Wikipedia

Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 31

< Talk:United Kingdom
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Roger 8 Roger in topic Watch your language
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Opening sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

I reverted this edit because (1) the four countries comprising the UK are mentioned quite adequately, and in context, in the third paragraph; (2) the article is about the UK itself, and the fact that it comprises four countries is not of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the very first sentence; (3) the term "constituent countries" is is a Wiki-ism which is not one commonly used elsewhere, and should generally be deprecated; (4) "comprising of...." - just, no....... ! The first sentence of this important article has been discussed at some length by many editors over several years, and at the very least any proposed changes to it should be agreed on this page first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what harm it does. The USA article states in the first sentence what it is composed of though obviously stating 50 states along with the other districts and territories in the first paragraph never mind sentence would be over kill. Mabuska (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That the UK is made up of four countries doesn't need explaining twice in the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The above point raised by Mabuska is my point exactly. I think the fact the UK is made up of four separate countries in their own right, forming a union of nations, is significantly important, especially in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph does not mention anywhere that the UK is four countries making up one sovereign country. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I've no problem with having them described as constituent countries. The phrase means 'countries within a sovereign country'. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It is an unnecessary change, the article is about the United Kingdom and the subject is covered in the body of the article. Not important enough for the lead and please not the nonsense of constituent countries which has little support in the citations ----Snowded TALK 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Fully support the reverting of the change that was made. Strongly oppose any attempt to change the opening sentences of this article. The introduction makes very clear the makeup of the United Kingdom. The first sentence does not need to be changed and should not be changed. There really needs to be consensus on this talk page before any change on these sorts of issues in the introduction are made. ObserverUI (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Although my preference would be to note the countries comprising the UK in the first sentence, I can understand, and respect, the logic of using the first paragraph to set out the UK's geographical context and population. However, I do not agree that the four countries comprising the UK are mentioned quite adequately, and in context. Currently, the UK's Head of State, and the cities of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester are noted before England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, implying they are of greater importance than the countries that make up the state. I propose the countries comprising the UK be moved to the beginning of the second paragraph. btw, Northern Ireland is Wikilinked twice in the Lead. Is this deliberate? Daicaregos (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have no problem with re-jigging the order of the sentences in the second paragraph, as set out below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of governance.[1][2] The monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since 6 February 1952. The capital of the United Kingdom and its largest city is London, a global city and financial centre with an urban area population of 10.3 million, the fourth-largest in Europe and second-largest in the European Union.[3] The United Kingdom consists of four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.[4] The last three have devolved administrations,[5] each with varying powers,[6][7] based in their capitals, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, respectively. Other major urban areas in the United Kingdom include the conurbations centred on Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. The Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Bailiwick of Jersey are not part of the United Kingdom, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation.[8]

I agree that it should be re-jigged. The nations of the UK should come before the settlements. Mabuska (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Tweaking the "...of four countries" to ..."of four constituent countries" would be better. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
GoodDay we have been through this, 'constituent' is not supported by sources and is a wikipedia oddity, or specific an obsession of a you and maybe some other editors. Unless you have citation support for your opinion you should simply stop, this type of contribution to the talk page has got you into trouble before. ----Snowded TALK 22:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Mabuska (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I support the proposed rejig (and revert of the edit first mentioned). Batternut (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I too support this proposed change to the second paragraph which makes sense to put countries before the mentioning of other cities. ObserverUI (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking back at the current wording and proposed change, it does then seem a little odd that the crown dependencies are randomly mentioned at the end of that sentence when its just saying they are not part of the UK. Whilst im happy for the proposed change to go ahead, personally i think the bit about the crown dependencies might be better placed in the following paragraph, in between.. " leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[note 11] " and " There are fourteen British Overseas Territories." It would then make sense to keep the phrase "The nearby" as is currently used. The BOT sentence could then maybe start "There are also..." Just a suggestion, not sure what others think about if it would flow better that way. ObserverUI (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with that suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Batternut (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The British Monarchy, What is constitutional monarchy?. Retrieved 17 July 2013
  2. ^ CIA, The World Factbook. Retrieved 17 July 2013
  3. ^ The 30 Largest Urban Agglomerations Ranked by Population Size at Each Point in Time, 1950-2030, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 revision, Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
  4. ^ "Countries within a country". Prime Minister's Office. 10 January 2003. Archived from the original on 9 September 2008. Retrieved 8 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". United Kingdom Government. Retrieved 17 April 2013. In a similar way to how the government is formed from members from the two Houses of Parliament, members of the devolved legislatures nominate ministers from among themselves to comprise executives, known as the devolved administrations...
  6. ^ "Fall in UK university students". BBC News. 29 January 2009.
  7. ^ "Country Overviews: United Kingdom". Transport Research Knowledge Centre. Archived from the original on 4 April 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "Key facts about the United Kingdom". Directgov. Archived from the original on 15 October 2012. Retrieved 6 March 2015.

    The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom.
    The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.

     {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Is English the official or "de facto" language of the UK?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As we all know, English is the primary and national language of the United Kingdom. But in this article, it contradicts itself. If you look the infobox template at the beginning, it will say that English is the official and national language, but if you go to the Languages section of Demographics, in the first sentence is says and I quote, "The UK's de facto official language is English." But de facto doesn't mean official. It means a rule which isn't set in place, but is followed. For instance, the US doesn't have an official language, yet about 80% speak English in their household.[1] Altough, there's also Spanish, French and speakers of Native American languages, most stuff is in English for the United States. I just want to know is if it is the de facto or official language of the UK. So what is it? KingSkyLord (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)KingSkyLord

References

  1. ^ Bureau, U.S. Census. FactFinder - Results 2015. Retrieved 4 June 2017.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideas regarding the listing as a good article candidate?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

as the heading says. Wikipedia:Good article candidates --Joobo (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The UK is not sovereign

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

THe UK is still occupied by (a) foreign power(s), and is therefore not sovereign, by any measure. We should use simple language and refer to it merely as a "country", "state", or "unitary state" (meaning the word "sovereign" should be removed). The notion of "sovereignty", at the end of the day, is really just an ideal. There is no individual human or country ("nation-state") that is or ever will be truly "sovereign", unless perhaps the Earth is flat. "Sovereign" and "sovereignty" are just words. Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What "foreign power(s)"? Frankly, this comment is absolute nonsense. David J Johnson (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
A rather startling and extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence, and is just not suitable for wikipedia. I recommend you write a blog, and perhaps think whether a forum concerned with alternate history might be better suited for your efforts.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in knowing who is supposedly occupying the UK. However, I accept your point that no country is truly sovereign. But international law draws a distinction between sovereign states and dependent states and puts the UK in the first, and countries such as Bermuda in the second. TFD (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah well the United States Armed Forces are still occupying the UK. So it is difficult for one to say that the UK is sovereign. Again, sovereignty is an ideal. Let's be realistic. The idea of sovereignty isn't even British, it's French and German. And/or perhaps Chinese. Thanks for asking me to write a blog. I'm sure I'd enjoy getting a Tumblr or something like that but I'm just not interested right now. I really appreciate the invite to do that though. Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh of course, those forces which were asked to stay in Europe after helping defeat the Nazis and will leave promptly when requested? Isn't it bizarre that this occupying force in Europe allowed Italian Police to walk into one of their establishments and arrest a harboured fugitive? You'd think as an occupier, they would actually own and control their own bases lol. Rob984 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's an etymological fallacy that "that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." International law uses the term sovereign state. If you want to change the term then you need to persuade them. But the problem is they would need to adopt a new term to describe the same states now recognized as sovereign. Indeed the concept was continental, not British, since English law recognized the Queen as both sovereign and state. But it has become generally accepted in international affairs. TFD (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Silly" discussion, not to be taken seriously
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as a silly side question, if we were to accept the OP's assertion that the UK is not sovereign due to the American forces stationed there, how would that affect the UK's own Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Sovereign bases of a supposedly non-sovereign country located on what would be the territory of another sovereign state. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
As the whole idea that the UK is not sovereign is absurd we are speculating which is not what wikipedia is for, but as an aside the sovereign base areas existed and were not transferred to Cyprus when it gained independence, so they have never been on territory of another sovereign state. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Cyprus is a different case, they are sovereign bases, that is an enclave of the UK on the island. The so-called US bases in England are RAF stations which host detachments of the USAF. I'd guess the Italian position is similar. I think I hear the sound of bees buzzing in a bonnet here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
There is British Army Training Unit Suffield in Canada. TFD (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
My point was that the "Sovereign" in the name of the base areas is derived from UK's own sovereignty. Which the OP said didn't exist. Which would mean that their territory would be part of Cyprus. Or that they had somehow gained sovereignty from a non-sovereign source. But my post really wasn't meant to be taken all that seriously. --Khajidha (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Languages

