibraltar are welcome. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Commander in Chief

British monarchs have never claimed the title Commander in Chief as the Forces are theirs by birth. In a monarchy, constitutional or absolute, armed forces are constitutionally those of the monarch not of the people. In most countries the Head of State is also the Commander in Chief as they have been "allowed" to act on behalf of the people. This is not the case in the UK. The Queen devolves (but does not relinquish) management to her ministers and general/admirals/air marshalls at the Ministry of Defence. The Head of the British Army I believe is the Commander In Chief of the British Army who is subservient to the Chief of the Defence Staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces per royal.gov.uk MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree but it is not a title cf "Defender of the Faith" unlike the USA or France where the President has it as a title "Commander in Chief". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brixtonboy (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Her Majesty is Colonel in Chief, though the operational head of the armed forces is, I believe, Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff, the head of the army is General Sir Richard Dannat, chief of the general staff, though, of course, the instructions come from the PM via Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon. John Hutton, MP. There, more pieces of political trivia in one sentence than you know what to do with! HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of Empire

If the map consists of all the countries that have been under British (or English or Scottish prior to unification) rule or are under British rule then the following should be added:

France (When the crown of the Kingdom of England inherited the Valois claim to the French throne sparking the hundred years war.) Afghanistan (on and off 1839-1919) Hawaii (February ~ July 1843) Germany (Lower Saxony Hamburg North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein during the Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1949 and the West Berlin boroughs of Charlottenburg Tiergarten Wilmersdorf Spandau) Austria (the British Allied occupation zones of Austria and Vienna 1945-1955)

(Germany, Austria and France are not necessarily considered part of "The Empire" yet still were occupied by Great Britain/United Kingdom, yet Ireland was never considered part of the Empire either and she is included.

Thankyou --Lemonade100 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (GMT)

Most of those you list were occupied I dont think military occupation is the same as territory claimed and administered as part of the British Empire. Ireland was one of the home countries so would not normally be discussed as part of the Empire but it had before partition the same standing as other home countries. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne, those listed should not be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Ireland was the precursor to English imperialism and (aside from America) the first major component to leave the fold. It very much is discussed as part of the Empire - see this for example As for the map, it is a map of "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire". It is not a map of "places the British/English ever administered or occupied, or British/English monarchs ruled over". Ditto the British Empire article itself. It reveals a basic misunderstanding of both the British Empire and the phenomenon of colonialism in general to suggest that dynastic inheritance of the French kingdoms, or military occupation of defeated military powers, had anything to do with the Empire. But you don't need to take my word for it, the BE article has a tonne of references in which you can verify what I say is true. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(Incorrect) Use of Great Britain to refer to the UK

Often on websites, etc, the option in the countries or nationality list is Great Britain - despite the fact that this only refers to the island. Should this be noted in the introduction eg. "and often incorrectly called Great Britain".Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, the second sentence says "spanning an archipelago including Great Britain" and if the reader is confused about the distinction they can just click on the link there... TastyCakes (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Populations

I know its hard to find statistics that are even close to being accurate but i was wondering if the ethnic minority percentages could be updated from 2001 before the 2011 census. I am not criticising it just suggesting, i couldnt do it myself!Willski72 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cities' population

Isn't it time to update the populations of the cities table? The figures used are 2001 census. In 8 years populations can have grown by thousands thus changing their position in the table. We have more recent government estimates, which, yes, are estimates but they are educated estimates. As an encylopaedia, surely we must keep up to date. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable reference, the next Census is not due till 2011. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The cities use 2007 estimates in their infoboxes. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be changing them in the next few days to council estimates from 2006/7 if there isn't sufficient objection. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated area - do we want a list of "cities" as in built-up areas, or "cities" as in local government districts? The current list is based on the census Table KS01 figures, which is the only source for urban areas as distinguished from local government districts (it's all explained at the main articles). I have no objection in principle to using local government figures, but it would create inconsistency vis-a-vis the existing "see also" links and the basis of the figures would have to be explained in some detail. Pondle (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no estimated figures for built-up areas, and they can only be updated when the 2011 census data becomes available. Whilst they could be changed to local government districts, that will cause all manner of problems with rural areas being included, and unitary authorities such as Cornwall, County Durham, Wiltshire, Kirklees and Cheshire East almost certainly being included, and London being removed as the City of London is tiny. Either that, or someone has to start making decisions about which local government districts to include, and which to exclude - which will probably something to do with local government districts that hold city status that have the same name as a settlement contained within them being included, or some other such nonsense. Fingerpuppet (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations in the intro

There is a problem with the way the Commonwealth of Nations is suddenly dropped into the introduction. "British influence can continue to be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former colonies. Queen Elizabeth II remains the head of the Commonwealth of Nations and head of state of each of the Commonwealth realms." If you place yourself into the mind of someone who knows nothing about any of this, they may wonder what the CoN is and what it has to do with Britain that QEII "remains" the head of it. It needs introducing - nothing lengthy - but something stating that most British colonies went on to join it. Either that, or remove the sentence completely from the intro: this is after all an article about the country that is the UK, not its head of state. The French President is also a co-Prince of Andorra, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the introduction to an article on France. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, the queen should not be mentioned. It should say something like "Many of the former colonies are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is headquartered in Britain."

Furthermore, is it correct to say that every Commonwealth country has the queen as the head of state?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, having checked, that statement is wrong and needs to be removed immediately. Commonwealth_of_Nations#Members_with_heads_of_state_other_than_the_British_SovereignJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm is a special type of member of the Commonwealth, and Head of the Commonwealth is not the same as Head of State.

The comparison with France is a tiny bit disingenuous, given the ratio of size/population/importance between France and Andorra is considerably different (2,000:1) to the ratio of that between the United Kingdom at the other Commonwealth realms (about 0.9:1). I feel it important to state that the UK is a Commonwealth realm, but not that its monarch is head of 15 other countries: which gives the implication of political control of hierarchy, which was abolished in 1926. Bastin 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the point I was making is that this this an article about the country, not the head of state. It is not even the case that whoever is the British monarch is the head of the Commonwealth - QEII is personally the head of the Commonwealth. It is a property of her rather than the UK or the British monarchy. This makes it even more silly that it takes up space in the introduction to the article on the country. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I disagree that "Commonwealth Realm" should make it to the the intro. The fact that Britain is a Commonwealth Realm is the result of other countries sharing the same monarch: ie it is again a statement about the monarchy, not the country. If tomorrow the non-UK realms become republics, what would be the consequence? (1) QEII will now only be a monarch in Britain. (2) The other countries will cease to be monarchies. (3) The term "Commonweath Realm" will become meaningless. ie while it will affect the monarchy, the term and the other countries, but will Britain have changed? No. I'm not saying it isn't worthy of mention in the article somewhere, just not in the intro which should be reserved solely for introducing the United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the introduction and reinstated a mention of the Commonwealth realms as it is an important and unique feature of the United Kingdom (and other Commonwealth realms) that it shares its head of state with several other countries. Usergreatpower (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot understand the obsession that some editors have here with the term "Commonwealth realm". A Google Book search reveals just 118 hits. One hundred and eighteen. Who uses this term? Hardly anyone. It really should not be taking up space in the intro, and nor should "Did You Know?" kind of facts like the one you have readded. This is worthy of mention in the rest of the article but not in the intro. What difference does it make to the UK and its population that the Queen is also Queen of Australia? Absolutely none. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the Queen and her Commonwealth realm does not belong in the intro. It is not the UK's commonwealth. Isn't the UK the subject of this article? It's amazing to think there is a mention of the Queens personal possessions and not a mention of who and which party actually governs the country, which is far more prevalent to the people of the UK. PS, I don't think the PM and his government necessarily belong in the intro but then neither does the Queen and her Commonwealth. Jack forbes (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to note in the intro that the Queen is the head of state, although she is noted as monarch in the info box. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact and is relevant. Any reference to the Commonwealth is misplaced here, though. Daicaregos (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the relevance of the fact that the Q is the HoS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to who? Jack forbes (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the strikeout is supposed to denote, but I mean the fact that the Queen is the head of state of the UK is relevant enough for the intro. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether I like her or not (my POV) your point is fair enough and a mention of her in the intro is fine by me. Jack forbes (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were to discover any references asking why the UK is considered a democracy, despite having an unelected head of state, they may be worth including in the intro too. Good hunting. :) Daicaregos (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Asking, or explaining? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Either would do. But wouldn't they be mutually exclusive? Daicaregos (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you find a reference that can explain it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it took all of ten seconds. see p40 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ten seconds? Methinks you exaggerate a little. Well done for looking. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Had a brief look at your reference, Red Hat, but I didn't manage to find anything to explain how having an unelected head of state could be democratic. Had I read the entire book would I have been enlightened? Daicaregos (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are having this discussion, as I can't believe that none of us do not know this already, but from that page: "By...the late 18th century, Britain had long ceased to be a real monarchy. After the Revolution of the 17th century, it was Parliament and not the King that was the supreme power in Britain. The Monarch's political responsibilities became basically cermonial-formal. The modern institution was dubbed Constitutional Monarchy - to distinguish it from real monarchy or traditional hereditary autocracy/dictatorship....It follows that the complete abolition or stripping of the Monarchy of its residual political functions would not substantially extend democracy in Britain." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

D'you know, I did kind of know that. I guess we were all indoctrinated when we were children. Still, back to your reference: It seems to be a reference for the UK being a 'Constitutional Monarchy'. No reference for how an unelected head of state could be democratic, though. Daicaregos (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First can you please remind me why we are even discussing this? It seems to me you are trying to find a reference for an answer to a question that noone is asking. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They clearly are pushing their own separatist and republican point of view. It is simply fact that a constitutional monarchy can be a democracy and some european countries that come in the top 10 of world democracies also happen to have monarchs. The whole conversation is a waste of time.

However i disagree with the removal of commonwealth realm from the introduction, it should of simply been reworded. It should not of been attached to the Queen, saying she is also head of state of other countries. It should of simply said the United Kingdom is a Commonwealth Realm and has a shared monarchy with other countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Being a Commonwealth realm is an important and unique feature to the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms as they are the only group of countries across the world sharing the same monarch and head of state and is an important remnant of their shared histories and cultures. Distiction is to be made between members of the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth realms in that Commonwealth realms are politically linked by sharing a single monarch and head of state, which appoints a governor-general to each Commonwealth realm outside the United Kingdom, whereas members of the Commonwealth of Nations are not politically linked. Importantly no consensus was ever reached to remove the mention of Commonwealth realms from the introduction, especially the revised shortened version. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the UK being a Commonwealth realm has been revised even further as to not offend what seems to be the sensitivities here about its mention in someway alluding to empire or something, which was never intended in the first place. It's just a unique feature to the UK and others such as Canada and Australia which is mentioned, as do the articles on those countries. Usergreatpower (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm should be readded to the introduction somewhere and i think the Queen needs saving, she is bogged down in the middle of geographical information on the UK countries and crown dependencies right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree that Commonwealth Realm needs to be mentioned in the introduction. And if you look at France, Russia, India or USA they do not even mention their head of state in the intro. And Usergreatpower: you misunderstand the situation if you think that NZ, Australia or Canada are politically linked to the UK just because they share a monarch. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ps Usergreatpower - this escaped my attention until it was reverted by Bastin, but complaining about lack of consensus on the talk page and then making this edit to place it in the very first sentence of the article is unbelievably hypocritical. You appear to me to have some kind of obsession with this term, as you are going around Wikipedia placing it in unnecessary places. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do think the commonwealth realm needs mentioning like it does at the moment and as is done on other articles like Canada and Australia. However i think the sentence on it could be placed somewhere else in the introduction. it doesnt make sense to mention that inbetween explaining the countries of the UK and then the UK crown dependencies / overseas territories. Commonwealth realm should be mentioned at the top of the second paraggraph or at the bottom, or somewhere in the third so its not lost in all that geography. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It being a Commonwealth realm is only of importance to the person of the monarchy (it has been, for example, of no importance to the Commonwealth institutionally since the 2007 CHOGM, when the reapplication rule was dropped). That is, if it is mentioned anywhere, it must be as a parenthetical remark to who is the regnant monarch. If that cannot be done, it should not be included at all. Bastin 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Its worth of mention, but not in the lede --Snowded (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of the editors who have given their views, five (Jandrews23jandrews23, Snowded, User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Daicaregos, Jack forbes) are in favour of taking this out of the intro, and only two (BritishWatcher and Usergreatpower) are for it. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, we are only proposing moving this out of the introduction, we are not proposing removing it altogether, so it strikes me as very reasonable to do exactly this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the whole sentence:

• It is already mentioned that Britain is a monarchy in the first sentence, therefore it is implicit that there is a monarch as head of state.
• As someone else pointed out, why mention QEII when the PM and governing party are the ones that actually govern the country.
• It is already mentioned in the infobox that QEII is the monarch (and who the PM is)
• No other major country article mentions the name of the individual that is currently the head of state in the intro.
• Majority view is that Commonwealth realm is not appropriate for the intro.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sport in the UK

It appears from this article that there is no women's sport in the UK!?118.82.189.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

There's no such thing as women's sport or men's sport, there's sport, played by men and women. 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Demonym

Shouldn't Northern Irish be included in the Demonym? Ijanderson (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope and I'll tell you for why. All Northern Irish are British, but not all British are Northern Irish. Same goes for Welsh and Scottish. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...and English.Willski72 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I just add, not all Northern Irish people are British. Check out the Belfast Agreement.MITH 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct demonym for the United Kingdom is British[1]. Northern Ireland is part of Britain - used as an alternative and informal term for the United Kingdom[2]; it is not part of Great Britain, which is an island. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The Belfast agreement recognises in section 1(vi) "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.." For anyone to insist that people from Northern Ireland must accept the description of 'British' is no longer acceptable in light of the Belfast Agreement. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly proper for people in the United Kingdom to hold citizenship and identify with other states if they so choose. That does not mean they are covered by a demonym pertaining to the United Kingdom simply because they are resident/born within it. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But the country is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so surely the Demonym is British or Northern Irish? Like it as the country is Britain and Northern Ireland. Just like Bosnia and Herzegovina is Bosnian or Herzegovinian. Ijanderson (talk)

The name Northern Ireland is in the name of the country, unlike Scotland or Wales. The UK of GB and Ireland nationality was either British or Irish, why not the same form Northern Ireland? Ijanderson (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is some very strange logic being thrown around here. Someone that is a citizen of the UK is British and a Briton, whether they like it or not. And the term refers to the whole of the UK. This is easily verifiable - [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the UK a country? Or are its parts countries?

The old nugget with a new twist...the new intro contains a clear contradiction:

1. First Sentence, First Paragraph: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a country..."

1. First Sentence, Second Paragraph:The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."

Which is it? Is the UK a country? Is it a State but not a country? How can the UK be a "country" and England, Scotland, Wales and NI be countries too? A change is needed to the intro I think. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK and it's parts are countries. The Black Country is in the country of England, in the country of the United Kingdom. Basque Country (autonomous community) is within Basque Country (greater region), which is split between the countries of France and Spain. Going to the country, means going to rural areas. All of these are correct usage of the word country because that is the final arbiter of the meaning of words. Scroggie (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read Countries of the United Kingdom. We have been through this far too many times. --Snowded (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, have a look at sui generis, because that's what the United Kingdom is in this respect. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be an improvement?

• First Sentence, Second Paragraph:The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales."
  

