![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
An anonymous editor is continuously engaged in changing the opener to read that Britain was a superpower during the 19th century (and also that it is now one of "the eight" great powers - both claims unsourced). I have changed the article to read how it used to, which was that Britain was the world's foremost power during this time. I believe it was changed at some point because an editor suggested it was unsourced, so I have also provided a reference. Hopefully "foremost power" negates the need for the contentious use of the term "superpower". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The term Great Power is evidently continuing to divide editors; there is clearly no consensus in favour of including this unsourced and peacock term. If a clear majority of editors insist on its inclusion then so be it, but please let us debate the issue and not add it back unless or until such a majority emerges. Viewfinder 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Today, the UK IS a Great Power, really. No longer a Superpower, obviously, but Great Power is the actual correct term here. It describes nations like the UK, France, Russia, China and the US (also a Superpower, but still counted). I think it is a worthwhile inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page FOR Great Power, you can see the criteria, and Britain fills them, including things like a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and other such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it would. Being one of the five main nuclear powers, having the second largest defence spending, operating the most aircraft carriers outside of the US (that alone is a trait of global power projection), and having one of the highest economies, GDP etc. It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that, and both the UK and France are Great Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Of course it would" - who says so? You? According to the article Great Power, Germany and Italy are considered "middle powers", despite having similar populations, GDP and defence speding to the UK. "It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that", again who says so? Germany has a higher population and GDP and Russia has a higher population and considerably more land and natural resources. Besides which, until an authoritative external source can be found in support of the claim that the UK is today a Great Power, the claim should not be reinstated in the article. Viewfinder 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Russia's not part of Europe though, strictly speaking. Militarily, France and the UK are more powerful than any other nation in Europe. They are, that's fact. If you want to look at every individual piece of military information on the countries (and you probably will), then you will see that is true. Besides, you can't use the article Great Power, we've established that. Many scholars have said it (particularly from Cambridge University) and you can again spend your time looking them up if you so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, most things are POV. The very idea of powers are POV. See the middle powers. See certain notable exceptions, the five main nuclear states. They therefore have to be great powers. Are you saying the UK is not a power at all? It is, and it is, by definition, a great power. And if you want to see patriotic puffery, look at the United States, it's full of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone change it back to Second highest miltary spending becasue it is by about 5 billion USD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales123098 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This should be changed to third largest defence budget in the world, see wiki link on page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.253.202 ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For any summary of the armed forces of the UK to be complete, it needs to be mentioned that there exists not one but two armed forces in the UK - The " British Armed Forces" (strength aproximately 429,500 men as of 2006), and, entirely sererately, the only private army in Europe, the Atholl Highlanders (strength aproximately 100 men). 82.10.108.49 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Should one really state that Britain is a synonym for the UK? Though Tony Blair used it often it has never officially recognised...and it sounds rather too like GB for my liking. It makes the subject even more difficult for people trying to grasp the whole England/Scotland/Britain/GB/UK thing! -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
AFAIAA the only people who regularly use "Britain" as a synonym for the United Kingdom are The Economist newspaper, and Labour Party politicians. Of course the reason that Labour people use it is due to their long-standing support for Irish re-unification, hence when they say "Britain" an innocent bystander may understand it as meaning the whole UK, but it is really Labour-speak for "Great Britain", ie. sans the " North of Ireland". (I seem to recall that The Economist is also in favour of Irish re-unification by the way.)-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a Briton livin in Germany: Here Great Britain (Großbritannien) and England are often used as synonyms for the UK. I am continually correcting people. Even officials think "English" is a nationality...mind you so do many Brits...! -- Camaeron 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important that the fact the British monarch is head of state of the Commonwealth realms should be included in the introduction as the UK is the only country in the world whose monarch is still monarch of many countries around the world. Also I'd like to add that Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of the United Kingdom and so inherits the crowns of many former parts of the British Empire which have remained as realms to the British monarchy. It's important to note that Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Commonwealth realms and so is also Queen of the United Kingdom (as some parts of Wikipedia have made it look) but is Queen of the United Kingdom and so Queen of the countries in the Commonwealth who have remained as realms to the British crown. Signsolid 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's mentioned at the beginning of the Government and politics section. As the article is about the United Kingdom and not solely or even principally about the Monarch it is not appropriate to mention it in the intro.