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What does "de facto official" mean? Best I can guess would be "unofficial" but if so then it's an odd way of saying it 87.254.69.136 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Unofficial" implies something that is not recognised by officialdom, for instance one might say "exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph on a motorway is unofficially tolerated". The problem with much English law and procedure is that it is so ancient that there was never a formal declaration, just accepted use by officials. IIRC, from the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) English became the language of statute law and the courts, so for nigh on 650 years has been the language of officialdom, but there was never a "making English the official language Act". Of course the situation becomes more complex once you add in Welsh, Scots and Gaelic. Hence the quite specific term de facto official; that is English is the language of officialdom.
Another example which may help you. Murder clearly is one of the most serious crimes there is, currently attracting a life sentence, in the past the death sentence. I'm sure you would agree it is "officially" a crime, and yet – basic murder is a crime "contrary to common law",[a] not a statuary offence. So is killing just "unofficially" prohibited?
HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ NB, this was certainly the case about 30 years ago, later legislation may have changed it.
I don't think of case law as any less official than statute law myself (also although the core of the law of murder is established from case law, there are plenty of statutory references to it), but both the explanation and the example help me to understand what you mean when you say 'official' and hence also by 'de facto official'. So that does help. Thanks. 87.254.69.136 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Only the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic names of the UK are recognised by the UK Government

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the United Kingdom, only the Welsh language (from the Welsh Language Act 1967 (1967 c. 66 (repealed 21.12.1993)) [1] and the Welsh Language Act 1993 (1993 c. 38) [2]) and the Scottish Gaelic language (from the British Nationality Act 1981, Schedule 1, Article 1(1)(c) [3] (1981 c. 61), and the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 (2005 a.s.p. [c.] 7) [4]) have co-official, semi-official or limited semi-official status, and thus only the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic names of the name of the United Kingdom are recongised by the Crown (by Her Majesty's Government) ... the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is NOT law or legislation here in the United Kingdom (because, it is established in British law (by the case of R[egina] v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind and others, HL/PO/JU/18/251, 7 February 1991 ([1991] AC 696, [1991] 1 AC 696, [1991] 1 All ER 720, [1991] UKHL 4, [1991] 2 WLR 588): "As was recently stated by Lord Oliver of Aylmerton in [JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry] (The "International Tin Council Case") [1990] 2 [AC] 418 [[1989] 3 WLR 969, [1990] 2 AC 418, [1989] 3 All ER 523, [1990] BCLC 102, (1990) 81 ILR 670, ILDC 1733 (UK 1990), 26 October 1989] at 500 [5]: "Treaties, as it is sometimes expressed, are not self-executing. Quite simply, a treaty is not part of English law unless and until it has been incorporated into the law by legislation. So far as individuals are concerned, it is res inter alios acta from which they cannot derive rights and by which they cannot be deprived of rights or subjected to obligations; and it is outside the purview of the court not only because it is made in the conduct of foreign relations, which are a prerogative of the Crown, but also because, as a source of rights and obligations, it is irrelevant."" (Lord Ackner) [6]) that even treaties signed and ratified by the UK, are nevertheless NOT law in the UK or part of the laws of the UK, unless they are incorporated into the laws of the UK by UK legislation), and the status of Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are NOT determined by European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (and the Irish language is definitely NOT (even) a semi-official or a limited semi-official language in any part of the United Kingdom (at present), not even within Northern Ireland only (at present), hence a lot of the current political dispute in that particular part of the World [7]!) English clealy takes precedence over Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, and in turn English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic clealy take precedence over the Scots language, Irish and the Cornish language, regardless what the Council of Europe says or might say, and their precedence should really be rearranged accordingly; certain not alphabetically, as it is at present! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the size of the United Kingdom in miles and square kilometers using BBC United Kingdom profile as the source, as the United Kingdom size on wikipedia is slightly wrong. TangoExpert (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: The current area is taken from reports by the United Nations Statistics Division, so it is reliably sourced. Certain measures like population, coastline, surface area, etc. are impossible to measure with complete accuracy so slight differences between reliable sources are expected. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom vs. Great Britain

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

"Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom" are not different terms for the same geographic or political entity. Great Britain actually has it's own wikipedia page. Could somebody more knowledgeable than I (with the history of those words and that general region) explain this in the introduction?

Dstarfire (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this help: "the United Kingdom includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean like the second sentence of the introduction states word for word? Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, hence the quotation marks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Also see the note at the top of the article which makes it very clear: This article is about the country. It is not to be confused with Great Britain, its largest island whose name is also loosely applied to the whole country. "UK" redirects here. For other uses of "UK", see UK (disambiguation). For other uses of "United Kingdom", see United Kingdom (disambiguation). No need for any changes. Mabuska (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I presume the problem is with the first sentence: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) and colloquially Great Britain (GB) ... ". The word colloquially is not supported by the cited sources. I would suggest replacing it with loosely, which is not synonymous with colloquially (which suggests a difference in register rather than accuracy or precision). Arguably, it would be less misleading if "loose" definitions were restricted to the terminology section (and the hatnote). By the way: in the terminology section, the Merriam-Webster's reference for Great Britain does not appear to support the statement it follows (and it is redundant). I would suggest removing it, though it could perhaps be used, instead, to support the preceding statement. --Boson (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hard to understand what the above statement says as it is clearly not plain English, but the lead is fine as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear! I should perhaps have used the word style rather than the technical term register. My statement meant that the word colloquially should be replaced by the word loosely when referring to "Great Britain". Reason:
  • sources support use of the word "loosely" but do not support use of the word "colloquially". If more explanation is needed:
Colloquial is a matter of style; loose is a matter of accuracy or precision.
The statement in the lead is unsourced and therefore, presumably, based on the statements and sources in the body of the article. The body currently (correctly) states " "[Great Britain] is sometimes used as a loose [my emphasis] synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole." This is (purportedly) supported by two references:
  • "Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online". Definition of Great Britain: island in western Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales area 88,150 square miles (228,300 square kilometers), population 61,371,315 [As I pointed out, this reference does not support the statement that precedes it.]
  • New Oxford American Dictionary. Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely [my emphasis] to refer to the United Kingdom.
Here are definitions of loose and colloquial from Random House Webster's unabridged dictionary (2nd ed.)
* loose (17): not strict, exact or precise
* colloquial: characteristic of or appropriate to ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or writing
The first is a matter of accuracy or precision, the second is a matter of style (register).
The article gives an example where Great Britain is used loosely but not colloquially to refer indirectly to the UK.
--Boson (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Request of comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has requested comments from other editors for a discussion about Charles, Prince of Wales in its talk page, under "RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession?" Feel free to go there and join the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unitary sovereign state vs sovereign country

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

Let's call the UK what it is, a unitary sovereign state, and not do this mess of calling it a "sovereign country" with a Wikilink to the sovereign state page.

