![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The use of the name of Great Britain outside the country is very spread, like Grossbrittanien Grande-Bretagne Groot-Brittannië Storbritannien rather than United Kingdom because the expression united kingdom makes no sense, like calling London the town? All present and past kingdoms are united kingdoms even though it is not any more in the official name. Like Sweden abolished the united kingdom approach in the new ground law 1970. This thing makes it for non-British people senseless to say United Kingdom because it leads to confusions, the listener/reader is not certainly understanding the phrase. So in practical language Great Britain and eq translated terms are the common expression, also make it more distingushed from Brittany in France as well.
The last 15 years there has been more common that British people refere themselves to living in the UK rather than Britain and it is definitly something that makes things more clear, and vey domestic like a STockholmer is talking about STockholm in daily talk as the town it is silly to be used officially.
At the same time there has started a huge confusion about America taht fopr most people is one or two continents and Americans people from this or these two continents and english speaking people starts to use it for USA and the population of USA. Like meeting Canadians refusing to accept he is an American, that is real silly. Then cover this with the Spanish expression for the two continents Americas is even making it worse. The sillyness is that is is the same confusion as with the UK, but the difference is how establish it is. For USA there are hardly any alternative but "the USA" but Great Britain is by far a much smoother and established expression for the Kingdom.
I Suggest strongly that "commonly known as ... or Great Britain" should be added at line 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The UK is more commonly called "England" rather than the rather technical "Great Britain". But good luck trying to get Wikipedia editors to acknowledge what is staring everybody in the face. Incidentally, I notice that "UK" is increasingly being used as an adjective, eg. UK soldier, UK hospital, UK weather, UK parliament, UK government etc etc etc. This would have been utterly incomprehensible to most citizens of the UK even as recently as 50 years ago, when the natural adjective would have been "English" or "British". There is no doubt that language is changing, and quite rapidly. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The most odd thing about moste Englsih/Bristih histroy writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement, why not the other way?
The time as Roman province England and Wales was indeed a part, provinces of the Roman empire. But certainly it was not hords of italians running around in Britain being it. Rather all research points at the fact it was the prevoius local population that was romanised or worked within the Roman sociaty as Romans. They hardly occupied themselves? During 400 years of Romans the celtic languages were in fact still existing, that is something completely different in comaparnce with Ireland or Wales in the Noraman era. The Noramans were really occupying Britain more than any other.
However the Saxons came and clensed the country from celts in a completely different way than the Roman empire. In fact Briatian becaim Anglish during these years.
I would say that these very politically flavoured expressions of British history are unfit. The expressions shows that no follower of political power refere its regin to the Roman era, and so it should be described as black as possible in contrast to their own. In fact after the Roman collapse during the 5th century half the British population vanished and most likly because the souciaty cound not feed them and domestic wars. People died in masses and emigrated most likly to todays France where the sociaty and its facilities were more intact. During this century of disaster the collapse of a smooth working advanced sociaty things like Arthur and Tristan and Isolde emmerge, the most romantic events in British tailes covering the disaster from history records. Political propaganda in the past was really very advanced, much more than one first believes. Many of the features of the roman era Bitish sociaty hasent been seen in Britain until the mid 20th century. The Roman sociaty was not a democracy and not an equal sociaty form, but very few others has been since. I suggest the expresssion "Roman provinces" should be used instead of Roman occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Etymology and terminology section says, "Great Britain...particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom." This is not supported by the two cited sources. The Guardian and Observer style guide says, "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The opposite of the statement it is supposed to support! It then goes on to advise the writer "not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England", which is not of course, the same as using it for the United Kingdom. The BBC style guide says, "Britain remains, just about, an acceptable substitute for the United Kingdom in some contexts", and then says, like the Guardian, that it should not be used for England or England and Wales. Ironically, considering the sentence I quoted from the article, it also deprecates the use of "UK". That sentence needs to be changed to reflect actual usage as shown by the cited sources. Scolaire ( talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
United Kingdom: a country of western Europe consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; population 61,113,200 (est. 2009); capital, London. Full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Britain: the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain, United Kingdom
Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Usage: Great Britain is the name for the island that comprises England, Scotland, and Wales, although the term is also used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland. The British Isles is a geographical term that refers to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands such as the Hebrides and the Channel Islands
In response to David Biddulph and JonChapple, you're right, I was conflating Britain and Great Britain. But I would suggest that is the fault of the article, not my ignorance. To say that it is "often referred to as Britain", and then go into a rigmarole about Great Britain, gives the impression that it is the same term that is under discussion. A reader who is familiar with both terms will not register the change from one to the other unless it is signalled in advance. At any rate, the sentence is still not strictly in accordance with the cited sources: both sources give lists of "do's" and "don'ts" e.g. don't use Britain for England, but neither explicitly states that Great Britain for the United Kingdom is "not favoured". A more proper way of saying it would be:
Scolaire ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." — direct.gov.uk
A small thing, but curious. Why were all the access dates in an article on the United Kingdom changed from British to American format, here? Scolaire ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is very little mention of the Glorious revolution on this article. The revolution of 1688 is much more important then the act of union. it should actually be considered the most defining event in British history, because it established England as a major power and as a financial power-house, it saw the beggining of Britain's policy of intervention on the European continent against aggressive powers, which was the beggining of Britain as a global power Voucherman ( talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It deserves more mention on this article because it is the truly major turning point in British history, from political-religious chaos to stability and global power Voucherman ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
History section - Since the Acts of Union of 1707-
"After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " , Yes France has lost the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) but never lost the Revolutionary wars (1792-1802). This is a serious mistake because without victory during the Revolutionary Wars, modern France would not exist! The evidence, when you click on the link -French Revolutionary Wars- it says: Result = French Republican victory, survival of the French Republic, Republics established several French customer. So there is a contradiction between the article on the UK and article on the French Revolutionary Wars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano75 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.
Three times now, User talk:MrRhythm has changed the ranking of the GDP of the UK in the infobox without providing a source for the change and without also changing the corresponding information in the lead paragraph, leading to contradictory information. I have invited him here to discuss these changes. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
MrRhythm, the sources used for the current UK rankings of 6th (for nominal GDP) and 7th (for GDP PPP) are given in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) articles, respectively. The sources are the World Bank, the IMF, and the CIA World Factbook. The values of 6th and 7th in the infobox that you have been changing are linked to those articles, so when you change the values to 7th and 8th in this article's infobox based on your claims regarding the 2011 British census, you are introducing information that conflicts with those sources and those articles.
