Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

GDP ranking

uk gdp was overtaken by italy some weeks ago... so change that absurd gdp...is smaller than italy... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6418344/UK-economy-overtaken-by-Italy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiacboy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, as all other country articles, uses International Monetary Fund data. This isn't updated on a weekly basis. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Third highest defense spending in the world?

I looked it up on the wiki article List of countries by military expenditures and there are two charts. Which one is more official? Because on one chart it lists the U.K. as having the 4th highest defense spending, and on the second charter (just below the first chart) it shows it as having the 3rd highest defense spending. --Mark0528 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The second chart showing the UK as third is the more up to date chart because it's the only chart which is updated regularly from various sources and as exchange rates change. The first chart of figures is a fixed chart issued by SIPRI once a year and only gives figures for the top 15 spenders. 88.104.183.71 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok I understand now. --Mark0528 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslim population

The muslim population is said in this article to be 2.8% based on a correct, but 8 years old (2001) source. In 2008 the muslim population was 4%[1]. -GabaG (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good source. I would edit it in. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually already in the article, a but further down in the other religions section. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the figures only apply to Great Britain, not the whole of the UK. That's what it says if you scroll down to the bottom of the source article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and they do. The source for the data is the Labour Force Survey and according to the user guide, the religion question used in Northern Ireland is different and Muslims are subsumed in an 'other' category. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The ONS journal Population Trends Winter 2009 edition will feature an article on changes in religion, 2005-2008. The paper will be published next month.--Pondle (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know although it may also rely on the LFS, in which case it will only cover Great Britain. I'm not aware of any other UK-wide surveys that could be used to generate such a statistic. Probably best to wait and see before updating the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the current issue, the title of the forthcoming article is 'Changes in religion of the population of Great Britain, 2005–2008'. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support using these reliable sources to mention the most up to date figure for the muslim population. We should continue mention the 2001 census figures but highlight trends and new figures / estimates. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as long as we note that the new figures are not for the whole of the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the 2001 census is pretty faulty as a source for religion. According to this[2], almost 400,000 people (0.8%) said in the census their religion was "Jedi" from Star Wars based on some sort of chain letter joke. I think this really makes the "religion"-section of the census come into question for reliability, and should as agreed on, anyways be updated by newer material. -GabaG (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, these 0.8% were probably irreligious anyways so it probably don't really matter for the numbers. But as my main point was, I think the information is outdated and should be replaced. -GabaG (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so but, as the above discussion indicates, there may not be another UK-wide source to replace it with. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that we are now using the British Social Attitudes Survey for the religion statistics. The problem is that this also only covers England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland has its own attitudes survey. See here. Since the census seems to be the only UK-wide source, can't we mention the census statistics first and then use the BSA and other sources to give a qualified but more up-to-date picture? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense line about the BBC

With reference to this line (in context)- "The British Empire expanded to its maximum size by 1921, gaining the League of Nations mandate over former German and Ottoman colonies after World War I. One year later, the BBC, the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created."

The BBC was NOT created in 1922 as "the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network." In fact the BBC as we know it - a Crown chartered and non-commercial broadcasting corporation - was not created until the year 1927. What existed from 1922 to 1926 was a commercial company called the "British Broadcasting Company, Ltd.," which held a monopoly license from the British General Post Office because it was a consortium of mainly American dominated electrical manufacturing companies doing business in Britain.

Since this is an article about the United Kingdom and not about broadcasting or the BBC I suggest that this silly and totally incorrect line of nonsense is removed immediately. I would have done so but the article is locked. 70.247.124.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Well I see that Red King edited the original BBC comment to imply that the BBC was still created in 1922 and that it went on to become a worldwide institution. The editor laughingly dismisses the matter by saying that the BBC just "growed and growed". Well, maybe that is okay for someone speaking up in class but it is not okay for something claiming to be a world class encyclopedia of knowledge based upon documented NPOV using existing facts with no original work!

The fact of the matter is that the BBC to which you refer did not start one year later - it started in 1927 because there was another entity, a commercial company that existed between 1922 and 1926 that was legally wound up - put out of business - ceased to be as in "dead parrot". This is not an article about the BBC and Wikipedia has two different and distinct entries for the BBC as a broadcasting operation. One is about the BBC company and the other is about the Crown corporation.

I trust that some editor out there understands that if Wikipedia is to have standards of factual editing, then they should be abided by all editors - especially editors who are editing locked articles! 70.247.124.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

BBC#History makes it quite clear that the BBC founded in 1927 very much had its roots in the BBC founded in 1922. Personally, I don't see a problem here and think your objections are pedantic. If people want the nitty gritty of the BBC's history, they should go to the BBC article, not here. However, I agree the sentence in question should probably be changed to avoid the implication that the BBC immediately became a "large-scale international broadcasting network" overnight. Perhaps:

One year later, the BBC, which would become the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created. TastyCakes (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, One year later, the British Broadcasting Company, which would subsequently become the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems ok, although it seems to suggest the BBC of 1927 immediately became a large scale international broadcasting network, which I'm not sure is true either... TastyCakes (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One year later, the British Broadcasting Company, which subsequently became the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and went on to be the world's first large-scale international broadcasting network, was created? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, seems ok to me. Getting a little wordy but I guess that's the problem with removing ambiguity... TastyCakes (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state

In the lead it says the UK is a sovereign state. However, with the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, does the UK still fall under that classification? It's merely an argument, but some are claiming the UK has become a province of the EU. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK is still sovereign because the UK Parliament has the power to leave the EU at any time by repealing the law. As long as Parliament has this power (which would make anything that the EU declares null and void) then Parliament, and the UK, is still sovereign.--Willski72 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As are all other countries in the EU --Snowded ^TALK 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there not now an EU imposed formula through which secession must take place? (Akin to how a province may split from Canada; and Canadian provinces are not considered fully sovereign states.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the process, if the UK can leave unilaterally then they are still sovereign. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently the Treaty of Lisbon "explicitly recognises for the first time the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union".[3] As for the broader question, the UK is a member of the UN, has diplomatic recognition from other states, and also meets all the criteria for a sovereign state as defined by the Montevideo Convention. See here.--Pondle (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. I suppose I'm not clear on what makes a sovereign state cease to be sovereign; as the EU now has a full presidency, foreign service, and, I believe, the beginnings of a military, as well as requirements to be met for withdrawal, it appears that its members are no longer themselves sovereign, which is what the author of the piece I pointed to was arguing, and where I see more than one parallel between the EU and Canada. However, it also seems true that the UK - and other EU members/states/whatever - are still internationally considered sovereign. Confusing! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the EU doesn't have a president. The new post is President of the European Council. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a 'process' for withdrawal, but a state can still withdraw unilaterally. The other states do not have to approve it. That means that the states are still sovereign - just like if you sign up for college, or a country club, there are procedures to go through to withdraw. They don't mean that you have suddenly become a slave to the college.

That is not the case with Canada. No province can withdraw from Canada unless certain conditions are met, and that (among other things) is why the provinces are not considered sovereign states. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We also probably shouldn't be using Daniel Hannan as a source for this type of argument because he has a clear political agenda. Best to leave it to constitutional experts. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is the page locked? There is no explanation whatsover.

I cannot make a minor factual edit quickly and I do not have the time or the inclination to go through whatever hoops are presumably now required in order to gain editing access. The beauty of Wikipedia was constant improvement by such small contributions, which appear to no longer be welcome. Has there been some vandalism on this page? In the absence of any explanation as to why the page is locked, I can only guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.9.165 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

20:49, 21 August 2008 Jza84 (talk | contribs | block) protected United Kingdom ‎ (Vandalism returning. Within top 5 most visited articles on WP. Restoring semi-protection for now [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]) (hist | change)

so essentially extensive vandalism from anonymous editors. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures do not represent

Where is Northern Ireland and Wales' representation in terms of pictures? The millennium stadium is the only thing I can see and none whatsoever for Northern Ireland, this should definitely be fixed Flappychappy (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to replace the picture of Manchester Town Hall with that of Belfast City Hall as an example of Baroque revival architecture (there is an excellent picture on the its article page). Would appreciate some consenus on this so the pictures are more representative. Thanks Flappychappy (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And me. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to point it out, but if you do that the pictures from England will all be from the Southern counties. Representation should presumably be regional as well as national.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree they have to be regional as this is an article to represent the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. If you have any suggestions to replace a different image with one that represents Northern Ireland feel freeFlappychappy (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a photo of the University of Birmingham, which isn't in the south, but perhaps there's space for another Manchester photo? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham is in the Midlands. Scotland has four pictures (I didn't count the Oil Rig), if there is not room for another, why not replace the Scottish Parliament with a picture of Stormont, which would still make the same point about devolved assemblies?--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with putting Stormont picture in that section rather than the Scottish parliament. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not create a couple of collages. One of the Assembly in Cardiff, the Scottish Parliament and Stormont. Then another with some city halls, South West, London, North of England etc. --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt know this was some sort of regional photo competition, the article is about the UK and the images must reflect the best of the UK wherever they are. To pick an image to make a regional balance is really not a neutral point-of-view. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i support the inclusion to provide balance of images from each part of the United Kingdom i certainly do not think we need really worry about regions of England. Buildings in the south east of England are representative of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are there to illustrate aspects of the article, which is essentially about the single state formed from four countries. What the pictures should primarily illustrate, in my view, are relevant aspects of the UK state, and images of the four constituent countries. I'm not that keen on collages, but it could be useful to use one or two to illustrate that fact. Generally, the current images seem to me to illustrate the article quite well, but I certainly agree that there is a need for a NI picture, such as Stormont. It is a fact that many of the key elements of the UK state and its economy are concentrated in London, and so in this particular article getting a balance of regional pictures within any of the four countries seems to me to be less important, although clearly they should be covered in other articles such as England, Scotland, etc. The one London image which seems to me to be unnecessary and could be replaced by a picture of another part of the UK (such as northern or south-west England) is the one of the Channel 4 building. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't open this up as a debate on represention, that point already had some backing before I contributed to it. Ghmyrtle is quite right to say that the primary function of pictures is to illustrate particular parts of the article, but pictures can also be seen as suggesting the character of the subject as an article. Logically:

• If we accept that this second function does not apply - then we should just leave the pictures as they are, since they are already illustrative of the points in the article.
• If we do accept it, and we want to consider Flappychappy's request, then we have to consider the other elements of representativeness.

It is inevitable that an article of this nature will tend to have more illustrations from London (and to a lesser degree other capitals), but if we can be more represenatative as a secondary function why not do it? Does anyone actually object to the suggested solution of replacing the Scottish Parliament illustration with one from Stormont?--SabreBD (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the primary function of the images is illustrative, and we should not sacrifice that function to achieve even regional representation. However if we can use a more representative set of images without sacrificing their primary purpose, then we should do so. The use of Belfast City Hall mentioned above would seem to be a good example. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

Would someone mind taking a look at a series of edits made today, which don't seem to have improved the article. I've reverted two, but as I don't think they are vandalism, I don't want to fall foul of 3RR. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've actually reverted a few more that introduced clunky language into the article. I don't think WP:3RR prevents you from reverting more than three individual edits - it's designed to prevent edit warring where reverts back and forth are made. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2001 Census data

An editor, User:Kittins floating in the sky yay, is removing certain parts of 2001 Census data from the article, relating to ethnic groups, on the grounds that they are "misleading" and "wildly out of date". Decennial censuses are normal in most parts of the world, and it is accepted that they become increasingly less reliable towards the end of each intercensal decade. However, they remain the most reliable information available on many demographic and other statistical indicators. The text clearly indicates that the data relates to 2001. In my view, the 2001 Census information should remain. What are others' views on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2001 figures are the most comprehensive available (aren't the 2007 estimates for population only?) so obviously they should be kept. To characterise them as "wildly out of date" is naive at best; for a whole country the demographic breakdown is unlikely to change so dramatically in 10 years as to make the 2001 figures unusable. I'm curious to know exactly how they are misleading; the article makes it clear that the figures are from 2001 so it's pretty obvious that the data is out of date (although not of course obsolete). Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are the most reliable figures we have, as generally a census is more accurate (and more comprehensive) than statistics based on civil registration or an estimate. As long as the date of the census is clear, they should remain.--SabreBD (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree here too. As long as we note that the figures are from 2001, they're fine to use. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The census figures are the ones cited in the latest edition of the official UK Yearbook[4]. But there's no harm in also mentioning the most recent estimates from the Annual Population Survey (see table 2[5]) in the relevant section of the article.--Pondle (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive box

Does anyone know why the archive box on the right-hand side of this page doesn't include the most recently archived pages? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably just an accident. I tried to sort it. Munci (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Defence spending

This says the third highest defence spending yet the page linked to on Wikipeda says it's the fourth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.192.150 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I will change it. Viewfinder (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Economy

according to the collins world atlas, Britian has the 4th highest GNI (Gross National Income) and i believe that is generally what is used when assesing a contries Economy not the GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touya90 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Music

Music; AC/DC and the Bee Gees; but both were formed in Australia, albeit of young English emigrants dragged out to the Antipodes by their parents. Both are commercial novelties, surely, and not groundbreaking artists such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin or The Smiths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.64.124 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that guy from AC/DC was on top gear and he said he considers himself british and he sounds not at all aussie81.23.50.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Postwar world statement - reducing UK significance?

In the History section, it currently says the UK was among the powers to help plan the postwar world - isn't this a wee bit understating - the UK was one of the Big Three and as such one of the three key deciders at Yalta, Potsdam, etc. This is one example of something I can see in quite a few places in the article which I perceive to be phrasing designed to reduce the significance in world history of Britain. Not that there are no cases where the British tend to have an exaggerated view of their own importance, but when it is actually the lead player in history, the article should say so. Another example might be ... (the) UK-led Industrial Revolution transformed the country and fueled the growing British Empire... - isn't it actually the case that the UK-led industrial revolution transformed the world, not just the UK. I could go on, but you get the idea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

I added images of Cardiff City Hall and Lampeter University, followed by sources. I added them because they are relevent the the Governance and Education sections respectively, and also to add some diversity to the collection of images in the article so that they don't all just represent England, although I'm not a militant Welsh nationalist or anything. I would like to know why they are being removed. Thanks. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Lampeter pic and the one for Cardiff City Hall is still there. This happened in the middle of me alternating the pictures to cut down the crowding. However, I took the opportunity to put in a pic of Queen's Belfast, as it had previously been discussed that Northern Ireland is even more under-represented than Wales. The only space that now seems to cry out for a picture is at the top of sport around the cricket section. If it is for cricket I suppose it is either Lord's Cricket Ground, or possibly Headingley Stadium. The first is much more photogenic. Any views?--SabreBD (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as an entire rewrite of the article, the use of images needs to be reviewed and formalised. I strongly believe that featured or very high quality images should be selected where possible. I envisage the UK article taking the approach of the European Union, England and British people articles (all Good Articles I might add), where images are specific to the prose, use helpful captions, and are adding sparingly. We should be using images that are iconic of the United Kingdom (Shakespeare and Burns should go), IMHO, so something about the Olympics would be more suitable than the (sub)national teams. This is the approach in several books I have about the United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that Shakespeare and Burns are fingered because they pre-date the UK? Its a reasonable argument since the article does not deal with history before the UK is formed. The same logic would mean that Isaac Newton, and the text on literary figures before 1800 should go too. Looking at those other articles, they seem to have about the same density of illustration and type of caption (perhaps I am missing something here). The problem with only using symbols of the UK in all these areas is that it is very limiting, partly because many important institutions are devolved or at a national/regional level. The article attempts to deal with current circumstances in all four (or five for those who prefer) nations, so it seems logical for the illustrations to do the same, not to say that uk symbols shouldn't be preferred where possible.--SabreBD (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking back in the archives, the issue of what constitutes the UK, what it means and what should be included in it has been discussed many times before and there have been many dogfights over it. (and presumably catfights too! :) ) I don't see much mileage in making fundamental changes. People come to the UK article because they are basically searching for info about Britain. When they think "UK" they think of British history, regardless of the distinctions in political history between those entities. We shouldn't be removing figures central to the history of what is now the UK and was Britain from the UK article by drawing a line at 1707 and acting as though there was nothing before that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

-- There are many images of personalities we can use though instead that meet both criteria though. The Beatles, Darwin, Dicken, Hume, Newton, Churchill - all iconic of Britain. If indeed "people come to the UK article because they are basically searching for info about Britain", then we shouldn't be giving them a paragraph on England, a paragraph on Scotland, with matching images. Imagine if the US or EU articles did that. There's too much emphasis on the fragmentation meaning it is difficult to extract UK-wide information, and the images are a very illustrative example of that in many cases. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree very much about your list of leading figures and also with your general point about what people should get when they arrive and the fragmentation in the current article. My concern was just that the "UK" has a large culture and a cultural history deriving from well before 1707 and from the nations of the British Isles which we can't just ignore and it sounded a little as if that was what was being proposed. Actually I wondered looking around at articles on neighbouring countries (like Republic of Ireland which has "Early Background" in it's history section for example) if we shouldn't just have a "general background" section in the history and cultural areas, just to explain a little of what went on before 1707 and give links to relevant articles? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the Lampeter image has been removed, may I suggest the SWALEC Stadium for the cricket? This is the national cricket stadium of Wales, has hosted an Ashes test, and is set to host more international tests in the not too distant future. Welshleprechaun (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. It should be an image about the olympics, because it is the UK's major pan-British sporting team. We don't put U.S. state stadiums on the US article... same with Germany.... both federations I might add, not unitary states. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about cricket, not the Olympics. Also, England, Scotland, Wales and NI are not states, they are countries, so this is not comparable to the US or Germany. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Jza84 on this one - this is the UK article and so imagery should reflect that. Also Scotland, England, Wales and NI may be some kind of "constituent country" but they are not soveriegn nations in the UN definition - probably the nearest analogy to them internationally is something like Italy encompassing old former nations like the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Venice. Plenty of space on Wales for images of that country. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The sport section already includes a photo of the Millennium Stadium, so I'm a bit confused about why we need another image of Wales in the section. I agree that the article shouldn't be too Anglo-centric, but Wales already seems to be represented. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Just to point out to the misinformed person who wrote the information in this topic. Northern Ireland is NOT part of the UK. Great Britain, yes. But the UK, and GB are TWO different entities, and should not be cofused into thinking they are one, and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.216.112 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Jhbuk (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Great Britain is an island; which Northern Ireland isn't on. As Britain is legally synonymous with UK; Northern Ireland is part of Britain.--Chromenano (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are there four pictures in the History section relating to military history. I know that the MilHist taskforce has got a stranglehold on WP but is there any chance it could include something else.... a picture of Brunel or something? 80.225.178.204 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Symbols section

hi guys i am not native speaker of English language however i am living US now and i'd like to ask something. In "Symbols" section it says:

"It was created by the superimposition of the Flag of England, the Flag of Scotland and Saint Patrick's Flag in 1801"

shouldn we use "with" word instead of "by". Because i think "by" word requires a person. If the sentence has been

"It was created by Winston Churchill..." it would be correct. Maybe that'd be OK too.:

"It was created on way of the superimposition of the Flag of England, the Flag of Scotland and Saint Patrick's Flag in 1801"

And one more question, If first form is true and we had to add person who created this flag on the sentence, how would it be?