-- Gazzster 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call.-- Gazzster ( talk) 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone with editing privileges should put the Northern Ireland flag in the infobox under the 'Symbols' section where it lists the patron saints and national flowers of each UK country. Thanks, Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the UK wielding "major" or "significant" influence in economic, cultural, military and political spheres is dubious, peacock wording and POV (see Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The only country that can be safely said to have "major" or "significant" influence in these aspects is the USA. That the UK retains "significant" or "major" influence on these aspects is arguable and POV. It is not a fact that can be proved. It is better to let the hard facts (membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) speak for themselves.-- Miyokan ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if you find a source that says the UK is a major power, it is that sources opinion/POV. You say that the article asserts that it has major influence on these things - that is your opinion/POV. Someone else can look at this article and come to the conclusion that the UK's influence is minimal. Do you understand why now Wikipedia encourages to let the hard facts speak for themselves? By the way, I am well aware of the 3RR rule, I don't intend to violate it.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The UK's "power" or "influence" should be demonstrated by hard facts we can point to (the size of the economy, membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) rather than peacock terms.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The phrase we are debating here is that the UK has "major or significant cultural, economic, political, military influence", not whether the UK is a major power or not. Saying that the UK has "major" or "significant" influence on economic, political/military/political influence imparts no real information. Show us HOW. From Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it should come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing."-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The UK's nuclear, UN and G8 facts are all quite properly mentioned in the lead section. Whether or not they makes the UK a "major" power is a matter which we should leave readers to judge for themselves.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole whether the UK is a Great power ( Major power redirects to Great power) has already been debated here [13] and on the Germany page [14], with the result that it was removed, and has been removed from every other article that the claim was on (Italy, Russia, Germany all used to say that they are Great powers in the lead) because it was deemed POV. The term is primarily applicable to the powers that existed in the 19th century. Today there is one superpower (with a defense budget of about 10x that of any other country) and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have cited several, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are trying to source a peacock term. Furthermore, WP:V is not satisfied because none of the sources you cited can be said to be reliable sources. British Ministry of Defence calling itself a major power? World Socialist Web Site? An online dictionary definition? A major power (but in world space) from a UK website? Fellow Commonwealth member and ally Australian government website? Ha. If that's the best you can do then it's clear that there is no well-known concensus that the UK is a Great power. Furthermore, none of the sources talk about the concept of Great power, they are a ragtag collection of random snippets where they are discussing some other topic.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that I was not objecting to major power. First I was objecting to the UK's "major/significant" influence on economics, etc etc, then you started talking about the UK being a major power for some reason. "Great power" was not a peacock term in the 19th century, but it is today, where there is one superpower and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV. The collection of dodgy sources you provided attests to that, considering that the UK as a "Great power" it is not widespread in the major news media.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
How are the commonwealth nations "fully independent"? What kind of sloppy sweeping talk is this? Do they not interact? No trading? No cultural links? No alliance in NATO, UN? Are they not dependant on each other for economic or political reasons? It's a very foolish claim to make, and stick by. Needs addressing. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Droops made an edit that resulted in the following sentence:
Jz undid the whole edit stating only that the sentence violated basic grammar rules. As there was not grammatical issue, I assumed that the issue was either the terminal punctuation being inside the parenthesis or the comma use surrounding "entirely independent". I reverted explaining that both usages were correct. Jz reverted asserting that full stops come after closing parenthesis and that "entirely independent" is inaccurate. As to the first issue, I only have American usage and style guides to go by. Garner's Modern American Usage says that for complete sentences, the closing punctuation goes inside the parenthesis. If predominant UK usage is to the contrary, obviously that should prevail. The second issue is not a "grammatical", style, or usage issue. Removing "entirely independent" should have been done in a separate edit or been brought to the talk page. - Rrius ( talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