I suggest we focus on the real truth and not try to mislead readers of the English Wikipedia for political ends, such as Brexit or whatever else the agenda is of those Wikipedia editors who want the UK to be listed as a "sovereign country". I suggest the content "sovereign country" is replaced with "unitary sovereign state" - with the Wikilinks I've already added to my suggested new content (2 Wikilinks, one to the "Unitary state" page and the other to the "Sovereign state" page). This is also slightly more detail and informs the reader that the UK is a unitary state, and not a federation like the US, Germany, or Russia. I know Wikipedia is all about consensus, but when Wikipedia is being used for what appears to be political means, that's an area when criticisms of the site start. First past the post (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This one keeps coming up. "sovereign country" is a non-term that keeps both camps happy, so please leave it alone. See Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_30#Opening_sentence and many preceding entries. FYI, it has nothing to do with Brexit. BTW, I'm shortening your title to a title rather than a statement. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sovereign country vs sovereign nation

I've replaced several instances of "country" with "nation" where appropriate,[8] leaving the ones where "country" was appropriate and rewording a few to say something else (like "the UK"). The only one I missed that I would have changed is the one in the lead, which says the UK "is a sovereign country in western Europe." I don't wish to get into a protracted debate, but here in the UK we consider England, Scotland and Wales, etc. to be countries and the UK itself to be a nation (and conversely our nationality is designated British). I'd like to change "sovereign country" to "sovereign nation". Since the two words - country and nation - are actually synonyms this should not be a controversial edit, and has little to do with the conversation immediately above. I would have done the edit myself but I saw the note and came here out of courtesy. Cheers. nagualdesign 22:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have rarely heard the UK referred to as a nation, nagualdesign. England, Scotland and Wales are nations. The UK is a multi-national state. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that you've summarily reverted while a discussion is ongoing (the type of behaviour I associate with edit warriors), but I'll persevere. A couple of questions; first, do you live in the UK? and second, how many times in your entire life have you heard a British citizen refer to the UK as "a multi-national state", as opposed to "a country", "a nation" or "a kingdom", say? I realize that there are technical specifications related to these terms - one of the references even discusses the fact that England, Scotland and Wales are not "countries" per se. However, the vast majority of Britons do use the word country when describing the individual member states, as does the article in places, and for that reason many find the concept of a "country within a country" confusing. Per MOS:INTRO I think it would be better to put the pedantry to one side and stick to using common terms (and I say this as a hardened pedant). nagualdesign 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
On the revert point, you made a bold edit and I reverted it once, so this is not edit warring but actually what is suggested by WP:BRD. On the substantive point, I do live in the UK, I haven't heard many ordinary people use the term "multi-national state", but then I haven't heard many describe the UK as a nation either. Most would say country or state. However, on Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say about a subject. See this and this, for example. If you have reliable sources for the UK being considered a nation, then please do present them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately there was an edit conflict and I've just lost a substantial response, so I'm just going to be succinct instead. Per WP:BRD, we were already at the D part, so your R was somewhat provocative, even if you were entitled to one revert. Causing a car crash because you had right of way still results in a car crash.
I see that you have now also visited Great Britain and reverted my edit there. The reason I came here to discuss things in the first place is because of the note within the article that states, "This phrase "sovereign country" has been the subject of edit warring in the past. It must not be changed without prior discussion and consensus. March 2017". I also left a note in my edit summary, "Please do not revert. I'll post something on the talk page..." I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are probably responsible in large part for any edit warring, and that it might be more collegial to meet courtesy with courtesy. You do not WP:OWN these articles and there is no WP:RUSH to keep the articles as you would wish them to be.
I'll move on to Lin4671... nagualdesign 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in any previous edit warring here, nagualdesign. Also, just because you explained your edit here (i.e. started the discussion), does not mean that your bold edit shouldn't be reverted. You are the one who needs consensus to change the existing wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign:If there was an edit conflict, why didn't you just copied and pasted from the edit code whatever you had written before? Thinker78 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I highlighted the text and pressed CTRL+C but evidently something went awry. After refreshing the page and attempting to paste from the clipboard something else entirely appeared. Shit happens. nagualdesign 01:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

.....I also live in the UK. Describing the UK as a 'nation' would be viewed as pushing a political opinion against the idea that the four nations of the UK are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course you will find some sources describing the UK in this way precisely because those sources are trying to push that agenda.Lin4671 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With respect, my suggestion has nothing to do with pushing political opinion. It's about language, and more specifically attempting to use common language, per guidelines. As I'm sure you're aware, country and nation are synonyms, but most English people would say that England is a country. As for finding reputable sources, Larry tells me I need to go and find them then you tell me that I'll probably be able to find them, but they won't be acceptable. Do you see a problem here?
Please note that per WP:AGF it's poor form to accuse another editor of trying to push their political opinion. I might equally accuse you of the same thing if I didn't find the very idea so ludicrous. We're talking about synonyms here, not arguing over Brexit!
I'm going to leave it there as I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with the two of you. If anybody else reads this in the future and would like to discuss things dispassionately (where we actually consider each other's position rather than just asserting our own) feel free to ping me. Regards, nagualdesign 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: I don't live in the UK nor hold the British nationality, so I'm kind of neutral to the debate from a political perspective. I can see some weight in the argument that "country" is a better fit to describe the UK than "nation", because of reliable sources usage, but if you have contrary information please bring it about. Thinker78 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I suspect I would be wasting my time. As Lin4671 stated, there will be no shortage of sources describing Britain as a nation, but they are unlikely to satisfy as they will be deemed as trying to push some sort of political agenda. Whereas the Grauniad article that Larry linked to (which, incidentally, also states that "there is no such place as Britain") is nothing of the sort, right? Never mind. nagualdesign 01:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I linked to the Marquand article just because it was amongst the first results on Google when I looked for sources, and because he is a well-known academic. You might be right to dismiss the source as political, but take a look at the Google Books results too. I'm sure that there are sources describing the UK as a nation, but there's a question of quantity and quality as compared with those that consider the constituent parts of the UK to be nations. I suspect that part of the disagreement here stems from slightly different understandings of the term "nation". I tend to think of the academic definition, which is that a nation is a group sharing (a belief in) common descent, history, culture and language. By that definition, you can see why England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated) are often described as nations, rather than the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Most people in England refer to the UK as a country. My country, our country, the problem with this country, to fight for this country, immigrants coming to this country, moving to another country, our country's people, schools, currency - that's how people speak. But no one uses the term "sovereign country." What about the term sovereign state? TFD (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The UK is very unusual - perhaps unique - in that it is a country made up of other countries. The other countries yielded their sovereignty when the UK was formed, so Scotland for example is no longer a sovereign country, but they are still countries. Indeed the fact that an agreed referendum was held in 2014 to see whether Scotland wished to take its sovereignty back, illustrates the different nature of the UK - few other countries in the world would agree to a referendum in one part of the state to allow a vote on independence. Bottom line, the term 'country' and 'nation' are not synonyms when used in the context of the UK. Lin4671 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem in this discussion is that the terms "state", "country" and "nation" are employed according to the writer's POV. Last year I posted the following to try and clear up the linguistic mess and stop the ceaseless warring:

I've long since given up on this one. It's actually quite straight forward: a Nation can be used for the geo-political entity, but is based upon a tribal (in a very general sense) cohesion. The "tribe" of Mexicans live in Mexico, so Mexico can sensibly be defined as a nation. Consider though the tribe of the Apache, the Apache Nation does not define a sovereign area. A state is ultimately derived from the court of a monarch, and as such is a geopolitical area. Since petty kingdoms, principalities and dukedoms may be part of larger kingdoms or areas, there needs to be a distinguishing term for the top level - a sovereign state. A country is an area of land which in some usages (the country of France) may be co-terminate with a sovereign state, but in other cases (the north country) is not.
In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UK is a sovereign state. Within the state are the countries of England and Scotland. The principality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland may also be considered countries according to the speaker's viewpoint. The confusion occurs, I think, due to the history of the USA. The original states where severally founded as separate self-governing entities - so state is an appropriate term. When they united they formed the United States, which is a sovereign state. The US is a country both as a definable area of land and in the colloquial shorthand of country = sovereign state. In the case of the US it is useful to keep the country (sovereign state) of the US distinguished from the constituent states. Unfortunately people then take this model and try to apply it to the older UK.

So to re-emphasise:

  • A nation is a group of people, and by extension the territory they occupy.
  • A state is a geopolitical entity based on administration.
  • A country is a defined tract of land.