"It was created by Winston Churchill by the superimposition of the Flag of England, the Flag of Scotland and Saint Patrick's Flag in 1801"

PS: of course i know Winston Churchill didnt create the flag, just example... --Yetjanissary (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to use 'by' in English like this. You could say for example: "The breakfast was made by breaking eggs into a pan and frying them". with is less good (though possibly acceptable here) but "on way" is definitely wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a passive sentence, which some people don't like, but I think that "It was created by..." is fine. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replies and I will feel better if someone answers to my second question --Yetjanissary (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Winston Churchill created it in 1801 by the superimposition of the Flag of England, the Flag of Scotland and Saint Patrick's Flag"? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox map

A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts section.

{{editsemiprotected}} Goldsmiths, University of London is not part of the University of the Arts, London. However, it should still be mentioned in the section as several Turner Prize winners have attended the college. Pleasuresofthedamned (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There is a semi-colon after "Chelsea College of Art and Design" - showing that's the last one of the "University of the Arts, London" ones, then comes "Glasgow School of Art" and finally "Goldsmiths, University of London".  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Central Belt

Really? where's the facts and figures that compare it exactly to the west yorkshire urban area? Cos there aren't any by the last study and the thing isn't even an urban area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, is your suggestion that Glasgow and Edinburgh do not form a single conurbation and so should be treated separately?--SabreBD (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow and Edinburgh do not form a single conurbation. Glasgow is the centre of a conurbation in West Central Scotland - Edinburgh is 44 miles down the M8, with large chunks of open countryside in between! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rule Britannia - Unofficial national anthem

I don't think it's 'nonsense' Red Hat, I have many sources, even my own survey. What is everyone else's views on this proposal? Flosssock1 (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense. The Telegoons are not a reliable source. Even worse, your "own survey" is original research. Where there is an official anthem, we show the official anthem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And where there is what is seen as an unofficial national anthem, it is commonly shown. And as I said, I have more sources. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help your case to quote them. If they are WP:RS then that should be sufficient. Daicaregos (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's some:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/radio-days-tales-behind-the-uk-tunes-524574.html

http://www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk/rule_britannia.htm

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rule,_Britannia

http://www.britannia.com/rulebrit.html

http://www.search.com/reference/Britannia

Please tell me if you find these sufficient. Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those sources, none but the first are considered [WP:RS|reliable]] and not a single one of them says anything about it being an "unofficial national anthem". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fourth one does, but as HJ says, it's hardly reliable. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, this sort of info is relevant at the Rule Britannia page, not here and certainly not in an infobox. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They all say something about "it being an "unofficial national anthem".". Red Hat, my reply to you is below. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not add 'de facto' to God Save the Queen. We've had this debate many times before. In fact, Flosssock1, there is a footnote right where you made your edit which explains the situation exactly. God Save The Queen is the official anthem of the UK, and there is no 'de facto' about it.

As for the status of other anthems, any statement that a song is an "unofficial national anthem" is, well, unofficial. You cannot have an 'official' unofficial national anthem, and any statement about what they might be is a matter of opinion. There are certainly some good candidates, but they don't deserve to be mentioned in the same place as the official one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse you can't have an official unofficial national anthem but if a lot of people consider it to be the official national anthem, or the unofficial national anthem for that matter, then it would be an unofficial national anthem. If 'Rule Britannia' is widely seen as the unofficial national anthem, and 'God save the Queen' is clearly stated as the official national anthem then I don't see the problem in stating that 'Rule Britannia' as the unofficial national anthem of the United Kingdom. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If we were to call Rule Britannia (other issues aside for the moment) then why not Jerusalem or Land of Hope and Glory. Besides which, there are still no sources that are remotely reliable to say that it's the unofficial national anthem and "widely seen" is original research. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is too long already, and adding 'unofficial' national anthems will only confuse people who come here looking for 'the national anthem' of the UK. It would be reasonable (I think) to add this information to Rule Brittania if we can get a reliable source for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I believe they have been used on England's page, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't say "widely seen" was original research, more a personal judgement, if there is a difference, however that's not important. As for your other point; I will locate more sources. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do. My attitude for one would change of you could find some reliable sources to back it up. It's not the kind of thing that should be in the infobox, but if there are decent sources for it, it could certainly go in the song's article and possibly a mention here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

England's national anthem is an entirely different ball game, because there isn't an official one. And 'personal judgements' are even less allowed in WIkipedia than "original research'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have some more soon then. DJ - ofcourse it is, and again, ofcourse it is, but I was talking to you, I was not talking about putting anything in the article with that excuse. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom's EEZs

I'd like to bring to the attention of editors here of an IP on the Exclusive Economic Zones article who is vandalising the page to make the UK's EEZs differ from that of other countries. Bambuway (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical scope of article

Picking up a point from the CA review above (particularly in the bit about the culture section), and touched on in a number of other threads, there is an important decision to be made about the scope of this article before it can be improved. Is this:

1. An article about the modern state of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, starting in 1801 and not about the states or events that preceded it?
2. An article about the modern state of The UK and its preceding states and what happened in them?

If we go for the first option we should remove most of the material and examples of figures from before 1801. However, examine the way in which similar articles are handled for France and Germany, which although being about the modern states (the French Fifth Republic and Federal Republic of Germany respectively]] provide a history and context going back to the earliest times. My personal feeling is that we should take account of the past of all the constituent parts of the UK, but briefly and making the constitutional changes clear, mainly as this is what readers are most likely to be looking for. However, I can live with either, I just don't think the article works if it is unclear as to which option it is pursuing.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe articles should include all history of the country. Most countries have been reformed and recreated many times over with other countries added to it and lost along the way, and sometimes as an independent state and sometimes as part of another country. To only include the history during its current constitutional form would be to leave out much of its history. The articles on Germany, Italy, Russia, India and so on are good examples of how it should be. They don't just include history during the latest form of the country.Bambuway (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The United Kingdom is different from other countries because it was created by previously independent countries deciding to form a political union. For that reason, the UK has no 'history' other than the factors that led directly to its creation. By the way, the key date in all this is 1707 and not 1801 - it was then that the key political union took place that created the new entity and though Ireland joined it in 1801, Ireland had been under its political control right from the start. I think all this is already covered sufficiently in the article. 86.157.165.154 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - this is of course true of Germany and Italy as well.--SabreBD (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Many countries were created in a union of what were once other sovereign countries. The United Kingdom is far from alone in that aspect. It's just more obvious because it happens to state this in its name. Bambuway (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please give some examples. I know that some countries - like Spain - emerged from kingdoms merging to create a single kingdom, but this is different from what happened in the UK where sovereign parliaments voted for political union. What happened in the UK is more akin to what has happened with the creation of the EU. 86.157.165.154 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the volutary nature (if that is what it was) of the union is really the central issue, but whether the decision to combine existing states in a renamed state means that we should draw a line in the scope of the article, or whether we feel that this topic would be better served by taking a longer historical view that included those pre-existing states because this is in keeping with other Wikipedia articles and what reader's might reasonably expect to find here.--SabreBD (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

During the formation of countries like Germany many of the states united with Prussia voluntarily to create Germany. I think that to leave out history prior to 1801 is to leave out the reasons that lead to the creation of the UK e.g. England and Scotland becoming Protestant and uniting against Catholic European powers such as France is just one of many. There's a lot of history to be included regarding England's and Scotland's relationship prior to 1707, England's role in Ireland and Wales being absorbed into England centuries earlier and so on. Bambuway (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are moving towards a consensus that we should include some information on the history of the states that make up the UK. But I given the large number of intrested parties I think it would be good to wait for more views to be expressed.--SabreBD (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the article has the balance about right the way it is. The article makes perfectly clear to any reader how the UK came about, and if anyone is interested in the history of the individual countries prior to the formation of the UK, the links to find that information are clear and easy to find. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second viewing, perhaps a suggestion could be to add in the 'history' section under 'main article', 'see also' links to history of England, history of Scotland etc - that would make it even easier to find details of the history of the individual countries of the UK prior to the existence of the UK itself. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fishiehelper2 except make sure it is the History of Northern Ireland article that is used and not the History of Ireland article. Thanks 86.164.132.71 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion may be an useful one, but it does not solve the problem addressed at the opening of this debate. Currently this article has some material dealing with culture etc before the formation of the UK. So we cannot simply leave it as it is. Logically we should either delete all such material or accept it and treat the histories of the pre-existing states as contributing to the UK.--SabreBD (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of the strange if not unique constitutional history of the UK (and questions over alternative definitions of the word "country") there is a wide range of views as to whether the UK is a single country, or an entity which comprises four countries. In my view, WP needs to acknowledge both views, rather than taking the view suggested by Sabrebd above that we should "logically" take either one extreme position or the other. That is, we should present a brief overview of the history of the constituent countries in this article, as well as a brief overview of their history since their coming together as the UK, but direct readers to more complete histories in the various articles on the constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, NI). So, I agree with Fishiehelper2. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is what I am "'logically'" arguing for, but again, should we include material in other sections, like culture, that deal with things before the union?--SabreBD (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view, yes, but briefly, and with clear links to fuller articles elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus for inclusion of some history of some limited pre-existing states/nations in the relevant section and mention of pre-existing cultural trends etc, where appropriate, but retaining a major focus on the UK? I wish to emphasise that in my own view the limited nature of these is very important, this is not a history article, so should mainly point readers to article that are historical in those areas.--SabreBD (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reckon so. Go for it. Daicaregos (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for all the responses. I will go ahead when I have time to frame something carefully.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

UK formation date

I would like some input at List of sovereign states by formation date where there is a disagreement over the UK formation date. It appears there are a couple of editors who believe the date should be 1689 and not 1707. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

UK formation date part 2

This page needs this Category:States and territories established in 1707 on the United Kingdom page please. 75.32.76.40 (talk) 1:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The date of establishment is debated. It is only clear the United Kingdom from 1801. If we go by institutions rather than the name there honestly is no single date.--SabreBD (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

density

the uk is the 51st most dense country, not the 51th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.115.41 (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed. You could have changed it yourself, you don't need to consult others for an obvious mistake like that. McLerristarr (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies

"The Channel Island bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies, which means they are constitutionally tied to the British monarch but are not part of the UK.[15] The UK has fourteen overseas territories,[16]..." Are these all national administrations too? Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that say they are, then they are - that's how wikipedia works! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Time zone

i think the time zone should be standardised say GMT/WET & BST/WEST as the U.K is in Europe, and it actually is the official time zone !. User:Craigzomack. 01:52, 2 April 2010, (CET)

Western European Time and Greenwich Mean Time are the same thing, but it's presumably best to use GMT in UK articles as that's the common usage within the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: National Government

FROM the 2nd paragrah of the article: "It is governed by a parliamentary system with its seat of government in London, the capital, but with three devolved national administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the capitals of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland respectively." These can't be national administrations as they only cover parts of The U.K. Saying this also conflicts with other stuff in the article. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, the UK comprises "countries within a country", or "nations within a nation" - or, more usefully, separate countries within a single unitary sovereign state which has certain powers devolved to the national administrations of three of those countries. It's messy and complicated, but that's reality. There is no "conflict" - words like "nation" do not have simple unambiguous meanings in this context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This just goes to the old question of what constitutes a "nation". Scotland and Wales are historical nations but not modern nation-states in the UN sense. Northern Ireland is different again. I don't think there's one hard and fast way of describing all these complexities in a sentence, but clearly "national administrations" isn't quite accurate. The official name for the Scottish Government is "The devolved government for Scotland" [6] - the phrase "nation" is never used in official British governmental language in relation to the devolved "lands" of Wales, Scotland and NI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But, immediately below that statement on the Scottish Government page, is a link to its National Performance Framework. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes. I rather suspect these are examples of excessive zeal on the part of Scottish parliamentary document editors, but yes, they are sources. Clearly it is a very, very complex and possibly confused terminology. I seriously doubt that anyone on Wikipedia can make it any clearer. As I said, there's no hard and fast method of defining it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "excessive zeal". The UK government may have an interest in not referring to the devolved administrations as "national", just as those administrations have an interest in doing so. Before anyone asks, the same use of the word "National" applies in Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Plaid Cymru and SNP often refer to them as nations, even though that has no international legal status. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Plaid Cymru had the honour of naming it the National Assembly for Wales. Jack forbes (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Jamesinderbyshire may misunderstand. The national administrations of Scotland and Wales (and many other organisations) refer to them as nations, although they are not sovereign states "in the UN sense" (and no-one is claiming that they are). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstandings are an ever-present possibility! But I don't think I misunderstand. This discussion started with the proposition that it is wrong in this article to use the phrase "devolved national administrations" as they are not nations. So we are discussing that point. My point is that it is confused within the UK as to what exactly a "nation" is and that Wales and Scotland are not legal nations internationally but that they are nevertheless often called that. Ergo, it is not illogical in Wikipedia articles to sometimes use phrases like nation and national to refer to them as they are often so called, something you Ghymyrtle appear to agree with. Personally I don't believe they are modern nations, but my own opinion is irrelevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The preceding sentence states: "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." The word "national" in the sentence immediately after that one clearly refers back to those four "countries" - it could not relate to anything else. So, why is it a problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that the use of the phrase "devolved national administrations" is even an issue, but since it is, here is an example of the phrase being used by a reliable source: [7]. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the actual phrase used is "devolved to national administrations", but the point that they are "national administrations" seems to be the point at issue. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Fishiehelper2, the article uses the phrase "national administrations" and that is probably, at least technically, wrong, as they are not national in the sense that they are not nations. The UK is the nation. They are some sort of country. However, it isn't a big issue, because as pointed out above, documents coming out of the Scottish Assembly for example use the term "national" to describe Scotland. If Wikipedia reflects the abstract legal realities, we wouldn't use the word national, but if it reflects some (mainly nationalist) current usages, we would. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't get it - you concede that a reliable source uses the phrase "national administrations", then go on to argue that this is technically wrong in your opinion. Your opinions, along with my opinions, are irrelevant - the phrase is clearly used in a reliable source so it is perfectly valid for it to be used in a wikipedia article. That it may offend the nationalist sentiments of those who believe that the UK should be viewed as a single nation rather than as a union of nations, is not a matter that should be part of any discussion on any wikipedia article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's quite a stretch to argue that a document from the Scottish Parliament proves that Scotland is a nation, given that presumably this emanates from the SNP who are scarcely an objective source - clearly Scotland is not a nation state, and that is hardly a matter of my or your opinion, it's a UN fact. I actually don't think the phrase "national administration" is right since they are in fact devolved parliaments and there is no official "Nation of Scotland" but I am reluctant to press the point as clearly you intend to be offensive about it and I can't be bothered to get into a long battle about it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To be correct, the statement "Education policy is devolved to the national administrations" is a direct quote from a BBC news article - not from 'a document from the Scottish Parliament' as you seem to think. Check the source above. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In UK Government terminology, the term 'devolved administrations' is commonly used but 'devolved national administrations' is (as far as I can see) rarely used, certainly not in official documents. I'm not arguing that Scotland and Wales aren't nations - they clearly are, this has been agreed by consensus after extensive discussion (though NI is more tricky) - but on the UK page I believe we should refer to devolved administrations, which is the more commonplace term. Just compare the number of Google hits!--Pondle (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be called "national administrations", but the reason is not to do with numbers of references - fundamentally it's because they are not nation-states. It doesn't matter what's been "agreed" here in the extreme-fights-extreme chaos of Wikipedia, nobody can demonstrate any of the aspects of a nation state for Scotland and Wales. There is no US Embassy in Edinburgh or Cardiff. They are historic nations, not current ones. They are devolved administrations, not national administrations. The SNP can produce whatever they like on the subject, it does not change the facts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Every single person here agrees that they are not nation-states. That's why Wikipedians will quickly act to change any article which states that they are nation-states. We all agree on this point including you. The issue seems to be that you do not know the difference between a nation and a nation-state. This is unfortunate since it is leading to a lot of pointless argument. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we please stop this now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the phrase "national administration" - that strongly implies more than just the historic sense of nation. It implies nation-state. I think you realise that. The BBC also have it wrong clearly, but as I said above, a lot of people are confused about it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"It implies nation-state. I think you realise that." No, it doesn't. No, I don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This could all be solved very easily by replacing the phrase "devolved national administrations" with "devolved administrations", which as I've explained is by far the more common term. It also gets around the old "description of Northern Ireland" problem.--Pondle (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. So what you are saying is because Jamesinderbyshire refuses to recognize the term 'national' or 'nation' (despite sources backing it up) we should drop it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO James is right, but for the wrong reasons. Devolved administrations is a much more common term than devolved national administrations.--Pondle (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In view of this discussion, added reference to article - sad that it should prove to be necessary to reference something that should be pretty straightforward and has been part of the article for a very long time without challenge. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But compare with the British Cabinet Office who officially refer to them as "devolved administrations". [8]. Seems to depend on which source you choose to pick - as stated, it is confused, both in these articles and in sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly references to 'devolved national administrations' (though I've only seen this term used once by the UK Government). But my point is that there are many more references to 'devolved administrations'. Calling the NI Assembly a 'national administration' is also controversial: there is no consensus on whether NI is a country, province, region. Even UK Government sources sometimes disagree!--Pondle (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That the jurisdictions of the devolved national administrations are along national lines is relevant and noteworthy. Unless and until devolved administrations with similar responsibilities are formed relating to sub-national areas, they should continue to be referred to as devolved national administrations. Daicaregos (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See the "Description of Northern Ireland" debate. Devolved administrations is better from a WP:COMMONNAME perspective, and more inclusive given the sensitivities about the status of NI.--Pondle (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is only relevant to titles of articles - this is a dispute about giving detailed and accurate information within an article. The fact that some people may have political reasons for objecting to an accurate description is no reason to make a change! Hopefully, we can now move on to other things... Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Preferring devolved national administrations to the more commonplace devolved administrations is POV in my view. I cannot see the added value offered by the additional adjective.--Pondle (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you must have missed this: That the jurisdictions of the devolved national administrations are along national lines is relevant and noteworthy. Daicaregos (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dai - I didn't miss it. Wales and Scotland are nations - no argument. But NI? That's a controversial statement! If you want a neutral, inclusive descriptor of all three adminstrations, you use the term that gets 123,000 Google hits rather than the one that gets 11,800 (some of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors).--Pondle (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here. The bottom line is that there is no concensus to change what has been a longstanding and stable version. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. (..apart from the spelling of consensus, that is...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reverse appears to be the case - people have doubts about the correct usage. It's particularly obvious that it's wrong in the case of NI, but also I think it's somewhat dubious in the case of Wales, less so in Scotland. I feel the wording should somehow reflect the state of confusion that exists generally, not just here. It isn't a categoric thing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why using devolved national administrations is "... somewhat dubious in the case of Wales, less so in Scotland." Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

