RobGordon35
Welcome!
|
British capitals
editHello, I just happened to come across an enquiry of yours elsewhere. Edinburgh is/was historically Scotland's capital even before the union with England,(1606?), and continued to be honoured as such even when their was little devolution of power. Glasgow is/was the more important city economically, but isn't that the case with Washington/New York and many other places? Just clarification, best wishes.Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there, yes I'm aware of this. The point I'm making is that under the Dictionary definition of what constitutes a Capital City it seems to be very loose. Dunfermline was the capital of Scotland for many years prior to Edinburgh because the king of Scotland lived there. The point I;m making is that Glasgow under current (current) definitions of what constitutes a capital probably better fits the description objectively. Edinburgh has the Scottish government but that is still currently a temporary measure and could be dissolved by an act of the British Parliament in London. Alternatively the Parliament could be relocated in a new building in Glasgow. My point is that the UK has no capital city Never has had.
- Hope I'm sending you this message okay as I'm new to this.
- Best wishes to you too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobGordon35 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just checking that you saw my reply to your question on my talk page? On the London point, there are reliable sources that state that London is the capital of the UK, including the Encyclopædia Britannica. There might be some technical sense in which it isn't, but it seems to be regarded as such de facto. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- :D heheh we-ell..... I can tell you with relative certainty that this is a *very* new arrival. Very recent. No doubt politically motivated I am sure. But I disagree. Kids are not taught in School that London is the capital of anywhwere other than England. This is because it isn't. Sorry it never has been despite what recent amendments to certain publications are now reporting. Defacto by whom? Not by anyone I was educated with. I wouldnt believe all you see in print. Regrettable some of it, even in textbooks is unreliable. As is in this instance. Regards.
- It's also listed as the capital in the 1982 CIA World Factbook, which is hardly new. As for what children are taught in schools, here's what the London curriculum states: "London is the capital city of England and of the United Kingdom". Given that the UK doesn't have a constitution, it's not really surprising that definition of the capital is a de facto question. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
And when was this London Curriculum printed Cordless Larry? Just out of interest. And this is the university of Illinois, United States if I am reading it correctly? I am very skeptical! I say respectfully most Americans dont know the Difference between England, Scotland and Britain. (documented) So thats really not a citation of anything IMO. The London curriculum? What about the broader UK one. I have spoken to two teachers since I last posted one qualified in Scotland the other in England. neither have any solid ideas about when this came about or even *if* it came about. The United Kingdom is not a country and therefore has no capital. 'regards.
- I think that you have perhaps misunderstood what de facto means. London might not be the capital as defined in law, but it functions as such (is the seat of government, etc.). Ultimately, the policy here is WP:VERIFY. It's not for us to decide whether London is the capital of the UK or not - we instead report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources include the UN, the BBC, the EU, the British Council, the Commonwealth, etc. There are also plenty of reliable sources that state that the UK is a country. What's taught or not taught in schools really doesn't have much to do with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've only just seen your reply. The capital of the UK (formally 'the UK of GB & NI') is London, it is/has almost always been the seat of Govt. The 'capital of England' has no meaning, there is no 'English Govt/assembly/currency/passport' etc., I've never heard anyone except foreigners speak of 'the capital of England'. The UK may not be a country in one sense, it is THE sovereign state of the 4 constituent parts. The capitals of Scotland, Wales, have been referred to as their capitals for many, many years even when very limited powers were granted them. Scotland COULD if it wished declare a different capital I imagine and move its seat of government, but it is unlikely to do so given Edinburgh's long associations. What you are arguing is like saying 'Washington is not the capital, because the political centre could move if it sought to, and besides America isn't a country it's umpteen independent states'. There are many anomalies about the UK (eg London isn't LEGALLY a city), not having a capital is not one of them!Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps even with devolution, Scotland, Wales, NI and England probably have fewer differences legislatively than any two US states and they all send MPs to the UK parliament - in London.Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC) … … pps this is not ref'd, in the same way that 'New York is a city in the USA' is not sourcedPincrete (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
hello Pincrete, Yes I did understand but my point is that London has very littel real claim to that title. Its a very casual appraisal indeed. Things change though. Did you know that Wales wasn't a country? Except now it is ;) Regards, Rob. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/international-body-grants-wales-country-1813629
- Re Wales, that's just the ISO Int. body, by every other criteria it is has always been a country and recognised as such by sporting bodies etc., it isn't a kingdom (meaning it has never had a king of its own) and isn't a sovereign state, so can't join the UN or have its own army. I don't know what you mean by London having little claim to be the capital (ditto Edinburgh), perhaps it has never formally, legally, been named as such, but many things in the UK are established by precedent rather than law. Perhaps there has never been a law saying the pound is UK's currency (I don't know), that doesn't mean the UK doesn't have a currency.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Pincrete I ony just saw this.
Look, we have 'Team GB' not team Uk. GB is a reference to the island region that is Britain, that encapsulates several countries.. I learned the capitals of France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Wales and England at School. I didnt learnt the Uk capital because there isnt one. By your measure, the capital of Scotland should be Glasgow. It isnt. Why? Because Scotland *is* a country and it already has a capital. London is the Caital of the country of England. The Uk doesnt have a capital, because its not. Former First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond corrected a BBC interviewer on this point recently.
September 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also a violation of WP:NPOV Doug Weller talk 05:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Hello Doug nice to meet you; yeah my point is that 'Conspiracy theorist' is a derogatory term, coined by the CIA to discount a persons testimony or assertion. So I do feel that describing a person as such is not accurate or helpful. One might say that this woman is an abuse survivor (she has scars) but saying she's a conspiracy theorist is not accurate. I dont have anymore evidence that she's telling the truth than you do that she's making stuff up. One might then be as well to put her wiki entry as 'liar' or fantasist' See here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge thanks
Sorry, but that source is nuts. The phrase is much, much older, here are some 19th century sources.[1]. Anyway, it's in the article titled and you'd need to get agreement to change that first. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Doug, thanks for the reply. Yeah I think I may have been mistaken about the origins in this one. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong but I do still feel that to dismiss this person as a Conspiracy Theorist is nonetheless tarring a person with a very negative brush these days. Not sure if what she says is true or not, but I do still have issue with the title. There must surely be a better descriptive for these kinds of people who may or may not be whistle blowers. I:: We should just follow what reliable sources say. That's policy. Doug Weller talk 05:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)