Now whatever the rights and wrongs let's set the wording back to the agreed terms and leave them alone. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, from reference material from the EU and elsewhere Wales is considered a country as is Northern Ireland (although that has other references). There is no legal basis to the idea that Wales is a 'principality' as you should know by now ... ----Snowded TALK 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what Martin of Sheffield has written here, so long as the amendment about "principality" suggested by Snowded is made (I also feel a little uncomfortable at Northern Ireland being described as a "province", and would much rather they were all just referred to as "countries", but I'll let that pass.) Many years ago, I initiated an exercise where a very large and as extensive a table as possible was constructed where as many reliable sources that described the constituent countries of the UK in various ways were listed. It formed part of an article dealing with naming conventions for the UK. I then was absent from wikipedia for a while (a number of years), and in that time, it disappeared. I have no idea why it disappeared as I thought it was and still would be an excellent resource that could easily be justified as a wikipedia article, but I suspect there may have been some move to allow for endless controversies by some people, who I hope are no longer with us. I wish this resource could be resurrected and made into an article again. It would certainly help to reduce to a minimal level this kind of argument here we see again and again, usually involving new editors (I see there are new ones involved here), who seem to have neither the knowledge nor memory of this massive exercise we did in the past. I suggest we deal with this briefly, as I am sure us experienced editors are tired of this, not because we are resistant to change or we "own" the article as some have alleged in the past, but because we have read most of it before and we are aware of the vast body of reliable sources that suggest a consensus view which is what has been the stable version on this article and related ones for years. Could we not revive this large table and update it a bit to help reduce these repetitive discussions a bit?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"Principality" and "Province" are historic terms, I mentioned that they might be considered as countries and I am also a little uncomfortable with the old terms. With devolution there is really no distinction beyond history. Just don't get the EU involved though, certainly not at the moment! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. What about the idea of reviving that old large table that listed reliable sources for each type of way of calling the different bits of the UK? I really think it could be a good idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me. Can you not do a search for it, if you know roughly when it was and what your username was at the time (if different from now)? nagualdesign 18:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom is a country. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are constituent countries

Just use country for the United Kingdom & constituent countries for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Alas, if only ya'll would get behind that terminology :( GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, above, we need to see what reliable sources say about the term "constituent country", otherwise it would be a case of being original research, which wikipedia, like it or not, frowns upon in a great way as there is no concept of expertise within the organisation...  DDStretch  (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
GoodDay, we're not far from that: the United Kingdom is a sovereign country; England, Scotland and Wales are non-sovereign countries. All five are "countries". Some don't consider the UK to be a "country", some don't consider it's constituents to be "countries", but the vast majority of sources describe all five as being "countries".
Every country is "constituent" of something. You could say the United Kingdom is a "constituent country of the European Union". While it's not an inaccurate term, there's not really any evidence it has a specific meaning in relation to "countries within countries".
All we're doing here is combining adjectives with nouns. Some like to overcomplicate it and try to make out these phrases have to specific defined meaning when often they don't. Of course, "sovereign" has a specific meaning, so it's a good disambiguator. "constituent", not so much. And those who want to change "sovereign country" to "sovereign state" are clearly just pushing their own agenda. Fortunately the vast majority of editors here are clear-headed.
You can see the rational for why the article Constituent country was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituent country. This term has very much been propagated by a small number of Wikipedia editors, it has never been defined in any specific sense by reliable sources.
Rob984 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The deleted article-in-question, was made into a re-direct to a section that includes E/S/W/NI. Until folks here adopt my proposal? this 'what do we call the UK' question, will continue to be brought up by editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, it does no harm in being directed to a disambiguation page. It has no incoming links any longer, I made sure to remove them all. Plastering a made up phrase across Wikipedia is not going to answer any question. Right now the term "sovereign country" here has overwhelming consensus. If editors with certain POVs could stop whining about it all the time, that would be great. Rob984 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that constituent country be plastered all over Wikipedia. Anyways, you (plural) have my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Good. The vast majority of sources describe Scotland, England as countries and not 'constituent countries' so your proposal is a non-starter. Lin4671 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
GoodDay as you well know this has been done to death several hundred times including a full review of sources. To continue to bring it up when you are fully aware of the situation (and it was one of the factors in your prior block from editing) is disruptive. Please just leave it ----Snowded TALK 05:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

UK/GB

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know why the international abbreviation for the UK, in for example Car identifications, is GB? I had problems with this 25 years ago whilst working in Europe. When I challenged the use of GB as an identifier for the United Kingdom I was trumped by a referral to the United Nations list of abbreviations.. Deepchris (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Treaty of Union 1706 was the most important step!!!

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I just added Treaty of Union as a step in the formation of the UK and it has been reverted with a comment 'not significant for that list'. Incredible! If there had been no Treaty of Union, there would have been no Acts of Union the next year so the state formed on 1 may 1707 would not have been formed! Remember, the Acts of Union were passed to ratify and put into effect what was agreed in the Treaty of union. So how on earth can anyone argue that the Treaty of union is 'not significant'? I await a reply with interest. Lin4671 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lin4671, thanks for the question. I noticed the edit and I agree that the Treaty of Union is significant in UK history, but was the other editor trying to avoid redundancy by not having both in the list? If I'm correct (and forgive my limited knowledge of British history) the Acts of Union ratified and placed into effect the Treaty of Union. Should we try to avoid being redundant? Not sure, just want to pose the question. (And I might agree that his edit summary wasn't the best way to summarize the edit.) Regards, Foreignshore (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful comment - a plausible explanation. Unfortunately I don't know what the editor was thinking as he/she hasn't bothered to post a comment in response to me bringing the issue to the talk page at his/her suggestion. Lin4671 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
One or the other but not both ----Snowded TALK 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded. I think it makes more sense to list the Treaty of Union as the Acts of Union were merely ratifying the Treaty. Lin4671 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, makes more sense ----Snowded TALK 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the most important date is when the the countries were united, not when an agreement was made or for that matter the date the English legislation received royal assent. So 1st May 1707 is the most important date. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

When did the restored Kingdom of England & the restored Kingdom of Scotland cease to exist & the Kingdom of Great Britain come into existence? What ever the answer to that is? go with it. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Great Britain came into existence 1st May, 1707 when the crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland merged. TFD (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The key date is indeed 1 May 1707. The question is whether the treaty of Union or the Acts of Union were responsible for the event of that date happening. Both the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union happened before 1 May - so which of the two should be associated with the 1 May.,.the Treaty of Union that led directly to it union happening or the Acts of Union that were merely the procedures by which both sovereign parliaments ratified the Treaty? I suggest that the Treaty of Union is key. Lin4671 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it should stay as it is currently. the key date is the legislative acts of Union coming into force. Not the treaty of union. Dakka1 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The first sentence is wrong "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) and colloquially Great Britain (GB) or simply Britain, is a sovereign country in western Europe."

The UK is NOT a country but made up of countries. 77.97.67.239 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The UK is a country. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: Union of the crowns inclusion

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Maybe I'm over thinking this. But from 1603 to 1707, England & Scotland still had each their own monarch, even if it was the same individual. Including the Union of the Crowns kinda confuses when GB/UK came into existence. TBH the crowns were actually never unified until 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing should be in the infobox prior to the 1706 Treaty of Union. Lin4671 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't we need to see what reliable sources say about the date of formation of the UK, and then go with them? Otherwise, we are engaged in original research which is to Wikipedia what original sin is like to Roman Catholics.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As another point, if we are to include the union of the crowns bit, then surely we need to consider the union with Hanover, which, after being brought into existence around George I's time, was only separated by Salic Law when Victoria became queen?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty reliable sources that point to 1707 as being the start of the United Kingdom such as the UK parliament site which states "The Acts of Union, passed by the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1707, led to the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain on 1 May of that year. The UK Parliament met for the first time in October 1707" [9] and an article in the Daily Telegraph which stated "Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for more than three hundred years..." [10]. Regards Lin4671 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely, then, that is the only event that needs to be mentioned in the infobox, together with a reference? The other events can be briefly referred to or even a main article be constructed that deals explicitly with the timeline of events that led to the UK's formation.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Formation of the UK - Statute of Rhuddlan and Laws of Wales Acts