..and also why what Jamesinderbyshire "thinks" is in any way relevant. The issue is over reliable sources, not what one (or two) editors "feel". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are just picking up on turns of phrase rather than debating the actual point. Clearly the status of Northern Ireland is something other than a "nation", as the articles about it in Wikipedia also reflect. Why then do we call it a "national administration" here? Let's start with that one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We call it a "national administration" because such a description is supported by reliable sources - and as has been stated repeatedly above, whether individual editors like or agree with what reliable sources say is irrelevant. Next question... Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurdist point, because there are a zillion possible references to use either way. You should focus on improving the phrasing in the article to match the reality that it is unclear what exact status (in fact rather nebulous as HMG have perhaps conspired to leave it) NI, Wales and Scotland have, rather than pathetic cheap point-scoring. Also note that even Wales itself appears uncertain what the heck it is - the Welsh Assembly Government says it is the "devolved government for Wales" [9] whilst the Welsh Assembly itself purports to be the "National Assembly for Wales" but further in [10] says "The National Assembly for Wales is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people, makes laws for Wales and holds the Welsh government to account. " which doesn't sound much like a national government and yet says it is! Oh dear. A view from sunny California on your Brit confusions! 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in checking your claim that "as the articles about it in Wikipedia also reflect", I notice that a recent attempt has been made to edit the History of Northern Ireland article to make it reflect the claim you are now making! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of Northern Ireland says it is a nation? The opener for the government section says "Northern Ireland has devolved government within the United Kingdom." That seems pretty clear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this debate is even happening. It has been long established that the constituent parts of the UK are countries, and therefore also (in common usage) nations. Are we seriously arguing that they are countries but not nations? This has been debated so often there is an FAQ for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A country and a nation are two different things. While NI may sometimes be called a country by HMG (which has also described it as a province and a region in other sources) it really is a stretch to call NI a 'nation'. Most people in Northern Ireland describe their national identity as either British or Irish.--Pondle (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We've been here many times before and the current wording comes from extensive discussion and an assembly of evidence at Countries of the United Kingdom. I suggest people review that first as there is no new evidence or argument in the discussion above. --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, a "national administration" refers to central government. There is a recurring theme among some GB-based editors to use words like "country" and "national" in a manner that can lead a reader to believe something that is not the case or that gives too much wieght to one perspective or another.

Also, please also be careful with respect to Northern Ireland, as the "nation" is divided between two states. Belfast no more represents the seat of "national" administration than Dublin does. In contrast to England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland is not widely considered to be a "nation" and the sense in which it is called a "country" is very limited, not least in Northern Ireland itself. Editors from England, Scotland and Wales should exercise caution before believing that issues around nationhood in their own parts of the United Kingdom can translate in a one-to-one match to similar considerations about Northern Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA about the NI discussion point. On "country/nation", part of the problem is that "country" and "nation" are loaded terms with many different potential meanings. It really is not a clear-cut definition. Scotland for example appears to have some of the trappings of a nation state and not others in current political status. So we need to be clear in the article about these variations and not try to get "killer wins" on use of simple wordings which don't exist in reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word 'national' in relation to Scotland

There are literally tens of thousands of reliable external refs which refer to (post-Union) Scotland as a 'nation' (or refer to something Scottish as 'national'). Here is but a small, small taster (please note that not a single one of these institutions was founded by the SNP! - they were all founded under Unionist governments):

• Scottish National Badminton Championships
• Royal Scottish National Orchestra
• Scottish National Dictionary
• Scottish National Portrait Gallery
• Scottish National League
• Scottish National Antarctic Expedition
• Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art
• Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service
• Scottish National Zoological Park
• Scottish National War Memorial
• National Theatre of Scotland
• National Monuments Record of Scotland
• National Library of Scotland
• National Trust for Scotland
• National Farmers Union of Scotland
• Scotland's National Arena
• Scottish national team
• National Archives of Scotland
• National Youth Orchestra of Scotland

The list goes on, but you get the idea. Please note: external references are your friend. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "is it a nation" or "is it a country" or "is it something else" debate focuses particularly on Scotland. Although I'm sure with a little effort we could find some references that claim Scotland is not a nation! That's the trouble with a call to references on such contentious topics, there are always references that purport to "prove" both sides of arguments. However, the article simply needs to try to give accurate, referenced information about the state of opinion regarding any disputes, both in the historical context and the present time. As this mostly goes to historical assertions of unified nationhood, there isn't so much of a debate about Scotland, there is a little more debate about Wales (which some claim is not a nation and never was a "country" as such - or at least, not a "kingdom"), or even a unified entity apart from perhaps briefly under Owain Glyndŵr. There is an intense and probably currently unsolvable debate in Wikipedia about the precise current status of Northern Ireland, which just reflects the public reality that the status of NI is somewhat muddied. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are these "some" who claim Wales is not a nation and never was a "country"? Daicaregos (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are those who claim it was a unified nation Daicaregos? It was never unified in it's modern borders - apart from under direct English rule. Strictly speaking, it was only ever a Principality, which of course means under subjugation from London. Please don't misunderstand me - I am not denying that a strong Welsh culture, language, history and identity is real - just that "Wales" in it's modern form is a modern invention. We could have a Battle of the References on that, but is it worth the effort? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the Treaty of Montgomery --Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

From memory, didn't that Treaty give certain rights to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd in exchange for his act of fealty? Thereby effectively submitting him to the English Crown? Anyway, all I'm saying is, at no point prior to modern times was Wales (as it is now - eg, North and South Wales as a whole) a sovereign state other than arguably under Glyndwr and for a very short time. I agree it's a nation now, but to most people, "nation" implies self-management and that Wales never had that other than briefly. I agree though that there are other possible meanings of "nation" to some. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit more complex than that (the Treaty) and it certainly was not treated like any of the English fiefdoms (the right to assign for example). You need to be very careful in interpretations through an Anglo-norman lens. Wales had self management for centuries, while the Saxons submitted over a decade, the form of management was not the Anglo-normal form which is probably the confusion. The position under Llywelyn was stronger than under Glyndwr as well. As to boundaries - well no nation state in Europe has had continuity of boundaries. --Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree about the comparison of boundaries now and then in Europe, although on that front, England, Scotland and Wales are quite good contenders to have the longest running fairly stable boundaries in Europe. I think where the key difficulty of interpretation on this point lies is in your assertion that "Wales had self management for centuries", I assume here you are talking about between say post-Roman Britain and Edward I? Was it "Wales"? Or was it in fact a series of warring independent kingdoms? The latter, surely. I really am not trying to get into a contest about English claims to national authenticity versus Welsh claims. Both have a valid tradition. But on the strict interpretation of "integrated nation", if that means "one state", when was that Wales apart from under Glydwr and the modern period? And it was most assuredly true of England, going back to Athelstan and then with short interruptions more or less continuously up to now. The only difference this makes to anything is to the claim that historically Wales was a "nation" if that means a "state". If it means other things, then that's no problem. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"longest running fairly stable" might just mean "longest under the imperial yoke" you know.  :-) I don't think we are disagreeing on the article, but its an interesting conversation. Yes, I am saying that from around 500AD a Welsh identity emerged and stabilised. I am arguing that the concept that a state can only be a state if it has a single ruler is an Anglo-Normal interpretation. Yes there was conflict between the major dynasties, and within those dynasties for supremacy but in part many of those arguments were about the most effective way to handle the Saxons and then the Marcher Laws. Wales had one of the most coherent legal systems in mediaeval europe with the laws of Hywel Dda which were positively enlightened compared with those of the Anglo Normans, it also a distributed method for administration. The Irish Kingdoms warred among each other, but the High King was primus inter pares in comparison with the Anglo Norman feudal structure. Communitarian cultures always contrast with Atomistic ones in their view of power and coherence. My objection is the imposition of one cultural model to interpret another. --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another one of those discussions where people bandy around and confuse several different terms - state, nation and country. Clearly a Welsh 'state' in the classic Westphalian sense of "a political entity with sovereign jurisdiction within a clearly defined territory" has never existed. Trying to locate one in feudal, dynastic system of the middle ages seems ahistorical to me; after all Hywel Dda acknowledged the overlordship of Alfred. Perhaps Gruffydd ap Llywelyn is the closest antecedent but medieval rulers would not have thought in terms of modern nationalism. However, just because Wales lacked a state or other national institutions does not mean that there was never a 'country' or 'nation' called Wales. As the BBC says here, Wales has always been linguistically and culturally differentiated from England. Of course the type and extent of differences change over time, and of course the boundaries are blurry, but the bottom line is that a sense of Wales as a country and nation has existed for centuries, both subjectively amongst the Welsh themselves and objectively to outside observers. Just read 10th c. Welsh prophetic poetry, the works of Gerald of Wales or look up Welsh law.--Pondle (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So, in answer to my question – some nobody from Derbyshire. Who says Wales is a nation? Well, John Davies to start. Then there is the Welsh government: National Assembly for Wales, and the 'national' institutions:

• National Library of Wales
• National Museum Wales
• National Botanic Garden of Wales
• BBC National Orchestra of Wales
• National Theatre Wales ref
• National Eisteddfod of Wales
• National Synod of Wales [11]
• National Watersports Centre for Wales
• Wales National Pool
• Wales National Velodrome
• Welsh National Opera
• Welsh National League
• all the Governing bodies of sports in Wales: organised on a national basis, the sporting competitions organised on a national basis (e.g. theWelsh Grand National, Welsh National PGA Championshipref, etc) and the national teams that compete in international competitions
• all the trade unions, business and other organisations and institutions organised on a national basis
• and the Welsh national anthem.

Now, please stop your British Nationalist trolling. Your POV is inappropriate, unwelcome and not supported by the facts. Daicaregos (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What a non-response to a non-point. I wasn't saying Wales isn't a nation now - I was talking about the historical pre-modern. Calling me a British Nationalist troll (with it's ultra-right, BNP overtones) is actually extremely offensive. As to your other points below, they are a distortion of what was actually going on in those discussions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A non-response? More nonsense. So, you weren't saying Wales isn't a nation now? You said here “… there is a little more debate about Wales (which some claim is not a nation and never was a "country"...” Are you lying, or are you not among the “some” who claim Wales is not a nation? I called your edits British Nationalist trolling and if you aren't comfortable with that then stop trolling. Daicaregos (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are so confident on this point, why aren't you trying to get the intro to Wales changed? At the moment, no mention of "nation". It says "Wales en-us-Wales.ogg /ˈweɪlz/ (help·info) (Welsh: Cymru;[2] pronounced [ˈkəmrɨ] Cymru.ogg (help·info)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" which seems to put it pretty accurately. Evidently we are just dealing with different definitions of the word "nation" here. If you want to use grossly offensive language in pursuit of that, can I do something about that within the rules of Wikipedia? I will try and find out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a US'er, so have a little I hope impartiality. The above remarks by Daicaregos relate to the current status of Wales, not the historical status, which is evidently what Jamesinderbyshire was talking about. The Treaty of Montgomery did not cover the whole of modern Wales, so that backs up Jamesinderbyshire's point about modern borders and inventions. Heck, Wales wasn't even under one ruler until Glendwr and then only for a few years. I think some of you need to take a breath or two and chill though - "stop your British Nationalist trolling" - that's downright rude. And "Battle of the References" Jamesinderbyshire - gimme a break. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors may not be aware that this nonsense has been brought up here previously by the same editor (here), who deflected a perfectly reasonable and polite request to clarify why, in his/her opinion, Wales is less than a nation (here). In this instance, I challenged the statement “... there is a little more debate about Wales (which some claim is not a nation and never was a "country" ...”, which is in the present tense, and s/he deflected again. I called it trolling, as per WP:DUCK. Continued and unsubstantiated slurs on a country's status are not acceptable. Daicaregos (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Very few nations have continuity of boundaries over time, check out the German/French border for one or even the United States. You can go to offa's dyke if you want which is very close to the current border (in fact it is in part) and represents the saxon-briton border which really defines the point at which a Welsh Identity started to emerge. The normans create Marcher Law which stands between Wales and England, but with rights to Welsh Law in part. There is continuity between the past and the present. Neither should you assume that for something to be a nation it has to have a single ruler, this was not common in either Ireland or Wales before the Normans. Dai like many of us has a lot of experience of this issue and Unionist/British Nationalist POV editing (including the editor concerned) so his reaction is understandable. --Snowded ^TALK 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of certain boundaries point Snowded, but it's actually a pretty big chunk of what is now Wales that was not in most of the medieval period. That makes some difference. I have to say as a history student though that I think it's probably a little rosy-eyed of you to view the bitter, brutal struggles for supremacy in Wales between Gwynedd and Powys and their clients as anything other than struggles for supremacy - I seriously doubt they viewed it as a fine example of multi-centric kingship! Each was trying to defeat the other and rule. Gwynedd's ascendancy is surely evidence for that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Marcher lordships extended right across most of South Wales in Angevin times, including at the time of the Treaty of Montgomery which you mention above. I do fully agree that there is a cultural, linguistic and historic entity of Welshness the other side of Offas Dyke, I am just more sceptical than some of our Welsh Nationalist colleagues here that it has always been a "nation" as such, especially since for nearly all of the period pre-Glyndwr, it was riven by internecine warfare. Of course, England was too, prior to the Norman Conquest and for periods after it, but it always had (post 1066 especially) a unified Kingship. Wales did not. At least, not the same entity as modern Wales. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well it seems this has gotten emotional and a little away from the original point. The question is whether "devolved national administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh" is suitable, NPOV language to use. Personally, I think the "national" should just be removed and leave it as "devolved administrations in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh". Clearly some people do consider each constituent country a nation, and they are recognized as such in many documents. But to me this is a similar situation to Quebec (see Québécois nation motion). You would never refer to the Quebec government as a national government even though it's called the National Assembly of Quebec: it's confusing and biased. Don't want to get sucked into any drama here, but those are my 2 cents. TastyCakes (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not similar to Quebec (unless you are assuming continuity between Quebec and New France which would be dubious to say the least. Wales and Scotland are clearly nations, agreed the position on Northern Ireland is more complex given the partition. --Snowded ^TALK 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but why is assuming continuity with New France a stretch when assuming continuity with the last time Wales was independent isn't? And what does continuity have to do with it? TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland are both nations and sub-national entities. (Personally, I always refer to "Wales & Monmouthshire".)Irvine22 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as is Quebec (to some). Calling their governments "national" seems unnecessarily confusing as a result. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How pre-1974 of you --Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Sixties guy. Irvine22 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is crazy! If there is a question over nationhood, it is surely over the United Kingdom - it was formed by different nations combining into a single state, but that in itself doesn't make it a nation. Can't we just agree that both the UK and the countries that make it up are all nations? 86.157.166.142 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with that. The UK is a nation and a sovereign state. Scotland & Wales are nations and sub-national entities. England is a nation, but not a sub-national entity, as it lacks a devolved assembly. And Northern Ireland is a sub-national entity, and a nation to the extent that it is the repository of an older, more authentic Irish nationhood than the modern Irish Republic. I refer of course to the Kingdom of Ireland. All crystal clear now, I trust? Irvine22 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously impressed Irvine (really), good republican sentiments and well worded. --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