You might well be right and the rankings might well have changed, but you need to provide your references (for instance, links to the 2011 British census data that back up your assertions), and you need to make your edits so that they don't conflict with information give elsewhere in the article (such as the lead paragraph of this article, which also contains the values of 6th and 7th) or across the encyclopedia (as in the two lists given above). NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 17:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
In the section Climate, "more so" is misspelt "moreso". 213.122.46.85 ( talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article can easily appear on the main page of Wikipedia by making it a featured article. Can someone please take the initiative. 77.79.7.191 ( talk) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A change I introduced a while back was subject to RV due "no discussion". Therefore, I'll open the discussion here. My proposal is to replace the single CoA of the UK with an image displaying both versions of the UK CoA currently in use. The version used in Scotland does not appear in that article's infobox because Scotland, since 1707, no longer has a CoA; rather it has a separate version of the UK CoA. Article 14 of the 1707 Acts of Union state:
“ | XXIV That, from and after the Union, there be one Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either kingdom; and that the quartering the arms and the rank and precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the kingdom of Scotland, as may best suit the Union, be left to her Majesty; anti that, in the meantime, the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for sealing writs to elect and summon the Parliament of Great Britain, and for sealing all treaties with foreign princes and states, and all public acts, instruments, and orders of state which concern the whole United Kingdom, and in all other matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used; and that a seal in Scotland, after the Union, be always kept, and made use of in all things relating to private rights or grants, which have usually passed. | ” |
— Acts of Union. |
Given that the version of the UK CoA used in Scotland is a CoA of the UK and not the CoA of Scotland, and that a single image exists which displays both that version used in Scotland and elsewhere, the image showing both versions should appear in the info-box as both are a Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. For / Against / Comments below.
Alternatively, a [Note] be added to the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom link beneath the single CoA image, stating that a form of arms specifically for use in Scotland exists which differs from that form displayed in the infobox. Endrick Shellycoat 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Help! Have tried various combinations to get a [Note] to feature but no joy. Any experts wish to have a go? Endrick Shellycoat 19:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted a users GAN of this page as this page is not at all up to GA standards. The user has not edited for long, so it was a gf if naive nomination. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 12:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding New Zealand under the cultural subtitle. I would add nothing but the two words if the article was not locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.105.221 ( talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Healthcare is not 'free at the point of need' if you need prescription medicine, dental care or eyecare in England. 82.46.109.233 ( talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose the template in the Demography section be changed to the below one because it gives a better idea of where the most urbanized parts of the UK are.
Rank | Urban area | Pop. | Principal settlement | Rank | Urban area | Pop. | Principal settlement | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greater London | 9,787,426 | London | 11 | Bristol | 617,280 | Bristol | ||
2 | Greater Manchester | 2,553,379 | Manchester | 12 | Edinburgh | 512,150 | Edinburgh | ||
3 | West Midlands | 2,440,986 | Birmingham | 13 | Leicester | 508,916 | Leicester | ||
4 | West Yorkshire | 1,777,934 | Leeds | 14 | Belfast | 483,418 | Belfast | ||
5 | Greater Glasgow | 985,290 | Glasgow | 15 | Brighton & Hove | 474,485 | Brighton | ||
6 | Liverpool | 864,122 | Liverpool | 16 | South East Dorset | 466,266 | Bournemouth | ||
7 | South Hampshire | 855,569 | Southampton | 17 | Cardiff | 390,214 | Cardiff | ||
8 | Tyneside | 774,891 | Newcastle upon Tyne | 18 | Teesside | 376,633 | Middlesbrough | ||
9 | Nottingham | 729,977 | Nottingham | 19 | Stoke-on-Trent | 372,775 | Stoke-on-Trent | ||
10 | Sheffield | 685,368 | Sheffield | 20 | Coventry | 359,262 | Coventry |
Eopsid ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
A question about where the figures have come from: it does say '2001 Census' but yet the figure given for Greater Glasgow is different from the figure from the Greater Glasgow article which is also from 2001 Census. Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No one has expressed opposition to this change so i will go ahead with it. Eopsid ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The article on Germany has clear figures that stick to GDP, in this article's economic overview section we go from percentages, to fractions (how can readers easily compare with these figures, this just bogs down easy comparison and good reading comprehension) Then we go from fractions to GVA instead of GDP which is, according to the article:
This has the effect of fixing the creative market figures to look better than they are. 6% GVA is irrelevant when considered in terms of GDP and looking for an overview.-- Manboobies ( talk) 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Re the below: In fact, Cornish was extinct from the late seventh through late twentieth centuries, but it has been revived and is once again a living language. Although the terms "endangered" and "extinct" are used in a linguistic context, languages that are recorded do not become extinct in the way that species become extinct. An extinct species cannot be revived; but a language that has been sufficiently recorded, in print or/and audio format, can. It won't be the same language that it used to be, but that is true of any language. Even Latin undergoes minor changes through its continued use by a small group of enthusiasts in the "computatora" age. 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your article incorrectly states Cornish is a current language of the United Kingdom. Cornish died out over a century ago. If you are going to include Cornish, then you must also include Manx.
89.72.8.24 ( talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Since 2002, Cornish has been recognised as a minority language by the UK government, under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
I've reverted again, as I have found no reliable sources saying Y Gododdin was composed in what is now lowland Scotland; they state the language, Old Welsh, rather than the location. We don't know if it were composed in the lands of the Gododdin, Rheged, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, Elmet or somewhere else. Even if they did, parts of the lands of the Gododdin, Strathclyde, and Rheged, and all of Elmet, are in what is now England. If we are to state the location of it's composition, the only safe location to state would be Yr Hen Ogledd; even that is WP:SYN. Best just to state “ Old Welsh” (language) per sources. Can we agree something here, rather than using edit summaries? Daicaregos ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states the United Kingdom is a unitary state, which is not really true. "Semi-federal" would be a better description because the country displays characteristics of both unitary and federal states.
In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom, just as it was not the case in the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Under the terms of the Acts of Union of 1707, Scotland continued - and continues - to maintain its own systems of law, education and a few other things separately from the rest of the country. Even with the new British Supreme Court, criminal cases cannot be appealed beyond Scotland (though civil cases can) because the terms of 1707 Acts (which are constitutional acts) have not been changed to accommodate the Supreme Court's creation. I speak of sovereign powers retained by Scotland as a "sister province" (or "sister state"), which has been in perpetual quasi-confederation with England since 1707, not of the additional devolved powers settled upon Scotland with the recent creation of the Parliament of Scotland/Parlamaid na h-Alba. If the British Parliament permanently dissolved the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Scotland would still retain exclusive jurisdiction over her own systems of law, education, and other matters reserved to her under the Acts of Union of 1707.
But while the UK does not behave like a true unitary state, it also does not behave like a true federal state. In true federalism, such as what one sees in Australia, Canada and the United States, there is a sovereign federal state that is coextensive with the sovereign unitary states which constitute it by their perpetual confederation. Both the federal state and the constituent unitary states (called "provinces" in Canada) are sovereign entities - thus, federal nationas are express the principle of 'dual' or 'parallel' sovereignty - with the actual exercise of sovereignty divided between the two entity forms, often with one of the entities actually or effectively designated a basic unit of government for residual purposes. In the United States, this unit is the individual state - that is, per US Const., Amend. X, all powers that are not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution are reserved to the states. In Canada, the Canadian Constitution effectively provides the opposite, so that those powers not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the provincial states are reserved to the federal state.
The United Kingdom operates between the two concepts - sometimes as a federal state, as with the legal system, in which England and Wales are one judicial province; Scotland another; and Northern Ireland a third. Thus, when Parliament decriminalised male homosexuality in 1967, only England and Wales were affected. Male homosexuality remained illegal in Scotland until a separate act of parliament was passed and took effect in 1980; and it was not until 1982 that a third act of parliament legalised male homosexuality in Northern Ireland. And sometimes the United Kingdom behaves like a unitary state.