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The infobox is currently inconsistent: it includes reference to the Laws in Wales Acts but not the Statute of Rhuddlan. If the consensus is that the Laws of Wales Acts should be included then, by the same logic, the Statue of Rhuddlan should also be included. We need to be consistent: we should either include all 'steps' prior to the 1706 Treaty of Union, or we shouldn't. Including the Laws in Wales Acts but not the Statute of Rhuddlan does not make any sense. Or if anyone can see a logical reason for this arrangement, please make it. Lin4671 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its a one liner in a summary article and there is a more than good enough link. I think its fine (I half recall we discussed this before but I'm not sure) ----Snowded TALK 13:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
We did discuss it before though due to the fact that I had suggested the Laws of Wales Acts should not be in the list - at that time you felt it should. Accepting that, the logic would suggest that the Statute of Rhuddlan would also be included...but you oppose that as well? Lin4671 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It only needs one, I'm largely indifferent as to which but I seem to remember other editors thought the Laws in Wales Act was best. By the way it is good practice if you are raising something that has already been discussed to make a link to that discussion and not edit the article directly when you know it was not agreed last time. ----Snowded TALK 18:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Other states were also in personal union with the UK at various times, and currently there are 15 independent states that share the British monarchy. But together they do not form political unions. There is no reason to mention the personal union of the Scottish and English monarchy in the info-box, although it could be footnoted. Also, the Laws in Wales Acts do not belong, because Wales was incorporated into England and hence lacks relevance. In fact England itself derived from separate kingdoms such as Wessex - but that's more relevant to the article about England. TFD (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
No sure I completely agree. Until the Laws in Wales Act there was a separate legal system in place in Wales and even in the period up to the consequence its status was different from Wessex. Given that there are now four countries that make up the UK, how they all came in is surely significant ----Snowded TALK 18:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Berwick-upon-Tweed also had its own laws and was also incorporated in England, which was recognized in the Wales and Berwick Act 1746. The Shetlands were annexed by Scotland before the union. Cornwall is also a country that was incorporated into England. It depends on how far we want to go back. I think we should only go back as far as the union. Note that the legal form was different from the case of Wales. As you point out, Wales did not retain its own laws. The Welsh crown did not merge with the English crown but became subordinate to it. The Union Jack and coat of arms recognize only England, Scotland and Ireland. TFD (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd delete the Wales Acts from the infobox, they're better situated in the infobox of Wales. The formation section here, should begin with the 1707 Union acts. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Just deal with the initiating event that left the UK in existence. The other events, like the previous mergers and so on, could be briefly mentioned in the body and could also form part of an extra article dealing with the timeline of events that led up to the formation of the UK.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Berwick didn't have its own laws, the Act simply said that English not Scottish law would apply. In Wales there was a completely different legal system - one with a different origin. But I'm happy for it not to be in the information box as long as it is not lost in the text ----Snowded TALK 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Government and politics sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The Government and politics sections seem wrong to me. For me, "Government" is the broader topic, covering the the prime minister and cabinet, the ministries and civil service, the head of state, local government, laws and enforcement etc. "Politics" is about choosing who runs the government and what they do with it. The main section should be "Government", with "Politics" the subsection. Batternut (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say precisely the opposite: government is a narrower topic than politics, which involves a broader range of actors (political parties and social movements) than just whoever is in government at any one time. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"Whoever is in government" is a very narrow reading of government, sounding like the just PM and ministers, ignoring the entire civil service for example, which is theoretically apolitical in this country. In terms of numbers of actors, I think the civil service wins. Batternut (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but they are part of government and politics. Everyone involved in government is involved in politics, but not everyone in politics is involved in government. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, The personal is political! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

When and why did Great Britain, a name which is a totally different thing to the article in question, get added to the intro? Can someone point me at the discussion? It's nonsense and factually incorrect. 18:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Only in wikiworld, in real life it is true which is why despite any discussions here it keeps getting added back in. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
By using that logic, then we may as well add England as one of the alternative names for the United Kingdom in the opening paragraph as well. Many people (and I mean, many people) erroneously refer to the United Kingdom as England, just as they do when they refer to the UK as Great Britain. It was also the same in the days of the Soviet Union when many people used to erroneously refer to it as Russia. It's the job of sources such as Wikipedia to inform people of the facts and not to feed these misconceptions to confuse people further. Standingfish (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I already have an issue with the article's intro, concerning "sovereign country". But, what can ya do. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW: @SrpskiAnonimac: crow-barred it in, at 23:17 of 21 August 2017. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I see a discussion here, but no consensus for adding "Great Britain (GB)" to the lead. As @Mabuska: said, the hatnote already covers the GB vs UK issue. — Jon C.ॐ 11:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just have to keep removing it, it is the same as editors continually trying to add 'Celtic' in front of nation in the intro to Irish people despite talk page agreement to omit it. Mabuska (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign country

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Help desk question....."The UK article says it's a sovereign country. Does the article say this because it was not a sovereign country at some point in the past? Other country articles don't say this so one would assume this country was not always independent"?...--Moxy (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is created, due to the UK constituent parts being described as countries. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It says "sovereign country" because its constituents - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - are defined as countries, but are not sovereign countries. That's not a "problem", it's a fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be added to the linked article....pointless to link a term with zero value or information about the topic it's linked from.--Moxy (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Words like these are NOT hyphenated in Modern English

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Words like these are NOT hyphenated in Modern English:
seminomadic, semidesert, semiprotected, semiconductor, multiparty, multinational, multiethnic, multistate, multistage, anticommunist, antifascist, anticapitalistic, antimissile, antitank, southeast, northeast, northwest, southwest, but anti-Nazi, anti-Soviet, anti-British, and anti-Chinese are, for a good reason.24.121.195.165 (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And where do we find this international definition of "Modern English" that presumably we English-speakers have to adapt to? Incidentally, "seminomadic" is a lot less clear than "semi-nomadic". The former would naturally parse as se-mino-madic unless you already knew better. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Nominal GDP per capita and the Nominal GDP of the United Kingdom are listed incorrectly FrancisMoore2988 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Rejected. You haven't followed the instructions by saying what the true figures are, and these would need to be given a reliable source, too. Read what the template says, above your request.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Official language

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The United Kingdom has no official language; English is the de facto language of the UK, but it is not official. Why does this article's info box proclaim "official" when an Act of Parliament or other legislation has never declared English to be the official language? That is generally the yardstick, and only Welsh has official status (in Wales). For other countries with similar official language situations, the WP info box indicates "national language" only. The text details the differences. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

How's about - because UK, legislation and all government business is always in English (typically in Welsh too, though not always), and You don't need to cite that the sky is blue? Batternut (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
WP articles cite blue skies (and more) if there's a consensus. I'll surmise that England birthed the English language, so English must be "official." For other nations without a declared official language, there has been more debate. For the UK, it might be helpful to clarify this better in the article -- and to flesh out the entry for United Kingdom under the WP article "Official language." It's rather poor. Cheers, Mason.Jones (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Just checking - are you aware of the multiple previous discussions on this question? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Still, more complete info in both articles ("UK" and especially "Official languages") would be helpful. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

From Chaucer's A Treatise on the Astrolabe: "Englyssh ... And preie God save the king, that is lord of this language, and all that him feith berith and obeith, everich in his degre, the more and the lasse". So in 1391 the King of England was recognised as Lord of the English language (an early reference to "the King's English") and all his subjects both "more" (Peers who might have used Norman French a century earlier) and "less" (peasantry) were expected to use it. Chaucer's wife was the sister-in-law of John of Gaunt and was a lady in waiting to the Queen, so the Chaucers moved in court circles. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In 1391, Chaucer held positions of Clerk of the King’s Works and Keeper of the Lodge at the King's park in Feckenham. Notwithstanding his literary stature, I’m not sure either makes him an appropriate source for the legal status of the English language, if, indeed, referring to the English Head of State as “Lord of this language” in any case equates to evidence that English is the official language the then English state. Of course, at that time, the monarch was Richard II, the last monarch whose first language was not English until George I (or arguably James I and VI) DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-mass immigration

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't there be a new subsection in the History section where the UK history after mass immigration is shown, and how the UK went from a modern democracy to a fascist state?

Btw, what do you call a state where the government lynches it's own citizens, simply because they speak the truth?

--Koppadasao (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

One needs reliable sources to put such opinions. Otherwise they may be considered as just some fatuous drunken ravings, perhaps of a friendless dunderhead. Batternut (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Which opinion are we talking about? The fact that UK is now in a post-mass immigration era, the movement toward a fascist state, or the lynching of Tommy Robinson?--Koppadasao (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Britain" as "informal"

Latest comment: 6 years ago64 comments15 people in discussion

So the additional of "informal" is somewhat recent. I removed it on the basis it's not accurate, but was reverted by User:Batternut with the justification "it is the use of Britain when referring to the whole of the UK that is incorrect, there informal".

"Britain" is not incorrect, it's used by countless officials (prime ministers, etc.) both in speech and text sources.

Google Search query for site:www.gov.uk "Britain" -"Great Britain"

It could be considered an abbreviate form of the full name of the country, or an alternative name. Either way the mere exclusion of Northern Ireland does not make it informal or incorrect, the full name of the country equally doesn't include a number of islands.