...Almost: apart from the fact that "nation" means a society, or group of people, or race of men, not a state, country, territory or division of land.... The Welsh are a nation; Wales is a country, not the otherway round. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Nation means "a race of men"? It does if you're a blood-and-soil ethnic nationalist of an early C20th stripe I suppose. Not to mention a sexist. (I'm dead PC, so I am.) Irvine22 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a stinker for ya'll. The UK Conservative Party leader described the United Kingdom as a country (as recently as yesterday). GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article already says the UK is "an island country" in the intro, so this doesn't affect anything in this page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at Wales and Scotland - neither articles say they are nations - countries is the term used. Seems they are not nations, otherwise you guys would be mobbing those articles in this kind of a dogfight. Maybe there's a reason. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

History section

"The UK-led Industrial Revolution transformed the country and fueled the growing British Empire". Isn't that American English spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.225.195 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for pointing it out - changed to "fuelled", as in Chambers and OED. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I noticed another instance, at the end of the first paragraph of the "Migration" section (just before citation 111), but I think that's the only other one-I searched the whole page for all instances of "led". :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.225.195 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sikh population

User:American1991 keeps adding in figures about the Sikh population of the UK. I doubt that these are reliable source but rather than get into an edit war, I'll raise it here for others to resolve. NtheP (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:CIRCULAR, you are quite right to revert.--Pondle (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I think that Gordon Brown should be removed from the PM position. My reasoning for this is that the government he was leading has been dissolved by The Queen and so officially he is not head of governement anymore because untill May 7th there is no government to be head of and so should be taken out of the article as it is misleading currently. He should be re-added when the Queen has asked him to form another governement (if he wins). (I'm not making this edit myself without editors assent as I think it's too contraversial to do without reason and agreement.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation sounds reasonable to me, although it's a good idea to wait for a few more opinions. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. He remains PM (and the government remains the government) until he submits his resignation to HM, which won't be before 7 May. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though the MP's aren't getting their salaries and the House of Commons are not meeting with which no laws are suggested there?

The House of Commons is a legislature, not the government. It just happens that MPs make up most of the ministers.--SabreBD (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He's still PM- if there was a national crisis between now and 6 May, it would be him and his cabinet who'd handle it so it shouldn't be changed unless he loses the election. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Parliament has been dissolved and there are currently no MPs, the government remain in office (see this). Therefore, Gordon Brown remains PM until (at least) the general election has concluded. Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But Brown himself is an MP and since there are no MPs then why does the page currently keep the MP at the end of his name? According to your source he is just a member of the general public again until 7th May and is not a member of Parliament. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He is currently PM, but not an MP - all MPs' terms ended with the dissolution of Parliament. Technically, the ref to him as an MP should be corrected - but see also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#End of MPs' terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is Parliament that was dissolved not the Government. The government will change in practice when it is clear Brown can no longer hold a majority in the Commons. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The prime minister can ONLY be removed by resignation or a successful vote of no confidence; though obviously a certain amount of pressure can be bought to bear. He can theoretically remain prime minister even if he isn't elected to the commons in May, though he'd lose the vote of no confidence. _{talk to}^{spy on} K^ae 20:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Special Relationship - in Foreign relations

The UK's most notable alliance is its "Special Relationship" with the United States

Is un-referenced, POV and reads as if it's been tacked in there. Notability is open to dispute - the EU and Treaty of Windsor being just as notable. Anyone object if I delete? _{talk to}^{spy on} K^ae 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is a whole article on the relationship and its importance, with 245 refs at the last count, it should not be deleted. But, I would favour a slight rewording along the lines of: "Since the 19th century, the UK's most notable alliance has been its "Special Relationship" with the United States". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the 'most' I'm disputing; it assumes notability is based solely on concordant military adventures. The Treaty of Windsor is extremely notable, being in it's 624th year and the EU is arguably far more important. How about the entente cordiale? Which is more than the stub-like article says. Would you agree with: "Since the 1946, the phrase "Special Relationship" has been used to desribe the UK's close alliance with the United States" or something on those lines?

Edit request from Mrmadcat, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The UK is not also knows as Britain as stated. Britain or Great Britiain refers to England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is seperate from Britain. It is however part of the UK. Please could someone remove Britian as an AKA for the UK?

Thanks

Mrmadcat (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It sounds like this may be a controversial change, so please discuss it here first and see what the consensus is. --Darkwind (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The British Government has declared that Britian (without the Great) is an official shortened name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Lemonade100 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

British Isles

Editors may be interested in a discussion underway on the British Isles article regarding the name of the island of Great Britain. 88.106.107.115 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Most populous cities

1. What figures are these based on, from what year? 2. Manchester is definitely bigger than Bristol. Stratman07 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends on ones definition of Manchester - the entire contiuouse urban sprawl or juat the city proper? Lemonade100

The 2001 census, Key Statistics for Urban Areas. Manchester is smaller than Bristol, but the Greater Manchester Urban Area (the conurbation) is larger than the Bristol Urban Area. Take a look at the "Main Articles" listed at the top of the section. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Union Flag section

The article recently gained a long quote on the Union Flag at the start of the history section. Are we agreed whether this is necessary? I'm inclined to remove it. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do. It is not relevant here. Daicaregos (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed --Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proclamation of James I of England, King of Scots: Orders in Council; Official creation of the Union Flag - 1606.

QUOTE - "By the King: Whereas, some differences hath arisen between Our subjects of South and North Britaine travelling by Seas, about the bearing of their Flagges: For the avoiding of all contentions hereafter. We have, with the advice of our Council, ordered: That from henceforth all our Subjects of this Isle and Kingdome of Great Britaine, and all our members thereof, shall beare in their main-toppe the Red Crosse, commonly called St. George’s Crosse, and the White Crosse, commonly called St. Andrew’s Crosse, joyned together according to the forme made by our heralds, and sent by Us to our Admerall to be published to our Subjects: and in their fore-toppe our Subjects of South Britaine shall weare the Red Crosse onely as they were wont, and our Subjects of North Britaine in their fore-toppe the White Crosse onely as they were accustomed. – 1606." (ref > ISBN: 0906223342. The Art of Heraldry. An Enclopedia of Armory. A.C. Fox-Davies. 1904/86. (p399) < ref)

(Whereas, some differences hath arisen - For the avoiding of all contentions hereafter.)

Hi Cordless Larry, Daicaregos and Snowded. With reference the discussion topic on this Quote – Are we agreed whether this is necessary – and the response – it is not relevant here - deleted. With specific reference to the question – are We agreed? - As the contributor of this Quote, I obviously consider the quote was/is necessary, also, was/is relevant here. As such, We are not in agreement about the deletion of the proclamation - especially without any stated reasons, or opposing arguments.

The validity of the quote is self-evident: primarily; this is the first “Official history” of a (joining) proclamation of the flags, of (separate) Kingdoms of England and Scotland, in creation of the flag of a (united) Kingdom(s) of Great Britain; (this Isle, and all our members thereof) - by such proclamation - evolved into the current “United Kingdom”. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Its appropriate for the article on the Union flag, its over the top for this one. --Snowded ^TALK 14:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can see that the quote might be of relevance at Union Flag, but it is too long and detailed to go here. We need to bear in mind WP:SUMMARY. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the quote is being added to a number of article, such as History of the formation of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Great Britain, Flag of England and Flag of Scotland without much thought about where it best belongs, if anywhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed that this unnecessary quote has been placed in a number of articles and the only place that it MIGHT belong is somewhere in the article about the union flag. In my opinion they all need to be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a fine and interesting quote, but it does not belong on this article. Daicaregos (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bjmullan. If it is to be used anywhere, links to articles on North Britain and South Britain could be included in it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

British overseas territories (BOTs)

There is currently uncertainty among users whether or not this map should be included in the infobox. Since the edits are going back and forth, I guess it is a good idea to discuss this question now.

My opinion is that the BOTs are relevant for the UK article as the UK government exerts certain supreme powers on them. However, the infobox is certainly the wrong place, because the BOTs are NOT part of the UK, and this would be the regular misunderstanding caused by adding the map to the infobox. Nevertheless, I think this map should be added to one of the sections of this article where the subject is explained in detail. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting and worthwhile map but it belongs somewhere else, maybe to do with the commonwealth but not about the UK. Bjmullan (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No map should appear in the infobox that isn't reflected in the statistics therein. I doubt the populations and areas of the BOTs are included, and therefore the map should not either. There's the secondary question as to whether these are parts of the UK or just possessions of it or the crown; it's not a purely academic distinction. France's territories, based on my understanding, are explicitly part of France; the United States' unincorporated territories, on the other hand, are explicitly not part of the US. I'm not exactly an expert on the UK but I always thought it was closer to the US in that regard than it was to France. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the map makes Man, Guernsey, and Jersey, three areas that I also believe are not included in the statistics in the infobox, pretty much invisible; one dot is given to Guernsey and Jersey, and none of the three are labelled, unlike the BOTs. Finally, the font for Akrotiri and Dhekelia doesn't match the rest, and IMO, Ascension, St Helena, and Tristan da Cunha, being the same territory, might should be given one label. So not only does the map not belong in the infobox, but it's not the best map we could have on its own merits. --Golbez (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The crown dependencies in the British isles are neither UK nor BOT. I guess that is why they are not labeled on this map. Otherwise, I agree with your points. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, they exist solely as two pixels (for three dependencies) but if this map is to give a total image of the whole of the United Kingdom, its territories, and crown dependencies, then it fails on that front for short-changing the dependencies. My point is, if you're going to include all area controlled or claimed by the country, then you can't just give two pixels to these notable holdings. They have a status separate from that of the BOTs and the UK itself, but they still have a status and are relevant to an understanding of the whole subject. The closest analogy I could think of for the US would be to list all of the unincorporated territories (Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.) but ignore the one incorporated territory (Palmyra Atoll), just because its status is different. Long paragraph short: This is not a good map. :P --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that we can conclude that this map has no place in the infobox. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Guardian Newspaper

The Guardian newspaper is not Liberal, in the English sense of the word (if you follow the hyperlink on the word 'liberal' in the sentence, it will take you to a page on English Liberalism, which the Guardian has little to do with). Perhaps "less conservative" would be more appropriate than 'more liberal' as they are not quite the same thing in this case. Sebastapolis (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Science, engineering and innovation

Requesting someone mention that: "A study by MITI - Japan's equivalent of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) - concluded that 54% of the world's most important inventions of the past 100 years were British. Of the rest, 25% were American and 5% Japanese." Or something similar. Here are two references: http://www.thebis.org/newsroom/InventorsAndInvention.php http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3306757/Innovation-in-action.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.11.88 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

UK is not a nation, GB is

This is all wrong. It is the United Kingdom OF GREAT BRITAIN. When someone asks the nationality no one will say United Kingdom, they are British. UK was a term used mostly by the forces when living abroad. The two entries United Kingdom and Great Britain should be combined.

The full nation title is as stated "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - 92.24.228.231

lol Great Britain is an island made up of England, Wales and Scotland, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country made up of both Britain and Northern Ireland. The clue is in the title. Pro66 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a Title of The British Nation - just like one would refer to America as the United States(, Note Mexico who holds the same title is not refered as this).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

United States citizens don't say their nationality is United States either mate. The term UK is probably used more in the Armed Forces, 'cos they're serving Her Majesty. (I've taken the liberty of Linking half of your words in order to help explain the differences in terms) --Kurtle (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces Picture: Afghanistan/Land Rovers

Hello, I wondering if there were any more up to date photos of the British Army in Afghanistan, maybe of more resent vehicles used in theatre e.g. Alvis Panther or Challenger 2? Mainly as the Land Rovers are hardly used due to their lack of protection, cheersSuperDan89 (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, if you or anyone else can find an image of one of those out in Afghanistan then it would be better. Space25689 (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical scope

Just to flag up that I plan to revisit the issue of the historical scope of the article, which was discussed at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 19#Historical scope of article. I plan to do some work on this over the next few days. In summary the plan is to added (briefly and with reliable sources) to the history and culture sections to reflect their significant events before the creation of the UK and to make the distinctions clear. I emphasise the brief part of this again, and that it cannot be simply drawn from the history and culture of England. Any further suggestions welcome, but please read the debate to save time or covering the same ground again first.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a draft of the history part of this on my sandbox at User:Sabrebd/Sandbox. I have striven for neutrality here, but given the potential sensitivity of the topic it would be helpful if editors can find time to take a quick look to see if I have missed any potential pitfalls and comment here. The plan is for this to replace the first two paragraphs (and the fifth on Irish independence which it incorporates) of the history section. Bear in mind this is a draft so any minor points can wait until it is posted. Hopefully this will point up the longer history of the four nations of the UK without going into too much detail.

Also to flag up for discussion that:

• I would like to add a sentence or two on WWI to the very short paragraph on the depression, so that it has a little more context.

• That the unsourced section on Thatcher, Blair and Brown needs some attention, as at the moment it reads like POV and assumes that a reader knows what exactly was the post-war consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favour of giving detailed information about subjects which have their own articles; the histories of England, Wales, ireland and Scotland should be dealt with on their own respective pages and not duplicated here. So I feel that your first paragraph is mostly unnecessary, and suggest a shorter text, focussing on the creation of the United Kingdom:

• • The United Kingdom was created out of the existing historic kingdoms of England (including Wales), Ireland and Scotland, although all three retained their separate political institutions. Between the 17th and 19th centuries a series of political events brought these constituent elements into a close political union. England, Ireland and Scotland were brought into a personal union by the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI King of Scots inherited the throne of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and moved his court from Edinburgh to London. On 1 May 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the political union of the Kingdom of England (which included Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland. This event was the result of the Treaty of Union that was agreed on 22 July 1706, and then ratified by both the Parliament of England and Parliament of Scotland each passing an Act of Union in 1707. Almost a century later, the Kingdom of Ireland, merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the passing of the Act of Union 1800. Disputes within Ireland over the terms of Irish Home Rule led eventually to the partition of the island in 1921, with Dominion status for the Irish Free State in 1922 and Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. As a result, in 1927, the formal title of the UK was changed to its current form, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It might be appropriate to explain series of political events, or link the text to any relevant article. (I have written brought in-- to personal union, even though some may consider your original bought to be more appropriate!) Bazza (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know many Scots feel they were bought in 1707, but it was just a typo - honest. Bazza's view is at variance at what I took to be the consensus linked above in the archive, which was (I paraphrase) to signal the continuity between the UK and its constituent countries, which might be a bit puzzling to some readers as the article stands. But its a legitimate argument (and consensus is, of course, never set). What is above is definitely an improvement on what is in that section at the moment. Perhaps we can wait for a while and see how much preceding history other editors feel is appropriate for each country. I was trying to keep this to a minimum and only gave them two sentences each, which is not much for 1000s of years of development.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As there were no protests over Bazza's text, I have posted a version of it at the beginning of the history section, with one change so that the timing of the changes in political institutions is (I hope) a little clearer. We can always revisit the issue of how much history we have from before the finalisation of the title of the UK in the future if necessary. I think it is more important to be able to move on with slightly more pressing issues in this (and subsequent sections). I will work up something concise on WWI that helps that section make a little more sense. In the meantime, the sections on Thatcher, Blair and Brown now look rather out of place, so any views on those would be welcome.SabreBD (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The WWI section is done. I plan to work through the rest of this section supplying citations and cleaning up anything WP:POV or that might be misleading or unlclear. Any comments and suggestions are very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Deputy PM