So, I would say the most accurate description of the United Kingdom is neither "unitary state" nor "federal state" but "semi-federal state". 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I may have my terms mixed up. I was trying to find a word to describe England, Scotland, Wales and N.I. I believe the argument here is whether these "territories" constitute what is commonly known as countries. If it is true that England, Scotland and Wales are "well established" as countries, then why do so many atlases and almanacs not list them as such? Why do they not have their own representitives at the UN? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that there needs to be some explanation for these discrepencies. Hellbound Hound ( talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Following Missionary's edit which changed the nominal GDP ranking for the United Kingdom from sixth to seventh based on preliminary figures from the IMF for 2011 I must reaffirm the consensus for GDP figures on Wikipedia has always been that they are derived from the last publication of such figures from the IMF, World Bank and CIA. The last publication of these figures by the IMF, World Bank and CIA were for 2010 and these figures, and any rankings, should be updated as and when the IMF, World Bank and CIA publish their figures for 2011. They should not be based upon speculative figures as this would make the article a crystall ball on the matter. Quite vivid blur ( talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This should be updated as it is (rather for a while) outdated, e.g. source. Suggested edit: "London, one of the biggest financial marketplaces in the world. (maybe: second only to Hong Kong)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 ( talk) 12:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 ( talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be good if you added Duran Duran to the music section as they are a well known successful British band with over 100 million record sales and known worldwide also.
96.19.208.165 ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
Abhishek
Talk
12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)There is an error under 5.1: Science and Technology.
"Between 2004 and 2008 the UK produced 7% of the world's scientific research papers and had an 8% share of scientific citations, the third and second highest in the world (after the United States and China, and the United States, respectively)."
The Shadow 277 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops! Noob Move. I saw the double "United States" in the brackets, and immediately thought was an error. I really should pay more attention. Oh well. I'm still geting used to wikipedia. The Shadow 277 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
UK is a Christian country. This should be worked into the article? [1] 117.198.57.111 ( talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My addition of the word 'significant' to the start of the sentence 'British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' at the end of the second paragraph of the lead been reverted by Chipmunkdavis.
Although I can conceive of valid reasons for such a reversion, 'Word doesn't add any information' is not an acceptable or coherent one.
My reason for the addition is two-fold. Firstly it is factually correct and both highly relevant and of likely interest to readers. Secondly, many countries/polities/peoples can be validly said to have had an influence on the 'language, culture and legal systems' of many of the former territories of the British Empire, not least the Romans, Greeks, French and Germans. The addition of the word 'significant' is needed to clarify why this is a relevant and lead-worthy sentence in this article. Rangoon11 ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this change of Snowded's on 31 Jan to a long-running piece of text. [2] This edit deleted the sentences (in relation to the House of Commons) It is the ultimate legislative authority in the United Kingdom since the devolved parliament in Scotland as well as the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales are not sovereign bodies and could, theoretically, be abolished by the UK parliament. citation needed But not without a referendum (public vote) from the citizens of the country. For example, if the UK government wanted to abolish the National Assembly for Wales then it would need to hold a referendum with the people who live in Wales.
I am interested to know the facts on these and so have started to do some prelim. work on researching them but would be grateful for help. Is it the case that the UK Parliament could theoretically end the devolved governments? I assume the answer must be yes but can't easily see sourcing on that, can anyone be of assistance? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution requiring a referendum to alter it and constitutional matters are not among the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Parliament at Westminster could, in theory, dissolve the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly through legislation. In practice, the political circumstances in which it would do so, and the consequences for the internal relations of the United Kingdom, are unclear.
Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under that agreement, the United Kingdom guaranteed the Irish government involvement in the decision-making around matters affecting Northern Ireland that were not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. These include constitutional matters. Consequently, a decision to prorogue or dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly would require the involvement of the Government of Ireland.
The article would probably be better off without penultimate paragraph of the section. In theory parliament could enact legislation requiring that the sun rises at 6 every morning. It is only what they can do in practice that has any meaning and they always subject to outside forces such as the laws of nature, constitutional principles and ultimately the will of the people. The vexed question of how, and if, they could go about reversing devolution is largely speculative and cannot be adequately covered in a single paragraph.
The paragraph on the Northern Ireland situation as it stands overstates the position. The Good Friday Agreement cannot guarantee anything. Again it would be speculation as to what would happen if either country decided to unilaterally violate the agreement. As (to the best of my knowledge) there has never challenge to government actions brought on the basis of international law in the British courts you cannot guarantee (or even be confident) that one would be successful. "The agreement requires that..." would probably be a better way of putting it. Eckerslike ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The following may be of interest [N. Burrows, "Unfinished Business: The Scotland Act 1998", The Modern Law Review, vol. 62, issue 2, (March 1999), p 249]:
“ | The UK Parliament is sovereign and the Scottish Parliament is subordinate. The White Paper had indicated that this was to be the approach taken in the legislation. The Scottish Parliament is not to be seen as a reflection of the settled will of the people of Scotland or of popular sovereignty but as a reflection of its subordination to a higher legal authority. Following the logic of this argument, the power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate can be withdrawn or overridden... | ” |
Also, [M. Elliot, "United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure", International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 2, issue 3, (2004), pp 553-554]:
“ | Notwithstanding substantial differences among the schemes, an important common factor is that the U.K. Parliament has not renounced legislative sovereignty in relation to the three nations concerned. For example, the Scottish Parliament is empowered to enact primary legislation on all matters, save those in relation to which competence is explicitly denied ... but this power to legislate on what may be termed "devolved matters" is concurrent with the Westminster Parliament's general power to legislate for Scotland on any matter at all, including devolved matters ... In theory, therefore, Westminster may legislate on Scottish devolved matters whenever it chooses... | ” |
ISTB351 ( talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In recent edits by RA ( talk), that user has attempted to use the Good Friday Agreement and an Act of the Oireachtas to support the text "Decisions to temporarily suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly have involved agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. They were affected through acts of Parliament at Westminster and necessitated corresponding legislative changes in the Republic of Ireland" and "Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under those agreements, the participation of members of the Northern Ireland Executive in the North/South Ministerial Council, and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a number of devolved policy areas, are prerequisites of devolution in Northern Ireland. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was also established under the agreements, whereby "the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals" on non-devolved matters with respect to Northern Ireland. However, the United Kingdom government remains sovereign over Northern Ireland unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to form a united Ireland."
I was not too impressed when i read: "The monarch itself is symbolic rather than political, and only has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"."
"only has"? .. no; David Cameron said not so long ago that people who refer to the Monarchy as "symbolic" underestimate the constitution. e.g source
The British Constitution, especially around the Monarchy is a paradox. Yes, it's true that there are very few documents within the constitution that referrer to the monarchy: the same can be said about the Prime Minister who isn't even mentioned in it.
The Crown, or "Monarchy" as it is said by the UK Parliament, is fused to all 3 branches of Government:
The Executive
The Judiciary
The Legislature
The monarch is, in practice, largely symbolic but has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". The most obvious consequence of these rights is a weekly meeting between the prime minister and the monarch.