Rob984 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Informal" isn't a synonym for "inaccurate" or "incorrect" though, is it? It is more about the context of use: official documents, etc. will use United Kingdom, with Britain often used as shorthand in less formal contexts. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It is clearly an abbreviation to omit Northern Ireland, but undoubtedly incorrect to equate it to the UK. Yes, people do use Britain when they mean the UK, but I for one would need to see clear evidence of institutional approval of such usage before I accept it as anything other than informal. Beware that some parliamentary discussions may specifically exclude Northern Ireland due to the devolution of certain powers. Batternut (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Britain is not clearly the UK without NI. If an abbreviation, which I do not think it is, it could equally apply to the British Isles. I think it is a different version of the name of the UK. How official the word is is debatable based on sources. I think it would be inaccurate to dismiss it as unofficial or shorthand without a more thorough investigation. It certainly is closer to being official the, say, USA is. I think much of the problem comes from the 'Irish' problem, where there is an aversion to using the term Britain when mentioning anything to do with the island of Ireland, and this has created an artificial and inaccurate separation of Ireland from the British Isles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to make the case that Britain is an officially accepted name for the country. It should be easy if it is true. Check the statutes etc. Batternut (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters, check out the gov.uk style guide. Under 'G' it has:

Great Britain - Refers only to England, Scotland and Wales excluding Northern Ireland. If you’re telling users about multiple areas, use (for example) ‘England, Scotland and Wales’.

Britain - Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy.

Batternut (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Great Britain = England, Wales and Scotland. But also occasionally used for some UK wide things, like Team GB / the fact the UK country code is GB.
Britain = the whole of the United Kingdom. You can check the BBC and many other media organisations for use of the word "Britain" and you will see 1000s of examples of them using Britain when referring to the UK, not just the island of Great Britain. Someone above has mentioned the government's style guide, and yet, i can find 100s of examples of Britain being used on the gov.uk website too.
Britain is a legitimate term to use for the UK and the wording should reflect that. It's not just "Informal" and its certainly not inaccurate. 8BillMan (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC) — 8BillMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@8BillMan: Your assertions would benefit from the citing of good 'formal' usages of the term "Britain" as you define. Congratulations on your first edit though, and welcome to Wikipedia! Batternut (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Both the Guardian and Telegraph style books specify that Britain should be used when refering to the UK. There also UK wide organisations with formal names such as Britain in Bloom and Better for Britain. To suggest that the term is only used in an informal context is therefore inaccurate. A better solution would be attach a note stating that some individuals/organsitions prefer to reserve the term as an abbrivation of Great Britain only. Eckerslike (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Who uses 'Britain' as an abbreviation of 'Great Britain'? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In dealing with UK before 1940, historians, publishers, and editors of scholarly journals and books mostly use "Britain" In the text and titles of their works. They seldom use "UK" or "United Kingdom" for that. (The long name does appear in historic quotations of course.) for evidence see Elton, Modern Historians on British History 1485-1945: A Critical Bibliography 1945-1969 online here of 1300 books only one has "United Kingdom" in the title. Rjensen (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
But is the scope of such works specifically the UK? Your example is rather odd - it in fact speaks nearly as much about Ireland as about Britain, and fails to mention Northern Ireland once! Batternut (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
almost all of Elton's cited books and articles deal with the UK history, while avoiding the UK term. When he prepared it (1970) there was no major historical scholarship in print on Northern Island--as he notes, historians had lost interest in recent Ireland. But all bibliographies i think will show the same result: historians and their publishers show a strong preference for Britain/GB for topics before ww2. This is very high quality formal scholarship that is vetted very thoroughly. Rjensen (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Eckerslike: The Telegraph style guide actually says "the abbreviation UK is to be avoided ... unless the story has a specific relevance to Northern Ireland that would make the use of 'Britain' or 'British' wrong," (my bold). ie NI is not included by the term Britain. While the guide does indeed prefer Britain to UK, that is their stylist preference. I think you slightly misinterpreted it. Batternut (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That is not what the Telegraph guide is saying... They mean that Britain can be used for the UK(a sovereign nation including NI) but when discussing Northern Ireland specifically they should be extra sensitive and use the term UK to avoid stirring up sectarian divisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the key word is "wrong". I understand the sensitivity, but if they meant that I'd think they'd say that. I prefer Eckerslike's interpretation below, they use it when they "can get away with it". Batternut (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are that we follow the reliable published independent sources, with a preference for scholarship. Wiki rules warn against reliance on primary sources--such as an editor with no legal expertise reading statutes and announcing out what the law really means means. Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Is the Telegraph insufficiently independent then? Batternut (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

While it is more difficult to prove the negative, that Britain or indeed Blighty are not official names, the official status of "United Kingdom" and "UK" shortened and abbreviated forms is noted by the UK Permanent Committee on Geographical Names here. Proponents of the 'Britain is official' view may scratch around there in the quirky details of when to use 'British', but I see little support for that view. Britain is not like France, in that all places that are French are also part of France, such as French Guiana. Thus, territories may be called British, eg the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, that does not make the Britain too. Batternut (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My first thought upon reading the telegraph style guide was the same as yours but a survey of their articles shows that, while they seem to perform some cognitive dissonance in order to do so, the Telegraph uses Britain to refer to the whole of the UK. Their policy seems to be "this term is wrong but use it anyway as long as you can get away with it".
Official is not the same as formal. The term is clearly not official (the government style guide is enough to confirm this) but as we don't live in North Korea the governemnt doen't get to dictate what is or isn't a formal term of address. If any organisation uses Britian in a formal manner then the term is not always informal as the lead currently implies.
A summaryof my position on the name is
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irealand (official name)
  • United Kindom or UK (official abbriviation)
  • Britain (unofficial abbriviation)
  • Great Britain (used by politians who want to win elections and think using great is a good way of doing it. see also: Donald Trump)
  • England (used by morons who don't have a clue. see also: Donald Trump)
Eckerslike (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Few if any sources would use the terms Britain or Great Britain to refer to the UK minus Northern Ireland. They use terms such as the "UK outside Northern Ireland," (Sky News)[11] "England, Scotland and Wales" (The Sun)[12] or "other parts of the UK" (BBC News),[13] TFD (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, I'm not seeing a strong argument for keeping "informal". Unofficial ≠ informal. If you see the Google Search query I included in the opening comment, there are thousands of formal uses of "Britain" on gov.uk. Do I need to start listing them or what? This is a recentish addition and doesn't appear to have consensus... Rob984 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Your query shows that the term 'Britain' is used at .gov.uk. This is not a surprise. I'd be interested to see something at .gov.uk declaring Britain to explicitly include Northern Ireland. Do consider that the various news items posted there, even by ministers, may not constitute policy. Batternut (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What is wrong with plain old "also known as". It's accurate, and does not make a value judgement.--Hazhk (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hazhk. No need to state informal or the such. Mabuska (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Few if any sources would use the terms Britain or Great Britain to refer to the UK minus Northern Ireland" -- whaat? "UK minus Northern Ireland" is EXACTLY what "Great Britain" means! -- Alarics (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Then 99.9% of sources don't use the correct definition. Anyway, I though it normally refers to either the state until 1807 or the island. TFD (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: 99% of stats are made up. Checking the first five references in the article as it currently stands that mention "Britain" (not "Great Britain") shows that four use the term in the "official" sense ie excluding N. Ireland (COE, the ONS and CIA and royal.uk), and the fifth (the independent is rather hard to pin down precisely. Batternut (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Re-reading TFD's brief addition, I think I misread it as support for Britain == UK. Apologies if so. Batternut (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh well, I'm lost where to go from here. I see some personal views on the whether the use of "Britain" in reference to the country is correct or not, which is irrelevant. The government uses it, as do secondary sources. While the overwhelming majority seem to be in agreement with my opening post that "informal" is not accurate and this recent addition should be removed, I am once again reverted. What gives User:Batternut? If we're going to keep discussing this can we stay on topic and avoid personal views on the matter. Britain is a short form for Great Britain, an island, and the UK is more then just this island. However this fact is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Rob984 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to replace "informal" with "unofficial" or "inaccurate". My personal view is that it is important that an encyclopedia should educate. It may well be true that "Britain" is sometimes used in the honest belief that it equates to the UK, so "sometimes called" or suchlike is not a wrong. However, if accuracy and educational value are important, some caveat is required. As the Telegraph style demonstrates perfectly, style can prefer "Britain", but where accuracy is required, "Britain" is wrong. Batternut (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The COE actually refers to "mainland Britain and Northern Ireland." The CIA says that Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. The fact is that whenever the term GB is used to refer to the UK minus NI it has to be clearly explained to the reader what is meant. TFD (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The term "Great Britain" is not the discussion subject. Batternut (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think this is a pointless fuss about nothing. Britain is in today's world a synonym for the UK. The reason it causes so much debate is that it can be confusing in certain contexts, specifically when talking about the geography of these islands, or when talking politics, especially about Ireland. For that reason UK is prefered in many cases where unambiguous precision is needed. But ultimately they mean the same: UK=Britain. What is relevant here is current use, not what was used 200 years ago. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Proof by assertion is not convincing. Batternut (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we remove "inaccurately" from Koala (The koala ... or, inaccurately, koala bear), because of common usage? Batternut (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
We are an enclyopedia not a repository of what Roger considers current use. We've had the same problem elsewhere with his making false statements about policy on spelling of Welsh Names. the UK doesn't not equal Britain, any more than England equals Britain and any reference to such use needs to make it clear that it is inaccurate. -----Snowded TALK 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the comparison with koalas is not the best. Who's 'we', Snowded? It is unfortunate that you accuse editors who have a different opinion from you of making false statements, rather that engaging in healthy debate and welcoming differing points of view. Or is your problem only with editors who are less "experienced" than you? Perhaps a quick re-read of CIVILITY would help. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A quick read of policy before you assert something which isn't true, or possibly an apology when you do in error might be civil Roger. There is a pattern to a lot of your editing in respect of the UK articles and strong assertions without evidence or citation will get push back -----Snowded TALK 11:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Very odd thread. Is anyone seriously doubting that both the UK government and multiple WP:RS widely use Britain to mean UK. There’s plenty of references (including in the article) for that. Per WP:ALTNAME and WP:WIAN it’s entirely appropriate to include it in the opening. “Informally” is otiose in context. “UK” is also informal - alternative names in WP articles typically are. “The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America”. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with DeCausa. "Britain" (but not "Great Britain") = UK. "Informal" not needed. -- Alarics (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This addition was first made on the 18 May 2018, which I first reverted on the 12 June 2018. User:Batternut, can you please respect the long-standing consensus on the wording in the lead and self-revert? This matter has been discussed extensively before, and its clear many, if not the majority, here do not agree with this addition.
I know consensus isn't just a head count but, myself, Eckerslike, Hazhk, Mabuska, Roger 8 Roger, DeCausa, and Alarics have all voiced that this addition is not necessary. I've re-read the entire thread and I'm still struggling to find the justification / argument in favour of it.
Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Because we are an encyclopaedia and while Britain might mean Great Britain it does not include Northern Ireland. I think 'incorrectly' is better than 'informal' and/or the note needs to be expanded. The UK Government guideline is clear "Britain
Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy" -----Snowded TALK 13:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly certain as to what the dispute is here. But, if it will help, Britain is been understood to mean the United Kingdom, AFAIK. If you say Britain to me? I immediately think the UK. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Snowded, I respect this is your view but you're opening a can of worms here that goes beyond just the lead of this article. The general consensus has been that "Britain" is acceptable in reference to the UK, and this is reflected across Wikipedia. Throughout this article the country is referred to as Britain numerous times (and not just in the History and Geography sections).
If this is incorrect, as an encyclopaedia we should not be using it, rather just noting its use. Personally I disagree, but regardless, my main issue here is editors sneaking in a change to the lead and then refusing to allow the change to be reverted pending the outcome of a discussion and new consensus being made.
I'm sure you yourself Snowded would agree a long-standing consensus and the cumulation of countless talk page discussions should not be overturned plainly because an unexplained and undiscussed edit goes unnoticed for a few weeks.
Rob984 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, ie removed the contested wording. As Rob984 points out, it is a recent addition. However... Batternut (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I indeed doubt that the UK government widely uses Britain to mean UK. Because (i) this government guideline (repeated for convenience) does not allow for such use, and (ii) no concrete supporting evidence has been provided. Do note, a google query finding a set of vague publicity statements, in itself, proves nought. DeCausa, Roger, Rob, others you have all been around long enough, you know assertion is no way to argue. Evidence (generally) beats assertion! Please note also, as informal ≠ unofficial, I would be happy to wind up this discussion in favour of another on "Britain" as "unofficial", which is more demonstrable. Dig out your proof of the government saying the term Britain includes Northern Ireland, and this issue can quickly evaporate! Batternut (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need to add an stupid qualifier such as unofficially or informally as it only creates problems. The old "also known as" is accurate and is not problematic. Why the need to be overly complicated.