I expect this has already been discussed, but it's worth asking: as Nick Clegg has officially been made deputy PM, should this be added to in infobox underneath the 'Prime Minister' spot? 146.87.0.77 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We should only record details of the deputy PM if that is what has been the established practice with previous postholders. I don't think it has been and see no reason to change it. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the political significance, surely there is a case to be made for including this in the infobox, as suggested? The previous postholders will have been members of the PM's party. That is not the case here, so citing those as examples of "established practice" holds no relevance. What is the established practice in other coalition governments where the Deputy PM is a leader of a different party to the PM? Is there even an established practice in such cases? 81.187.44.149 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The infoboxes for the articles on the Irish Taoiseach (PM) and Tánaiste (Deputy PM) don't refer to the other office-holder. -- Evertype·✆ 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But the Deputy is listed in the country's infobox. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a case could be made for his inclusion there. After all, we haven't had a deputy PM for 3 years (since JP). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh Assembly Government is a coalition of Labour and Paid Cymru. Consequently, both the First Minister for Wales and the Deputy First Minister for Wales are noted in the Wales infobox. This could be considered as established practice. That they are from different parties is noteworthy. The same is true of the Westminster government. The Deputy Prime Minister should be noted here. Daicaregos (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are noted in Northern Ireland's infobox, where the government is also a coalition. Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clegg's status and role in this government is not comparable to that of previous DPMs such as Prescott or Heseltine. He has the title by virtue of his role as leader of a party in a coalition government, rather than simply the patronage of the Prime Minister (which can be removed at any time).Hobson (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't hold much power. For example Gordon Brown didn't even bother appointing one. It would be biased to change it now simply because the Conservatives won. Deputy PM was never included in the article when John Prescott was the Deputy PM. This case is entirely different from other cases such as Northern Ireland First Minister, which is a diarchy. Otherwise do we only have the Deputy PM mentioned during coalitions or always? If always then why the change now if not for biased reasons? Space25689 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A coalition is not the same thing as the Conservatives winning. Other parties could form coalitions in theory. The situation now is not comparable to any previous government the UK has had at least since WWII.Hobson (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been no constitutional change in the UK, even if there is a coalition government, so there's no need to change the format of the UK's government positions on the article. Space25689 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland may have a diarchy, but that is not true in the case of the National Assembly for Wales, rendering your argument against precedence as incomplete and flawed. It also strikes me as a flawed argument to say that previous DPMs haven't been listed. Previous DPMs haven't been leaders of a different party to the PM. Given the nature of the political relationship which is becoming increasingly apparent, I think it is very appropriate to acknowledge the role and influence the leader of the Liberal Democrats currently has within our government by listing his role as DPM under that of PM in the infobox. There's no bias about it. It's reflecting the current reality of British Government. Elvie Love (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I say that we keep the Deputy PM on the info box because it is encyclopaedic information and because of the significance of the coalition. It shows the significance of the two different party leaders. Also people looking at this article may quickly want to check who the Deputy PM is. I see no harm or real opposition as to why we shouldn't include it. Also the overwhelming amount of people in this discussion would agree with me. There is no bias in showing the Deputy PM and if someone thinks there is, please state why it is POV? IJA (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 pence on this. Did the page have DPM in the time when the government lead by Gordon Brown was in power? If the answer is yes, then I fail to see the problem. But if the answer is no, I also fail to see why it should be added because just because 2 parties have come together and formed the government, Clegg is just another MP on the government benches o if we let him in we'd need to go all the way down the order of precidence (ie. we'd have to add Vince Cable, George Osbourne etc.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why add Osbourne and Cable? They're not party leaders in a government unlike Cameron and Clegg. Also Chancellor of the Exchequer and Banking and Business are not as senior positions as Celgg and Cameron's positions are. Also Clegg is Lord President of the Council as well as Deputy PM and Leader of the Lib-Dems. I think his positions, influence and circumstances are justifiable to include him in the info box as Deputy PM, as that is how he is referred to. IJA (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom the DPM holds little to no power at all. The title is simply to get Clegg in to the cabinet room. In fact William Hague as First Secretary of State holds the exact same office as the titles are interchangeable. Further neither office will assume any power in the event of incapacity of the Prime Minister they are both purely honorary. I see no reason why Clegg should be there. (Natt39 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

You obviously haven't read my previous comment. Clegg is also Lord President of the Council as well as leader of the Lib-Dems. Also Clegg will represent the Coalition in the House of Commons in Cameron's absence which is likely when Cameron is globe trotting; not to mention the amount of globe trotting Clegg will do to represent the British Government. He is in-charge of electoral reform too. Also Clegg has much more influence than any previous Deputy PM as he is the party leader in a coalition, as well as the amount of influence he has. Clegg's position as Deputy PM is very different and unique to previous Deputy PMs. IJA (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The constitutional role of Deputy PM hasn't changed a bit. The Deputy PM has no power and Gordon Brown never even bothered to appoint one. The Deputy PM was never included on this article when John Prescott was the Depty PM during the Tony Blair years. A coalition government makes no difference whatsoever to the constitutional role of Deputy PM. No other countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain or any other country have their Deputy PM in their infoboxes, and many of these countries have coalition governments. Devolved UK assemblies and governments are not sovereign state governments like the UK government is. Nor is the UK government a presidential system like the US. Infoboxes only mention the head of state and head of government. The UK's head of state is not the Prime Minister and head of government the Deputy PM. The UK's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II and its head of government is Prime Minister David Cameron. Listing other positions would lead to an ever expanding list of government positions. Otherwise why not mention the whole cabinet? No other sovereign state I can see of, especially constitutional monarchies, have any more than the head of state and head of government mentioned in the infobox, coalition government or not, which many have. Space25689 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But nobody's suggesting the role of Deputy Prime Minister has changed. We're suggesting that Cameron and Clegg are both leading this government, even though Clegg is the junior of the two. It wouldn't matter what Clegg's official title was, it just happens to be Deputy Prime Minister. He is more than just another member of the Cabinet. Nobody suggests any other member of the Cabinet should be included in the info box. .Hobson (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have two heads of government. It only has one. Having the Deputy PM included suggests the UK has two heads of government. No article on Wikipedia on a sovereign state has the Deputy PM included. Space25689 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much I need to stress the fact the British government is NEVER led by more than one person, coalition or not. There are NEVER two heads of government or two Prime Ministers in the UK. Many here are suggesting the Deputy PM now is a second, lesser head of government, and that the British government is led by two people. That is never the case. Most European countries have coalition governments all of the time. Not one of them has a Deputy PM mentioned in their infoboxes, nor do they suggest they have two heads of government or that their governments are led by more than one person. The UK government is in no way a diarchy and never has been, coalition or not. Space25689 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think proponents better find a source stating the UK government has two heads of government or two Prime Ministers or at least two people who lead the UK government if they want the Deputy PM to be mentioned on equal footing with the Prime Minster on this article. Space25689 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

NO-ONE has said that the UK has two heads of Government or that the Deputy PM is the Head of State. Also No-one has said that the Deputy's role has changed in any shape or form. You've gone off track a bit. The argument is that under the circumstances we should include the Deputy on the infobox because of the coalition. Also in other European countries where they have coalitions, they don't have a monarch as head of state, the small party leader in the coalition is given the role as PM and the Major party leader has the role of President. This situation in the UK hasn't happened since WW2, however since our governmental system is different in the UK to most other European states, we should include the Deputy PM. This is why we are arguing that the Deputy PM should be included. I think it is a pro Tory Bias to just show Cameron as PM and not show Clegg as Deputy. We should reflect that there is a coalition. IJA (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the joint press conference David Cameron stated:

I am delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy Prime Minister. The two of us together leading this historic, Liberal Democrat-Conservative administration. --transcript

I doubt any other recent Deputy PM has been described in the same terms or even been involved in a joint press conference. Eckerslike (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eckerslike, that is what I am saying. Clegg is different to other Deputy PMs due to his other powers. We're not saying that the role of Deputy PM has changed, but he is different to other Deputy PMs for other reasons. We should list him as "Deputy PM" as that is the title he uses. Nick Clegg should be included in the infobox due to his importance in the Government.

Also I would just like to point out that the articles Swaziland, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia all list the Deputy PMs IJA (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be but all of those assume the role and powers of the office of PM should he be unavailable. The DPM of the United Kingdom does not. As for the Lord President argument it is no different to any other member that holds two cabinet seats. Aside from chairing Privy Counsil meetings he does nothing diffrent than a normal DPM which is not alot. The DPM is not equal to nor directly below the PM and nor is he above any other cabinet member in terms of seniority. (Natt39 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes you're right when talking about the average DPM, but not Nick Clegg, he is a different case all together. You seem to think that we are arguing that Nick Clegg should be included just because he is the DPM of the UK. That is not the argument. The argument is that we should include Nick Clegg in the Infobox due to the importance of his role in Government aka leader of the Lib-Dems. We list him as DPM, because that is the title he goes by. IJA (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. John Prescott was never listed there when he was Deputy Prime Minister, we don't expect William Hague to be there now he is First Secretary of State, despite the two roles being virtually identical. The Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg or otherwise, should not be included. Why should he be? Malarious (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to resolve this here, rather than making further changes to the main article space. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in adding the DPM to the infobox. It wouldn't be exculsive to this article, to do so. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support adding Nick Clegg as DPM to the infobox. The argument wrt previous postholders in single party government is irrelevant. There is some precedent for including the leader of the minor party in coalition governments in other country articles, and there does not appear to be a standard established practice across the board, so I don't see the need for creating artificial constraints. Nick Clegg's position in the current UK government is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in the infobox. The fact that previous DPMs haven't been as noteworthy is neither here nor there. Elvie (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then why don't we include William Hague as First Secretary of State? The two jobs are, in their description, virtually identical. There is nothing in Nick Clegg's position as Deputy Prime Minister that sets him apart from any other Cabinet position. He would not immediately succeed David Cameron if he were to die or resign suddenly, he holds no seniority over other Cabinet ministers, and it is right that the UK article acknowledges the head of state and the head of government. Like it or not, the head of government is the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister. The fact that previous DPMs haven't been included IS here and there, because it's the same job. If it were a Tory DPM would there be this discussion? I think not. Nor a Labour one. A Lib Dem one should make absolutely no difference. Constitutionally, the position is not deserving of that place. It can be put somewhere else in the article perhaps, but to include it alongside the head of state and head of government is misleading and false. Malarious (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk)

If it were a Conservative DPM, you are right there would be no discussion, since that would be a single party government, as we have had for the last 65 years. However, we no longer have a single party government; we have a coalition government, and there is a strong case for reflecting that in the infobox. If it was the leader of the Labour Party due to a Conservative/Labour coalition then the discussion would be identical because that would be just as notable as Nick Clegg being in that position. Your argument shows bias if you believe that a different coalition government would change the argument pro including the leader of the minor party of the coalition in the infobox. Elvie (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that it used to be single party government is largely an irrelvance; the important thing is that it is still a constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system, that allows for both coalitions and majority rule. That hasn't changed, and so to say that because we currently have a coalition, of whatever party, means that the position of Deputy Prime Minister should be included alongside the heads of state and government is false. I am all for mentioning Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister in the article, around the same place David Cameron is currently described as Prime Minister, but to put Clegg alongside the Queen and Prime Minister on the basis of it being a coalition government is not right. Now if the job were constitutionally defined as being the Prime Minister's second-in-command, and if Cameron were to die/resign suddenly Clegg would become Prime Minister, I would completely agree that he should be there, but it isn't. Clegg may be Deputy Prime Minister, but he is not deputy head of government, and so he should not be put alongside the head of state and head of government. Malarious (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been no constitutional change in the United Kingdom, therefore there is no need for there to be such a change on this article. The Deputy Prime Minster was never included in the infobox before and such a change implies there has been a constitutional change in the United Kingdom. So unimportant is the position of Deputy Prime Minster in the United Kingdom, that the country went without one from 2007-2010. Mentioning two people for head of government implies there are two heads of government. The United Kingdom has only a Monarch who is head of state and a Prime Minister who is head of government. There are no other leading positions in the British government. The position of Deputy Prime Minister is probably less important even than many other cabinet positions, many of which could not be left vacant for 3 years as the position of Deputy Prime Minister was. The British government is a sovereign state government, like the French government, and the France article does not have Deputy Prime Minster included in its infobox, only President and Prime Minster. The British government is not like the devolved Northern Ireland Executive or Scottish government, which are only administrative divisions, not central governments and are structure differently. In fact, the Scotland article doesn't mention Secretary of State for Scotland, despite it being a far more important position for that government than Deputy Prime Minister is for the British government. The vast majority of articles on countries on Wikipedia do not have Deputy Prime Minister included in their infoboxes. The United Kingdom article never did, nor does it need to now. Readers will be sufficiently informed that the United Kingdom presently has a coalition government when they read the Government and politics section. The British coalition government is no different than other coalition governments around the world, so there is no need for wp:undue weight on this matter by including the Deputy Prime Minister in the infobox and everywhere possible simply to make a point. Many countries have a single party government or a coalition government, but this is not mentioned at every available opportunity on their respective articles, it is simply noted in the politics section. Importantly, the change never had consensus on this talk page. Despite that fact many editors still changed the article with disregard to the opinions of others. Space25689 (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malarious and Space25689. There is no "job" of Deputy PM. It is a title, given from time to time for political reasons, and its responsibilities - if any - change with whoever has the title. It has no constitutional basis. Certainly, the current UK political situation should be fully reflected in the article text, but I can see no valid reason for putting DPM in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that there is no compelling reason to make this change to the infobox. It is a political office of convenience and in the UK lacks the constitutional role it often has in a presidential system. That has not changed since the announcement of the new government.--SabreBD (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No-one has said that Nick Clegg should be listed there because he is the Deputy PM. He should be listed there because he is one of the two leaders of the coalition government. He just goes by the title of DPM. Also it is common all over Wikipedia to list other important people in the infobox. IJA (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not common to do so on Wikipedia. Just have a look at other countries that do have coalition governments. They do not list the deputy, neither as a deputy head of government nor under their ministerial role. On which countries did you base your common observation? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that in coalition governments for other countries it is often the case that both the leaders of both the major and minor leader within the coalition are listed. It is not being argued that the DPM should be listed in the infobox; it is being argued that the minor leader within the coalition should be (he just happens to be DPM). Elvie (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've realised I've phrased that really badly - let me try again: When I say minor leader, I mean leader of the minor party within the coalition. Elvie (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes Elvie, that is exactly what I am trying to say. IJA (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I also remain unclear why the example of the Welsh Assembly Government on the Wales page was out of hand dismissed as a valid example of established practice. This is a government of a country within the UK that had it's First Minister only listed on the infobox of the country prior to 1997, when it was a single party government. In 1997 an historically significant coaltion was formed between the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru, and since the end of 1997 the Wales info box has included the leader of Plaid Cymru as the Deputy First Minister. It's a strikingly parallel situation. Deciding it doesn't count because the Welsh Assembly Government is a body with limited powers under the UK Government, strikes me as a very flawed position. Elvie (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has yet noticed Elvie is a sock puppet of IJA? Elvie was created just as IJA entered this debate, and Elvie's contributions have been limited to this debate. Elvie consistantly backs IJA on this talk page whenever IJA makes a comment. Classic sock puppet signs. 88.106.86.24 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about unfounded. Point of fact is I created this account because of this article - I was actually IP user 81.187.44.149 (I commented near the top of this section), but my contributions since joining 2 days ago have not at all been limited to this discussion (Check the talk pages of David Cameron and Demographics of Wales for example). However as it's on my watch list, it's hardly surprising I keep returning. As a new user, I have to say this is not the kind of offensive attack I expected to get for sharing my opinion on a talk page. Nice welcome, thanks. Elvie (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@ 88.106.86.24, if you think you have evidence to say that I am a puppet master then please report me to WP:ANI per WP:SOCK. However I can assure you that I have not violated WP:SOCK. This is my one and only account. IJA (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@IJA. Please mention the infoboxes you are referring to. I have not seen any yet where the minor coalition partner is mentioned. Yet you claim this would be the common case. Tomeasy _{T C} 05:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland has Taoiseach and Tánaiste (Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister respectively, according to their articles), Wales has First Minister of Wales and Deputy First Minister for Wales and Malaysia has Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in their infoboxes. Another option could be something similar to the Denmark and Norway infoboxes, which show Current coalition: VK Coalition and Current coalition: Red-Green Coalition in theirs. Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Swaziland and Saudi Arabia are others where the Deputy PM is shown. However I think Nick Clegg should there not just because he is DPM, but because he is the leader of Lib-Dems in a coalition. IJA (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's disect the argument that it is common on Wikipedia to show the minor coalition partner in the infobox, and go through the examples given:

As for Ireland, the infobox is just not mentioning the minor partner - the Greens. It lists the deputy prime, who is of the same party as the prime minister, which is precisely not what IJA was argueing.

As for Malaysia (do you really have to go so far in order to come up with a few examples to prove your common Wikipedia rule), here, too, the prime and the deputy minister are of the same party. This country does not even have a coalition.

Wales is not a sovereign state. So, if we want to follow what is common on Wikipedia (as IJA indicated), then we should compare with infoboxes of sovereign states like the UK.

Saudi Arabia (another obvious candidate for comparisson:-), just have a (second) deputy prime minister. A prime minister is not mentioned in the infobox at all. Furthermore, I expect this country not to be ruled by a coalition.

Swaziland has probably no coalition government either.

How uncommon must it be on Wikipedia if, in order to prove a common rule you need to show these examples. Why don't you look into obviously more related cases like: Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, ... Ah, of course, that might proove the opposite of what your intentions are. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Alistair Darling is still listed as being Chancellor.

[[12]] Stephengrobertson (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that lots of similar issues are to be found, especially in articles not as commonly viewed as the main UK one. The fact that the UK has had the same party in government since before Wikipedia started means that we're in new territory in terms of finding and updating all mentions of government that are party sensitive. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'll raise it at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, to remind people to check articles on their watchlist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are the local authority populations wrong?