The term constituent countries is the British government's definition of E / S / W / NI and it avoids the apparent contradiction of saying that one country is in fact four countries.GordyB (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look at the references compiled at Countries of the United Kingdom you will find the UK government description is 'country' not 'constituent country'. There was a massive edit by many editors to assemble the reference and reach consensus. It was an evidence based decision and I see nothing new here to justify changing that. --Snowded (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded (damn lol), there is no reason to have "constituent country" when the British government no longer use the term very often (if at all). England, Scotland, Wales, the United Kingdom (and even Northern Ireland although more disputed) are all countries, but the United Kingdom is the only sovereign state. Thats the reason why i like the idea of having Sovereign State instead of country in the first sentence, remembering it also describes the UK as an island country in the second sentence so we have both terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help feeling the FAQ should include something along the lines of "It is perfectly possible and in no way contradictory for an entity called a country to contain entities that are also called countries." garik (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Im also not sure about Q3 in the FAQ "Isn't the United Kingdom a "collection of countries"?

A3: This is one of the most common questions raised on this talk page, but consistently, consensus goes against taking that approach. No major reputable source describes the UK in this way. Please also refer to Q4.

The United Kingdom is a country and sovereign state but it is also a collection of countries as we accept England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries. I can understand the reason for the question (people saying the UK is ONLY a collection of countries and not a country itself) but perhaps this could be worded better or changed to cover the fact a country can be part of another country? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gona ahead and edited the FAQ. garik (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone that. I didn't like alot of the (unsourced) claims and sweeping language ("perfectly true", "perfectly possible"). The UK is NOT a "collection of countries" - it hasn't been collected. The historiy of the formation of the UK is far more complicated, and the FAQ just needs to make a nudge towards that. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

--That said, I made some ammendments in the spirit of what was discussed, just without the bold language. Hopefully that does the trick. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually don't think, as you appear to, that "collection of countries" necessarily implies that the countries were collected in a simplistic sense; the word has a broader, less specific, meaning than its derivation might imply, and one which is entirely consistent with the way in which the UK was formed historically. But I have no problem with leading people away from the term; I don't like it especially as a way of describing the UK, and it may indeed imply to some people a historical (and synchronic) situation that is not the case. And I agree that there's something a bit ORish in how sweeping I was. That said, the point of the FAQ is to stop people bringing up the same tired points on this page, and while I think your edit improves Q3 of the FAQ, I think the FAQ still needs to stress more strongly that it is not contradictory to have an entity called a country (or even several) that is contained within another entity called a country. garik (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Country or Sovereign state

I believe we agreed a long time back that the UK would be described as a sovereign state first. It has or had years of usage. There has been no discussion to describe it as the less accurate "country" AFAICT. Also, the UK isn't a constitutional monarchy - that's a system of government, not a type of state - the UK is not a system. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign State and Country are both accurate and i am not hugely fussed which is used. I quite like the fact we make clear the UK is a sovereign state so it has a clear difference to the Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles. Its also worth remembering it says the UK is an Island country several lines into the introduction as well, so both are covered. but no strong feelings on this matter really BritishWatcher (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I had a look at a previous edit of the page and you're right, sovereign state is indeed the term used. I thought you were changing the lead without consensus so I apologise. Sovereign state it is unless consensus changes.MITH 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK is the sovereign state for the pure reason that sovereignty is held in the Houses of Parliament in London. The devolved governments have the power to make and pass laws but the Houses of Parliament have the right to dissolve these devolved governments if it so wishes. It took sovereignty off the Monarch and has given it to no-one else.Willski72 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no objection to using sovereign state, not for that matter to it being a country. Agree with Jza84 (nice to see you back by the way) on constitutional monarchy. --Snowded (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to reopen old debates, but the editor reverting with the comment that "sovereign state" had "years of use and was agreed upon" is wrong as far as I can see. Prior to User:Fishiehelper2's change in October 2008 [4], the first sentence always mentioned "country", at times alongside "sovereign state", at times without, as far back as I could be bothered to check, which was November 2006 [5]. Up until this point, therefore, it was "country" (which was cited) that had "years of use". I'm also struggling to find where exactly the current wording was agreed in the talk archive? [6] The agreement there was "unitary state", as far as I can see? Lastly, I'd be interested to see the reference which confirms the view that "country" is "less accurate" than sovereign state. Seems just like a load of OR that many editors unfortunately tend to indulge in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"country" is "less accurate" than sovereign state." The point that was trying to be made here i think is that not all countries are sovereign states there for SS is a stronger term than just country. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

as for the "uk is not a system of government", this line of thought is crazy - that do you want to go and change all the country articles to be "is governed by". just using the example of the US - "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" the US is a Constitutional republic. The UK is a monarchy. this is pretty simple. I agree with the sovereign state though. but you'll need to really justify changing it to "is governed by" before doing so. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a sovereign state/country WITH a constitutional Monarchy, using the term 'is' is pretty much the same thing. The UK has a monarchy but its sovereign powers were taken by Parliament over many years during the 17th,18th and 19th centuries. The UK therefore is the sovereign state/country with the sovereignty in Parliament at Westminster. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries with their own traditions etc but the UK is the 'umbrella' country/state. Its a United Kingdom of these countries.Willski72 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a drive by several editors to make the UK look like a republic by removing all references to the monarchy from the article, or as many as they can anyway. They also oppose the use of the term sovereign state because the want to make the UK appear as a no long sovereign member state of the EU. I knew right from when they removed reference to the Commonwealth realms that these were their motives. I forgot to mention all the millions of pro-Scottish and pro-Welsh independence editors (like 90% of people who edit this article) also oppose these terms because they want the UK to appear as an organisation of countries, similar to the EU, not as a unified soverign monarchy, which it is. Usergreatpower (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please address content issues rather than throwing out wild accusations about the motivations of other editors. The UK is not a republic and I don't see any proposals to say that it is, I see no proposal to remove the Queen from the info template etc. --Snowded (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost on how any one can say that the UK is a country and then also say that Scotland etc is a country too....It doesn't add up. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is WP:V, not WP:Redking7 can comprehend it. You can satisfy yourself that it is verifiable by reading Countries within a country or Country Profile: United Kingdom The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Red Hat is right. Moreover it does add up. number + number = number; ie two + three = five, showing that when you add two numbers the result is a number. Countries have the same property too, so country + country = country; ie Kingdom of Scotland + Kingdom of England = Kingdom of Great Britain, all countries. Adding up is exactly what it does. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat..I didn't think much of the two articles you pointed to...Neither is exactly an academic magnus opus nor do either consider the contradiction. Politics at play here I think. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[Countries of the United Kingdom]] contains tables of references RedKing7 which are worth reading. The definition of countries does not include the criteria that each country is an exclusive set so its only a contradiction in your mind I think. --Snowded (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a contradiction it doesnt change the fact that thats what it is. Rational thinking does not come into it. The UK does not have a tidily written out constitution it just evoloved over time, so did the UK itself really (took a long time to create and actually ended up shedding some of its territory!). Look at it like this, it was most politically convenient (would stop rebellion) to say to everyone that they were still in their own countries, and that their countries had unified into an alliance that involved giving up all sovereignty to a greater Parliament. All these seperate countries would also be one country, protected by one army and one navy for the greater good. (Thats not actually what happened as Britain was already united but it gives the complexity of the situation!).Willski72 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My "two cents"; It should be "sovereign state", or 'sovereign country" as "sovereign" is the word that has international legal meaning. The word "country" does not. There are also "non-sovereign states", which also is a recognized term in international law. Also, a note in history. Externally, NI is usually referred to as a "country" but only so for consistency. Members in Parliament will usually refer to it as a "province", even the NI members. This is because of the constituent parts, it is the only one that does not predate the creation of the United Kingdom, whereas Wales, England, Scotland, and Ireland had. It is a piece of an earlier constituent part. Again, this is an anomaly of the evolution of the creation of the current political environment. Gary Joseph (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Add 'Irish' or 'Northern Irish' to Demonym

Seen as considerable number of people from Northern Ireland do not consider themselves 'British' (as NI is not in Great Britian) but 'Irish' or 'Northern Irish' should this be added to the Demonym section of the infobox? --neon white talk 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the island of Ireland is still considered part of the British_isles. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't: part of the British Isles maybe, but not a British isle any more. The original suggestion, though, is more complex than might appear. British refers to a nationality: citizens of the UK are, by that definition, British; Irish on the other hand seems to be a label given to an ethnic group and there is already an Ethnic Groups section in the infobox where "White" includes the 1.2% of the population who are "White Irish". Bazza (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say. I said "the island of ireland is still considered part of the british isles" and you said "no it isn;t - part of the british isles maybe but not a british isle any more." please excuse an aussie for not understanding this in the slightest. I understand that the UK is the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, making ireland technically separate from Britain and of course the whole point of your original post. and you're right - ask an Irish person where what nationality they are and they will very likely say Irish. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bazza was pointing out the difference in capitalization between the "British Isles" (a proper noun with a conventionally agreed-upon meaning) and the "British isles" (which by definition would mean islands belonging to Britain). A little pedantic perhaps, as it was clear that British Isles was what you meant (and British isles redirects there anyway). —JAO • T • C 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been raised above about a week ago and not for the first time. The British Isles has nothing to do with this and whilst all of Ireland is certainly part of the British Isles it doesnt mean they are British. The simplest solution would be to remove the section on Demonym from the info box to avoid disputes. If we added Northern Irish (which doesnt relate to the majority of the UK population) then we will end up with Scottish and Welsh people demanding a mention as well, not all Scottish people consider themselves British either. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Righto - I think I'm going to stay out of this discussion - I guess I could parallel this to if someone called an australian a south-east-asian or a new-zealander an Australasian. how about we all settle on British Islander?  :-) Whitehatnetizen (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The demonym of Britain is British, end of. The demonym of Greater Manchester is Greater Mancunian; although Greater Mancunian is seldom used, if at all (with people using things like Stopfordian, Oldhamer etc) it is still the demonym of Greater Manchester. Simillarly, the demonym of Scotland is Scottish. What people choose to identify wherever is irrelevant - the demonym of Britain is still British. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, however, Northern Ireland is not in Britain (hence the state being United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) so therefore, if british only refers to Great Britain, Northern Ireland would require a different demonym. It would be interesing to know what was on a NI passport. --neon white talk 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

--I use Britain (correctly) as a short form for the United Kingdom. To clarify, the demonym of the United Kingdom is British. It's not about what's on a passport, its about what the demonym of a place is. Your point is analogous to suggesting an alternative demonym for England (apart from English) is Cornish, because some don't see themselves as English; but regardless, Cornish is still not the demonym of England. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Very well put. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, your use is utterly incorrect, Northern Ireland is not part of Britain and never has been. Cornwall is a part of Great Britain so that is a completely false analogy. --neon white talk 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

--It's part of the United Kingdom. Britain is shorthand for the United Kingdom (see the FAQs and the article - !). I think this is a bit of a non-starter if I'm honest Neon White. I'm opposed to your proposal on the grounds that Northern Irish and Irish is not the demonym of the United Kingdom, and I supect, even expect that others with agree. What you're discussing is identity politics, not the name for a resident of a specificied locality. Some people in Bradford don't see themselves as British or English, but Pakistani - that doesn't supplant (or interchange) Bradfordian with Pakistani. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NI passport? Those in Northern Ireland who wish to uptake their British citizenship have the same British passport as the rest of the UK.MITH 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the citizens with Irish passports? --neon white talk 16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the citizens with Pakistani passports? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Reading the above discussion it appears we have a misdirect. British isles clearly means 'islands owned by Britain'; therefore the redirect to British Isles is incorrect. I suggest that a way out of the naming dispute would be to create an article called British isles and include the current BI article minus content referring to the Irish State. British Isles could become a skeleton article merely stating out that "The British isles and Republic of Ireland are collectively known in Britain as the "British Isles"

This would be a solution compatible with WP:NPOV. In any case British isles cannot continue as a redirect to British Isles. If there are no objections I'll make the necessary moves. Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of the British Islands article?MITH 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

i would be against a change to the redirect. Its far more likely that people who enter British isles are looking for the British Isles but forgot to put a capital I. The British Islands article mentioned by MusicInthehouse covers the British "isles" if you want to call it that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "British isles" becomes a disamb page for British Isles and British Islands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd stay well away from opening that can of worms. --neon white talk 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't go along with you on that one Sarah777 - "British Isles" v "British isles" etc. We all know what British Isles means, capitalised or not. I wouldn't agree that the your suggestion that British isles clearly means 'islands owned by Britain' either....After all, no one would seriously suggest that the Irish Sea clearly means the Irish Sea is owned by Ireland etc. The "British Isles" is geographic term, albeit one thats use is often inappropritae. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your contention that 'no one would seriously suggest that the Irish Sea clearly means the Irish Sea is owned by Ireland'. However, Irish sea does suggest a sea that is Irish (or is owned by Ireland). Some thought should be given to a redirect proposal for British isles. Daicaregos (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note this same discussion was raised by this user on Talk:British Isles#Proposal--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Daicaregos. You did not agree with my contention! p.s. No one would suggest a Sea has a nationality either. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird chain of thought, is the Indian Ocean owned by India...no. Is the Gulf of Mexico owned by Mexico...no. Are the South and East China Seas owned by China...no. Is the English Channel owned by England...arguable! But you get the point.Willski72 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 and Willski72, you should be very careful to read what people actually say. Nobody has suggested that the "Irish Sea" or the "Indian Ocean" would be owned by anyone in particular. People have just pointed out that the entirely different expressions "Irish sea" and "Indian ocean" would, if used, logically imply ownership. Of course, these expressions are not used, for obvious reasons, so in my eyes this would be a minute problem, if one at all. By the way, I suggested over at Talk:British Isles#Proposal to simply delete the redirect altogether. Input wanted there. —JAO • T • C 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point now! I would probably agree with you as it seems it would contain any argument there might be. It has my support!Willski72 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of trying to differentiate British Isles from British isles is daft. Capital letters or not. We already have British Isles and British Islands. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GDP scale

surely the GDP in the infor box should be trillions not billions? reffer to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondz (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the world has 2,674 trillion dollars worth of money! I think you are mistaking it with 2.674 trillion dollars which is how many people see it. (Either that or theres a lost in translation thing, they use commas you use dots or vice versa).Willski72 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (

Rename of Migration section

Migration implies both immigration and emigration, yet this section clearly only covers the former and is thus badly named. Furthermore the main article it refers to is an article specifically about immigration. It would be a more balanced article if it contained details of emigration from the UK. Until this section contains subject matter appropriate to it's heading I'm renaming that section. Nick 3216 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It does contain the sentence "At the same time, due to emigration, at least 5.5 million British-born people are living abroad, with Australia, Spain, and France being the top three destinations". But I agree that it would need more about emigration to justify the heading. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One sentence hardly provides a balanced article or enough to warrant the title 'Immigration' as opposed to 'Emigration'. Just try moving the immigration and emigration related information into two subsections and you will see how unbalanced the article is. Nick 3216 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me emigration has been and (to a lesser degree) remains an important element of British history, as demonstrated by the large British diaspora and British citizens overseas. Perhaps there is not enough in the article to justify naming it "migration" now, but there is certainly enough material that could be added to justify it... TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is also substantial return migration by people who have previously migrated to the UK, such as Poles returning to Poland, and this should be mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're missing a huge part of British emmigration history:

Main article: British diaspora

See also: Anglosphere and List of countries by British immigrants

A world map showing the distribution and concentration of Britons by country.
Legend:

  > 1,000,000

  < 1,000,000

  <500,000

  <100,000

  <50,000

  <10,000

  <5,000

  <1,000

  <100 or No Data

  UK

After the Age of Discovery the British were one of the earliest and largest communities to emmigrate out of Europe, and as the British Empire expanded the first half of the 19th century saw an "extraordinary dispersion of the British people", with particular concentrations "in Australasia and North America". The British Empire was "built on waves of migration overseas by British people", who left the United Kingdom and "reached across the globe and permanently affected population structures in three continents". As a result of the British colonization of the Americas, what became the United States was "easily the greatest single destination of emigrant British", but in the Federation of Australia the British experienced a birth rate higher than "anything seen before" resulting in the displacement of indigenous Australians. In colonies such as Southern Rhodesia, British East Africa and Cape Colony, permanently resident British communities were established and whilst never more than a numerical minority these Britons "exercised a dominant influence" upon the culture and politics of those lands. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand "people of British origin came to constitute the majority of the population" contributing to these states becoming integral to the Anglosphere.