@Alarics: stop mistaking geographical and geopolitical names. Enough people do That with Ireland never mind Britain or Great Britain. Mabuska (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mabuska: if you think "Great Britain" doesn't mean the main island i.e. England + Scotland + Wales, how do you account for the fact that the long title of the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? -- Alarics (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify what I mean: stop mistaking the usage of the term Britain and Great Britain, which in this article and this context are used to refer to a geopolitical entity, whereas you are currently viewing the context in the sense of geographical. Great Britain is a geographical name for a large island (does not include all the islands off its coast), however it is also a geopolitical nickname used the amalgamation of the geopolitical entities of England, Scotland, and Wales (including the other islands) and is also used as a nickname for the whole UK. The name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is entirely geopolitical, as why mix the name of one island (GB) with that of a geopolitical entity (NI) whilst ignoring the Hebrides, Shetlands, Orkney, Scilly Isles etc.? So the name of the state is using GB in a geopolitical sense and not the island sense. Mabuska(talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to go back to the creation of The United Kingdom of GB and Ireland to find an answer to that. NI has not been added to GB, Southern Ireland has been removed from it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The strange approach by Snowded noted above, that insists that Britain is used to mean GB, is an example of the Ireland political issue, whereby Ireland does not want to be linked in any way with the word Britain. This approach is obvious from Irish people, but it extends to what is sometimes called the Celtic fringe. Some Celtic people, especially in Wales and Cornwall, sometimes prefer to associate more with their cousins over the water than with the other peoples on GB. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It would he helpful if you stopped writing personal opinions and addressed the issues of sourcing. The UK government deprecates the use of Britain to designate the UK and thus we need to qualify in some way the common use. The issue is how to qualify it. -----Snowded TALK 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That’s not true. The government regularly uses Britain to mean the UK e.g. this from last week or this or this or this etc. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I quoted direct from UK Government on what should be said, it is accepted in respect of embassy's or foreign policy in the same guideline. There is no question as to its use, but its not unqualified. I repeat the question is how we qualify it. We could quote directly from policy in a footnote or say 'partial', or 'sometimes' with a footnote. Open to possibilities here -----Snowded TALK 23:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
”There is no question as to its use”. That’s all we need be concerned with in the opening of the lead. It is already appropriately qualified by “commonly used”. The detail of whether the UK government has a preference for UK over Britain might be something for the terminology section. DeCausa (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Those government quotes are just PR stories. They are fine examples of "informal" use of the term Britain. Read this explanation of the government's informal use. Batternut (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The UK govt guidelines say: Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy. Nothing at all implying that Britain is wrong and UK is correct. In fact, the implication is clear that both are correct but that in some cases UK should be used. I said earlier that this is easily explained by the need in some situations to avoid any possible complications or misunderstandings arising from the term 'Britain'. Does not mean Britain meaning UK is incorrect. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You're not responding to the point (or to Batternut above), just asserting a position. The clear implication is what it says, don't use it for the UK (which includes Northern Ireland). So we need to qualify -----Snowded TALK 05:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger: Why interpret the guideline "Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain ..." as "in some cases UK should be used"? Isn't it "in all cases UK should be used." Batternut (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Because it gives examples of prefered use that include both UK and British. And seeing as the onus is on you who want to change things then an interpretation that can be seen both ways is not good enough. I think I'll let you play around with tenuous leads and not get dragged in to a pretty pointless discussion any further. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
NI isn't even mentioned. Where does it say that 'Britain' does not include NI? I don't think we can draw any conclusion from this statement about anything except what it says, namely use UK in preference to Britain. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've just updated the Talk:United_Kingdom/FAQ to mention at least some of the various discussions previously held on this topic. Interestingly the straw poll in September 2006 upon precisely this question came out marginally in favour of an "informally" caveat. I don't think any change resulted though. Batternut (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The GDP Nominal and GDP Per Capita (Nominal) need to be updated. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=84&pr.y=9&sy=2017&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=112&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Matthew Hinton (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: The 2018 numbers are only estimates, so I think the 2017 numbers should stay until the 2018 numbers are no longer just estimates. — MRD2014 Talk 12:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wide Infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is causing the infobox to be incredibly wide (compare to United States) and how can it be fixed? IWI (chat) 17:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Some change elsewhere to the way hlist renders in the infobox has caused this problem here and elsewhere, probably all over the place. (Also witnessed at Europe). Batternut (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Watch your language