An anonymous editor is continuously engaged in changing the opener to read that Britain was a superpower during the 19th century (and also that it is now one of "the eight" great powers - both claims unsourced). I have changed the article to read how it used to, which was that Britain was the world's foremost power during this time. I believe it was changed at some point because an editor suggested it was unsourced, so I have also provided a reference. Hopefully "foremost power" negates the need for the contentious use of the term "superpower". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The term Great Power is evidently continuing to divide editors; there is clearly no consensus in favour of including this unsourced and peacock term. If a clear majority of editors insist on its inclusion then so be it, but please let us debate the issue and not add it back unless or until such a majority emerges. Viewfinder 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Today, the UK IS a Great Power, really. No longer a Superpower, obviously, but Great Power is the actual correct term here. It describes nations like the UK, France, Russia, China and the US (also a Superpower, but still counted). I think it is a worthwhile inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarious ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page FOR Great Power, you can see the criteria, and Britain fills them, including things like a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and other such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it would. Being one of the five main nuclear powers, having the second largest defence spending, operating the most aircraft carriers outside of the US (that alone is a trait of global power projection), and having one of the highest economies, GDP etc. It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that, and both the UK and France are Great Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Of course it would" - who says so? You? According to the article Great Power, Germany and Italy are considered "middle powers", despite having similar populations, GDP and defence speding to the UK. "It and France are the two most powerful European nations, there's no doubt about that", again who says so? Germany has a higher population and GDP and Russia has a higher population and considerably more land and natural resources. Besides which, until an authoritative external source can be found in support of the claim that the UK is today a Great Power, the claim should not be reinstated in the article. Viewfinder 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Russia's not part of Europe though, strictly speaking. Militarily, France and the UK are more powerful than any other nation in Europe. They are, that's fact. If you want to look at every individual piece of military information on the countries (and you probably will), then you will see that is true. Besides, you can't use the article Great Power, we've established that. Many scholars have said it (particularly from Cambridge University) and you can again spend your time looking them up if you so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, most things are POV. The very idea of powers are POV. See the middle powers. See certain notable exceptions, the five main nuclear states. They therefore have to be great powers. Are you saying the UK is not a power at all? It is, and it is, by definition, a great power. And if you want to see patriotic puffery, look at the United States, it's full of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.9.48 ( talk) 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone change it back to Second highest miltary spending becasue it is by about 5 billion USD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales123098 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This should be changed to third largest defence budget in the world, see wiki link on page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.253.202 ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For any summary of the armed forces of the UK to be complete, it needs to be mentioned that there exists not one but two armed forces in the UK - The " British Armed Forces" (strength aproximately 429,500 men as of 2006), and, entirely sererately, the only private army in Europe, the Atholl Highlanders (strength aproximately 100 men). 82.10.108.49 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Should one really state that Britain is a synonym for the UK? Though Tony Blair used it often it has never officially recognised...and it sounds rather too like GB for my liking. It makes the subject even more difficult for people trying to grasp the whole England/Scotland/Britain/GB/UK thing! -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
AFAIAA the only people who regularly use "Britain" as a synonym for the United Kingdom are The Economist newspaper, and Labour Party politicians. Of course the reason that Labour people use it is due to their long-standing support for Irish re-unification, hence when they say "Britain" an innocent bystander may understand it as meaning the whole UK, but it is really Labour-speak for "Great Britain", ie. sans the " North of Ireland". (I seem to recall that The Economist is also in favour of Irish re-unification by the way.)-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a Briton livin in Germany: Here Great Britain (Großbritannien) and England are often used as synonyms for the UK. I am continually correcting people. Even officials think "English" is a nationality...mind you so do many Brits...! -- Camaeron 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important that the fact the British monarch is head of state of the Commonwealth realms should be included in the introduction as the UK is the only country in the world whose monarch is still monarch of many countries around the world. Also I'd like to add that Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of the United Kingdom and so inherits the crowns of many former parts of the British Empire which have remained as realms to the British monarchy. It's important to note that Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen of the Commonwealth realms and so is also Queen of the United Kingdom (as some parts of Wikipedia have made it look) but is Queen of the United Kingdom and so Queen of the countries in the Commonwealth who have remained as realms to the British crown. Signsolid 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's mentioned at the beginning of the Government and politics section. As the article is about the United Kingdom and not solely or even principally about the Monarch it is not appropriate to mention it in the intro.