The United Kingdom Census 1861 estimated the size of the overseas British to be around 2.5 million, but concluded that most of these were "not conventional settlers" but rather "travellers, merchants, professionals, and military personnel". By 1890, there were over 1.5 million further British-born people living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. A 2006 publication from the Institute for Public Policy Research estimated 5.6 million Britons lived outside of the United Kingdom.

Sources

Something like this could be trimmed/editted/reworked for the article. It's a significant part of British history, heritage and legacy that we're not covering. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The proposed text above would seem to me to fit the bill pretty much as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is way too much information for the UK article, and besides, it is not a history of the UK, it is a history of the people that left the UK, and is appropriate at British people. You do not see a large section of the Italy article devoted to the history of Italians that emigrated to the USA and Argentina. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that point to some extent - it could also be added to British diaspora, which is woefully thin. But, for completeness, I suggest there does need to be a summary of this information in this article, with signposts to the other, fuller, articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationalitys within UK

(A forward note-Sorry for my English im a learner)

Im a little confused aboit the status if Nationalitys within the UK. Is there legaly English, Welsh and Scotish Nationalitys? And how do you define a Nationality in the UK? arnet they all British and legally there is no Welsh/Scotish/English nationality? And also, after some browsing i see that most Welsh/Scotish people mostly all have there nationalitys as Welsh/Scottish were as English people almost always have there nationalitys as "British"?? what??? Is it just that the English are more comfortable than the welsh/scots with the whole British thing??? But most of the nationalitys are Unsourced so simply assuming that they would rather be called Welsh/Scots/English rather than British so surly its not NPOV right? Helmont (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Read Countries of the United Kingdom. --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanking yoo (Why dont you support the monarchy? They bring tourism, along with racism and not much else, hehehe) but i still dont get all these diferences. I no thers no English/welsh/scotish citenzenship, but what exactly is nationality... Helmont (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(I indented your comments) Read Nationaity --Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationality. Now that does explain much- so if im right i would say your Nationality is Welsh, and your citenzenship is both Welsh and British, because of your devolved parliment and living in the UK, but thats legal stuff. Right? Helmont (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indenting again (please learn). My nationality is Welsh (or British), my citizenship is British --Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And pleas read the very first line of the disscussion, i dont speek great english and write, im just finding it hard to understand this Helmont (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh got it. Asked a proper english speaker.Helmont (talk)

There is no such thing as Welsh citizenship, simply does not exist, nor does Scottish or English. You can't obtain it, basicaly. 79.71.176.4 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you live in Wales you are a British citizen but you may be a Welsh man/woman.Willski72 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you live in Scotland you are a British citizen, but you can also be regarded as a Scottish citizen - I've attached a leaflet about the" National Entitlement Card Scheme and Scottish Citizen’s Account"[7] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be pointed out at this stage that the discussion page is about edits to this encyclopaedia, it is not a discussion forum for chit-chat, or even to provide education, however well-meaning. That said, I will point out that Fishiehelper2's point isn't remotely accurate: there certainly is no such thing as a Scottish citizen. 'Citizen's accounts' are used throughout the UK by local authorities: they are citizens accounts in Scotland, not accounts for Scottish citizens - the leaflet he quotes makes that clear in its usage. Nor, of course, do the Scottish devolved bodies have any right to define national statuses or citizenship - Schedule 5, B2 in the Scotland Act 1998. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. It is certainly verifiable that the description 'Scottish citizen' is used widely - it may not be legally accurate (since we are citizens of the United Kingdom) but the phrase is used. For example, Miss Scotland has to be "a Scottish citizen by birth"[8], or this award that is only open to people who are "a Scottish citizen, a resident of Scotland or have been a significant contributor in their field to Mountain Culture within Scotland"[9] (under the Note to Editors), or general usage of the phrase Scottish citizen [10], [11]. Whether it should be noted that such a phrase is widely used, albeit legally inaccurate, is perhaps a valid matter to discuss here. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is akin to being a "citizen of Manchester", rather than anything about British nationality law. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought i was a subject anyway not a citizen? I am a subject of her Majesty the Queen, who is monarch of the UK (this is no place for an argument for and against the Monarchy, i would merely like to know if this is still officially the case). I know the government say citizen quite often, but due to the masses of 'convention' within government im not sure whether its formally the case.Willski72 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be a British subject, but you're more likely to be a citizen. As this article explains, people with British passports are generally citizens, but not subjects. garik (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep your right thanks for that! (I dont think the government ever made these changes very clear!Willski72 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall has been part of England for over a thousand years, which just happens to be a lot longer than many (if not most) countries have existed for.Willski72 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i feel like an idiot now... How did i manage to post that on the wrong section??? I think i need a long holiday!Willski72 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

It's possible that I've missed it, but is there an article about the ecology of the UK? Is this even feasible? It could start off with Scotland originally being being a different landmass, that explains the evergreen trees that are prevalent there as opposed to the deciduous of England... etc. Any thoughts? Rednaxela (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nearest I can find is Wildlife of the United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the trees of great britain have migrated from mainland europe across the land bridge of the channel. Scotland being seperate is not the reason for a difference in tree types as the land bridge existed only in the last ice age, along time after the highlands were seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endofinfinity (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More pictures on the 'Sports' section?

How about a picture of Lord's? It's an iconic venue recognised throughout the world. Just a thought. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.105.249 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall

If the other four are countries, is Cornwall a country? If not, why not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is a County. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets try again! Cornwall has been part of England for over a thousand years, which is a lot longer than many countries (if not most countries) have existed.Willski72 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying again....The other 4 have been part of the UK for centuries, which is a lot longer than many countries have existed....but if they are still countries, how come Cornwall is not? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Same question - same answer. MilborneOne (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual answer: for no reason whatsoever. It just is thought of that way by reliable sources. Hence, Wikipedia reports that, whether or not we think their logic is absurd (as it is). Bastin 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I said "lets try again" because i had posted it in the section above by accident! So i wrote it down here again. England, Scotland and Wales have been parts of the UK for 2 centuries, Northern Ireland as Northern Ireland for 87 years but the UK was never meant to get rid of the other countries merely to unify them, (United Kingdom). Cornwall on the other hand was absorbed by England over a thousand years ago, it has as much right to be independent as Wessex or Northumbria, who also had their own kings, flags etcWillski72 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Interpretation Act 1978 provides legal definition. "England means, subject to any alteration of boundaries under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972, the area consisting of the counties established by section 1 of that Act, Greater London and the Isles of Scilly." This definition applies from 1 April 1974, and Cornwall is one of those counties specified in the act.

Or... we could look at how every single other reputable encyclopedia describes the UK. Britannica seems to have overlooked Cornwall for some reason, as does Encarta, Mind Alive, most (if not all) textbooks, history books, children's encyclopedias etc etc. That Cornwall is country is neither claimed by Cornish nationalists (who seek independance - to then become a country (!)), nor any reasonable, reputable publication. It's a fringe theory that shouldn't be spoiling Wikipedia's already mixed reputation. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jza84. Good points, undoubtedly. Really, though, my original question concerned the "other 4" as much as it concerns Cornwall. Some one above said "the UK was never meant to get rid of the other countries merely to unify them, (United Kingdom). Cornwall on the other hand was absorbed by England over a thousand years ago". I do not thats accurate. Here is a sentence from Article 1 of Laws in Wales Act 1535: "That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his Realm of England;" Incorporated no less, rather like Cornwall...so why does Wales qualify as a country? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Touché! I (personally) suppose this has evolved through tradition - as much as I hate that word (maybe custom and convention would be better). Wales gets recognised in various publications as a country in places where Cornwall does not (eg. The Countries of the UK). Why Wales and not Cornwall? Maybe because the constitutional status of Cornwall is a non-starter and not as controvertial as the article claims. Or maybe it's because the Welsh cause was upheld throughout the ages? I don't know, but would like to. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's got more to do with the fact that Cornwall has got a much smaller population, a less hilly landscape than Wales, lost its language much earlier (even if it's revived) etc. All of those factors should be borne in mind. If Wales had the population and isolation of Scotland, it would probably have a lot more autonomy than it currently does too.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably, possibly, who knows. It's speculation though. I mean if Berkshire had had the population and isloation of Scotland, it would be Scotland. Wikipedia is not a forum, we need to report on source material. Eitherway, as I've said, any reasonable, reputable third party source does not say Cornwall is a country, and rightfully or wrongfully, that is that. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland AS Northern Ireland has only been part of the UK for 87 years, before that it was part of Ireland which had been part of the UK since 1801 (Act of Union). Your right about Wales (my mistake!) Technically i do not think Wales was ever fully united as a nation, just a collective group of Princes (such as the Prince of Powys) who spoke a seperate language and had a seperate culture etc. However when Wales was taken over by England, England was a long established nation which had had its own culture, language etc.

When Cornwall was taken on the other hand England was still developing. Not long before, large parts of the country had been ruled by Scandinavian invaders and the rest was split into different Saxon kingdoms (Wessex etc). Cornwall was seen as no different to these other little Nations such as Wessex which would be unified to form England, though it was more Celtic and less Anglo-Saxon than the rest. Cornish is a seperate language but at the time Cornwall was absorbed the variations in the English language itself were massive across the country (even in the Hundred Years War English soldiers from different sections of the country could not understand each other).

Another problem with Cornwall as a country is the amount of immigration by Anglo-Saxons over the last thousand years, this means that the original Cornish population (from when it was a country) are actually less than might be thought. If for no other reason this is why it will probably never be classed as a seperate country as most of these people are unlikely to agree.Willski72 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a mixture of constitution and convention. The former accounts for Wales currently being treated as a country: by act of parliament, laws that apply to Wales have to mention it specifically; laws that apply to England (or Scotland or Northern Ireland or anywhere else, for that matter) do not automatically apply there. And it is current convention in the British government to refer to Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (but not Cornwall) all as countries. Wales was for a long time (since Henry VIII to the twentieth century) constitutionally a part of England, but for much of that time it was still conventionally referred to as a country (or a principality, or both, as the terms are not mutually exclusive), and to a far greater extent than Cornwall. I can't tell you why, but such is the way of things. Of course, country is an ambiguous, inherently underdefined term: the Basque country, after all, straddles two modern states. garik (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, Germany, Holland and even France all have had continuous Anglo-Saxon migration over this period. They aren't counties.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Loads of Cornish nationalist bashing going on here, which i must say i like. Not only is Cornwall a county but it is also 100% as English as Northumberland. Bah. Cornish nationalism is pathetic. --Adam آدم (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly wikipedia has been overrun with some Cornwall nationalists recently, someone was advertising on a Cornwall forum (with nationalist views) the other week for people to come and help "improve" the different cornwall articles. Its crazy, how some people can come here and try to argue that Cornwall is a country i dont know. It is a county of England, has been for quite some time and it certainly will be in the future. Theres probably half a dozen people in Wessex that want independence too, they dont get several articles dedicated to their cause. Wikipedia sadly overplays the Constitutional status of Cornwall and the Cornish self-government movement. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell us why you didn't publicise your proposals on the Cornish WikiProject? Did you think you might find people there who knew what they were talking about?

Firstly, there is good reason to suspect "Sockpuppetry" from you and your friends, since some of you have come out with suspiciously similar statements and edits. Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that making blanket statements such as "it is 100% English" are no good on wikipedia? Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced, i.e. provide both sides of a debate. Something which you seem to be incapable of doing.

"Theres probably half a dozen people in Wessex that want independence too, they dont get several articles dedicated to their cause." - The Wessex regionalist movement is much more recent. It doesn't have a continuous existence going back at least a hundred years. "West Saxons" also do not have their own ethnic group code on the UK census, nor do they have any councillors. The only well known advocate of that cause is that polygamist. At some point, Wessex regionalism may become more notable. It certainly is not as notable as Cornish nationalism as things stand.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On the 12th of May someone did post on the Cornwall talk project seeking further input for the Cornwall article, something i supported although it doesnt seem to of got lots of different editors contributing.

You can accuse me of something all you like although id be interested if you would name some other names about who you think i might be. Im sure what i have said on this matter is similar to what many other people have said too. That is because the idea that Cornwall is a country today is a joke, it is a county of England this is backed up by fact and the voting patterns of people in Cornwall show this is not going to change for decades if at all. There is nothing wrong with making a blanket statement on a talk page, especially when its fact. As for wikipedia is supposed to be balanced, sure it is but right now on the article itself i think its overplaying the separatist cause, but i can live with the current wording. On the ethnic group code i have still yet to see the evidence this code was assigned BEFORE the results of the census were collected, if it was only issued because a certain number put themselves as Cornish, then as mentioned before Jedi is a religion because it got a code too.

Lmao @ "the Wessex regonalist movement" i cant wait for that. Im all for democracy and self-determination but good lord where is this going to end. We will end up with little villages or streets trying to declare their independence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Independance for Lancashire, the Queen is our Duke, if Cornwall can be a country why cant we!!! There is no way Cornwall will ever be a country, the Cornish Nationalists?? do not stand a chance.Willski72 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely one sided debate. It is simply not that simple. Like much of British constitutional law, Cornish matters are a blur of contradictory documents, not all of which point to it being a county.

The Cornish self-government movement is a slightly different matter. While it is much weaker than either its Scottish or Welsh counterparts, but at the same time, much more long lived than almost all would be counterparts in England, e.g. Vectis National Party. The fact that Mebyon Kernow has existed continuously for decades is testament in itself. As is its distinct language, and culture, which have not been matched anywhere else (even by would be Cumbrian and Devonian revivalists).