It seems to be using a figure for Leeds that was corrected in 1974? I take it it's just an insecure Wiki admin thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.27.75 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be done to get this a featured article?

Hi, I was wondering how much work needs to be done to this article to get to being feature article standard. In my opinion it's a very factual article, but there must be something that it's lacking.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the United Kingdom

There is a dispute ongoing on the Economy of the United Kingdom article which may be relevant to this article and which users here may be interested in. Australisian (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

language identification mistake - needs quick correction

In the expanded form of the UK's name under the right-hand sidebar, the UK's full name is listed in each of the languages of the country. However, the name is twice identified as Scottish Gaelic in two different languages. The first is indeed Scottish Gaelic, but the second is actually Manx Gaelic.

Manverinyel (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now corrected, I hope. But why is the Manx name there anyway, as IoM is not part of the UK? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK handles the IoMs foreign affairs. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So? Man still isn't part of the UK. I doubt its area and population are included in the infobox, so its language should not be. --Golbez (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Manx term as it is not part of the UK - neither are Guernsey or Jersey, and their languages (Guernésiais and Jèrriais) are rightly also not included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

British overseas territories map in the infobox

As far as I was aware, this was all sorted with no problems. What happened? Flosssock1 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to elaborate... what part was sorted? The consensus seemed to be not to include it, and it indeed remains unincluded. --Golbez (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

i would like to send a letter to the D company 1st 10th Gurkha regt who I was attached to in the early part of 1966 as an op Major Chris Pike was then the company commander Regards Jim Swinger 13/06/2010 <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.60.58 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your email address; that's usually a bad idea. Regarding your question, Wikipedia can't really help you find someone; the reference desk link below might be a place to ask where you can go for help finding that information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't let us stop you. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking this at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. They might even be able to tell you what the postage charge will be.--Aspro (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

¿Why is the word "WHITE" written in the Ethnic groups of the UK while in Spain or Germany it's written Spanish and German, respectively? Both ethnics groups are white too. And why does France (for example) not have the ethnic group? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelPerez91 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom and Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. The article uses the official UK Census definitions - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Oh dear

The United Kingdom is not commonly known as Great Britain, it is however commonly known as Britain. Since I have no wish to make a further revert, I hope someone else will remove the incorrect addition by an editor who has not read the FAQ at the top of this page. O Fenian (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to get into this dispute, just let me say that here in Australia and elsewhere the United Kingdom is frequently "commonly known" - although incorrectly - as both "Britain" and "Great Britain". Surely the article can address this issue in a neutral and accurate way. There is, of course, often a distinction between "commonly called" and "correctly called". Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the usage of Britain, and I think it would be appropriate to add a note that Great Britain is considered incorrect.- Wolfkeeper 16:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the official ISO code for the country is "gb", this name, while incorrect, has at least some international standing. So there is a reference for "Great Britain" being used, ISO 3166-1. Both Britain and Great Britain deserve mention. I'm surprised this article doesn't have an early section about the Name, since it is a complicated one. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is against it, according to the FAQ. I have no opinion one way or the other regarding inclusion, but would suggest it is not unless and until there is a clear consensus to do so. O Fenian (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Then I suggest that a footnote be attached to the mention of "Britain" noting that "Great Britain" is indeed commonly used, despite the consensus of Wikipedia. :P Or, y'know, something more encyclopedic and less snarky. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to get too involved in this, but my reasoning is that you can't have one without the other. After all it is the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and Northern Ireland which I believe is often shortened to Great Britain and from there, Britain. Since the Olympic team is mainly called Great Britain and manypeople would know it as that so, i'm in favour of both names being included. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a significant number of reliable sources that Great Britain is commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom?- Wolfkeeper 19:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, everyone slips 2-letter ISO codes nonchalantly into the conversation all the time. It's nothing to do with uk being short for Ukraine either. Oh... wait...- Wolfkeeper 19:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to engage in this conversation with honesty and respect, then please do not engage in it at all. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous - Great Britain is a commonly used term for the UK. One only has to look at the name of the country's Olympics team for goodness sake. And as my (quickly reverted) edit pointed out, many academic books, etc, on politics, history, international affairs, etc, use Great Britain to mean the state/government of the UK. David (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It dont see a problem with including Great Britain as a common term for the United Kingdom even the Great Britain article has The term "Great Britain" (and the abbreviation 'GB') is the traditional 'short form' of the full country title. Most people would associate the term with the country rather than the more correct description of the island. Although a footnote should be added to explain the differences with a link to Terminology of the British Isles. I would suggest that the long standing consensus not to add it to the lead is ignoring the real world usage (rightly or wrongly). MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you stick to what the WP:Reliable sources say!- Wolfkeeper 21:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see this article (and the FAQ) does not have any reliable source that says Great Britain is not a common name for the UK. A quick search of Hansard [13]] gives 114,199 uses of the term Great Britain. If you remove the 3,000 odd mention of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and from a quick sample the worst estimate that 90,000 mentions refer to England, Scotland and Wales or the island that probably gives at least 10,000 uses of "Great Britain" as a term for the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the point that that's OR, how does that prove that they're not actually talking about Great Britain as opposed to United Kingdom?- Wolfkeeper 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case I picked one reference from our current article at random: [14] and it specifically says: "Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales.", it does not say 'oh and it also refers to the UK'.- Wolfkeeper 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a single person here is saying that "Great Britain" is an official name of the country. So your source doesn't really change that. However, your source is not the arbiter for all English usage, and in common English parlance, "Great Britain" is a somewhat common name - if inaccurate - for the country. So please, stop trying to prove its inaccuracy and start trying to combat the notion that it's a common misnomer. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Point of fact, the Wikipedia is not a usage guide to terms. If you want a usage guide, you need a usage guide.- Wolfkeeper 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Point of order, but we aren't asking for a usage guide. We're saying that "Great Britain", though inaccurate, is somewhat commonly used as a name for the country, even by some official and British organizations. I'm not asking the article be moved to it, or necessarily even a mention in the introduction. I'm asking a footnote be added to the introduction mentioning it, or a section on the Name dealing with it. --Golbez (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea, try not to act incivil in a conversation where everyone is being completely civil. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not.- Wolfkeeper 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is used plenty of times to refer to the United Kingdom as pointed out above by other editors. Both Great Britain and Britain are commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom. Judging by the apparent anger of some and their contribution histories it would seem some here just dislike the word Great preceding the word Britain. I think that's the real point here, not how commonly the term is used. 88.106.83.178 (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that it's something with Northern Ireland - not being included. The term Great Britain refers only to the largest island of the United Kingdom, but it's all the same - it's just shoving the word Great in front of it, really the word Britain is as vague as the words Great Britain. The United Kingdom is referred to as Great Britain quite a lot - like the Olympics.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain: vote

Right, hang on. It seems that the only contributor who doesn't want Great Britain mentioned as a shorthand name of the UK is Wolfkeeper. Can we take a vote on whether to include Great Britain - or use "(Great) Britain" or similar - as a commonly used name of the UK? I would vote to support this. I only this morning listened to a foreign policy debate that took place in the House of Lords yesterday and Great Britain was used a few times to mean the state of the UK, as it has done in international relations, politics, military, etc, since the early 18th century. Indeed the Great Britain article states:

"The term "Great Britain" (and the abbreviation 'GB') is the traditional 'short form' of the full country title 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', although usage of 'the UK' has increased more recently."

Please can we get this issue sorted. It is rather important and I do believe one or two Wikipedians are blocking it against the wishes of many and of course, brutally frankly, reality. David (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is incorrect to use Great Britain as an alternative to the UK, further as Wolfkeeper has pointed out no reliable references have been produced to support the statement that GB is a common name for the UK. WIthout such references there is no case. --Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Votes are taken ALL THE TIME on Wikipedia on proposed edits, moves, etc. And I could come up with hundreds of sources from books, internet, etc for Great Britain. Where do you want me to start?! Really, I don't understand this opposition to using "Great Britain" at all. David (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Government's website, the webpage dealing with the UK v GB question:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK or United Kingdom for short) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The term 'Great Britain' (GB or just Britain) refers to the area covered by England, Scotland and Wales. (However, the terms are sometimes interchangable - for example, in the Olympics the UK is represented by the Great Britain Olympic Team.)" David (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The opposition comes from a respect for facts and you might remember that there was controversy in Northern Ireland about the Olympics use. That said its use for the Olympics could be mentioned as its supported, although for balance sake we might want to mention the controversy. Whatever it does not support your wording above. As to votes, you might want to go back and read the five pillars. --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what a 'respect for facts' has to do with it. It has nothing to do with being factual; it has to do with being common. We all, I think, recognize strongly that "Great Britain" is an incorrect name for the country. That doesn't change the fact that it is in common usage. --Golbez (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't now if it has been mentioned before, but the international number plate sign for cars from England is GB and not UK. I would guess that cars registered in Belfast would have to use the GB sign as well when they drive abroad, or do they use NI. Now, wouldn't that be a quite official reference (as Snowed was asking for) to the misuse of the term Great Britain to mean the UK. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Golbez has previously mentioned that the ISO 3166-1 codes for the United Kingdom are GB and GBR. The Times Style Guide says that "Britain is now widely used as another name for the United Kingdom or Great Britain, and pragmatically we accept this usage."[15]--Pondle (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two cases here. Its OK to say that Britain is widely used as there is a reliable third party reference and its not the political name of the main island. Its OK to say that Great Britain is used and reference the GB plate but its not evidenced that it is in common use. --Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Google is not the best arbiter in this situation, but trying a particular phrase, "prime minister of britain" vs "prime minister of great britain" vs "prime minister of the united kingdom" gave, respectively, 537k, 1260k, and ... 132k? well that seems odd. I'm not sure what you're expecting in the way of proving common usage. Are you actually denying that many people refer to the country, incorrect though it may be, as "Great Britain"? --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

All that you are being asked for Golbez is to use language backed up by reliable third party sources and not engage in original research or synthesis. Check back on the thread. --Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy for me to cite many usages of "Great Britain", it sounds like what you want a specific citation saying that it's a common usage. That's less easy to do. Though, our own article on Great Britain states, unsourced, that "The term "Great Britain" (and the abbreviation 'GB') is the traditional 'short form' of the full country title 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', although usage of 'the UK' has increased more recently." And from the Terminology of the British Isles, ""Great Britain", New Oxford American Dictionary: "Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."" (emphasis mine) I know this is all in the FAQ, but the FAQ, as I recall, solely deals with what the government says, and again, they do not control the English language. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't care. the Wikipedia is about what something is, not how it's called. The Wikipedia is WP:NOT a usage guide. We simply don't record common usages. That's for dictionaries. We could quite rightly remove everything except 'United Kingdom' in the first sentence. It seems to me you're trying to OR up some 'common usage'. Well, in the Wikipedia, we go by wp:reliable sources.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be worse... I'm not asking for England to be mentioned. I could push that, considering "Queen of England" is nearly as common in use as "Queen of the United Kingdom." But that would just be crazy. As for 'we simply don't record common usages', you're strangely mistaken. We do indeed, in nearly every article that calls for it. We give the official/actual name, then the other names it's commonly known by. I'm surprised that you've been here for six years and haven't learned, first of all, not to template the regulars (corrolary: don't resort to templating the regulars to avoid responding to their actual points), but secondly that we tend to give the names something is commonly known by, so as to educate and not confuse the reader. All I'm asking is an addition to the footnote on Britain. At the least. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the use of "England" illustrates the issue here, in practice it may be far more common than Great Britain, possibly Britain as a name for the UK. We also have a position here in which the lede is starting to be a nonsense. In the main you have been quoted examples which is OR, the phrase "loosely" is at least a third party but does it really validate its use as a common name? Even if it does then is it justified in the lede? There is another solution here which is to leave the lede with UK, but create a sub-section on alternative names including those which are plainly wrong (such as England) and those such as Britain which are more common etc. --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise: Perhaps instead of linking Britain to Wiktionary (which really helps no one), link it to Terminology of the British Isles, where folks can find all the context they need. Maintain the footnote, since "British" is considered an official demonym. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have Britain in the lede with that link, possibly removing the italics as well so it reads better)--Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Going back a bit, here is a .sch.uk site which states that Great Britain is often used, although it is a misnomer. http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/britain.htm . I think it should be mentioned somewhere that it is a common misnomer, the sports section here already brings the discrepancy to light, but does not expand upon it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That source has been challenged too many times in the past - its a site maintained by a kent school geography teacher .... --Snowded ^TALK 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I just feel the issue of common use needs to be addressed somehow. What would be useful? Mass media or a website? Here's another website, though not sure how good it is. http://www.infoplease.com/uk/language/difference-great-britain-england-isles.html . In terms of mass media, the country is called Great Britain in Doctor Who, a British Show. Maybe change the lede to (Great) Britain? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of keeping it simple and linking to [Terminology of the British Isles]] is best --Snowded ^TALK 00:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source - the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Library Edition says "(Great Britain) is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom (q.v.), which also includes Northern Ireland (q.v.) and a number of offshore islands." Quantpole (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem with adding it. How can you get a 'reliable' source for a misnomer anyway? I'm sure most reliable sources do not use the misnomer, a reason they are reliable. Furthermore, there have been numerous instances pointed out where it is used. Surely it is not too much to make wikipedia more accurate by adding 2 words to the lede? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Well after all The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and as Dpaajones said, it's used in government which surely should be evedence for why it should be included. Evedence such as here gives evedence that people use Great Britain often to refer to the UK (and from that you get Britain). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support: There is no reason not to include it, and it is a misnomer commonly applied and found in many situations and used in the media. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

Science, engineering and innovation: Specifically pointing out Scots

Is there any reason why the Scots in this list are specifically identified as such, whereas the English, Welsh and Northern Irish aren't? Zestos (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Isaac Newton was pointed out as being English as well. But I don't see why it is needed to point out the individual nationalities here, so have simply removed them all. Quantpole (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the best thing to do. Just wanted to make sure that I hadn't overlooked anything. Thanks =) Zestos (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Military Spending

Not certain, but looking at Wikipedia statistics the United Kingdom is stated as having the third largest military spending. However in this article it is stated as being sixth.I am uncertain what is the truth so am unwilling to make a change, but could someone more knowledgeable check and make the required changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.154.58 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Everywhere I could find it in the article it says 3rd or 4th, in accordance with these lists. TastyCakes (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, only 6ths i can see is for the GDPs. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of phrase "British Isles" in English Wikipedia - straw poll

There has been a discussion for some time at Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force on the use of the phrase "British Isles".

A straw poll has now been called on the outcome of this project, please make your views known. The proposal being polled is shown below. Please vote here.

The straw poll is issued against a background of a number of editors systematically deleting all usage of "British Isles" throughout the site. The manual of style proposal attempts to set some rules to mediate this process.

• The British Isles are Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland and, by tradition, the Channel Islands. Use on Wikipedia may or may not include the Channel Islands.
• Use of British Isles is not prescribed in any context (i.e. there is no context in which British Isles has to be used).
• Use of British Isles is appropriate in geographic contexts and (scientific) contexts related to geography such as distribution of flora and fauna, geology, weather patterns and archeology.
• Don't mix "apples" and "pears" (e.g. if content lists states then list states, if content lists geographical units then list geographical units).
• Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922.
• Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

Editors should respect verifiability and differences in terminology that appear in reliable sources where appropriate. Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles is discouraged.

WHERE TO VOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No royal banner

Anywhere in this article. MrTranscript (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping Picture.

I noticed that the picture of D.C meeting B.O is overlapping with the text (armed forces section). I tried to change this but failed (does the br function work here?). --109.79.106.227 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (TheEnigmaticMan logged out).

Fixed it. It's because pictures from the previous section overlapped into that one. Personally I think there are too many pictures. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy

From the opening sentences of the Economy section - "The UK has a limited regulated free market economy". Is "limited" meant to be a technical term here? It presumably means "partially regulated"? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandwiching of pictures

The addition of some recent illustrations has led to some sandwiching of text between pictures, something the manual of style directs us to avoid (see MOS:IMAGES). I think most of these can be sorted out, although its possible that some must simply go (in which case will may have to choose one image), but I am flagging this up here so that editors understand what is going on and also because layout looks different depending on displays, so editors can keep an eye out for any problems that are created.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I think one of those was my fault, in my previous edit. I'll list images I think should be removed to make space, after that others can be rearranged.

History: Picture of the plane, it seems less important than the others (not to say the battle of Britain isn't important)

Government and Politics: Royal Standard, we already have the queen, the standard seems unnecessary.

Local Government subsection: Remove manchester hall, caption is about architecture anyway

Foreign relations and armed forces: Aircraft Carrier and Missile. That leaves the section with a picture for foreign relations and a picture for armed forces (although personally I'd prefer two different sections for both of those).

Geography: The 4 countries picture, that's more politics anyway.

Healthcare: The Norwich hospital, other hospital looks better in my opinion, and section is too short to have two.

Sports: Cardiff stadium, This one is tricky as I don't want to be seen as disliking wales, but it is the smallest stadium. I mean, there's no Belfast stadium there.

Culture: Robert Burns, the other two are more famous, especially at an international level.

Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will bear these points in mind. Some of these are likely to be very contentious (or have already been the subject of a lot of debate). I am on my wide screen pc now so I am going to see what changes I have to make, bearing in mind the above and then offer anything for discussion here that I think will be contentious.--SabreBD (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This now done and most (not quite all) of the problems are dealt with. In the end I implemented the list that Cipmunkdavis gave pretty exactly as it seemed the most logical way of doing this. There were some invidious decisions to make here, but they cannot always be avoided . There are a couple of places where there is perhaps room for a picture (Population, sport and print), but that doesn't mean we have to have one. Otherwise (unless text expands) its one in and one out, so we should probably generally ask editors to bring any proposed changes here first.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as an addendum. It strikes me we could work the Millennium Stadium pic back in if the rugby union section were a bit more substantial (which it justifiably could be). I will put it on my (long) to do list, but I won't be devastated if someone gets there before me.--SabreBD (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did! Sorry it was the obvious thing to do and it is the Welsh national game. I generally updated the section as well. I removed the Rugby League picture, it could go back in if that section was expanded a bit. However if its a choice then Union has the larger support.

Its a good call in my opinion. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you know. If you find that an image is interfering or clashing badly with the next editable section below, you can add {{clear}} at the end of the text to ensure the next section starts 'after' the bottom of the image. Its liberal use can often make an article less visually messy.

Also, where an article naturally attracts a lot of iconic images, some of the images can be accommodated in a tidy fashion by placing them in an image gallery. Template:Image gallery Use <center> before and after, to place galleries on the centre line of the page if you think they look better like that. --Aspro (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did know, not really the problem here, but its useful to remind everyone. The point about the gallery is a very good one too and I should have thought of that. Are there any objections to gallery at the foot of the page? It would help deal with some of the representational issues. I would add that I would prefer images, even in a gallery, to be illustrative of the text - as this prevents the creation of a tourist brochure or special interests filling it up.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallery is a good idea but I wouldn't remove everything from the main text --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it looks good now. I was thinking of adding the deleted images for a start.--SabreBD (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This now set up. This is less disruptive than having too many pics in the text, but I urge regular editors to scrutinise new additions or it may get out of hand.--SabreBD (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't like the idea of it simply because it could rapidly get out of hand. How many pictures relate to the UK? No doubt millions. I think that each picture added should have to fit a defined part of the article, and there has to be a justified reason for its importance to the UK as a whole. (Just as basic criterion) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Pictures need to be illustrative of the text.--SabreBD (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallery abuse is a good point. So will place this note/plea before the gallery template. <!---BEFORE ADDING MORE images to this gallery, PLEASE discuss on talk page_Thanks--->. Please rephrase if you can think of something more threatening suitable. Also, I think images might look more orderly if grouped by similarity and in temporal (or date) order in the gallery. So I will move the spitfire image down to be with the two other military images. This seems a more natural arrangement to me. The section headings display OK on my MacBook, but the headings of Transport, Sport, Cricket, Media and Internet are displaced from the margin by the images above on my SyncMaster Screen when running in Firefox. Therefore, I will add some {{clear}} templates to correct this. --Aspro (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I dislike clears because I don't like the large white spaces left. I feel a picture should only be placed if it fits in the section. It all fits on mine, don't know what's different about yours. I agree with organizing it by category. Maybe it should be rearranged in the order of the text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They were in the order of the text: the spitfire was near the top because it comes from the history section. Clears can be problematic because different displays rearrange the text accordingly. Its best to test major changes on a wide and a narrow screen. The hidden note is a good idea and probably about as threatening as it can reasonably be.--SabreBD (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are not in the same order now. For example, Robert Burns is third. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can revert it back if they cause more problems than they solve but the only way to find out was to try it. It was on my widest ratio screen that I had the problem. Will wait to see what others report back. I would have thought that by the time the reader gets down to the gallery they will have lost track of what order the textural information was in. People process images and written information in different parts of the brains. It just seems easier to me to assimilate and appreciate pictorial information when its grouped together. Have a think about it and if you still think its better as it was I'll revert it back.--Aspro (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about U.K. related article

See: United_Kingdom_debate_over_veils#Expressions_of_opposition_to_the_raising_of_the_issue_as_a_public_debate

There's a statement by a Tory MP referring to T-shirts of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and Che Guevera being legal to wear in the U.K. Is this in fact true? Would I really be able to walk around with those shirts in public without being arrested? 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You would be able to walk around with those shirts without being arrested, of course tasteless shirts do not hide the face which is the problem with the burka, so the things are very different. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't a shirt with a glowing picture of Hitler violate the "Incitement to racial hatred" law? 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As well as "Incitement to religious hatred", since Judaism is a religion. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing specific in British law banning depictions of Hitler in public places. Incitement to racial/religious hatred would be at the discretion of an individual police officer. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like much legislation introduced by the previous labour government its definitions are extremely vague and dangerous which opens up the ability for a huge amount of abuse or mistakes by the Criminal Justice System as they "interpret" the legislation. There is no way an image of any individual like Hitler could violate those laws, unless maybe if it shows Hitler carrying out an act of violence against a religious group and someone judges that to be "encouraging" others to copy that act, but even that would probably be unlikely to secure a successful prosecution. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume if neo-Nazis put up a large portrait of Adolf outside a synagogue, the authorities might well act. I can't speak to your assumptions about vague and dangerous definitions BW, but both ACPO and the CPS have issued detailed guidance on them, so police and prosecutors are supposed to be guided by those. For example [16]. Was there something relevant to a Wikipedia article arising from this discussion? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would undoubtedly constitute a breach of the peace. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That too is dependent on a point of view though. If an portrait outside of a synagogue could be deemed to be a breach of the peace then i can think of many other distasteful things that for some reason we tolerate that could fall foul of the same rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines written by unaccountable individuals which could be changed without a change in the law by the lawmakers we elect. One can easily see where some people might have different views on what constitutes "abusive" or "insulting" compared to "threatening". According to that page, 2 of which are fine, but one is a crime if it is intentionally aimed at stirring up religious hatred which again depends heavily on ones point of view, something that makes it rather dangerous in relation to free speech. But anyway, the debate was relevant to clarify the position on something mentioned in the debate on a burka ban in the UK article. I am not sure if we have clarified the position, but it is an interesting debate none the less. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary System

The system of government in the UK is a Parliamentary System NOT a Parliamentary democracy - That's why the Wikipedia article is called a Parliamentary System. Please stop inputting incorrect info. Thanks. Vexorg (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"BritishWatcher (talk | contribs) (196,681 bytes) (Undid revision 375827910 by Vexorg (talk) your change is very controversial and unacceptable. take it to talk)"

What like this talk you mean? Vexorg (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It use to say Parliamentary Democracy there, when was it agreed to change that? Do all other countries with parliamentary "systems" say that in their infoboxes? What exactly did you mean in your edit summary "not a democracy". Oh and wikipedia is not a reliable source so i really have no concern about what the specific article on parliamentary systems or democracy states.

Yes like this talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

it was corrected to parliamentary system ages ago. Where is the talk section here to consensus it to the incorrect partliamentary democracy. You should read talk pages BEFORE saying 'take it to talk' in an edit summary and simply reverting Vexorg (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"What exactly did you mean in your edit summary "not a democracy" - Learn what a democracy is and you'll see. Vexorg (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was corrected to parliamentary system ages ago." I asked where it was agreed.

"Where is the talk section here to consensus it to the incorrect partliamentary democracy." I will locate a pointless debate that was held on this subject a year or so ago when someone attempted to demand democracy be removed.

"You should read talk pages BEFORE saying 'take it to talk' - You should take it to the talk page and keep it there until there is consensus for your change. Not simply restore your edit.

"Learn what a democracy is and you'll see." So you do dispute the United Kingdom is a democracy, i thought that is what you implied. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say BritishWatcher is correct on both procedure for controversial edits and on the use of the term. Parliamentary democracy is traditionally used for Britain in contrast to Presidential democracy as per the USA. Also it is in the table under governement and "parliamentary system" tells you nothing about the nature of the government, whereas "parliamentary democracy" tells you on what authority the government rests.--SabreBD (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This i nothing to do with a comparison with the governmental system of the USA. "parliamentary democracy" does NOT tell us what authority the government rests. I welcome your rationale to show otherwise. Furthermore British Watcher's reasoning on controversial edits is not applicable here. I simply restored a correct information. Nothing controversial about that. Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy/Consitutional MOnarchy can be found all over government web sites. To say in a edit summary that the UK is not a democracy is silly - in terms of the wikipedia articles it is a representative democracy. Parliamentary democracy diverts to parliamentary system which is fine, it doesn't follow that system should be used in all articles --Snowded ^TALK 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To call such a summary 'silly' is frankly very childish. The UK's system of government is a parliamentary system. It is not a democracy. Those of you who are under the elision it is a democracy re welcome to provide evidence of such but I know in advance you will fail. On what basis do you conclude the UK's political system is a democracy? Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of a range of sources which describe it as such. This for example. --Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And this government website [17] and this European Union website [18] . I guess they could be wrong or lying. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting as well to think about how one would prove the UK is a democracy if the evidence of elections etc. is either not known or not counted? I;m also curious as to whether elision is meant or a typo for illusion. Elision is one of those interesting words than can mean wither the omission of something, or the process of joining together (and omitting things in the process)--Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the UK is a "democracy" in the modern sense of that term, as applied to nation states in for example Europe, it holds up rather well in a claim to that word. In the purest historical sense, no modern state is a democracy in the original Greek sense, as we don't hold town meetings of a narrow group of aristocratic men to determine death sentences, declare war, etc with majority votes. Of course, some may regard this as a good thing. This conversation also reminds me of a line from The West Wing in which President Bartlett angrily points out that the US "is not a democracy - it's a Republic - there's a difference you know!". I guess strictly speaking, as the article (nearly) says, the UK is a constitutional monarchic parliamentary democracy with unelected elements like the House of Lords and the senior civil service within the overall system. Plus unelected spin-doctors with remarkable levels of power. (apparently). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

so, then, it is a Parliamentary System as described in that article. - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's lots of things Clem. It's a modern constitutional monarchy. It's an Anglo-Saxon democracy. It's a representative parliamentary democracy with unelected elements. No single statement will accurately cover it. It's like a lot of things in articles about Britain, the UK, etc - it's a complicated state with a lot of different ways of looking at it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

plus an unwritten constitution. however there is an article called Parliamentary System which to my untrained eye, seems close enough. picking another term, such as parliamentary democracy really needs a definition, preferably a full article, (not a redirect). then an argument that it was one and not the other. No doubt BritishWatcher will oblige. As you say: "it's complicated" - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the article at parliamentary system, is mostly about nations that would be considered "Parliamentary democracies", there should probably be a section defining it on that article, but that is not my concern. Australia and Canada along with others say Parliamentary democracy, This said parliamentary democracy for years until it was changed with no agreement on the talk page at some point (ive not hunted down the original change). We have government sources along with the European Union source saying the UK is a "parliamentary democracy". There are definitions of "Parliamentary democracy" on other sites, The CIA world factbook has a definition of it, sadly they fail to list the UK as one and simply call it a constitutional monarchy (but we all know the CIA aint perfect). The infobox should without doubt say parliamentary democracy which is a stronger and clearer term than just "parliamentary system". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify, BritishWatcher: The CIA factbook is a completely reliable source ... except when it isn't. And, purely by coincidence, it is unreliable when its 'facts' don't happen to confirm your opinion. Would that be a fair summary of your position? Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From reading the article Order-in-Council it seems that the UK is a monarchy (from the example given court decisions can be overturned and parliament ignored) - so the CIA would be closest. As Jamesinderbyshire says: it's complicated - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy diverts to Parliamentary system so there is no problem with using the more accurate description here.--Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the difference? - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy is the more accurate term and supported by various references. Your reading of the role of the monarch is not correct, in that the rights of the monarch are limited by the constitution and that constitution is formed by the common as well as statute law. --Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

parliamentary democracy is NOT The more accurate term. You appear not be very knowledgable about political systems given your above reasoning ... Snowded said above ---"Interesting as well to think about how one would prove the UK is a democracy if the evidence of elections etc. is either not known or not counted?" --- Elections are not proof of a democracy whatsoever. Plenty of non democratic political systems have or have had elections. The Soviet Union was a notable example. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok ok, please tell me on what basis you are arguing the UK is not a democracy, what is it we fail to do over here that leads you to that conclusion? --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Head of state isn't elected, but that's seperate from Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we talk about this before? I think this should probably go into the FAQ.--Pondle (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea --Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a reasonable addition to the FAQ?

Q. What is the system of government in the United Kingdom?

A. The United Kindgom is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This description is supported by a number of references.[19][20][21][22][23] However, some sources place more weight on one of these descriptions or use an alternative term such as "Commonwealth realm".
One of the key principles of the constitution of the United Kingdom is parliamentary sovereignty. This means that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in the UK.[24] The Government is formed by the party or parties commanding a majority in the elected chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons. Government ministers are chosen from MPs and Lords in Parliament,[25] but by modern convention the head of the government, the Prime Minister, always sits in the Commons.[26]

The monarch is the UK's head of state. While she retains some formal powers, custom dictates that she follows ministerial advice.[27] Most Royal Prerogatives - historic powers held by the monarch - are today exercised by Government ministers.[28][29]

--Pondle (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember one of these debates from 2007. Those additions to the FAQ look good to me and maybe they'll stop us going through the same arguments again in future!Hobson (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me and they would help --Snowded ^TALK 01:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is done should be clear and definitive, otherwise this debate will happen again. This started over parliamentary democracy v parliamentary system and then monarchy joined in. If you choose parliamentary democracy then there should be an article on that - not (as at present) a redirect to system. Else why not call it system? - ClemMcGann (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As neither the House of Lords nor the monarch is elected, the system is not democratic. I understood the argument to include 'parliamentary democracy' in the infobox was based on several reliable sources noting the UK as that. Consequently, the FAC should read something like "The United Kindgom is a constitutional monarchy and is often, but not always, described as a parliamentary democracy." Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The House of Lords is a review chamber and can only delay bills it can't prevent them going through against the Commons, the the role of the Monarch is bound by law and precedent - all established by various parliaments. Sorry Dai, I think you are wrong on this one --Snowded ^TALK 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of "democracies" include bits in their systems that are not democratic. One need only think for example of the huge role that US corporate lobbyists pay in shaping and controlling the Congress, the secret activities of the CIA in undermining governments and manipulating politics, the antics of Hoover's FBI in the 60s and 70s, etc. All of the Western-model democracies are hard-fought compromises between those who wish to control from an unelected basis and those who strive for accountable forms of government. The House of Lords is a much-declined legacy of what was once the controlling body, gradually losing powers over the centuries to democratic struggle. The monarchy has similarly been clipped. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Economist Intelligence Unit's definition of a democracy is a country where "government (is) based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, there are free and fair elections, minorities are protected and there is respect for basic human rights". On its definition, and that used by Freedom House, the UK is clearly a full democracy.[30][31] Four of the top five countries scoring highest on the EIU Democracy Index - the Scandinavians and the Netherlands - are constitutional monarchies!--Pondle (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is impressive so many near the top of the list are monarchies. In a few years time there will be an elected second chamber too so there will be even less of a case against the UK being a "democracy". Fully support adding the above addition to the FAQ which should resolve this matter and hopefully prevent it coming up again. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you note there is a case against the UK being a "democracy". I'll be happier when the second chamber is elected, and even happier when the head of state is also elected. Daicaregos (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The house of lords simply makes us a less perfect democracy :), although the house of lords in recent years have actually helped defend civil liberties more than our elected commons did. I quite like the idea of having a senate, but an elected head of state? No thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to cut the odd head off to get there though BW --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

lol true BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking through this debate, no one has put forward any evidence that the UK political system is a democracy. Indeed a democracy demands equal access to power for all citizens. This is clearly not the case in the UK. I've moved it back to parliamentary system. In the unlikely event of consensus on Parliamentary system then don't link to parliamentary system. You can't have it both ways. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V states it is a democracy. In the UK the government is voted in by its citizens. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)And you have not participated in the discussion other to assert your position without argument at the start, and act as judge against consensus at the end. 3RR warning issued here --Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be so childish with your silly patronising 3RR nonsense on my talk page Snowded - You're acting like a traffic warden giving a parking ticket for someone putting the wrong items in their recycling bin. Hilarious really. Do you know what 3RR means? It means 3 reverts in 24 hours. How many reverts have I applied in the last 24 hours? If you're going to edit Wikipedia at least learn how to use it. It's not difficult Vexorg (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we've outed your embarrassing and erroneous 3RR warning Snowded can you show us where the consensus is for this alleged democracy we live under. You've already told us that elections are proof of a democracy and obviously the Soviet Union was democracy given it had elections I await your evidence of the UK being a democracy. I won't hold my breath of course. Vexorg (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the 3RR policy Vexorg, the three reverts in 24 hours is not an entitlement. Your own views on if the UK is a democracy may or may not be interesting but the citation evidence says it is. You should also read the comments of other editors above and the general note which was agreed. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremely lame excuse to throw out 3RRs if I may say so. And... I've read the comments of other editors. The article links to Parliamentary System under the cloak of Parliamentary democracy. You have proven your lack of expertise in this field by claiming that elections are proof of democracy. Surely you must agree that articles are compiled by people that know what they are talking about. If you really have the quality of Wikipedia at heart then the right thing to do would be to bow out and let the political elements of this article be compiled by people who do at least have some knowledge of what a democracy actually is. Really Snowded if you want to cite the UK as being a democracy then you have to provide evidence of such. Up to now yo have failed to do so. Plenty of editors have provided evidence in this talk section to show that the UK is not a democracy. Forget the pride and put Wikipedia first. Vexorg (talk)

Edit waring is disruptive and you are not exempt from the requirement to reach agreement on the talk page. If I look at the above comments I see no editors arguing your position. I do see considerable reference to sources which say the UK is a democracy. If you can come up with some reliable third party source which says the UK is a democracy then please do so. --Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

please learn about edit warring and compare that with the history. Your case is embarrassing. Now please provide some evidence that the UK is a democracy and I will happily condone the article citing claim that the UK is a democracy. Vexorg (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I recommend giving up the 3RR and Edit Warring argument, as I think you may be slightly overreacting here.