I have read the book. I did not object to the phrase, but the use of the word "only", and I did not say anything about refusing assent to bills, simply that they need assent to become law. I emphasized the functions of the monarchy to back up my case about the word "only". I have noticed that the websites of the UK Parliament, British Monarchy and Direct.gov prefer the word ceremonial to symbolic - as ceremonial means relating to formal events, symbolic means only to serve as a symbol. I think "The monarchy is broadly ceremonial, but the monarch has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." sounds appropriate. Geord0 ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've taken out a few words, to leave the sentence reading: The monarch has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". That avoids any arguments as to whether the monarchy (or the monarch) is primarily symbolic, ceremonial, etc. - it simply uses Bagehot's words. I'm not wedded to that particular form of words, but it seems to me to be an improvement on the words that were there before. Happy to continue the discussion - which seemed to have died otherwise. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "The United Kingdom was one of the three main Allies of World War II." has a "citation needed" tag. Seriously? Seriously!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add to sport; Horse Racing, Cheltenham National Hunt Festival ,Cheltenham Gold Cup
Flossieg (
talk)
03:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke has made a couple of recent edits to the article's Religion section. Effectively, the changes have made the Church of England and the Church of Scotland out to be state religions. I will leave comment on the status of the Church of England to someone with more knowledge of the issue (grey area with the Queen as head of the church?) - but the Church of Scotland is a national church not state church ... this was made clear in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and is described in the Church of Scotland article. I don't have access to the source provided ( Oxford companion to family and local history) but no page number is provided in any event, and it seems like an unlikely source for this kind of information. Connolly15 ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RA. Also the Church of Ireland was always the Established Church of Ireland even when part of the UK until its Destablishment. It was regarded as the state church. So i agree with RA when he says they mean the same thing anyways. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The Church of Scotland is a National Church but not a State Church.. In fact it fought for over 300 years to get the UK government to stop treating it as a state church. That is the major reason for all the 18th/19th century schisms which are documented in our C of S article. In the 1920s it finally managed to get Parliament to admit defeat and since then it has been as independent of HMG as any UK organisation can expect to be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor insists on reverting my addition of Sugababes to the listing of British artists who had international success. The group is notable in said case because:
I mean if we were talking about Girls Aloud then fair enough, they are virtually non-existent outside of UK and Ireland. But Sugababes are a credible and notable act outside of the UK and so they should also be listed. Till I Go Home ( talk) 14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been correcting things lately on many pages which include 'England' in. Can I point out that England is not a sovereign state and in location details on many articles it says 'England', not 'United Kingdom'. Also, instead of 'British', it says 'English', and it's same for Welsh, Scottish, and Irish too. Someone explain what to do because every time I correct it to 'United Kingdom', an administrator changes it back. Thanks. Josh Robinson 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 ( talk • contribs)
There are united Kingdoms all over the world, most Kingdoms are. Using United kingdom is like calling London The town, is logical for Londoners but not for others. Great Britain should be used if not wanting to type the full name, or United kingdom of Great Britian. Some argue that there are more than the ile of Great Britian in the kingdom, but so it is in most states. Swabia is a part of the state Bavaria for instance. Internationally this Country is refered to Great Britain and just United kingdom makes no sense, united kingdom of what? What is decided in the British parliament makes no difference in the shorter forms, for people outside the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 ( talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You are completely mistaken to say that "United Kingdom" is a usage recognised only within the UK itself. "United Kingdom" is a long-standing, internationally recognised short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", just as "United States" is a recognised short form for "United States of America". The title of this page should certainly not be "Great Britain", which is a purely geographical entity, not a political one, and which includes only part of the United Kingdom. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It comes into this discussion because, if "Great Britain" is defined in purely geographical terms and is taken to include South Uist, then it has to include the Isle of Man too. I'm not aware of any purely geographical criteria that would include the former and exclude the latter. If Great Britain is taken to include South Uist, and not Man, then the definition of Great Britain is not purely geographical and is at least partly political. garik ( talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think Garik is right. When I said GB was "a geographical entity, not a political one", I meant that there is now no functioning political entity called GB. But of course there was between 1707 and 1800, and the definition of that 1707-1800 political entity (i.e. with Shetland and S. Uist, etc., but without the Isle of Man) continues to apply albeit now only in a geographical sense. I now see that I was wrong to imply that GB could be defined in purely geographical terms without reference to the political history. Sorry for sloppy thinking. -- Alarics ( talk) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost in every article I've read about member countries of the European Union, this fact is reflected more explicitly. I think it should be made clear in the introduction of the article, the fact that UK belongs to EU. I would begin the article, at least, with something alluding to the European Union, like this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[nb 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state, member of the European Union, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe."
I hope you'll take this into account when the article is edited, because although European countries now enjoy of certain sovereignty, it is undeniable that the fiscal union of state members in the EU last years, has been crucial to the development and future of Europe. And the fact that UK doesn't belong to the euro area, doesn't mean that it isn't a voluntary and important member of the Council of the European Union. Zathrian12 ( talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
For me the current wording is fine. Importance is not established by position in the lead. The lead has a structure based upon paragraphs with themes, as it should, and whether something is in the first or third paragraph should not be read as an indication of importance, purely of topic. The point about fiscal union above I don't understand, the UK is not part of the single currency, and even the single currency area does not presently have a fiscal union. Membership of the EU does have certain constitutional implications, although the UK can leave the EU at any time. Membership of NATO is arguably of more fundamental significant, with very profound security implications - an attack on one is an attack on all. This could well mean the UK is engaged in anything upto a full scale nuclear war without having been directly attacked. Furthermore, for the great majority of the UK's history it has not been a member of the EC/EU, whilst the article covers the whole of the UK's history. In my view shoe-horning a reference to membership of the EU into the first paragraph would be messy and undue. Rangoon11 ( talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking in general Terms, Is it as relevant being a member of the NATO or the United Nations Security Council, for the UK, as being a European Union member? Really?
Let me remind you that UK was one of the twelve founding members of the European Union. The development, politics and history of UK (specially the last decade) is closely related to the European Union and its participation, and not even to talk about the economics, for better or worse...
It is not my intention to overestimate the presence of the EU, but is it so difficult just to mention the name (European Union) at the beginning of the article? It's not just me; I heard some comments about it.
I'm not saying that it has to be an explanation about the situation of the UK in the EU in the introduction, but it should be mentioned at the beginning at least, as a EU country member, making this fact more explicit, and emphasizing it from the beginning to give a more simple general view of the UK in this article. It is my humble opinion, thinking for example, of a student looking for a general summary about this topic.