Cornwall is certainly more of a country than "Norn Iron" ever was--MacRusgail (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For how long was Cornwall its own kingdom and for how long has it been part of England? Just wondering for comparison with other areas.Willski72 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vikings

Are the vikings or scandanavians not an ethnic group if norman and anglo saxon are also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endofinfinity (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arent they Aryans? Didnt Hitler link the blonde haired, blue eyed master race to the Nordic peoples who were superior because they were tougher? Or am i making this up as i go along!?Willski72 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd thing for the dark-haired, dark-eyed Hitler to say. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh i know, considering that Himmler, Goebbels, Hess etc were all dark haired it seems a bit weird. It was probably an ideal, what should be strived for. Either that or he had an inferiority complex!Willski72 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I assume Endofinfinity is referring to the first sentence of United Kingdom#Ethnic groups section, and they have a point. Can anyone think of a reason not to include Vikings? The sentence ideally needs some source (or sources) behind it in any case. garik (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Scandinavians should be added to that group. From the British people article:

"Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled in Great Britain before the 11th century. Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings from northern France." TastyCakes (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c Good point. However, the Normans were originaly Vikings anyway, and the Anglo-Saxons are generally assumed to include the Jutes (as in Angles, Saxons and Jutes), who were from Jutland - Denmark - i.e. Vikings. The Normans and Anglo-Saxons are all Germanic, as were the Vikings. I suggest a first sentence reading: "The present day population of the UK has a varied ethnicity. The indiginous pre-Celtic and Celtic groups comprise Britons, Irish, Picts and Bretons, and the Germanic groups, arriving in Britain between the sixth and eleventh centuries, comprise Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans and Flemings." The Bretons having returns to Britain and Ireland with the Normans. Not sure if the Picts would be included among the group Britons, or not. Daicaregos (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be uncomfortable with this if we couldn't find a reputable source. Assuming we can do that, I think the inclusion of the Irish would/should be swapped out for the Gaels - something more historically accurate. Labelling Viking and Normans as Germanic without a source is, I imagine, going to be tampered with and supplanted at a later date. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, most "vikings" in Britain were from Denmark and Norway. Could we not just say that? Or say Scandinavians? Also, regarding the Irish thing, it should probably be made clear that there was a lot of historical immigration before the modern boundaries existed (as Gaels) as well as large scale immigration from Ireland in the past few centuries. TastyCakes (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that most British people aren't Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Romans or even Celts, but have been here for 6000 years. Maybe I can find the source. Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's one view. See this article and this Q&A. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/1/22.full.pdf+html--Endofinfinity (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Also: British People#Ancestral roots. TastyCakes (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sport

Why does the assertion that the Wimbledon tournement is the world's premier event attract a 'citation needed' tag? what possible doubt is there about this? It would make far more sense to query why the whole paragraph refers to 'tennis' rather than 'lawn tennis'. There being no mention at all of Real Tennis, one of whose courts is in the UK. There is no 'citation needed' tag for the assertion about the popularity of golf. Why not?

Why does football deserve as much coverage as all the others put together? There are more grass root cricket clubs than football clubs and more people playing and watching cricket. Someone has added Shinty but not Hurling, there is no mention of hockey or cross country and only one form of water sport. This whole section should be pruned drastically and left to the 'main article'.

Oh, and surely Sport should be a subheading under culture, not a heading on its own. Brunnian (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article. Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why does football deserve as much coverage as all the others put together?" - answer, it doesn't. It's probably because British football has wall to wall coverage, and its fans don't understand that there are other sports! Still, there are areas where rugby union, rugby league, cricket and shinty are more popular. Field hockey is played in schools, but I would say ice hockey is more important here, ditto basketball, and various American sports. Did I mention lawn bowls (there's at least a dozen clubs in this city)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. About hurling - it is popular as a community sport in Northern Ireland, but outside NI, is only played by expats really. Shinty has a substantial community presence in some rural parts of Scotland, and is the main sport in them.

On the topic of Rugby League, I can agree with it being a 'minority' sport even though average attendances are comftably above that of its sister code, but to say that there is a 'significant presence' within London is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.19.126 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Motto

There is no evidence, in my opinion, that there is a UK motto. The one offered and which I took the liberty of deleting was linked to a footnote stating that Scotland had its own motto. Also look at this European Parliament website, unlike some other EU state, there is no motto provided by the UK team for a UK motto [12] Politis (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The arms of the United Kingdom display Dieu et mon Droit as the motto. Are you suggesting there is some good reason to dismiss this as invalid? --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no arms of the UK. The ones you're thinking of are the royal arms for use in England (including Wales & probably Northern Ireland). There are different royal arms for use in Scotland, with a different motto. Politis is correct. Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. There are Royal Arms for the United Kingdom - the standard ones. There are also Royal Arms for use in Scotland, a variant. There are none for use in England. The Arms for use in Scotland are only used in an exclusively Scottish, rather than a national, context. Where something refers to the United Kingdom as a whole, then the standard UK Arms are used - for example, on Acts of Parliament or British Passports. To suggest the UK somehow doesn't have arms is frankly ridiculous. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

in 2008 Gordon Brown asked for a national motto similar to 'Liberte, equalite, fraternite', although downing st. later denied this. A number of people suggested Musn't Grumble. Brunnian (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it the motto on the passport is the motto of the British Monarch, rather than the United Kingdom. Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

here is a reference that confirms it is not the United Kingdom motto, though the arms themselves do represent the UK. It is the Motto for the British Monarch and England. The Scottish motto is "In My Defens God Me Defend" whilst the Welsh Motto is "Cymru am byth (Wales forever)" Jack forbes (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

B&C, you're not reading what you write. You say "Royal Arms for the United Kingdom", quite correctly, but then slur that into "To suggest the UK somehow doesn't have arms is frankly ridiculous." The UK is not the same thing as the Queen. The UK doesn't need arms because the Queen represents it. It has a banner, the Union Flag. However, while any coat of arms can be used on a banner, like the so-called Royal Standard, the reverse doesn't hold. The flag is never presented on a shield.

Yes, it's true that the English version has to be used in national contexts. England is regarded as the senior kingdom when choice is necessary. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And quite rightly so. We wouldn't expect 'equal' to be used in the same sentence as 'England', or when talking of the monarchy. We know our place. Daicaregos (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Daicaregos, its obvious that that was sarcasm!Willski72 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read Peter jackson's comments several times and am still unable to detect any intended sarcasm. You may be projecting sarcasm into, what was, a completly outrageous statement, but it looks to me that what was said, was meant. As I can't see it Willski72, would you be kind enough to point it out to me? It is quite possible, however, that I've become over-sensitive following recent edits, e.g. where a previously respected editor removed the Dafydd Wigley's nationality from the infobox diff here. Perhaps that was sarcastic too. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to be that the Royal Arms are different from those used in a national (albeit state-only) context - and thus emphasising that they are national ars. As the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom article shows, a different display is used for the monarch (with crest) than for national/government usage (with larger Crown and no crest). It is the latter, for example, that appears on passports and government documents. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstand meDaicaregos. I meant you were being sarcastic not Peter jackson! Im afraid he was bloodlessly factual and quite probably wrong! I'll try and be clearer with who i mean next time!Willski72 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As you say, I wasn't being sarcastic.

As the article referenced makes clear by its very title, the arms are royal arms, not those of the UK. I don't see the difference between forms used by the monarch in her personal capacity & those used by the government on her behalf as all that important. (As an aside, the differences are not in the arms, ie the shield, but only in the other material.) Note that there are national & Scottish versions for both Queen & Government.

I'm not sure which of my statements Dai thought outrageous, or which you thought probably wrong (not necessarily the same). In case someone's accusing me of anti-Scottish prejudice, they might like to take time to examine my contributions log for correcting Anglocentrism (or is there a simple way to search for that?). I often had to do that in monarchy articles. Peter jackson (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dai's Welsh and he took offence at you calling England the senior kingdom. Im not bothered personally but i thought his comment underneath yours was quite funny. (Your comment was slightly tactless whether true or not!)Willski72 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so there is no doubt: I consider the statement here 'Yes, it's true that the English version has to be used in national contexts. England is regarded as the senior kingdom when choice is necessary.' to be outrageous. What is its source, that is, do you have a reference? As that viewpoint, if official, would be notable and should be included on the article (and possibly others). Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously true.

1. How much do you know about heraldry? The shield is looked at from the point of view of its holder. Thus what looks to us like the left is the dexter, right, & the senior position. That of course works out the same as reading. Thus the English version of the royal arms puts the 3 lions of England in the senior position, while the Scottish version puts the lion of Scotland there. So the use of the English version in national contexts is putting England in senior position.
2. The capital of the UK (at least de facto) is the capital of England.
3. The Parliament of the UK was formed by adding 45 Scottish members to the existing English Parliament, without even a general election.
4. I think the Privy Council of the UK was formed in a similar way.
5. The monarchy's official website gives English monarchs before Scottish ones (an improvement on many sources which ignore Scotland).
6. Portugal is our oldest ally, from a treaty with Richard II of England. The Auld Alliance between France & Scotland was quietly forgotten.
7. Just look at the way histories &c tend to be written.
8. I'm sure people can think of many more examples.

Is this official? Probably not, in the sense that I don't suppose Parliament or whoever has ever officially said so. Has it been mentioned in reliable sources? Very likely, though I don't feel inclined to put a lot of time into looking for one.

As to Wales, you may not like it, but, unlike with Scotland, there wasn't even a pretence of an equal union. Wales was conquered in the Middle Ages & legally incorporated into England in 1535. The Prince is a subordinate sovereign, with only 1 arch to his crown. Wales is till governed by English law, with a few exceptions, while Scotland has always retained its own legal system. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What a shame. I was hoping it would be something worth spending some time over. Sadly this is nothing more than WP:POV/WP:OR. If you have anything you can back up with WP:RS, please do so. Otherwise, the next time you feel the need to insult the various countries of the UK with your opinions, please try to hold yourself back. Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the above should be considered insulting, or what you might actually disagree with. Most of it's just WKF.

Here are a couple of sources that may be relevant.

A. C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, revised and annotated by J. P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, Orbis Publishing, London, 1985, page 471: "Royal arms ... stand, not for any particular area of land, but for the intangible sovereignty vested in the rulers thereof."

This confirms what I said above: the royal arms aren't the arms of the UK.

J. H. & R. V. Pinches, The Royal Heraldry of England, Heraldry Today, London, 1974, page 168: "The union of England and Scotland under King James was symbolised heraldically by combining the arms, supporters and badges of his two realms. This led to some contention as to how they should be marshalled. The King's paternal arms were Scottish. He succeeded to the English arms through the female line. It would have been quite correct for him to have taken one coat of arms for all places and purposes and to have given precedence on that coat to his paternal arms, for it is customary to place the paternal arms in the first quarter of the shield an dto assign arms inherited from other families to subsequent quarterings.

The solution reached, however, was to have different arms for both countries, since in England it was considered that the larger and wealthier country should have precedence."

I seem to have forgotten to sign that. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most people guessed it was you! I often forget to sign and have been known to put my comment on the wrong section! So your not bad yet!Willski72 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

UK ethnic/nationality/country-of-birth group templates

You may be interested in a discussion going on at Template talk:AfricansinUK about the categorisation of migrant groups in the UK on templates. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

UK?

What do you call things from the UK? Is it just british, or is it something else? Like if I'm talking about moths from the UK, would I just say british moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.119.228 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

British is normal or English, Welsh etc if the rang is confined to those areas. Citation support for that is things like A field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Ireland --Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Moths from the United Kingdom"? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdomsonian moths. Or, when at diplomatic or formal functions, they should be addressed as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Islandsian Moths. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay moths!--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But not just any moths, these are moths of the UK, they are therefore UKish moths and are rarely seen except for when eating your clothes....Willski72 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

British moths with true British pride!--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you listen very carefully you can hear them humming the national anthem.....Willski72 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that claim! Where's your source! :D --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was eaten by them along with my clothes!Willski72 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppenheimer's theories

I reverted recent changes on this for the moment pending discussion. While I am happy to accept that 96% of lineages in Llangefni are from northern spain it doesn't follow that Opeenheimer is correct in the conclusions he draws. He has been challenged by Berresford Ellis and others, not on the facts of the DNA analysis but the interpretation. There are also issues here of linguistic v genetics, not to mention some political controversies over anglo-saxon purity etc. --Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to Genetic history of the British Isles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we verify that Peter Berresford Ellis has challenged Stephen Oppenheimer please, for the sake of clarity? So long as we say "Oppenheimer say X, Berresford Ellis says Y", we are within the spirit and letter of normal editorial practice, and making for a full(er) account of the issue. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a source (although it is political) here but I think we need to be more careful. Oppenheimer is a single book and WP:WEIGHT comes into play. The way it was phrased was not to say that there is a controversial new theoyr, but that it is now known. Now there are political agenda here, republican and british nationalist (just to take a couple). We really need someone who knows the literature on genetics here. --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

His work seems to dovetail with that of Brian Sykes and also seems widely published on sources like thetimes.com, guardian-online, bbc etc etc. It's a notable theory at worst. Is there anything stronger than Berresford Ellis and the Irish Democrat suggesting a conflict of interpretations? Even Dan Snows How the Celts Saved Britain agreed with Oppenheimer's interpretation of Britons going through a process of Anglo-Saxon cultural appropriation as a way to achieve higher social standing etc, so it's not too obscure. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the Berresford Ellis article is that there is no argument over the genetics, but more over what language(s) the pre-Anglo Saxon inhabitants spoke, their cultural affiliations, and the scale, and degree of violence, of the Anglo-Saxon (and later) processes of invasion and settlement - which it where it gets political. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Irish Democrat - campaigning for a united Ireland article too, and it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny by the WP:RS police and FA-reviewers. It reads as somewhat die-hard anti-English to me. But I agree with Ghmyrtle - Berresford Ellis seems to throughly agree with the science of the DNA results. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did put a cautionary note on the Berresford Ellis source. However he is reputable in this field no matter where he chooses to publish! In practice you have both die hard republicans and English racial purists who like the idea of anglo-saxon genocide on the celts (for different reasons). You also have political interests behind the we are all really the same argument. Neither do I think anyone disputes the actual DNA studies, but what you can make from that is a bigger issue. 35% of our DNA is shared with the daffodil, 99.4% with Chimps. It nor more makes sense to say we are 99% chimp that to say we are a third daffodil (Marks "What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee"). Using percentages in genetics is dangerous. Now I am not an expert here, but I know enough to know that one should not jump to conclusions. There is a strong argument that linguistics are more important in defining ethnicity than DNA (most anthropologists would I think run with that. Getting to a NPOV position is not simply a he said/they said issue. We really need an expert or two on this one. --Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, problem here is Snowded - that's just your interpretation. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a guideline that outlines that abhorance to a verifiable factoid is not grounds to remove it. Bryan Sykes is a professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, and Stephen Oppenheimer a physician, a member of Green College, Oxford and an honorary fellow of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine; it doesn't need an expert to use Wikipedia:Five pillars on this and do a quick neutral writeup. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Jza, I'm merely suggesting some caution before inserting new material and saying that the disagreement with at least one noted scholar means that the new view cannot be cited as the new truth. I've also given you a citation for the controversy over using DNA percentages (see the reference). I haven't made a single comment on whether I like it one way or the other. Saying that a theory has been advanced but has also attracted controversy is fine if you are in a hurry to get something in. --Snowded ^TALK 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Berresford Ellis' point, Jza84, is that Oppenheimer's theories here are outside his area of expertise. If he was propounding his theory on, say, the development of the internal combustion engine, his credentials (interesting and impressive though they may be) would not be relevant to the science of engineering. He is not an expert witness. Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is? Berresford Ellis and the Irish Democrat? I'm not into debating the substance of the content, but I am concerned that Snowded removed the content on the basis its "controvertial" and "political", but then only submitted a lacklustre and political source as evidence. This speaks for itself. Wikipedia is not censored, and saying "Oppenheimer has suggested XYZ" is not in anyway a bad thing - if his genetic research isn't to be added, then, blimey, who's is???? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅Just for the record I reverted an addition to the article with a comment that it needed to be discussed, I didn't arbitrarily remove material. The addition also stated that established theories had been replaced by one book and newspaper reports of that book . The misapplication of statistics in a field in which you are not an expert is documented; Kennedy's attack on the second Bush election - not that I support Bush! - being another example. Also no one doubts Berresford Ellis as an authority in this area surely? Where he chooses to publish does not impact on that authority. --Snowded ^TALK 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that the current wording in this article (after Snowded's reversion, and with a link to Genetic history of the British Isles) looks to me to be perfectly acceptable, balanced and appropriate. Whatever the merits of Oppenheimer's and Berresford Ellis' positions, this is not the article where they need to be discussed in any detail - that would be better at Genetic history of the British Isles and British people. Where there are differences between expert positions, as there are on this, the relevant articles need to be balanced, and they need to be consistent with each other, and with this one to the extent that it even needs to be mentioned here at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Position of Spitfire picture