However, I agree with Snowded that the UK is a parliamentary democracy. Democracy has different meanings in different contexts. The democracy of Ancient Greece, or democracy in its purest sense, is where the population decides on each decision through vote. However in modern times, a democracy is where the legislative government is a body that is elected by the people to make their decisions for them, so while the people do not make direct decisions, they elect the people they feel will make those decisions best. In the second sense the UK is a democracy. In the first sense there is no democratic country on earth, a position I think you'll find will be hard to argue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not in the second sense either. Elections are no proof of democracy. See my post below Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a slow edit war and its covered by policy which is designed to stop people from constantly inserting material against consensus even if they do it over an extended period of time. If its not a 3rr report then its ANI if the disruption continues on the page itself. --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Right and you are just as guilty. Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don;t see you referring to a single third party source which supports your claims on the democratic status of the UK. Until you provide one there is little point in continuing to respond as there is a general admonition not to feed trolls. As to understanding edit warring you are welcome to challenge my interpretation and we will see what the community thinks.--Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Snowded that we shouldn't edit-war over this, let's discuss it properly. Vexorg, can you help - I am not clear what the exact context of your objection to the "democracy" usage is. Is your point that the UK is not democratic compared to other states, for example, in Western Europe? If this is the case, what do you regard as the main reasons why it is not a democracy? I ask as I am wondering if your objection is just to the UK being described as having a democratic system, eg, in this article only, or if your objection is to the use of the term across a lot of national articles in Wikipedia? As many others with quite similar systems are stated to be democracies. Please elucidate. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No I have no prejudice against the UK. I just feel we shouldn't be labelling political systems democracies when they are not. So my feelings apply to all countries that are mislabelled democracies. Just because something is stated to be so it doesn't make it so. What's more ridiculous with this article is that the label 'Parliamentary democracy' is a hyperlnk to Parliamentary system. If 'parliamentary democracy' is so notable then why isn't there an article on it? I fear that many here have grown up to the societal indoctrination by the media and politicians that we live under a democracy. We certainly do not. A democracy is where everyone has equal access to power. Either by vote or putting one's self up for election. This is clearly not the case. The House of Lords, parties and party whips, political funding, media influence, etc,etc are all obstacles to democracy. That's why the article is called Parliemntary system and not Parliamentary democracy. I see many are still under the delusion that 'elections' mean a 'democracy' Vexorg (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thats a political opinion, but its a fairly restricted definition of democracy compared with normal use. If you want to change article content to reflect that position they would you need reliable third party sources which made similar statements. Those would have to be weighed against the various sources which say the UK is a democracy and more specifically a parliamentary democracy. These issues are resolved from source not opinions of individual editors. --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not a political opinion it's an objective opinion. What is a political opinion is a few sources that have privileged weight because they have money behind them ( mainstream media, etc ). You Snowded are the one who is hiding behind Political opinion not I. Wikipedia should be above politically motivated sources and worke upon objectivity. objectivity concludes that the political system of the UK is a Parliamentary system, and not not a parliamentary democracy.

The UK isn't a full democracy, but a democracy nevertheless. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue here seems to be the linking of parliamentary democracy to parliamentary system. For this part of the discussion, I would like to propose the following solution: link this way "parliamentary democracy".

Of course, this does not help the discussion whether the UK is a democracy at all. In this respect my opinion is pretty much Good Day's. There are different manifestations of democracy, more radical (direct) ones and less radical (representative) ones. Nevertheless, it is common and hence acceptable for Wikipedia to also rever to the latter as democracies. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

we can say what a parliamentary system is, because there is an article. Since there is no article on "parliamentary democracy" its ambiguous. If the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" (whatever that is) then there should be an article, and it had better be different to parliamentary system, else -why invent a new term. I fail to see the point of piping parliamentary system to parliamentary democracy. If its a pipe then the are the same, if so why not say "parliamentary system"? At present, I consider "democracy" and "monarchy" not completely compatible with each other, hence I would favour "system". - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled by your logic here. We can say what a parliamentary democracy is because we can look it up in reliable sources. We dont need and article for that.--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources? Who says whether a sources is reliable or not? This is the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to authority' - It's not about the source it's about the rationale objective rationale states the the UK is not a democracy. It doesn't matter who says it, what matters is the content. Anyone who can't think for themselves and simply trusts a 'source' because of some arbitrary 'reliability' is a handicap to society IMO. As I've said before, forget about 'sources' think for yourlesves FFS and work out whether the Uk is a democracy or not. ClemMcGann is at least thinking for him/herself Vexorg (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg, while of course you can think for yourself, you can't include the product of that thinking here. If you want to think for yourself and share that with the world write a blog. As editors we can only write what our sources support. If the sources are wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters here is what we can verify. Not an argument about the issue, just about Vexorgs assertion. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself and boring everyone else. If the article parliamentary system describes the situation in the UK, then say parliamentary system. Don't say something else, such as "parliamentary democracy". If, as seems to be implied by some posts here, that the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" which is described in the article parliamentary system, then rename that article.

If the UK is a "parliamentary democracy" and that is not as described in the article parliamentary system, then their should be an article, isn't the UK important enough to deserve one?

User:Sabrebd says that there are "reliable sources" to define "parliamentary democracy". While Michael correctly points out that "reliable sources" can be wrong. I agree. However if they can be wrong then they (probably) contradict each other. Which is another reason why (if the UK is a "parliamentary democracy") we need an article. Why use externals? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia?

Nonetheless, given that there is a monarch and since an 'order in council' can be made, albeit on advice, I am yet to be persuaded that the UK is a democracy. Read the article Constitutional monarchy and consider it. - ClemMcGann (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry we are long past the point of people repeating themselves and boring everyone. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a parliamentary democracy, just like Canada, Australia and most countries on the article at Parliamentary system are. Should that article highlight most "parliamentary systems" are "parliamentary democracies"? Yes, that is a matter for there which you and Vexorg can raise if you wish. It would not really make sense to have a separate article for parliamentary democracy, which would contain most of the information currently on Parliamentary system, and there is no point creating a whole new article for non democratic parliamentary systems.

Thankfully we do not have to convince you that the United Kingdom is a democracy, you can think this is a dictatorship as far as im concerned. Reliable sources describe this as a parliamentary democracy. That is all that matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on issues like "Orders in Council" is facile. All modern democratic states have emergency and "work-around" protocols that enable an elected government to speedily pass certain laws or regulations, or take actions, without full recourse to the parliament. I don't doubt the same is also true of Ireland, although I am no expert on Irish governmental matters. Beyond that we only have purist arguments about what exactly "democracy" means. Since no modern state has a democracy in the Athenian sense, then we are back to generally accepted meanings of the term. Huge numbers of sourced usages exist describing the states in question as "democracies". We then go to terms. Sometimes it's called a representative democracy, sometimes a parliamentary democracy, sometimes a parliamentary system and so on. I do agree actually that there is scope for us to decide exactly which term to use here, as loads of sources will be available for any, plus of course buckets of sources critiquing each. I also think there is some merit in the argument that the linked article is called "Parliamentary System" and we should therefore use that. So it's not quite clear-cut. The arguments based on a POV that Britain is not a democracy are pointless, but there is a valid naming/description argument here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact these two editors are disputing if the UK is a democracy or not highlights the need to say democracy in the infobox. Parliamentary Democracy has been a redirect for many years, other country infoboxes use the term Parliamentary democracy. "Parliamentary Democracy" is a valid and commonly used term, it does not have its own article because it would be pointless to have two separate articles one covering parliamentary democracies, and one covering non democracies that have a parliamentary system, it makes sense to have just one on the system. That Parliamentary system article should have a section or explaination in the introduction that many are described as parliamentary democracies, we have a huge pack of sources to justify that, but it is a matter for that article, it is not our problem here. There may be a case for all country articles just saying "parliamentary system", i think that too would be unhelpful, but under no circumstances should this article infobox be changed to appease those who refuse to even accept the United Kingdom happens to be a democracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of "appeasing" anyone BW. It doesn't matter if the motives for suggesting a change are not to our liking, if the change is correct for other reasons. It's down to the best term for the article and what the norms are in WP. I tend to dislike the term "parliamentary democracy" myself a bit nowadays, for any national article in WP, not because I don't think Britain is democratic in the usual sense of that term but because it isn't always all that precise, as this debate indicates. Personally I think "Representative Parliamentary System" is a bit better but Britain has a complex set-up, so it's a difficult one. You can see from past discussions at Parliamentary System that there is a lot of debate on how exactly to put this. I certainly don't agree though with scrubbing the word "democracy" because someone doesn't happen to think the UK is a democracy compared to? Ireland? The US? Or because it has a constitutional monarch or a Privy Council. These points are minor ones. What is less clear is the precise way it should be described cross-Wikipedia. The Parliamentary System article has a map showing the UK included on it. That's also what the link points to. That bit of the argument has merit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to say Parliamentary Democracy:

1) It was the stable wording for years on this article before someone removed it with no debate on this talk page, that sadly was overlooked at the time.

2) Parliamentary democracy is more precise than parliamentary system - It tells the reader both that the UK is a democracy and it has a parliamentary system. Thats easier than saying, its a democracy, its a parliamentary system and its a constitutional monarchy.

3) Other country articles do exactly the same thing like Australia, Canada, Belgium , Spain.

4) The United Kingdom government describes itself as a Parliamentary democracy.

5) International sources like the Commonwealth and European union describe the United Kingdom as a parliamentary democracy.

6) Parliamentary democracy is a term widely used, a quick google search finds more "parliamentary democracy" results than "parliamentary system"

7) There is simply no better way of describing the United Kingdom, something like ""Representative Parliamentary System" must be very rare when talking about the UK, having anything that is not commonly known/used in the infobox will make this article more unstable than it is at present when we have to deal with the democracy deniers every year or two.

8) Just because wikipedia (the source of all knowledge in the universe) can not be bothered to have an article on parliamentary democracy or a section on it at parliamentary system does not make the term any less valid. It simply reflects one of wikipedias many flaws.

Parliamentary democracy should remain in this article for the above reasons. If people honestly want to debate this more widely, involving editors from every article that presently says parliamentary democracy, along with the parliamentary system article itself then i will happily join in such a debate, but it will be a waste of everyones time. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point 8 may well be the crux of the problem. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can raise this over on the parliamentary system article and see if others there think "parliamentary democracy" should be mentioned more clearly, considering it redirects to that page, although i fear if we do that right now it will simply lead to all of the editors involved in the dispute here carrying on the same thing there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary system is a wider term than parliamentary democracy. That said the article only describes democracies so there might be an argument to rename it. Its very normal to have a pipelink to an article with a different name on Wikipedia so I can't see how it is a problem here.--Snowded ^TALK 11:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because things arent complicated enough, if editors are going to go and put democracy right on Wikipedia, it might be helpful to also be aware of Representative democracy. Not very well sourced, but then about as well as Parliamentary system. Interestingly it talks about the UK quite a lot.--SabreBD (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why that section on the UK is even needed on that article, listing those limited and random proposals seems odd. I am tempted to go over to that article with my delete button at the ready but i will resist the temptation. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably wise, but it does at least show the extent of debate, or confusion, elsewhere on Wikipedia.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And its that 'extent of confusion elsewhere on wikipedia' which creates the necessity of an article to define 'parliamentary democracy' or whatever term you wish to use. The article did say 'parliamentary system', and we have an article titled parliamentary system. Now its changed to "parliamentary democracy" - an ill-defined term. I have read the reasons advanced by User:BritishWatcher, they are fine and good - but on a talk page they will be lost on forgotten.

This issue (or one very similar) came up before, unless we nail it to the mast, this time, we will repeat this discussion. The one sentence of BW with which I differ concerns the flaws in wikipedia. It seems (just seems) that BW is content to extend these flaws. Would it not be better to limit them; to address them? If wikipedia is an encyclopedia then we need clarity. - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy diverts to Parliamentary system so there really isn't a problem. As it stands the use of Parliamentary democracy conforms with reliable sources. I suggest this discussion moves to Parliamentary system --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If the divert is ok then why not say 'system' and forget the divert. Alternatively rename the 'system' article. Lets not introduce further flaws into wp - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see it as a flaw in Wikipedia to be honest. the UK is based on the sources a Parliamentary Democracy, that pipelinks to a wikipedia article called Parliamentary system which describes how such a system works and makes some reference to democracy. So what? If you want to raise a change on Parliamentary system then I will happily take part however--Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jamesinderbyshire: Please use the forum here to make your point and not other country articles [32][33]. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, as they are unconnected issues. See the discussions at Talk:Norway#Infobox:_Constitutional_Monarchy and Talk:Netherlands#Infobox:_Constitutional_Monarchy for those topics - they are about two different mistakes in the government-type sections of the infoboxes I just noticed when researching for this discussion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any reliable sources the use of the word "mistake" is strictly normative and has no "truth" value. Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Do I observe correctly that the discussion here might have come to an end, and the opposition to "Unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy" has died out in view of the man sources that describe the UK as such? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After all this discussion no one has yet to provide any evidence of democracy in the UK. The only decent argument here is by Clem who says that if the link re-directs to 'system' then what's wrong with calling it a system. I fear people are putting political views over accuracy. Vexorg (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Vexorg is unlikely to be convinced that Britain is a democracy, but there clearly is no consensus for a change from parliamentary democracy in the box.--SabreBD (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Vexorg, we have this reliable source, which should be added to the infobox.

Isn't the basis of evidences and arguments brought by so many strong enough to call it consensus, even if one editor is not convinced? This discussion has been long and deep, we should try to conclude it with solid result we can refer to in the future. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

One editor not using sources cannot prevent a consensus, I think its over and we need the note at the head of the talk page as previously suggested so we don't have to keep coming back to this. I'm not wild about the democratic structure of the UK either, but this is not the place for personal opinions or advocacy --Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowed sums it all up for me. Lets put the note on the talk page and move on.--SabreBD (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure about the word "unitary" as this is a bit technical for the average reader and not commonly used in the UK, but yes, this is basically correct. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a case of personal opinions snowded Snowded it's about obnjective conclusions. You are welcome to not think for yourself and instead prefer to allow a government with politician subjectivity to want you to think we are a democracy to provide a source that we are a democracy. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to provide information that aligns with facts, not with whichever political power had the most force. People like Snowded who are under the delusion that the UK is a democracy are respectfully allowed to hold that position of course,but the fact they always fauil to back that view up with evidence says it all. So Snowded let's put wikipieda's 'reliable source policy aside for a minute, let's see your rationale for the UK being under a political system described as a democracy. No, I didn't think so. think for yourself. Vexorg (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I don't see what source you have presented to support an accurate view of what "democracy" means from you Vexorg, so that we can use that as a starting point to compare what a range of sources say the UK is. In the absence of a supportable alternate view of how you see democracy, we have to go with the norms and common usages, as with anything in Wikipedia, not the views of editors. Of course, there is lots and lots of published material about the nature of UK democracy, perceived failings, strengths, etc - material on that could probably fill a whole article. Just using phrases like we are all "under a delusion that the UK is a democracy" are not going to make progress - you need to get more accurate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its now time to stop feeding this editor until they produce something other than their own opinion --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

now there's a substanceless paragraph of personal attack drivel of hot air if I ever heard one. What is really hypocritical is that Snowded complains with "something other than their own opinion" and yet is happy to accept sources which are nothing more than someone else's 'own opinion' - Snowded you should really try and think for yourself. if you can master that skill you will see that the UK is not a democracy. however if you want to take the easy route and simply believe those who are pushing a misinformed or politically biased viewpoint then that is your prerogative. I challenge you Snowded to show the UK is a democracy. If you can successfully do this I will have no problem in conceding to describing the UK as a democracy in this article as a democracy. I won't hold my breath. Snowded I would recommend the Wikipedia article Appeal to authority as a guide to your logical failings. :) Vexorg (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to officially note that the editor Snowded has proved to be a disingenuous editor of Wikipedia by removing material from a talk page based upon some subjective personal agenda. Contentions in article material is one thing but childishly removing material from a talk page because you don't like the opinion put forward is stepping outside the boundaries of maturity. Vexorg (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded's actions aside, you are the one causing trouble here. An article if changed and reverted, should not be changed back without talk page consensus. Your continual change to parliamentary system is in clear error of this, as you have garnered no consensus here. In face, consensus has mainly been reached in the other direction. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is not for personal attacks and I removed them rather than file a report for WP:NPA. However I see you have just been blocked for a personal attack elsewhere, so lets hope you learn from that. --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)