Latest comment: 6 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

There seems to be a little dispute over what to put in the 'recognized regional language' section, of the infobox. Likely best to work that out 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer nothing at all about it in the Infobox. Leave it to the text of the article where it can be handled in the somewhat more complex way that is necessary for the topic. Infoboxes are dangerous places to try to summarise complex situations. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I like having recognized regional languages mentioned in the infobox. I can live with having to scroll down to get the fuller explanation. Batternut (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm pleased you do that, but unfortunately many readers don't seem to get past the Infobox, and they then think they know it all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"Many readers"? Says who? Batternut (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's any, it's too many. Sorry, but I have a long-standing dislike of Infoboxes. When they contain simplified truth they inevitably have the potential to mislead readers. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48. There is a clear implication that a language has a greater 'official' weight within a state than it actually does have, especially when placed in the infobox below an actual official language. To imply that Cornish, for example, has anything remotely resembling the status of English anywhere in the UK is misleading to say the least. The status of these regional languages is not simple and each status differs, which is another reason for removing them from the infobox and dealing with the differences in the body of the article. Another reason to remove the languages from the infobox is that their status as being 'recognised' is ambiguous. It is their status as contributing to the culture etc of a region that is recognised, not specifically the languages themselves. Presumably this is why a Cornish sneaks in, an extinct, attempting to be revived, language. IMO, the failure to see the intent of the charter and read it properly has merely played into the hands of those editors who love filling in templates and adding every conceivable piece of minute detail to an article. The consequence is we go off track and get it wrong. This is covered by WP RS guidelines, as I noted in the edit summary. A=B, B=C, does not mean A=C. The UK recognises the charter. What the charter recognises is another matter. The charter recognises Friesian. Does that mean that the UK recognises Friesan? There is no direct link between these various languages and UK recognition of the charter with the exception of Welsh. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Another reason why inserting these languages in the infobox is not wise, is that as it currently stands, it is wrong. The status of Welsh relates to the Westminster statute, not the charter, as confirmed by the charter itself. An example of template doodling and getting it wrong? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the situation is too complex to be summarized in an infobox and not to be pointed to where it is dealt with in greater detail in the main body of the text. I'm, not a big opposer of infoboxes (and think they can be useful, but not universally), but suspect this is where an infobox might be hindering rather than helping. Of course, I don't have "evidence" that this is the case, but perhaps we don't need any if we can think of something that is very likely to be an improvement. I suspect if the field was left blank, we would have people trying to fill it in with over-summarized (and hence inaccurate) information which would displease some. Is there a compromise which is better available here? How about filling it in with a terse entry like "complex" together with either a footnote directing people to the section in the article, or a real footnote listing the article's section and a link to Languages of the United Kingdom?  DDStretch  (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that we wrote articles for people who can't be bothered to scroll beyond the info box. We have sourced data that these are accepted languages within the UK. I like the idea of a footnote Roger's argument on Welsh is disingenuous, the charter provides a simple reference and is correct. The fact that it is also statute law is best in the main body -----Snowded TALK 05:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If everyone scrolls beyond the Infobox, what use is it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
My issue is with listing just Welsh, implying no other regional language is recognised at all, which of course isn't the case. Even ignoring the ECRML, Gaelic is recognised by the Scottish Government to an extent.
I'm fine with either keeping the article as is, or alternatively leaving it to the body putting a footnote with an inline tag adjacent to "English", as is done at France.
Regional languages, even with official status, are not always included in the infobox.
Rob984 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Snowded, you need to be careful of terminology. "Accepted' is open to interpretation and can, IMO, strongly imply a form of official status. For this discussion it should therefore not be used. The EU makes it more than clear that the charter is not intended to obstruct any form of soverign decision about languages at a state level and is there merely to complement those sovereign decisions. The Charter is based on an approach that fully respects national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It does not conceive the relationship between official languages and regional or minority languages in terms of competition or antagonism. Development of the latter must not obstruct knowledge and promotion of the former. According to the Charter, each language has its rightful place.[14] The term 'recognised' is similarly open to interpretation and should be used carefully. The Welsh Language Act means that the charter is redundent regarding welsh. The charter says, (article 4) The provisions of this Charter shall not affect any more favourable provisions concerning the status of regional or minority languages, or the legal regime of persons belonging to minorities which may exist in a Party or are provided for by relevant bilateral or multilateral international agreements.. [15]. Seeing as the WLA gives Welsh far more promotion than the charter, the charter, as it here confirms, is redundant in relation to Welsh. I think a much more interesting debate could be had about the position of SG rather than Welsh. So, Welsh's position from being statute law and from being named in the charter are distinctly different. Dealing with this in the infobox is not possible. Rob984, I agree that mentioning Welsh, and not the others, might look as if the others have no merit or recognition at all, which is not correct. However, in a way they do not have. The position of Welsh, within UK statute law, is far stronger than these regional languages. I agree wholeheartedly with your concern about SG's position based on Scottish law, but seeing as this is a UK article, IMO even SG should not appear alongside English and Welsh in the infobox. Its position would make for an interesting subsection, along with the other regional languages. Personally, I would throw in Norn too which is not that dissimilar in some from Cornish. Just because it's not in the charter does not make it a language with no current affect on the Shetland culture. I think the best solution to the infobox is to have a section for official language - English, and below that Welsh with in visible parentheses, (limited de jure official status in Wales). I would drop the section called 'regional languages' because I think is confusing, even if only Welsh is put there. Welsh has a greater status than just as ill defined 'recognised regional language'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a question of:

  1. WP:WEIGHT - is it disproportionately prominent to list Cornish (and others) next to English;
  2. accurate summary of the article body (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE).

I agree that the statutory position of Welsh is far stronger than the other regional languages. Correct weight might follow the numbers of speakers, and mention those above around 1% of the population, as do the religion and ethnic groups infobox entries, and wrap the others up into 'other languages'. As a summary of the article, the infobox currently ignores immigrant languages. If it is OK for the infobox to mention 3.0% Black, 1.3% Hindu etc, then we can very reasonably mention Scots (2.5%), Welsh (1%), Polish (1%) too. Batternut (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, if we do keep the recognized regional section in the infobox? then we must include all those aforementioned multiple languages. Having only Welsh shown, seems quite odd. Otherwise, eliminate the section entirely. GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger's suggestion of adding Welsh (limited de jure official status in Wales) or similar in the official language box is not a bad idea. Batternut (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding "limited de jure official status in Wales", I might be wrong but my understanding is that from an legal standpoint, Welsh and English are both co-official and thus of equal official status in Wales. If anything, Scottish Gaelic is of "limited de jure official status" per the Gaelic Language Act, not being yet an official language but having formal recognition in law and limited official status. Rob984 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
How's about "Welsh (in Wales)" then? Batternut (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the infoboxes at England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It appears we actually don't need to mention regional languages in this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think listing only Welsh is just as misleading as listing all the languages. Both Welsh and Gaelic have some degree of recognition on a national level (on the first page of a UK passport there is the Welsh and Gaelic translations of the country's name and "passport"). And both are also recognised by legislation in their respective regions. In respect of Welsh, this just goes a degree further. I'm leaning towards the best solution being to list non. Rob984 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Back to this topic again. Was consensus ever reached? I took another look earlier and the illogicality stood out like a sore thumb. The UK recognises the charter, not the languages recognised by the charter. This is first term law school stuff. If we cannot agree on how to deal with Welsh then I think we are better off removing the section on regional languages entirely and let the topic be dealt with further down - the infobox is bordering on being over done as it is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Its also 101 Wikipedia to include referenced material - Welsh has recognition at national level. Welsh has official status in Wales (limited in the UK but not in Wales). I'd go with Butternut -----Snowded TALK 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, we should delete the recognized regional languages section. This information is handled in the infoboxes of the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Properly handled in those articles but also relevant to the article about the state - what languages are recognised is relevant to readers. I note a statement here GoodDay, not an argument -----Snowded TALK 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem in inserting that list in the infobox is that it is at best totally misleading to the average reader who would assume those languages have an importance above what they do have. Even here above, to say that Welsh has official status in Wales (limited in the UK but not in Wales) is simply wrong. Welsh has limited official status in Wales as defined by the act. It is not equal in all respects to English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_31&oldid=1137283566"