Move up further up the page, it doesn't look right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.54.55 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sovereign state"

Is there any reason for retaining this phrase? Most articles about countries just say "X is a country" (admittedly, not the best wording for this article) or "X is a typeofgoverment" (my preferred wording). The only reason I can think of is consistency with (Republic of) Ireland, but that says "is an independent state", not "sovereign state". Additionally, I don't think we need to emphasise sovereignty like we need to do with Ireland. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Sceptre - I can't see any point in including it. Of course the UK is a sovereign state; who has ever said otherwise? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a sovereign state. A constitutional monarchy is a system of government - the UK is not a system of government but a division of land. Sovereign state was agreed upon, as I recall, as the most accurate term, and the one that causes least contention and confusion with regards to the four countries of the United Kingdom. Also, constitutional monarchy is mentioned already in the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but do we need to say it's sovereign? As Chris says, no-one has ever said otherwise. And it's not incorrect to say "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy"; the United States article says it is a "federal constitutional republic". Oh, and if you actually looked at my edit, you'd see that I moved "constitutional monarchy" to the first paragraph, not said it twice. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sceptre, I do think it is important to emphasise that the UK is sovereign. Some readers may be confused that the UK is a country made up of other countries and therefore we need to make clear that the UK is the sovereign entity. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fishiehelper2, it was a way of distinguishing the UK (which is sovereign) and the four nations that make up the United Kingdom (none of which actually hold sovereignty, even if three of them have parliaments/assemblies). This is the most succint way.Willski72 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, since the UK's 4 components are called countries. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comments, Sovereign state is a far stronger term than country and avoids confusion. The second sentence mentions the fact the UK is an island country, so at the moment we have both which works nicely i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough people constantly query the nature of the UK to warrant using it in the intro sentence. It is short and to the point, and definitely fit for purpose (for educating those who don't know). It is most definitely better than the usual alternatives offered up. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

'Sovereign state' is the most technically accurate and specific description we can use, and as such I support its position of precedence. As has been said above, 'country' is also mentioned. I really don't see a problem. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Punjabi is the second most commonly used language in UK"Punjabi Community". The United Kingdom Parliament.) Pushpinderbrar (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Pushpinder

More than Welsh? Is this official?Willski72 (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the estimated figure of 1.3 million in the source is correct, then that's more than twice as many as Welsh. It's certainly not implausible that Punjabi is spoken by more than 600,000 people (the approximate number who speak Welsh), but 1.3 million is still more than half the number of people identifying as Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi in 2001, and I don't know enough about the proportions of Punjabi speakers in South Asia and South Asian immigrant groups to Britain to say if that's a reasonable estimate, or where that estimate comes from. But it's certainly not impossible, and it only needs to be a third of that number to beat Welsh. garik (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So its possible then, might need more than one source though because it'll likely be contested.Willski72 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshis don't speak Punjabi (unless of course they've learnt it) - their native tongue is the Bengali language. I believe the majority of Pakistanis conventionally speak Urdu (as a first or second language), with some speaking Pushto. Many folk from the Indian community speak Hindi. Therefore to me at least, this seems unlikely - South Asians speak a diverse range of related and unrelated languages. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought they did. Punjabi is spoken by people from what was called (and may still be called for all i know) the Punjab, i just wasnt sure if someone had set up a club or something, spreading the word so to speak.Willski72 (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Urdu is indeed the main language of Pakistan, but the largest part of the Punjab is also in Pakistan (the rest is in India), so we can expect a large proportion of Punjabi speakers to be Pakistani. As I say, I don't know the facts, but it seems possible that a disproportionate number of Pakistani and Indian immigrants to the UK were Punjabi speakers. But yes, 1.3 million does sound a lot. More than 600,000, on the other hand, seems reasonable enough. We need more reliable stats. I'll see what I can find. garik (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, according to this article half the population of Pakistan speaks Punjabi. garik (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, yes, perphaps it could be 1.3 million, or closer to that number than 600,000 anyway.Willski72 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The population will have increased since 2000, its been almost a decade. If 1.3 million was an MP's over-exaggeration to serve his point then its likely no over-exaggeration now.Willski72 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Literature

When adding to what has become, essentially, a list of names in the English Literature section, could editors please make even the briefest research to ensure that those they list are actually English. C. S. Lewis, for example, was Irish/Welsh (b. Belfast), and was known to have hated the English in his younger days. Both of Roald Dahl's parents were Norwegian and he was born in Wales. Should this list be expanded? If so it would be an idea to include some writers from Northern Ireland too. How about adding the poet Tom Paulin to C.S. Lewis? Otherwise, some serious pruning needs doing to return it to prose. Thoughts please. Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the literature part of your point. However maybe im uncultured because i didnt know who Tom Paulin was, whereas i did know who C.S. Lewis was.Willski72 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Tom Paulin page it says he was born in England and lives in England, but at the same time it says he's Northern Irish???Willski72 (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be because both his parents are Irish (or N.I., not sure when they were born). Daicaregos (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Makes sense now! Cheers!Willski72 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Music

Is it me or is a general article on the United Kingdom and its few hundred year history is slowly becoming a list of every rock band and musician! Editors appear to randomly add their favourite band. Not an expert but they cant all be notable in the three-hundred year history of the UK and music. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres certainly a few English Punk/Rock musicians that probably are not that notable and should be removed, but depends on peoples point of view i guess. Id remove the Sex Pistols for their vandalism to the National anthem, but im guessing some would want them to stay in. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to the national anthem, BW? Surely not! Off with their heads. I agree that the list should be cut back. Jack forbes (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The same problem exists with the London article, on a smaller scale. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just London, it happens at any article on a large place with lots of musicians. The question is how best to deal with it. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We could take the radical step of insisting on sources! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could find sources to prove they were all notable. I reckon mentioning one or two musicians or groups from each decade would cut it down. Maybe choose them from the amount of international record sales? Jack forbes (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If we could find a single source that established notability for all, that would be great. Record sales would be a good way to go, I reckon. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We have an article List of best-selling music artists which seems to be well referenced.. We could take the first half dozen UK musicians? Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made the edit to the music section. Have included all (nine of them) those who have had 200 million world wide record sales. Hope that's alright. Jack forbes (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you inputs and Jack Forbes edit although the list has already been added to! MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arghh. I'm off to my kip. Jack forbes (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Status Quo has to be mentioned - though it may not have had over 200 million sales worldwide, its sales, following and influence was much more concentrated in the UK than other bands listed, and its influence within the UK was probably greater. Worth reading Quo Facts to see whether their contribution is sufficient to be included. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there we go. The previous version has been restored. I've got another half dozen or so I'd like to add to the list, anyone else? Seriously, do we want the list to grow larger and larger or should we put a limit on it? Jack forbes (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a revert to you last edit, Jack. The editor who restored the original version did so because "other editors will add again them anyway". That's not a good reason. Following that logic, we might as well vandalise the article because it will save the effort of policing vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to my last edit. We need others to come here and get some kind of consensus on it. Jack forbes (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly gets to decide what is notable and what is not? Should there be a certain sales figure that has to be achieved before the artist can be mentioned? There needs to be a guideline that other editors can follow, perhaps in the form of a hidden note or something. Hayden120 (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the problem. There was no criteria for inclusion, which allowed anyone to add their favourate band to the list. We were going to finish with the music section being larger than any other. Record sales reflect their popularity throughout the world. I can't see any better reason for inclusion than that, unless you think because someone prefers one group over another they should be included. Jack forbes (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The 200 million figure is, of course, somewhat arbitrary. But the general idea of basing the list on record sales is not and is much more sound than what we had previously. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

World wide sales gives an indication of world wide influence, but some groups have been far more influencial in the UK which is not reflected in total world wide sales. I thought and still believe it would be perverse to not include the group with the British record for number of hit singles! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps after the list by sales, we could have the top UK singles artists, based on this reference? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go along with that. It would only be another five added to the list. Jack forbes (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The music section reads much better now. I'm not sure how accurate the beginning of the second paragraph is, though ("Most prominent among the UK contributors to the development of music were ..."). This relates only to chart music, and only over the last half century, so it could do with being rephrased. How about something like: "Prominent British contributors to have influenced popular music over the last 50 years include ...". Daicaregos (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, Dai. That's far more accurate. Jack forbes (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've gone ahead and used your wording. Jack forbes (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Music section is bizarre for many reasons, cliff richard is non existant outside UK, ACDC are Australian, "most prominant contributers to influence music" should be those that have, major worldwide acts such as 3 time Hall of Famer Eric Clapton.. and also those who have had a seminal impact on various genres.. Punk pioneers Sex Pistols and the Clash, Heavy Metal pioneers Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, Prog rock pioneers Genesis, The Cure a goth rock, Radiohead alternative post britpop... the current mess includes status quo, cliff and manic street preachers... in place of major worldwide stars Rod Stewart, Sting, George Michael, Dire Straits, The Kinks, Van Morrison, The Who etc etc.

The previous list of approx 60 are major names with huge impact on various genres, to have a small section on Brit music inwhich status quo, cliff richard and manic street preachers are listed is incredulous. This section needs ripped up. KerryO77 (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter whether or not you think Cliff Richard or anyone else were influential enough to be there. The fact is, he sold over 200 million records and is in the top ten all time British chart successes. What is incredulous about that? It would be more incredulous if he weren't mentioned just because some people don't like him (including me). Remember, more than 200 million people liked him and bought his records. If that isn't major I don't know what is. Going back to the approx 60 acts would go to seventy, then eighty and so forth. Jack forbes (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, 60 and counting is far too much for the music section, which is why there has to be some kind of critera for inclusion. Could there not be an article created such as Influential UK music artists? I'm sure the article would be long enough as long as there are plenty of reference to back them up. Jack forbes (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi KerryO77, as for as AC/DC, the group was formed in Sidney in 1973, but by Scottish born brothers, Malcolm and Angus Young. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they were. Glasgow born I believe. Jack forbes (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote to British rock. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes and references

UK Census data can be obtained from http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/get-data/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.233.120 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3 cheers for Wikipedia: UK introduction, not part of Europe

The introduction says that the UK is a sovereign state off the coast of Europe. I agree. Is this a compromise between people who say the UK is in Europe and those that say it is only near Europe?

I do not want to get into an edit war but want to know if the intro was carefully written as a compromise. It is nicely written!

User F203 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think it says off the coast of continental Europe, which would seem to be a little less controversial. I don't know if it was the result of a compromise... TastyCakes (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are saying. It says: "The United Kingdom... is located of the coast of continental Europe". That is to do with its geographical location, nothing else. Alan16 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Overseas territories

Just a quick question, are the overseas territories a part of the UK? I'm not sure because the UK is responsible for the governance of the territories [13]. Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not part of the United Kingdom unlike the system France uses where some of their overseas territories actually form part of the French Republic.

Looking at the intro here it clearly explains the Crown dependencies aint part of the UK but doesnt say the same about the overseas territories, that may need to be changed i guess to avoid confusion.

How much of the page on the FCO website did you read because it goes into alot of detail underneath the list..

The Overseas Territories are not constitutionally part of the UK. They have separate constitutions, and most have elected governments with varying degrees of responsibilities for domestic matters. The Governor, who is appointed by, and represents, HM The Queen, is responsible for external affairs, internal security, defence, and in most cases the public service. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I stopped just short of that sentence :S Thanks for clearing it up anyway. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No British Army Image?

Hello, I was wondering why there is no British Army images in the 'Foreign relations and armed forces' section? I believe there should be at least an image of a Challenger 2, Seems more fair that way. SuperDan89 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should probably be some image of the army there although we dont want to overload it with images and 4 in that small section might be too many. Im also not sure which image should be removed to make way for an army pic. The aircraft carrier and trident whilst both naval images are both important, the UK is one of very few countries with nuclear weapons / aircraft carriers so i think they add more than a tank image would. I dont have a problem with the eurofighter being removed, trouble is replacing that means then there is unfairness for the RAF. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true, no way we can limit the size of the Trident image or swap it for a smaller one? this way having four images may not overcrowd the page. Just the Challenger 2 is rather impressive as it is one of the most heavily armoured and best protected tanks in the world, especially as it has second generation Chobham armour. Not only that but the British Army has a long history in relation to the United Kingdom. SuperDan89 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the UK the 5th largest country by GDP?

According to the figures quoted in their respective Wikipedia pages, the UK has a greater GDP than France. Jezcentral (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) the UK is the 6th now by all the major organisations. That page is updated far more than individual country articles are so id say that is more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. It's this sort of thing that makes me WP:COWARDLY. :) Jezcentral (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new external link

• United Kingdom ISAF Operations with support from Afghanistan (Afghan National Army)

I propose that the above external link be added. I welcome any comments or suggestions. Best regards, Mfstelmach (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I presume that you mean one of the three videos listed at that page, since the link above is a Wikipedia page, not an external one. I don't see how they are relevant to the article though. They'd be better at International Security Assistance Force. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Input Requested

• At the History of Britain disambig page, Þjóðólfr is removing History of the British Isles.

*The same user is changing the British history redirect from History of Britain to a new disambig page [14] containing the terms "New British History" and "History of Britain" ("New British History" is a term invented by one solitary historian [15]) This user is against the term "British Isles" and is going around Wikipedia removing it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The dastard, have him shot! String him up! Exile him! In all serious now what exactly has he got against the term?--Willski72 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" is supposedly under-law been abolished...something to do with the Irish Government wanting rid of it. Some of you good people could probably look this up and confirm it, but I don't think this user is just doing this out of sheer madness...?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.127.123 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that "British Isles" is against the law in the United Kingdom and in the Crown Dependencies which happen to make up most of the land and the vast majority of the population in what is termed the "British Isles". Besides this particular article is on the United Kingdom, so it would make sense for its rules to apply. --Willski72 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles" is simply a geographical expression, not a legal term - although "British Islands" is used in law. Some Irish editors dislike the name British Isles - see British Isles naming dispute.Pondle (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Typos

Population: 23nd should be 22nd. (population_estimate_rank = 22nd.)

Under Music: "sinilar to the Kings at the rime".

173.75.248.27 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Government

My WP:BOLD edit (removing 'Parliamentary democracy' from 'government type' in the infobox) was reverted as it is, apparently, "nonsense". I am here for the 'd' part of the WP:BRD cycle; eager to discover how the British monarchy is, in fact, democratic. While I'm here, I would like to note publicly that I consider 1 + 1 = 2, night follows day and that eggs is eggs, so we may as well get them all sorted at the same time. Daicaregos (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a monarchy, but our government is democratically elected. Hence: United Kingdom general election, 1997 etc. By the way, I choose that because Tony Blair happens to be on my TV screen at the moment.