Here, I leave two links of a UK government website, specifically The Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/europe-approach/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/eu-act/
It is mentioned a little about the UK's role in the EU. Of course there are legal documents in support of this, but I consider pointless to extend such a simple subject. Zathrian12 ( talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That rendition of God Save the Queen by the US Navy Band is awful. It's too slow and has the wrong ending to it. The one played on BBC Radio 4 at 12:58am is by far the best and most correct sounding one, and it would be nice to have that on the page instead. A much nicer representation of the anthem. I have it in an ogg file. How do I put it on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbetdip ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are too many {{ in this article, due to a markup mistake in one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.223.136 ( talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article only have a few paragraphs on overseas territories whilst the France article has more info about them like geography etc. When I visit the UK only a few know about them but those who do only 2 territories Gibraltar and Falklands but don't know about the others at all. Ironic cause us Americans go there on holiday. If you put more info in about them maybe people in UK and around the world can find out more about them. It could help more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
The article was protected in the incorrect state. The state was created by Ubiquinoid
here. It should be restored to before that point. --
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that there was no agreed consensus on this because until it was changed recently it was not disputed. Since it is now a matter of debate lets attempt to establish a local consensus on the implementation here of WP:OVERLINK - which includes a clause to "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." and WP:UNDERLINK - which states point to linking "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". Here are two proposals:
Please comment below:-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There really is nothing firm or sensible supporting the subjective linking of diminutive territories but not major ones per P#2. That is counterintuitive. More so given this archipelago and the various constituent parts, but also others. Countries do not exist in isolation, and to delink those territories and geographic features of direct relevance is rather inane (particularly to novice users, who may not know better), and a disservice to all users. Also note that the article existed -- links and all -- for many more months ( at least 8 ) before being changed with the aforementioned script, without apparent discussion let alone consensus. This requires a wider discussion. Ubiquinoid ( talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The heat generated by this is pretty strange even by WP standards. I suggest all involved remember this is a very minor issue and not very important. DeCausa ( talk) 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I wish everybody would calm down. This is all a quite ridiculous amount of fuss over almost nothing. We are supposed to be grown adults here. Let us try to keep a sense of perspective. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are three constituent parts that must be discussed:
Which, if any should be linked in the lede and which can suffer to be linked later in the article? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Pointless debate here
|
---|
With the information that is given in this page, you will actually find Greater Glasgow is larger than West Yorkshire Urban Area, the population in Greater Glasgow is 1,999,629 and in West Yorkshire it is 1,449,465? 92.22.25.168 ( talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the legend to the Overseas Territories map like this:
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk)
16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "government" section of this page does not list the UK as a democracy. This needs to be corrected as the UK is a parliamentary democracy.
Kutuup ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"Broadly speaking, the British people seem comfortable with the present constitutional arrangement which could accurately be described as a Parliamentary democracy with a monarchical facade rather than a 'constitutional Monarchy' as in the standard textbooks." — F. N. Forman (2002), Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, London: Routledge, p. 202, ISBN 0415230357
"The British system of government is a parliamentary democracy."
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
$2,452.689 trillion Please change $2,452.689 trillion TO $2,452.689 billions 92.26.13.140 ( talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph under the 'Ethnic groups' subsection refers to 'ethnic diversity' by citing official ONS statistics:
Ethnic diversity varies significantly ... 30.4% of London's population and 37.4% of Leicester's was estimated to be non-white as of ... whereas less than 5% of...
Shouldn't this state the percentage of people in London and Leicester who don't identify as 'White: British (Persons)' [3] [4] rather than simply those who don't fall under the broad 'White (Persons)' category?
To say that people from Estonia and Poland don't contribute to ethnic diversity seems absurd to me.
--
Tshloab (
talk)
15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see a brief mention of the Romani (Romany) Gypsies and Irish Travellers populations. People may not care for them but they are an important part of the UK's demographic. Rough combined population of 350,000. Problems with accurately recording population due to fear of discrimination, movement away from traditional lifestyle etc. Their languages are still spoken in small numbers but data is once again difficult to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.245.90 ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably has come up before, but...the devolved administrations represent 16% of the UK's population. In this article, the UK Government section is 6kb and the devolved administrations section is 11kb. The two sections seem grossly out of proportion to their relative importance. DeCausa ( talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I was taking a look over just the Scottish and Welsh paragraphs, and after cutting all the details of previous elections and previous powers, we're left with quite short paragraphs:
Both these have all the information about devolved powers and current administrations that the current article has. Perhaps instead of simply saying Wales has more limited powers we shoudl describe its powers, but as it stands I don't think any of the information I cut out is needed at all. CMD ( talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Since we have no movement on this I have produced a version based on the idea of cutting out some of the detail of past situations and elections for which there seemed to be some support. This paragraph would replace the existing middle three paragraphs:
I notice that we have two sets of references to aerospace and automotive industries: one under the general Economy section and one under Science and technology. I suggest we combine these in the later section. I am also not sure why the opening section here is in the current order. I also suggest moving the bit on recession to near the bottom of the section as it is time limited (I hope). I would also welcome views on whether we need the historical bit here, or whether it belongs in the history section.-- SabreBD ( talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain is a widely used common name for the UK. It is, for example, the name of the UK Olympic team. In my view this should be be added to the opening, which I propose be changed to "(commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain)". I know that Great Britain is also the name of the largest island of the nation, but this is does not change the fact that the name is also commonly used in this context. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
A name does not to be a scientifically correct description of the subject however. For example "America" as used as a name for the United States, or "Russia" as used as a name for the Soviet Union. Even proper names are often not scientifically correct, for example The Carphone Warehouse is hardly an accurate description of the subject. In this case the question is whether "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK. In my view it is, particularly in the US and Germany. If cites were provided demonstrating this would it affect editors' stance? Rangoon11 ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
One other issue in the intro - the use of double brackets to embed "UK" - is this right? It might be better to replace
with
Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the above discussion is forgetting that the following is already in the article with two decent sources: "However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom". The question is should the lead reflect this? I think yes, and propose adding "and "Great Britain" (often considered incorrect, but common in North America)". And dispense with the brackets per James. DeCausa ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Actually only one source (correctly cited). MOS:LEADALT says: “Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." "Great Britain" is noted the Etymology section already. The relevant section says: "The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales. However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom." This single sentence, referring to GB use in the entire article, cannot be sufficiently notable to require inclusion in the lead. Further, any proposal to alter this important article along these lines, must cite relevant MOS guidelines and reliable sources. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I oppose using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the UK because it is incorrect. Please link to current WP policy and/or MOS that would allow an incorrect name to be included in the lead – no more OR, please. The link provided shows using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the sovereign state a long time ago, current usage seems to relate to sports. It isn't just the UK government that deprecates using “Great Britain" in this way. The BBC style guide begins its Great Britain entry: "Great Britain comprises England, Scotland, and Wales. It is a geographical term; … ". The Guardian and Observer style guide says "UK or Britain in copy and headlines for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but note Great Britain comprises just England, Scotland and Wales)". And regarding American use: here is the NSA style manual. It says, under UK, "Use the abbreviation for the United Kingdom either as a noun or adjective … In most cases use British for the adjective rather than UK". Daicaregos ( talk) 11:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Just realised that we now only have two alternates following the removal of the surplus brackets - "Britain" and "United Kingdom (UK)" - the latter being the same thing in reality. Even with Dai's proposal that we exactly follow the guideline, there is room for one more. I propose we have:
I can't recall our ever meeting... — JonC ॐ 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, Britain doesn't. If consensus dictates it must be in the lead, not the more appropriate "terminology" section, then I'll accept that, but it must be made clear it's erroneous. — Jon C. ॐ 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)My mistake. Still, "Britain" doesn't always (or even most of the time) refer to the island anymore. — Jon C. ॐ 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I just had a look in my Oxford English Dictionary. It states as follows: "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.". Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to find sources to say what something in not. Banana is not the correct name for a giraffe; but try finding a source to confirm that. What is not in dispute is that “Great Britain” is the name of an island in the northeast Atlantic, comprising only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Self evidently it is not analogous to the whole of the UK, which means that using “Great Britain” as an alternative name for the entire UK is incorrect. As James says, this discussion is about how we say that. My view is that the subject is already being handled correctly as an alternative name and in accordance with the relevant MOS guideline i.e. MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos ( talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with this discussion is that there is a three way argument going on - and it makes the discussion quite opaque and highly unlikely to reach a coinclusion in that format. One set of editors thinks "Great Britain" is just wrong and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. One set, although thinking it's incorrect, thinks it could be mentioned in the lead with an explanation that it is incorrect. One set thinks it should be mentioned and the "incorrect"/"correct" distinction is irrelevant (although within that there may or may not be an additional explanation of the extent of the usage. Would it simplify this thread if we simply establish whether there is a consensus to mention GB in the lead at all, and then subsequently work out how it should be described (if there is a consensus on that)? DeCausa ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You are tilting at windows. To varying degrees they qualify as common names. However they are not accurate or correct names and that has to be noted. ---- Snowded TALK 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The beginning of the previous thread suggested we all note our preferences. Going back over this discussion I've noted which editors are in favour of changing the lead and which editors are in favour of the existing wording. Please change your entry if I've misunderstood your preference, or note your preference as applicable:
Daicaregos ( talk)
As noted by DeCausa above, there is no consensus to change the lead to include Great Britain as an alternative name. Unless any new argument is introduced, re-stating previously made argument is pointless; still less, shouting at at everyone. This discussion should be put out of its misery, and closed. Daicaregos ( talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This is what I posted earlier: Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa ( talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, what I said has come to pass. This is only going to get more rancorous. There isn't, IMO, consensus for change. I think those who feel strongly about changing it should open an RfC. But otherwise this discussion will only continue to go down hill without resolution. DeCausa ( talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
We need to be sure people aren't just pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this. RFCs rarely seem to end conclusively or with lots of new editors. The usual eyes on this page are seeing this discussion. Clearly many are bored of these points (as I feel most of the time) because of the gaming, but I persist because there is some hope that we might end up with something approaching objectivity. I suggest we instead compare sources for the two contentions - contention (1) that it's very, very common and should be included and contention (2) that it isn't - the former appears to be pretty widely agreed with, but there are still some naysayers - and then it's just a matter of comparing a few alternative phrasings. We are actually nearly there and don't really need an RFC other than if this is repeatedly claimed to be "too contentious", a position we should ignore. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
But that isn't a useful proposal - I'm sorry, but you appear to be suggesting basically no change, as GB is already prominent in sentence 2 and this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions. That leaves the problem that despite GB being a very, very common alternate for UK, we won't say so - which is wrong. I propose we discuss the following change to the first sentence (refs only deleted here for copying brevity):
Something like this in sentence one is really where we need to get to. Definition happens in sentence two anyway, so the moderately intelligent reader sees what this is about. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I spend the day on the South Downs Way and this is still going on with the same misunderstandings. Great Britain is a common name, lets list it, but lets also make it clear that its an error as it excludes Northern Ireland. That way we respect multiple sources, and at the same time the truth. ---- Snowded TALK 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because that would imply that "Britain" and "Great Britain" are interchangeable terms. That is emphatically not the case. "Britain" means the UK as a whole, not as pars pro toto but in all educated usage. Northern Ireland is part of Britain. It is not part of Great Britain. -- Alarics ( talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The DirectGov list of definitions under the heading "UK or Britain"? that Jamesinderbyshire has cited above is exactly correct, and that is what we should say in the lead. -- Alarics ( talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets just go with The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. per the original Ghymrtle proposal and per MOS and per other guidelines about avoiding confusion. It acknowledges that GB is a common name, but educates the reader that it is not a proper short form. Failing that lets just leave it as it is. If someone wants to make this into a poll to test the water fine. Otherwise I can't see any progress being made above. ---- Snowded TALK 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
But "Britain" most emphatically **_DOES NOT_** exclude Northern Ireland. It is only "Great Britain" that, strictly speaking, DOES exclude Northern Ireland, though less strictly speaking, or "loosely" speaking, some people use GB to mean the whole state. I put forward the "loosely" proposal which falls short of what I think would be most ideal (because, while some editors agree with me as to what would be most ideal, other editors disagree), in a spirit of constructive compromise so that we could make progress. Now Snowded, who I thought agreed with me in the first place, doesn't accept my compromise proposal, while DeCausa, with whom I disagreed, does! It's a good job I am such a patient and even-tempered chap, or I would be losing my cool by now. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The Central Office of Information, a government agency, used to publish every year (not sure if it still does) "Britain: An Official Handbook" which covers the whole UK. Here is an extract from page 1 of the 1975 edition:
-- Alarics ( talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What was wrong with "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands."? This would be a step forward on the current text, although "often" would in my view be more accurate per the Oxford English Dictionary and the surfeit of sources available. We don't require unanimity here, just a consensus. Rangoon11 ( talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. was supported at one time or another by myself, N-HH, Rangoon11, Alarics, & Ghmyrtle but opposed by Snowded. I think this is the best opportunity of resolving this. Let's leave it open for others who haven't commented to do so & see if that remains the balance of opinion DeCausa ( talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The alternative (given a lack of willingness to work out a compromise) is to go with Ghmyrtle's original proposal, namely The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. ---- Snowded TALK 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK well if you would like to spell out the 3 or 4 proposals that are "on the table" and give them numbers, we can all rate them in order of preference, as Snowded and I have done just above. -- Alarics ( talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a table like this. Maybe it would help the ill-feeling and improve the article? With a link near to the article top?
Etymology and terminology: Summary
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: is the full name for the UK. Its name reflects the union of the island of Great Britain with Northern Ireland.
United Kingdom and UK: is a standard name and abbreviation for the UK.
GB and GBR: are the ISO 3166 codes for the UK, used by e.g. the International Olympic Committee (IOC), UK passports, and the UK licence plate country code.[1] GB is occasionally used as an abbreviation for the island of Great Britain [4]
Britain: is an name for the UK, which is also used for the island of Great Britain, so it is ambiguous.[2]
Great Britain: is name for the UK, whose use is discouraged as it can easily be confused with the island of Great Britain.[3]
[1] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Olympic_Committees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain
[3] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Davis_Cup_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team
[4] See e.g. http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/page-how-can-i-become-a-gb-boxer.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
superficy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The use of the name of Great Britain outside the country is very spread, like Grossbrittanien Grande-Bretagne Groot-Brittannië Storbritannien rather than United Kingdom because the expression united kingdom makes no sense, like calling London the town? All present and past kingdoms are united kingdoms even though it is not any more in the official name. Like Sweden abolished the united kingdom approach in the new ground law 1970. This thing makes it for non-British people senseless to say United Kingdom because it leads to confusions, the listener/reader is not certainly understanding the phrase. So in practical language Great Britain and eq translated terms are the common expression, also make it more distingushed from Brittany in France as well.