-- Gazzster 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call.-- Gazzster ( talk) 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone with editing privileges should put the Northern Ireland flag in the infobox under the 'Symbols' section where it lists the patron saints and national flowers of each UK country. Thanks, Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement about the UK wielding "major" or "significant" influence in economic, cultural, military and political spheres is dubious, peacock wording and POV (see Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The only country that can be safely said to have "major" or "significant" influence in these aspects is the USA. That the UK retains "significant" or "major" influence on these aspects is arguable and POV. It is not a fact that can be proved. It is better to let the hard facts (membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) speak for themselves.-- Miyokan ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if you find a source that says the UK is a major power, it is that sources opinion/POV. You say that the article asserts that it has major influence on these things - that is your opinion/POV. Someone else can look at this article and come to the conclusion that the UK's influence is minimal. Do you understand why now Wikipedia encourages to let the hard facts speak for themselves? By the way, I am well aware of the 3RR rule, I don't intend to violate it.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The UK's "power" or "influence" should be demonstrated by hard facts we can point to (the size of the economy, membership of G8, permanent seat on UN security council, etc) rather than peacock terms.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The phrase we are debating here is that the UK has "major or significant cultural, economic, political, military influence", not whether the UK is a major power or not. Saying that the UK has "major" or "significant" influence on economic, political/military/political influence imparts no real information. Show us HOW. From Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it should come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing."-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The UK's nuclear, UN and G8 facts are all quite properly mentioned in the lead section. Whether or not they makes the UK a "major" power is a matter which we should leave readers to judge for themselves.-- Miyokan ( talk) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole whether the UK is a Great power ( Major power redirects to Great power) has already been debated here [13] and on the Germany page [14], with the result that it was removed, and has been removed from every other article that the claim was on (Italy, Russia, Germany all used to say that they are Great powers in the lead) because it was deemed POV. The term is primarily applicable to the powers that existed in the 19th century. Today there is one superpower (with a defense budget of about 10x that of any other country) and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have cited several, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are trying to source a peacock term. Furthermore, WP:V is not satisfied because none of the sources you cited can be said to be reliable sources. British Ministry of Defence calling itself a major power? World Socialist Web Site? An online dictionary definition? A major power (but in world space) from a UK website? Fellow Commonwealth member and ally Australian government website? Ha. If that's the best you can do then it's clear that there is no well-known concensus that the UK is a Great power. Furthermore, none of the sources talk about the concept of Great power, they are a ragtag collection of random snippets where they are discussing some other topic.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that I was not objecting to major power. First I was objecting to the UK's "major/significant" influence on economics, etc etc, then you started talking about the UK being a major power for some reason. "Great power" was not a peacock term in the 19th century, but it is today, where there is one superpower and several middle or regional powers, to whom the application of the term "great power" is at best POV. The collection of dodgy sources you provided attests to that, considering that the UK as a "Great power" it is not widespread in the major news media.-- Miyokan ( talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
How are the commonwealth nations "fully independent"? What kind of sloppy sweeping talk is this? Do they not interact? No trading? No cultural links? No alliance in NATO, UN? Are they not dependant on each other for economic or political reasons? It's a very foolish claim to make, and stick by. Needs addressing. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Droops made an edit that resulted in the following sentence:
Jz undid the whole edit stating only that the sentence violated basic grammar rules. As there was not grammatical issue, I assumed that the issue was either the terminal punctuation being inside the parenthesis or the comma use surrounding "entirely independent". I reverted explaining that both usages were correct. Jz reverted asserting that full stops come after closing parenthesis and that "entirely independent" is inaccurate. As to the first issue, I only have American usage and style guides to go by. Garner's Modern American Usage says that for complete sentences, the closing punctuation goes inside the parenthesis. If predominant UK usage is to the contrary, obviously that should prevail. The second issue is not a "grammatical", style, or usage issue. Removing "entirely independent" should have been done in a separate edit or been brought to the talk page. - Rrius ( talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)