Also note:

a = b

multiply by a: a^2 = ab

subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

factorise: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

take out common factor (a - b): a + b = b

as a = b which was stated at the beginning: b + b = b

which gives: 2b = b

therefore 2 = 1

So what do you know! To avoid any misunderstanding, I do understand that the logic is false. Alan16 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm all these numbers are confusing me. It is democratic, this is British democracy! Besides some of the countries with the highest "democracy ratings" by some organisation (cant remember what one does it) lists some of the European countries with monarchies as the most democratic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Democracy index first two on the list, Sweden and Norway are both constitutional monarchies and democracies. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are a supposed algebraic proof that 1 in fact equals 2. But on topic, Britain is a democratic government, and it has a monarchy. Like others (which BritishWatcher handily provided). Alan16 (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be off topic, but the mistake is in the very last line - if 2b=b, then the value of b must be zero. Therefore it does not mean that 2=1, it just means than 2 times zero equals 1 times zero! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing off topic... Although what you say is true, the mistake takes place a long way before that. At this line ":subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2" is a = b, then at this line all it says is 1-1 = 1-1 so all that is proved is that 0 = 0. The same with the factorised line. If a = b, then (a - b) = 0, so it is actually (a + b) x 0 = b x 0, which is again 0 =0. I know that the logic is false, however it looks convincing and that is what matters for most people. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The people who make the laws that affect the people are voted for by the people, sounds like democracy to me.--Willski72 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Prime minister and cabinet are appointed by the Queen, not the people. It would of course be suicide to go against the wishes of the people but that doesn't get away from the fact that she has that power. Is that Democracy? Jack forbes (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, because the Prime Minister appointed is the one chosen by election. Otherwise you would say that the returning officer, who oversees elections, is the one with the power because they get to choose the election winner.

Anyway, this has been gone over many times and the consensus is that the UK is a parliamentary democracy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Em, no. The returning officer declares the winner. They don't appoint them to office. Jack forbes (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the discussion is closed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes boss. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not me. Wikipedia:Consensus is the boss. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I find myself in tentative agreement with User:Daicaregos: Using WP:V as the threshold for inclusion (as we should), I've just had a look at the 2002/4th edition of Britain by Rough Guides (page vi), and Michael Gallagher's 2006 The United Kingdom Today (page 12), and this strong resource which all describe the UK's political system as a "constitutional monarchy" without any mention of 'Parliamentary democracy'. Of course the UK has parliamentary democracy, but I'm not sure that that is the official style used, and may come secondard to "CM". --Jza84 |  Talk  21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[16][17][18][19] etc. etc. Maybe we need an FAQ here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources, it's a lot more helpful than stonewalling by saying "this has been gone over many times and the consensus is that the UK is a parliamentary democracy" and then not providing a link to a discussion or sources. Consensus doesn't beat WP:V and you needed to demonstrate, as you just have done, that "parliamentary democracy" is verifiable. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting response. Did you read them? The second reference refutes the theory that Britain is a Parliamentary democracy, the third does not refer to the UK as a Parliamentary democracy, but that "The UK Parliament is one of the oldest representative assemblies in the world." (No dispute there). The fourth I would not consider as a WP:RS. The first seems a decent source, though not authoritative and I note that in its infobox it notes the "Political system" as "Constitutional monarchy". Also, I'm sure you would all have noticed that Parliamentary democracy is actually an WP:EASTEREGG, so there's a problem there too. Daicaregos (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Constitutional monarchy" and "Parliamentary democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. "CM" just means there is a monarch and some form of constitution. "PD" just means there is a system of voting for people who (in effect) take decisions. In the UK, the linkages between one and the other (monarch appoints ministers, approves decisions) are part of the constitution. But I agree with Daicaregos that the link is not a "democratic" one, because people don't have the ability to vote for the head of state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was the fourth source provided that convinced me as it seemed most reliable. It's been reviewed by the European Journal of International Law so it has at least attracted attention from authorities on the subject, but sadly I can't get beyond the first page of the review which would tell me whether it's genuinely reliable rather than just appearing as such. Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And still, no-one has mentioned the 'democratic' House of Lords. Shocking. Daicaregos (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm my feelings on the House of Lords are probably in line with yours and Ghmyrtles, so that might be one thing we could all agree on. :), But it doesnt change the fact the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy, the elected house can override the non elected house. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And an unelected queen has the power to disolve the elected house. Daicaregos (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If Parliamentary Democracy is removed from Sweden, Norway and all other country articles in the same boat as the United Kingdom, i will support its removal from this page although theres probably quite a few UK articles that will need changing if we are not allowed to call ourselves a Parliamentary Democracy here. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is there anything from say, number10.gov.uk that can just confirm things for us? I think we're all in agreement that the UK's system of government is a constitutional monarchy where head of state is effectively a figurehead without a great deal of executive power other than persuasion over public opinion. I think we also all agree that the UK's governance draws its real power from a democratically elected parliamentary system. There is consensus in that respect. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is only theoretical. In law, the monarchy has the power. That is not democratic. However, I agree that the UK's system of government is a constitutional monarchy. Daicaregos (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did do a search on the 10 downing street and even parliament website itself, but didnt come up with anything. Interestingly on the Monarchy website, Canada is described as a Parliamentary Democracy [20] but cant see anything about the UK being one there lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the references DJ Clayworth presented, here is HMG's own layman's description of the UK system of government on direct.gov.uk: "the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch". The Commonwealth page on UK Government says much the same.[21] It's really a non-issue IMO. Pondle (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this rather amusing on the Downing street website [22], must still be a work in progress :). Very good links Pondle, im gonna beat up google for not finding me anything decent like that!! Grrr BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I really don't think that UK government sites can be treated as unbiased independent sources on this matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Pondle's sources are pretty strong, reliable and fair. That's enough to convince me that our encyclopedia is reflecting the real world, and so I'm happy to support the status quo. But one alternative would be to support the changes by Daicaregos - have "CM" in the infobox (like many sources seem to do outwith Wikipedia), and explain the sitution better in the prose. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth website is a reliable 3rd party source. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth website would have the same bias. The CIA Factbook would be reasonably unbiased in this respect. They have it as "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm". I'd be happy to drop the 'Commonwealth realm' part, though. Daicaregos (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not have any problem at all with Constitutional monarchy being the only thing listed there, however like in many cases on country issues i think this should only be done if its in line with other country articles. If there was agreement between all the country articles to remove PD and just leave CM then id be ok with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of journal articles and books have been published with titles such as "British Parliamentary Democracy". Herbert Morrison wrote one of them.[23][24][25] You can find other academic references to, for example, "the traditional model of parliamentary democracy in the UK".[26] I have access to a few political reference books that would probably lend further support, but I'm mobile at the moment.Pondle (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We would benefit from wider editor involvement here. Daicaregos (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: UK system of government

How should the system of government in the UK be defined in the inforbox? Some editors think that the Government type should be noted as: Constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy. Other editors think the Government type should be noted only as: Constitutional monarchy. Uninvolved editors are invited to comment. Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

By any objective measure a constitutional monarchy cannot be considered democratic. The UK Government consists of two legeslative chambers: the lower house is democraticaly elected, the upper house consists of hereditary and appointed 'peers'. Further, no laws may be enforced and not government minister may take office without the express consent of the Head of State - the unelected, hereditary queen regnant, Queen Elizabeth II. It is true that references have been provided stating that the UK is a Constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy, though other references note the UK only as a Constitutional monarchy. This is a problem. Few sources define something by what they are not. The UK could be defined as a Constitutional monarchy and Theocracy (as the queen is head of the Church of England and Bishops are appointed to sit in the House of Lords), but you wouldn't find many sources saying that the UK is not a theocracy. The Parliamentary democracy definition is obviously controversial and, as such should not be included in the infobox, but explained thoroughly in the main article text. Daicaregos (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of time. "By any objective measure a constitutional monarchy cannot be considered democratic.", this is clearly more about peoples own point of views on monarchy than looking at the bigger picture. Sweden and Norway are ranked as the most democratic countries in the world at Democracy Index they both have the identical constitutional monarchy / parliament democracy status the United Kingdom does and list it. There may be a case for putting Constitutional Monarchy BEFORE the Parliamentary democracy in the infobox but i see no justification for its removal. If people are seriously considering wikipedia should not consider Constitutional Monarchies as "democratic" then this debate must take place not on this single talk page but somewhere else with every single wikiproject and Constitutional monarchy country article given the link and invited to participate.

This RFC is disgraceful, offensive and quite possibly politically motivated when this user openly admits he wants the destruction of the United Kingdom and opposes the system of monarchy. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweden displays it in exactly the same way as the UK article does, Norway says Parliamentary democracy under Constitutional monarchy. - Id fully support the method used at Norway being used here which highlights the monarch is superior and might slightly address some of the "concerns" being raised, although as i see nothing at all wrong with the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As both of you have good points to make, I see no reason to dismiss the RFC as "disgraceful and offensive" or as "a complete waste of time". It is obviously a matter of some dispute and so it needs to be resolved. Setwisohi (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back in the archives, this was last mentioned over 2 years ago in May 2007 (will post at bottom of page the link to it). Only a few people had replied when this issue was raised last night following a Bold alteration which was reverted. I think its a bit quick to jump to RFC on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with "Constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy", and have no strong view (unless persuaded otherwise) on the order in which the terms are placed. The terms are not mutually exclusive. The country is a monarchy and has a constitution (albeit a supposedly "unwritten" one, a fact not relevant to this discussion), hence can be termed a "constitutional monarchy". The fact that the constitution has what may seem to some to be flaws (i.e. that the monarch / head of state is not themselves democratically elected) is not relevant. The word "constitutional" means "having a constitution" - it does not mean "good" or "elected". The main decision-making element of Parliament is directly elected, and hence the system can be termed a "parliamentary democracy" (again, with flaws, some would say - not relevant). Above all, what is important is that the UK is described by reliable sources as both a "Constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy" - WP:V, verifiability not (necessarily) truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look from the bottom up rather than the top down. Parliament at Westminster is sovereign, that was established in the civil war and then in the glorious revolution. The lower House, that of the Commons, is directly elected by the people. Each MP has a constituency that they vie for and each constituency is made up of roughly 60,000 voters. The Upper House, that of the Lords is made up of 92 hereditary peers and around 650 appointed Peers. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and a body of people who (mainly) choose experienced people who have a special field of knowledge and can contribute wisely to amendments etc. Due to the Parliament Act the House of Lord's power is confined to suggesting amendments and suspending the passing of a bill for a year. The directly elected lower House can then pass it anyway. Anyone in either of the Houses can put forward a bill but unless it is voted through by the Commons it is dead in the water. Technically the Prime Minister can be anyone in the two Houses that the Queen appoints but as a majority is needed in the Commons to pass a law (even with oppossition in the Lords a year means its passed anyway) the PM will have to be from the majority party and will have to have the support of the majority party. As the people vote for an MP from a particular party they are indirectly voting for their PM as they create a majority party. As a PM needs the support of his party they will choose ministers (as it is their right) that both appease the rank and file and strengthen their own position. This is because the Prime Minister can only create laws. They have to pass through the Commons if they are to come into effect. And as the Commons is directly elected then the people have voted for their power wielding representatives. Parliament is sovereign and the important House is voted for thus making it Parliamentary demoracy. We do have a constitutional Monarch thus making it a constitutional Monarchy. Thus it is both. The monarch as head of State should be mentioned first followed by Parliamentary Democracy. Personally i think changing your Head of State every 4 years and calling them Hitler over a bill they try to pass etc sort of demeans the position and the state. (Just an example, no offence to my American friends!) --Willski72 (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - This was last debated on this talk page in May 2007 - see here BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting BritishWatcher. I find myself agreeing with Ajkgordon and unless, constitutionally, things have changed substantially since then i believe his point still stands. I say put both Constitutional Monarchy and then Parliamentary Democracy. The first describes our Head of State and the second our law making process and Head of Government etc.--Willski72 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, as I read this debate, currently only Daicaregos has any disagreement with the current wording. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to prolong the agony, but I said that I'd look up some politics reference books [27] and now I've finally had a chance to... Coxall and Robins (1994) Contemporary British Politics, 2nd edition, describe "parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy" as "the most apt description of the British liberal democratic state". Birch (1993) in The British System of Government, 9th edition, says that "in the British system of government, supreme power lies with Parliament... within Parliament the House of Commons is the centre of power... (whose) members have to answer to the electorate" (i.e. the UK is a parliamentary democracy). He goes on to say that that is a crude version of the liberal model, which discounts the formal role of the Crown, the House of Lords and the relative independence of the executive. However, this is a bit pettifogging for the infobox. I would want to keep 'parliamentary democracy' there because the essence of the British system is that the head of government is based in an elected legislature - contrast the presidential system.Pondle (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with a change to "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this on the RfC page my first thought was, "Why not both?" I'm glad to see other editors have come to a similar conclusion. I endorse the "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy" or some derivation thereof. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes i like the wording "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy", it both sounds good and is correct, not often an easy combination to find! It has my vote.--Willski72 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also support "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy". Succinct, apt, befitting and verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. There is precedent in the article for Canada,Australia, etc. Singularity42 (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem with under instead of and is that may indicate a heirarchy when there is none. Truthfully, the two aspects of government work together to form the full governmental system. Parliament has it's authority from the constitutional monarchy. But the unwritten constitution itself gives de facto control to Parliament, not the monarchy. It wouldn't be a constituional monarchy if there was no Parliament, and Parliament wouldn't be in charge without the constitutional monarchy. Semantics, I know, but there is precedent throughout Wikipedia for and, and I think it makes more sense than under. Singularity42 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the phrase "constitutional monarchy" normally means a parliamentary democracy which has a monarch who doesn't participate in governance. From that point-of-view, "constitutional monarchy" is fine on its own. But putting both isn't actually wrong. Why not toss a coin? --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, parlimentary democracy does not automatically mean constitutinal monarchy. For example, Israel is a parliamentary democracy, with a Prime Minister as the de facto head of government, but a President as the head of state. Singularity42 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP means that almost all constitutional monarchies are parliamentary democracies, not that all parliamentary democracies have monarchies. There may be one or two Constitutional monarchies that are not Parliamentary democracies but i cant think of any. The fact they are all Parliamentary democracies justifies keeping both in the infbox in line with all the other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• (came here from RFC) The argument to remove the Constitutional Monarchy part does not seem to be based on any actual sources that the UK is not one. Instead, it's based on an argument that a constitutional monarchy is incompatible with a democracy. This appears to me to essentially be original research, specifically a synthesis of materials. Are there solid sources for why we should describe the government differently than it describes itself, or the EU, for that matter? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No but i think we all decided that putting both satisfies everyone and is factually correct. It ends the argument with a decent compromise and its hardly a huge amount of extra room being taken up. Im happy to use "and" instead of "under", but in that case perphaphs the monarchy should be mentioned first. Head of State then government body/type.--Willski72 (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the UK government describe themselves as a democratic government but, as noted above here, they aren't exactly objective, are they? There are many neutral, WP:RS examples of the UK being defined as a constitutional monarchy - Encyclopaedia Britanica say "The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy with two legislative houses", CIA Factbook note the UK as "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm", the BBC note 'The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.', the US Department of State note the UK as "Government Type: Constitutional monarchy." etc., etc. And as for WP:OR, Republic put it well: "Our constitution is fundamentally undemocratic". The sad thing is that no-one here really cares enough to ensure that this encyclopedia provides accurate information and that there is no concensus to change the infobox to reflect reality rather than propaganda. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, the only propaganda ive recently seen is looking at that "republic" website you just linked to. I almost need a bucket after looking at that. Reliable 3rd party sources describe the United Kingdom as a Parliamentary democracy aswell as a constitutional monarchy. Daicaregos, if you were serious about this matter then youd start a discussion involving all countries with constitutional monarchies, the overwhelming majority of which list "Parliamentary democracy" as well. If its ok for the most democratic countries in the world Sweden and Norway, why is it unacceptable here? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you see my references, Dai?[28] The UK is a constitutional monarchy, but it is also a parliamentary democracy - not necessarily a "perfect" one. Numerous political reference books attest to that fact. This is an unnecessary diversion.Pondle (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your reference Pondle, which seems to be arguing that the UK is a de jure constitutional monarchy and a de facto Parliamentary democracy, a position closer to the truth than that noted in the infobox. I have been accused of many things here - being offensive (though to whom we are not informed) and disgraceful, wasting time, that [ I ] "openly admits he wants the destruction of the United Kingdom" (I have never said this: BritishWatcher: as well as an ill educated bore, you are a liar. Why are the admins allowing this vile, nasty individual to continue his/her personal attacks against editors all over Wikipedia) and WP:SYN. Pondle, using your reference for this purpose is synthesis, as it does not say the UK is a democracy. Daicaregos (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your claim the United Kingdom is not a democracy was offensive. Opening this RFC a couple of hours after your BOLD change was reverted and only a couple of people had responded here was disgraceful.