The last 15 years there has been more common that British people refere themselves to living in the UK rather than Britain and it is definitly something that makes things more clear, and vey domestic like a STockholmer is talking about STockholm in daily talk as the town it is silly to be used officially.
At the same time there has started a huge confusion about America taht fopr most people is one or two continents and Americans people from this or these two continents and english speaking people starts to use it for USA and the population of USA. Like meeting Canadians refusing to accept he is an American, that is real silly. Then cover this with the Spanish expression for the two continents Americas is even making it worse. The sillyness is that is is the same confusion as with the UK, but the difference is how establish it is. For USA there are hardly any alternative but "the USA" but Great Britain is by far a much smoother and established expression for the Kingdom.
I Suggest strongly that "commonly known as ... or Great Britain" should be added at line 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The UK is more commonly called "England" rather than the rather technical "Great Britain". But good luck trying to get Wikipedia editors to acknowledge what is staring everybody in the face. Incidentally, I notice that "UK" is increasingly being used as an adjective, eg. UK soldier, UK hospital, UK weather, UK parliament, UK government etc etc etc. This would have been utterly incomprehensible to most citizens of the UK even as recently as 50 years ago, when the natural adjective would have been "English" or "British". There is no doubt that language is changing, and quite rapidly. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The most odd thing about moste Englsih/Bristih histroy writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement, why not the other way?
The time as Roman province England and Wales was indeed a part, provinces of the Roman empire. But certainly it was not hords of italians running around in Britain being it. Rather all research points at the fact it was the prevoius local population that was romanised or worked within the Roman sociaty as Romans. They hardly occupied themselves? During 400 years of Romans the celtic languages were in fact still existing, that is something completely different in comaparnce with Ireland or Wales in the Noraman era. The Noramans were really occupying Britain more than any other.
However the Saxons came and clensed the country from celts in a completely different way than the Roman empire. In fact Briatian becaim Anglish during these years.
I would say that these very politically flavoured expressions of British history are unfit. The expressions shows that no follower of political power refere its regin to the Roman era, and so it should be described as black as possible in contrast to their own. In fact after the Roman collapse during the 5th century half the British population vanished and most likly because the souciaty cound not feed them and domestic wars. People died in masses and emigrated most likly to todays France where the sociaty and its facilities were more intact. During this century of disaster the collapse of a smooth working advanced sociaty things like Arthur and Tristan and Isolde emmerge, the most romantic events in British tailes covering the disaster from history records. Political propaganda in the past was really very advanced, much more than one first believes. Many of the features of the roman era Bitish sociaty hasent been seen in Britain until the mid 20th century. The Roman sociaty was not a democracy and not an equal sociaty form, but very few others has been since. I suggest the expresssion "Roman provinces" should be used instead of Roman occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Etymology and terminology section says, "Great Britain...particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom." This is not supported by the two cited sources. The Guardian and Observer style guide says, "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The opposite of the statement it is supposed to support! It then goes on to advise the writer "not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England", which is not of course, the same as using it for the United Kingdom. The BBC style guide says, "Britain remains, just about, an acceptable substitute for the United Kingdom in some contexts", and then says, like the Guardian, that it should not be used for England or England and Wales. Ironically, considering the sentence I quoted from the article, it also deprecates the use of "UK". That sentence needs to be changed to reflect actual usage as shown by the cited sources. Scolaire ( talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
United Kingdom: a country of western Europe consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; population 61,113,200 (est. 2009); capital, London. Full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Britain: the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain, United Kingdom
Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Usage: Great Britain is the name for the island that comprises England, Scotland, and Wales, although the term is also used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland. The British Isles is a geographical term that refers to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands such as the Hebrides and the Channel Islands
In response to David Biddulph and JonChapple, you're right, I was conflating Britain and Great Britain. But I would suggest that is the fault of the article, not my ignorance. To say that it is "often referred to as Britain", and then go into a rigmarole about Great Britain, gives the impression that it is the same term that is under discussion. A reader who is familiar with both terms will not register the change from one to the other unless it is signalled in advance. At any rate, the sentence is still not strictly in accordance with the cited sources: both sources give lists of "do's" and "don'ts" e.g. don't use Britain for England, but neither explicitly states that Great Britain for the United Kingdom is "not favoured". A more proper way of saying it would be:
Scolaire ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." — direct.gov.uk
A small thing, but curious. Why were all the access dates in an article on the United Kingdom changed from British to American format, here? Scolaire ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is very little mention of the Glorious revolution on this article. The revolution of 1688 is much more important then the act of union. it should actually be considered the most defining event in British history, because it established England as a major power and as a financial power-house, it saw the beggining of Britain's policy of intervention on the European continent against aggressive powers, which was the beggining of Britain as a global power Voucherman ( talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It deserves more mention on this article because it is the truly major turning point in British history, from political-religious chaos to stability and global power Voucherman ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
History section - Since the Acts of Union of 1707-
"After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " , Yes France has lost the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) but never lost the Revolutionary wars (1792-1802). This is a serious mistake because without victory during the Revolutionary Wars, modern France would not exist! The evidence, when you click on the link -French Revolutionary Wars- it says: Result = French Republican victory, survival of the French Republic, Republics established several French customer. So there is a contradiction between the article on the UK and article on the French Revolutionary Wars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano75 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.
Three times now, User talk:MrRhythm has changed the ranking of the GDP of the UK in the infobox without providing a source for the change and without also changing the corresponding information in the lead paragraph, leading to contradictory information. I have invited him here to discuss these changes. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
MrRhythm, the sources used for the current UK rankings of 6th (for nominal GDP) and 7th (for GDP PPP) are given in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) articles, respectively. The sources are the World Bank, the IMF, and the CIA World Factbook. The values of 6th and 7th in the infobox that you have been changing are linked to those articles, so when you change the values to 7th and 8th in this article's infobox based on your claims regarding the 2011 British census, you are introducing information that conflicts with those sources and those articles.
You might well be right and the rankings might well have changed, but you need to provide your references (for instance, links to the 2011 British census data that back up your assertions), and you need to make your edits so that they don't conflict with information give elsewhere in the article (such as the lead paragraph of this article, which also contains the values of 6th and 7th) or across the encyclopedia (as in the two lists given above). NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 17:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
In the section Climate, "more so" is misspelt "moreso". 213.122.46.85 ( talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article can easily appear on the main page of Wikipedia by making it a featured article. Can someone please take the initiative. 77.79.7.191 ( talk) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A change I introduced a while back was subject to RV due "no discussion". Therefore, I'll open the discussion here. My proposal is to replace the single CoA of the UK with an image displaying both versions of the UK CoA currently in use. The version used in Scotland does not appear in that article's infobox because Scotland, since 1707, no longer has a CoA; rather it has a separate version of the UK CoA. Article 14 of the 1707 Acts of Union state:
“ | XXIV That, from and after the Union, there be one Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either kingdom; and that the quartering the arms and the rank and precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the kingdom of Scotland, as may best suit the Union, be left to her Majesty; anti that, in the meantime, the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for sealing writs to elect and summon the Parliament of Great Britain, and for sealing all treaties with foreign princes and states, and all public acts, instruments, and orders of state which concern the whole United Kingdom, and in all other matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used; and that a seal in Scotland, after the Union, be always kept, and made use of in all things relating to private rights or grants, which have usually passed. | ” |
— Acts of Union. |
Given that the version of the UK CoA used in Scotland is a CoA of the UK and not the CoA of Scotland, and that a single image exists which displays both that version used in Scotland and elsewhere, the image showing both versions should appear in the info-box as both are a Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. For / Against / Comments below.