As for the destruction of the United Kingdom, your user page shows you support the Independence of England, the Independence of Wales and the Independence of Scotland. What watered down politically correct term would you like me to use instead of destruction? I never accused you of anything, its important to highligting a possible conflict on interest and clearly i have one too on this matter. I have no problem with us discussing how to present the information in the infobox, i quite like the suggested change to "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy". But this suggestion we are somehow incorrectly listing the UK as a parliamentary democracy is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Daicaregos you say that the UK government is biased and then take a Republican website as an example of an objective source?? A Republican website that was established for the purpose of toppling the monarchy and introducing a Republic. Hardly an objective source. It is both a constitutional Monarchy and a Parliamentary democracy and both should be mentioned.--Willski72 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The community has to decide how to define the UK's political system based on the majority view held in reliable sources. Clearly, by that count, the UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. I have no preference for which way they are ordered in the infobox. Daicaregos, the only one here to argue that we must only say constitutional monarchy, has two lines of argument; one, that some sources only say constitutional monarchy, but it has been demonstrated by other users that more sources say both cm and pd, and the other is that the UK isn't a democracy. Regarding the second argument, from examining this talk page the length of breadth over, Daicaregos seems to be supporting that contention through his own personal opinion that the UK isn't a democracy. To put it bluntly, personal opinions don't count. On a related note, I will very quickly try to counter some of Daicaregos's points as to why the UK isn't a democracy; yes, the Queen does hold great power in theory, but ever since Queen Victoria the UK's head of state has done nothing more beyond playing the role of a ceremonial leader. Regarding the House of Lords, its power has been curtailed over the past century to the point where it cannot prevent legislation passing. The fact that the Queen has to approve the PM is a mere formality based on tradition; no-one, not even the most republican people in the UK, suggest that Queen Elizabeth is not going to approve a PM. Otumba (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find a reference for what things are not. I have been unable to find, for example, a reference stating that the UK is not a theocracy (I'm not advocating that, btw. It's just an example). I removed 'Parliamentary democracy' from 'government type' in the infobox (it wasn't cited). I provided citations for the 'constitutional monarchy', suddenly I have to prove that it's wrong. It's become a witch hunt. Still, 'personal opinions don't count', so: here (page 32) in Defining and measuring democracy, David Beetham describes the UK as "undemocratic" and "... exceptionally undemocratic, when compared to other established Western democracies." and here (page 231) in Representative democracy in Britain today, Colin Pilkington says "It is not merely this [the establishment] that is anti-democratic in the monarchy." and here (page 40) in Human geography of the UK: an introduction, Irene Hardill, David T. Graham, Eleonore Kofman say "The very conservative nature of the UK polity is reflected in the largely bipartisan nature of the political party system and the undemocratic and deferential nature of the Monarchy and upper chamber." and page 181 "... there is growing discontent with the monarchy ... and all it stand for, in terms of ... lack of democracy" etc., etc., Daicaregos (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dai, claims that the UK is "not a democracy" are extreme. Of course it is not 'perfect' and you will find many critical texts. Nonetheless it is a democracy. Peterkingiron sums the constitutional position up below, but you might also reflect that Freedom House considers the UK to be an electoral democracy of the first order,[29] and The Economist Intelligent Unit lists the UK as the 21st (of 167 territories) in its democracy index, higher than France or Italy.[30] Pondle (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is that the United Kingdom is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. In strict constitutional theory sovereignty lies in the "Crown in Parliament". The United Kingdom is unique in not having a single written constitution, so that much of the constitutional practice is the result of convention. By convention, the queen does not act contrary to the will of Parliament (with certain limited exceptions). Similarly by convention the House of Lords almost invariably gives way to the will of the elected chamber and the House of Commons can override the will of the Lords under the Parliament Acts. Royal prerogative powers are in practice exercised by ministers, most of whom are elected MPs and are headed by the Prime Minister, who is (almost) always the head of the majority party in the House of Commons. Accordingly the government is democratically elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above the UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy simple. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain is clearly, first of all, a Parliamentary democracy. It is a Constitutional monarchy only in outward form.Dejvid (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing break

To a large degree this argument is actually about semantics, along the lines of the obsolete question, 'Is a fungus and animal or a plant'. There is no reason that a fungus has to be either . Fungi existed long before humans tried to classify life forms and therefore any difficulty in classifying it is a problem with the classification system rather that a question about fungi.

Similarly, the real question here is not, 'What is the UK?' but, 'Which classification best describes it' and maybe, 'Does that classification describe it well enough that we do not need to invent a new one specifically for the UK?'.

The WP article seems to describe a constitutional monarchy in a way that would clearly include the UK and which also includes the possibility of it having a parliamentary system. There is no WP article called 'Parliamentary democracy' this term in the article being piped to 'Parliamentary system'. It therefore seems a little superfluous in the info box although I have no strong objection to it being there.

So my vote, as a previously uninvolved editor, would be for just Constitutional monarchy, with both Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy as a second choice. What are the objections to Constitutional monarchy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just having 'constitutional monarchy' on its own in the infobox says very little, and doesn't give due weight to the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the fusion of government with parliament in the the UK system of government. If you look at Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Thailand all those infoboxes state both 'constitutional monarchy' and 'parliamentary democracy' (or something similar), so I don't see why the UK infobox has to deviate.Pondle (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that merely putting constitutional monarchy is too all-encompassing. Great Britain has always been a constitutional monarchy as has the United Kingdom but the changes in the unwritten constitution since 1700 are so great as to make the original virtually unrecognisable. Even the most rabid Republican cannot claim that the constitution of 1700 is the same as it is now. The fundamental shift is that between those who wielded power in Parliament. William III wilfully gave up power to make the Parliament sovereign, however at the time the House of Lords was the dominant chamber and the House of Commons had a very rotten electoral system. But since then there have been major shifts in the unwritten constitution on both these issues. The last aristocratic Prime Minister was Alec-Douglas Hume in the first half of the sixties and he gave up his title. Therefore putting both constitutional monarchy in (which it still is) and Parliamentary democracy (which it also is) both makes it more accurrate and narrows it down.--Willski72 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am not wholly against both but one thing puzzles me. Why to we use the term 'Parliamentary democracy' in the infobox yet there is no article with that title. If it is a standard term then I am surprised that there is no article on it, if it is not the we should use the standard term. Alternatively, maybe we should change the links to parliamentary democracy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the last idea of having the two seperate links. In that way anyone really curious can look up the Parliament's and then look up democracy, and the original problem is still solved.--Willski72 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Id be ok with that change, although when it comes to country articles id prefer they use the same methods. So if the other article infoboxes were change to read that, id support. But i wouldnt oppose a change just on this page. Is better than removing it completly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another newcomer to this debate here. Since as far as I can see no-one actually maintains that UK is not a constitutional monarchy, likewise a parliamentary democracy, why is this debate going on? Is it a question of which description should come first? On that question I am agnostic. But an Infobox is surely there, as part of a template, to enable comparison with (in this case) countries of the world. As has been stated near the start of this page, the system of governance (at that one-line level of detail) is the same as Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia and many others. As far as I have looked, they all state "parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy". The UK has that system as well, as I am sure readers from all parts of the world would understand.Sussexonian (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The debate is going on because an editor called Daicaregos is arguing that the UK is a constitutional monarchy but not a parliamentary democracy. When he initially made this argument, the consensus of editors involved with this article was that the UK is both a cm and a pd. With that, the editor expanded the debate by making a request for uninvolved editors to give their view. To be honest, the debate isn't really going much place now; Daicaregos is the only one arguing that we should put down just constitutional monarchy. Otumba (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are well rehearsed arguments which point out the flaws in the UK's democratic system, but the info box is not the place; Pondle's point about the info box needing to show what is the nearest correct classification, is surely the correct one. All democratic systems have their flaws (as in Winston Churchill's quote "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"), and there are limits to the democratic system in the UK; for example see the United Kingdom general election, 2005, just don't get me started on the turnout, Labour's share of the vote and subsequent majority. However, the info box is the wrong place to discuss this. As to why there is not a page on WP discussing Parliamentary Democracy, well, why not start one? For me, the info box should mention both CM and PD. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, whatever its flaws.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument has nothing to do with supposed flaws in the UK's democratic system, it is simply about how we choose to classify it. My suggestion that we should have just Constitutional monarchy was not based on the argument that this meant it is not a parliamentary democracy but on the argument that the term 'constitutional monarchy' includes the possibility of being a parliamentary democracy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"possibility". It also gives the posibility of it being many other things, that it is not. This is not the place for failings in the British system, every system has its failings as anyone in any country with a demcoracy will tell you. Churchill's quote is excellent on that point. If we only HAD one phrase to describe it with it would be constitutional monarchy but lets splash out. Lets treat ourselves to two phrases and be specific. I think that is the view of the majority but i will leave it to someone else to change it.--Willski72 (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please close this RFC, the overwhelming majority view here is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only been open four days. I'll close it after a week if no further argument develops. Daicaregos (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ok thats reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

As a related matter, I'd suggest we add this question to the FAQs. It seems to crop up with regularity. I'll propose a wording if you like. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with adding it to the FAQ, but does it really " crop up with regularity"? once every 2 years? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the last one that long ago? It feels like less. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless i missed something when going through the archives, most recent i found was over 2 years ago and linked above somewhere although the question of "constitutional monarchy" being displayed on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland articles probably does come up more regularly. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely believe you. I probably had it mixed up with the last discussion of whether the UK was a country or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ur right it did get mentioned in a debate in May by Daicargegos challenging the idea that a constitutional monarchy can be democratic. Although that was in a wider debate about the Commonwealth of Nations in the intro and not about the infobox. [31] Thats might be what you're thinking of. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was taken over by the banned sockpuppet User:Usergreatpower. It concluded (see here) with all editors bar two (User:Usergreatpower and User:BritishWatcher) in agreement. It seems the contention (here) that noting parliamentary democracy in the infobox is the current consensus view and that therefore there can be no further discussion (here) is based on discussions of over two years ago. Assuming good faith, the error cannot have been intentionally deceptive. Nevertheless, it will have influenced some editors (including me, btw) to either accept the view of current consensus, and/or to take no further part in the discussion. It has certainly had its impact on subsequent discussions. By the way, this is not the time or the place to discuss FAQs. It may persuade uninvolved editors coming here for RfC that the discussion has concluded. It has not. Daicaregos (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If im not mistaken, the agreement in the discussion back then was about not readding Commonwealth Realm to the introduction (and it has not been readded, although i still think it should be in there), it wasnt about Commonwealth realm, Constitutional monarchy or Parliamentary democracy in the infobox. You just made a randon comment in that section about a monarchy cant be democratic, but that was a side issue which only got a couple of responses.

We can wait till the end of the week, but a FAQ to cover this matter seems like a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"... but that was a side issue which only got a couple of responses." - and yet you thought it relevant enough to raise it. Daicaregos (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just rolled back by mistake (stupid portable device with tiny screen). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested text:

Q. Why is the UK called both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy? Isn't that a contradiction?

A. The UK's status as a constitutional monarchy is well-referenced and indisputable (references here). It's status as a parliamentary democracy is also attested by many high quality references (references here), and many sources note its high democratic standards (references here). It may be helpful to think of the 'constitution' of the constitutional monarchy laying down the UK's status as a practical parliamentary democracy.

Comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

First half is ok, i dont think we need the bit about high democratic standards and im not sure about that final sentence at all. Perhaps a mention of the fact there are many constitutional monarchies / parliamentary democracies, some regarded as the most democratic on the planet like Norway and Sweden at Democracy Index, the only reason Britain does do so well in such rankings is because too many are too lazy to vote, thats the only area the UK loses serious points (voter participation or something like that).

We need a sentence just explaining the basic setup as has been mentioned here on this talk page about the relationship between CM and PD. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a good, short description of the relationship between CM and PD? Preferably well-referenced. I think of CM as the theoretical form of government and PD as the practical one, but that's just my way of thinking. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in layman's terms here[32] Pondle (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone briefly point us normal humans in the direction of this FAQ? Or is it one those bits of the Wikipedia infrastructure that most people will never stumble upon? Sussexonian (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's at the top of this talk page. You have to click on "show" to expand it and see the content. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

'Decline Of empire'

I am at a loss re the wording used to sum up end of Empire used in the third paragraph, for the most part Empire was rolled up by the British themselves, and rather than a 'decline' was an act of government POLICY, the wording in the piece suggests otherwise and I believe the article should reflect historical reality.82.8.176.38 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it did decline rather than just end, the introduction doesnt actually state why it declined just that the decline weakened the UKs position on the world stage which is true. Id support an addition sentence there which would explain what/why it happened, but i dont think the wording is wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also rather simplistic to just say that it was an act of British government policy. That may be true, but that policy was likely the result of pressure from independence movements and the increasing importance of anti-colonial feeling in general. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that the majority of independence movements came after WW2 and the creation of the UN?Twobells (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the period we're talking about, isn't it? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been clearer, my point was that Empire was being rolled up before the two world wars.Twobells (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the edit! If you refer to 'Decolonisation and the British Empire', 1775-1997 By David George Boyce the author states that it was a deliberate policy of decolonisation that led to the 'end of empire' rather than a 'decline', or are you suggesting that a decline was already under way? Twobells (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear the introduction does not actually link the two world wars and the decline of empire together. It says the two things (wars) + (decline of Empire) reduced UK influence on the world stage. Its debatable when the decline started, although obviously the main process was decolonisation following world war 2 which happened for many different reasons. Use of the term decline seems fine to me, we do not state why it declined and a sentence on that might be useful but i see no reason for the current wording to be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It does state "in the latter half of the 20th century", though. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it also has to be remembered that an Empire is an expensive thing to run, and Britain was somewhat strappoed for funds due to the massive debt it had from the wars. Getting rid of the Empire was a way of shedding liabilities. Like if a big company is close to bankruptcy it will sell any companies it has previously bought to try and balance the books. Decline works because it encompasses all the reasons and it takes account of the length of time. It may have been government policy but it was also (mainly) practical.--Willski72 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense.Twobells (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever expanding examples

I removed a football team from the list, because the list can be extended indefinitely: Spurs are nearly as famous as Man U so they deserve to be in; Newcastle are nearly as famous as Spurs; Ipswich are nearly as famous as Newcastle and so on until every team in the league is included. I propose limiting the list to three unless someone can thing of an extraordinary circumstance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've taken the whole list out. Every major club is already mentioned in the section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the list is probably for the best, the main teams Man U, Liverpool, Celtic, Rangers and Cardiff F.C already get a mention, not sure about the major teams in Northern Ireland though. There may be a few unhappy Arsenal / Chelsea fans when they see only Liverpool / Man U get a mention. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the top 2/3 performing team ever (and verifiably so) from E&W, S and maybe 1 from NI (or else the top 5 from the UK as a whole) might be the only fair way around it, really. but verifiability is key here. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a minefield. If we are talking about the two or three top performing teams ever in England do Nottingham Forest get a mention (twice European cup winners)? I don't think the UK as a whole would work. If we are talking of league wins in their respective countries then a couple of top English teams will be excluded to fit in Welsh league winners (nothing wrong with that I hear the Welsh say). If the criteria was European cup (champions league) wins that would exclude Arsenal and Chelsea. Choosing the top teams from their respective countries seems the fairer way to go but then there is still the problem of what is the definition of most successful, a problem that affects the English teams more as my Nottingham Forest example demonstrates. Jack forbes (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken citations

References 165, 166 and 167 seem to have citation errors. Can anyone work out what has happened and how to fix it? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was this edit. Green Giant (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium.

Wembley Stadium is not the most expensive stadium, only 3rd expensive. The unconstruction Dallas Cowboy stadium that will open 2010 is costing Texans over a BILLION dollars. An under-construction New York Jets/Giants stadium is also the same more than billion dollars. I don't konw anything about Pound vs USD conversion though except with Google calc. 1.2 billion dollars to Uk pound for the 2009 Cowboy stadium. 1.2 billion U.S. dollars = 727.096461 million British pounds. The remainder was a huge acre scandal. Texan acres are cheaper than London Acre! Nobody 11:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.8.13 (talk)

And when they are built one of them will become the most expensive stadium ever built. At which point the article can be changed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps

Requesting that correct spelling of Handel appears on page so as to link to article.Norwikian (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The citation of the British Nationality Act definition is not a good source for the definition of the UK, because it defines it only for the purposes of the act. In fact you could use it as evidence of the reverse, since if the UK normally included the islands, then it would not be necessary to define it as such within the act. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A law in general is a crappy source. Law is based upon interpretation and we should not be the ones to do that. A judgement that cites it, or secondary work about that law is what should be sought out. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of that one Act, the 'United Kingdom' may mean something. But for general usage, it is just GB and NI. That is made clear in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to "any Act, unless the contrary intention appears" (s.5). The BNA is an anomaly. Whilst it might be worth mentioning in that context, to suggest it is the general standing of the term is entirely wrong. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can this statement please be corrected "In 2005, the British Army had a reported strength of 102,440. This included 49,210 in the Air Force and 36,320 in the Navy.[73]" 102,440 does NOT included the 49,210 in the Air Force and 36,320 in the Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhdavison (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to be WP:BOLD and make edits like these yourself. Pondle (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

doubtful energy claims

This statement seems a bit doubtful "North Sea oil and gas supply most of the UK's energy needs" or maybe it is just a bit vague. Either way a reference would help. I don't seem to be able to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.191.15 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 September 2009

Actually I would think that's fairly accurate, or at least was in the not so distant past. Haven't looked at the source, but the UK did produce enough oil and gas to sustain itself (and even export a little) during most of the past, say, 25 years at a guess. TastyCakes (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly provided most of our oil / gas needs, but as we get atleast 30% of our energy from coal, it might not be completly sound without a ref. Perhaps a slight rewording or just changing it to something already in the article might be a good idea if there isnt a good ref for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 Energy White Paper here states: "Today around 90% of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil, gas and coal. Renewables and other low carbon technologies will play an increasing role in our energy mix over the longer term; however, fossil fuels will continue to be the predominant source of energy for decades to come...While the UK has benefited from indigenous reserves of oil and gas for many years, as the North Sea matures, we will become increasingly dependent on imported energy. By 2010, gas imports could be meeting up to a third or more of the UK’s total annual gas demand, potentially rising to around 80% by 2020 on the basis of existing policies. The UK is also already a net importer of oil, and by 2020 imports could be meeting up to around 75% of the UK’s coal demand." So, the text does need some editing. How about: "North Sea oil and gas have supplied much of the UK's energy needs in recent decades, but have peaked, and the country's energy supplies now largely depend on imported fossil fuels." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, although I think I'd say "increasingly depend" rather than "largely depend". TastyCakes (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me - I'll give it a shot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"There is widespread poverty"?

Of course there is poverty in the UK, but I don't think it deserves the topic sentence of "there is widespread poverty" - that makes it sound like a huge percentage of Brits struggle to survive! What would be more representative of the situation? Xero Xenith (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing that sentence would be good. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. I think the whole section is pretty bad, I think it can either all go (is it really a defining factor of the UK?) or be harmonised a little better with Poverty in the United Kingdom. TastyCakes (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising brochure. The section on poverty has reliable sources as citations. According to the citations, there are only three other countries in the European Union with a higher proportion of children living in poverty. Doesn't that mean that poverty is a defining factor in the UK in the 21st century?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perphaps the specific facts can be mentioned. "Widespread poverty" suggests shanty towns and starvation. Whenever anyone reads of "Widespread poverty" they read of the poorer regions of Africa, India etc. Put the facts in instead.--Willski72 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Exactly. The section should give the statistics, it shouldn't rattle off some quotes from some scattered news paper articles. Saying there is "widespread poverty", "many" this and "mostly" that and so on is not encyclopedic writing. It is bad writing. The article should give percent of the population under the poverty line, percentage of children under the poverty line, percent homeless etc and compare a few of these statistics to other developed countries. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Widespread poverty is totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the editor who added the "widespread poverty" claim would care to review this list or have a look at the Worldmapper website.Pondle (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only imagine how few actually talk of widespread poverty on their articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing ;) The only one I've found that's close is United States#Income and human development. TastyCakes (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked about areas suffering from poverty. Here are some examples:

• Bethnal Green and Bow has 79% (23,450) of its children in low income families.
• Bradford West has 75% (24,900) of children in or near poverty
• Nottingham East has 68% (12,360) of children in or near poverty
• An estimated 98% of children living in two zones in Glasgow Baillieston - Central Easterhouse and North Barlarnark and Easterhouse South - are either in poverty or in working families that are "struggling to get by".
• 58% of children in Swansea East (10,470) in families are "struggling to get by".

Even the state broadcasting organisation admits this BBC 'Millions' of UK young in poverty , 30 Sep 2008--Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as i love our wonderful British Broadcasting Corporation which is a great British symbol internationally, they have a tendancy to talk down our country on an hourly basis. The trouble with poverty is its all relative, our definition of people below the "poverty line" is not going to be the same as in somewhere like Romania. Many of the people we class as living in poverty here are better off than many people in certain European countries like Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, Poland etc which is why the comparisons that say things like the UK is one of the worst in Europe on these matters are very misleading. Very off topic, but just wanted to say you have some great images and charts on ur userpage, that one on the RN fleet size almost makes me cry :(. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BW is right, for once. This is a global encyclopaedia, and it's quite possible that readers in other parts of the world - India or Africa, say - might be confused by references to "poverty" which are otherwise unexplained. The statistical refs given by Toddy1, for instance, show poverty in the UK context - but these things are relative more than they are absolute, as are the press refs. Half the UK population have below average incomes - but the UK average is a long way above that in most other countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The cost of living is much higher in Britain than India or Africa. So poor people in Britain absolutely cannot manage on what would be an average income in India or Africa. Also the climate is very hard in Britain, which means people need things they don't need so much in the better climate of India or Africa. You can only judge poverty in Britain in a British context.

Also please remember that Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources, not on original research. The statistics are from what Wikipedia classes as reliable sources; the claims that poverty in Britain is not real poverty need to be backed up by reliable sources, otherwise they are original research. --Toddy1 (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We agree on the need for reliable sources, but statements like "the climate is very hard in Britain, which means people need things they don't need so much in the better climate of India or Africa" are also wholly unjustified original research. What about, for example, the prevalence of tropical diseases such as malaria in those countries, the presence of clean water supplies in the UK, the presence of (much) free health care here, etc etc. The text still needs editing for neutrality and reliability in a global context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. It's ludicrous to make an unfavourable comparison between relative poverty in the UK (which has a welfare state, universal free healthcare and education) and extreme poverty in the Third World, where many people cannot meet their basic needs for food, shelter or medical treatment. And even by the standards of a relative, national measure of poverty, the UK isn't out of line with most developed nations.[33] Let's get some perspective. Pondle (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've made some changes to the section, please let me know if you don't like them... TastyCakes (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

European Union

Just wondering, would it not be better to put Britain's relations with the rest of the European Union under a different heading, or a sub-heading in the Foreign Relations section? After all, the EU is not just foreign relations, and nor is the EU just another international organisation. Also, the emphasis in the section on foreign relations implies that the Anglo-US relationship is superior to Britain's relations with the rest of the European Union, when the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has explicitly denied this. I would be willing to produce a refined version to accommodate these issues... Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

it should have its own heading outside the FR section because (UKIP notwithstanding) it is not foreign organisation that has nothing directly to do with the UK (such as are the US of A or Russian Federation, for example). --Red King (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perphaps their should be a section for International Organisations of which the UK is a prominent and active member. So you would have the EU, NATO, UN and the Commonwealth.Willski72 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the Armed Forces could probably do with being split from the foreign affairs bit aswell, but if we did that along with moving the organisations.. all that would leave for foreign affairs is the relationship with the USA lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that the membership of the EU and (to a lesser extent) NATO are far more important becuase of the international treaty obligations. The UN and CoN are less important in legal terms though of course not in moral commitment terms. Practically for example, the UK has signed a treaty that allows UK citizens to work anywhere in the EU and conversely, That certainly is not true of the UN or CoN. --Red King (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the United Kingdom's relations with the European Union and the United States are equally as important and neither should be shown preference on the article, especially for NPOV sake. Bambuway (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a member of the EU and not a state of the USA, That's why the EU should be preeminent. --Red King (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the UK is also a member of the UN, NATO and Commonwealth. And though the Commonwealth is not as important as it once was it does have the distinction of being created by the UK, unlike any of the others.--Willski72 (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

White space - I wasn't joking

I run a pretty average (common even) PC. It's a Hewlett Packard with a 19" flat screen monitor. My operating system is Vista and my browser, Internet Explorer 8. I imagine this is pretty normal, not one of these Macs with Firefox with bespoke monitors etc....

So... when I made this edit, I wasn't joking. I thought it would be reverted because it removed an important Welsh building (that can be worked out later), but this is what I see when I click on one of Wikipedia's most visited, most linked articles. Not good, and I don't think the ensuing revert is the answer, because I'm sure readers run standard PCs like mine. Can we knock our heads together to fix this please? I've respected WP:BRD. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I never thought you were joking. But it works fine on my Mac in Firefox. So I think the problem is at your end. Try downloading a different browser such as Firefox or Safari.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that's not the answer! We should not be tayloring the article to suit particular browsers, they should fit all browsers, and I don't expect all readers to discard IE for Firefox. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless we explore what the problem is, we cannot get it solved.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, too many images, not enough text. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I get exactly the same white space as Jza84 on a 15.4" screen at 1280 by 800, running IE8. Running Firefox it's fine though. But we can't expect everyone to use Firefox. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably the root of the issue is with IE-in-general, as the view from IE7 is equally crap. But the proximate cause is surely the surfeit of eye candy. Right-left-right layout is only marginally better, which is to say still ugly as anything. Could we gallerify the pics at the top/bottom of the section? Or what? Not an image expert me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's more, I'm afraid. Even worse. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem - but a mac with Safari, time to get away from those primitive calculating machines with operating systems that owe more to punch cards than object orientated software Jza! A gallary sounds the best idea and Jza is pretty slick at doing them ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is this image, but I'm not sure if this would have the right amount of appeal for everyone? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; it has a certain charm... Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that image although it depends what sort of size it would be in the article, its no good if its too small. Is funny seeing the 4 buildings next to each other with the different styles, i really like two buildings but dont like the style of the other two. although im sure everyone has their own tastes lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative is somehow expanding the prose, so it doesn't allow for the forced white space. I suspect though that's a cop-out; some users with widescreen monitors will likely still see the white space? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any white space, although for me the Welsh assembly building looks more like its in the Local government section. Looking at it now i see the 1 image of the 4 buildings wouldnt fit in for that section as its just talking about devolved administrations, wouldnt make sense to have westminster there. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Really any photo montage should only include the three devolved administrations. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good oportunity to review all the images in the article. Some of them, are, well, not likely to be "featured pictures" lets just say. England has a really good mixture of high quality and relevant imagery now. It would be nice if the UK could mimic some of that good practice.

I'd also ask if we really, I mean really need photos of all three. To say the UK gets mocked/picked on for being anglocentric, there are an aweful lot of Scotland-related images.... may I say... :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its good to have all 3 images there. Just an idea but how would having Wales and Scotlands images on one side at the top then the Northern Ireland assembly on the other side at the bottom. We could also ad a few more lines about devolution to northern Ireland which is clearly alot more complicated than in the case of Scotland and Wales and yet currently it only has two lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitting on the review of all the images, outwith the infobox, I see 15 images that are portraits/maps/pan-UK related, 17 images related to England (of which 11, yes 11 are related to London), 9 to Scotland, 2.5 to Wales, and 1 to Northern Ireland. Most of them are pretty poor in terms of quality. I would suggest removing some of the London-centricity more than anything, then upgrading some of the images. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

lol whats the .5 for Wales? On the other images, i think most of those London images are justified and cant be replaced, the only one thing i think could be easily changed is the mosque one, with an image from Birmingham or another major city. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually i suppose we could get rid of the birmingham uni, its not of the same world wide reputation as Oxford / Cambridge. Also i think the channel 4 building should go, only the BBC needs displaying. and i see the .5 is for the law one lolBritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for all three devolved images - since the Scottish parliament is the only other parliament in the UK, I could see a reason to leave it and remove the other two. 86.158.120.13 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted BW! Yep, although I was generous - it's another London image really. I'm not keen on Shakespeare and Burns (would rather have Dickens - post 1707 you see, and a person on our banknotes). And something like The Proms (loads of high quality images here). I'd like the River Severn in there if possible, and/or Lough Neagh. Liverpool is probably Britain's most Anglo-Celtic city. All things that can eliminate bias and introduce higher quality images. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh yes lets get a proms image in there somewhere please. Im ok with Shakespeare / Burns though considering they are mentioned in detail in the actual text, but Dickens would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"..Dickens - post 1707 you see, and a person on our banknotes" - NO - Dickens is only on Bank of England's banknotes - Burns is on Scottish Banknotes as well as post 1707. Shakespeare should be the one to go being pre 1707 86.158.120.13 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bank of England notes are used throughout the UK, the BofE being the central bank of the UK. Scottish notes are not produced by the central bank of the UK. Burns is a distinctly Scottish figure, not a UKish figure. There are already plenty of Scotland images in the article, we should consider regional diversity and relevant imagery. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(<--) We could use {{Vertical images list}} for the three parliament/assembly buildings? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got IE8 which claims to be fully W3C compliant and which also displays white space. Also, if that white space were closed up, we'd get a text that was out of kilter with the images beside it. Why don't we use this style?

Seats of the devolved parliament and assemblies

• 
  The Scottish Parliament Building in Holyrood contains the Scottish Parliament, the national legislature of Scotland.
• 
  Parliament Buildings in Stormont is the seat of the Northern Ireland Assembly
• 
  The Senedd in Cardiff Bay is the seat of the National Assembly for Wales.

--Red King (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something simillar to that at Greater_Manchester#Governance - a featured article. I'd have to see it in the article first, but it gets a tentative thumbs up from me. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is the Fixbunching template. See Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. --Red King (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we use a table? And use it to explain not just the buildings, but have a little about the governance of each country and exectutive? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GDP figures.

Why is the UK’s GDP displayed only in USD? Also, The GDP figures on Scotland/England/Wales/Northern Ireland are all in USD and nothing else. Surely GBP should at least be there and USD in brackets afterwards? Or is this the only data available? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Auto-peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 kilometres, use 000 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 kilometres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)