Alternatively, a [Note] be added to the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom link beneath the single CoA image, stating that a form of arms specifically for use in Scotland exists which differs from that form displayed in the infobox. Endrick Shellycoat 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Help! Have tried various combinations to get a [Note] to feature but no joy. Any experts wish to have a go? Endrick Shellycoat 19:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted a users GAN of this page as this page is not at all up to GA standards. The user has not edited for long, so it was a gf if naive nomination. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 12:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding New Zealand under the cultural subtitle. I would add nothing but the two words if the article was not locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.105.221 ( talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Healthcare is not 'free at the point of need' if you need prescription medicine, dental care or eyecare in England. 82.46.109.233 ( talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose the template in the Demography section be changed to the below one because it gives a better idea of where the most urbanized parts of the UK are.
Rank | Urban area | Pop. | Principal settlement | Rank | Urban area | Pop. | Principal settlement | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Greater London | 9,787,426 | London | 11 | Bristol | 617,280 | Bristol | ||
2 | Greater Manchester | 2,553,379 | Manchester | 12 | Edinburgh | 512,150 | Edinburgh | ||
3 | West Midlands | 2,440,986 | Birmingham | 13 | Leicester | 508,916 | Leicester | ||
4 | West Yorkshire | 1,777,934 | Leeds | 14 | Belfast | 483,418 | Belfast | ||
5 | Greater Glasgow | 985,290 | Glasgow | 15 | Brighton & Hove | 474,485 | Brighton | ||
6 | Liverpool | 864,122 | Liverpool | 16 | South East Dorset | 466,266 | Bournemouth | ||
7 | South Hampshire | 855,569 | Southampton | 17 | Cardiff | 390,214 | Cardiff | ||
8 | Tyneside | 774,891 | Newcastle upon Tyne | 18 | Teesside | 376,633 | Middlesbrough | ||
9 | Nottingham | 729,977 | Nottingham | 19 | Stoke-on-Trent | 372,775 | Stoke-on-Trent | ||
10 | Sheffield | 685,368 | Sheffield | 20 | Coventry | 359,262 | Coventry |
Eopsid ( talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
A question about where the figures have come from: it does say '2001 Census' but yet the figure given for Greater Glasgow is different from the figure from the Greater Glasgow article which is also from 2001 Census. Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No one has expressed opposition to this change so i will go ahead with it. Eopsid ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The article on Germany has clear figures that stick to GDP, in this article's economic overview section we go from percentages, to fractions (how can readers easily compare with these figures, this just bogs down easy comparison and good reading comprehension) Then we go from fractions to GVA instead of GDP which is, according to the article:
This has the effect of fixing the creative market figures to look better than they are. 6% GVA is irrelevant when considered in terms of GDP and looking for an overview.-- Manboobies ( talk) 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Re the below: In fact, Cornish was extinct from the late seventh through late twentieth centuries, but it has been revived and is once again a living language. Although the terms "endangered" and "extinct" are used in a linguistic context, languages that are recorded do not become extinct in the way that species become extinct. An extinct species cannot be revived; but a language that has been sufficiently recorded, in print or/and audio format, can. It won't be the same language that it used to be, but that is true of any language. Even Latin undergoes minor changes through its continued use by a small group of enthusiasts in the "computatora" age. 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your article incorrectly states Cornish is a current language of the United Kingdom. Cornish died out over a century ago. If you are going to include Cornish, then you must also include Manx.
89.72.8.24 ( talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Since 2002, Cornish has been recognised as a minority language by the UK government, under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
I've reverted again, as I have found no reliable sources saying Y Gododdin was composed in what is now lowland Scotland; they state the language, Old Welsh, rather than the location. We don't know if it were composed in the lands of the Gododdin, Rheged, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, Elmet or somewhere else. Even if they did, parts of the lands of the Gododdin, Strathclyde, and Rheged, and all of Elmet, are in what is now England. If we are to state the location of it's composition, the only safe location to state would be Yr Hen Ogledd; even that is WP:SYN. Best just to state “ Old Welsh” (language) per sources. Can we agree something here, rather than using edit summaries? Daicaregos ( talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states the United Kingdom is a unitary state, which is not really true. "Semi-federal" would be a better description because the country displays characteristics of both unitary and federal states.
In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom, just as it was not the case in the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Under the terms of the Acts of Union of 1707, Scotland continued - and continues - to maintain its own systems of law, education and a few other things separately from the rest of the country. Even with the new British Supreme Court, criminal cases cannot be appealed beyond Scotland (though civil cases can) because the terms of 1707 Acts (which are constitutional acts) have not been changed to accommodate the Supreme Court's creation. I speak of sovereign powers retained by Scotland as a "sister province" (or "sister state"), which has been in perpetual quasi-confederation with England since 1707, not of the additional devolved powers settled upon Scotland with the recent creation of the Parliament of Scotland/Parlamaid na h-Alba. If the British Parliament permanently dissolved the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Scotland would still retain exclusive jurisdiction over her own systems of law, education, and other matters reserved to her under the Acts of Union of 1707.
But while the UK does not behave like a true unitary state, it also does not behave like a true federal state. In true federalism, such as what one sees in Australia, Canada and the United States, there is a sovereign federal state that is coextensive with the sovereign unitary states which constitute it by their perpetual confederation. Both the federal state and the constituent unitary states (called "provinces" in Canada) are sovereign entities - thus, federal nationas are express the principle of 'dual' or 'parallel' sovereignty - with the actual exercise of sovereignty divided between the two entity forms, often with one of the entities actually or effectively designated a basic unit of government for residual purposes. In the United States, this unit is the individual state - that is, per US Const., Amend. X, all powers that are not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution are reserved to the states. In Canada, the Canadian Constitution effectively provides the opposite, so that those powers not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the provincial states are reserved to the federal state.
The United Kingdom operates between the two concepts - sometimes as a federal state, as with the legal system, in which England and Wales are one judicial province; Scotland another; and Northern Ireland a third. Thus, when Parliament decriminalised male homosexuality in 1967, only England and Wales were affected. Male homosexuality remained illegal in Scotland until a separate act of parliament was passed and took effect in 1980; and it was not until 1982 that a third act of parliament legalised male homosexuality in Northern Ireland. And sometimes the United Kingdom behaves like a unitary state.
So, I would say the most accurate description of the United Kingdom is neither "unitary state" nor "federal state" but "semi-federal state". 76.126.3.38 ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I may have my terms mixed up. I was trying to find a word to describe England, Scotland, Wales and N.I. I believe the argument here is whether these "territories" constitute what is commonly known as countries. If it is true that England, Scotland and Wales are "well established" as countries, then why do so many atlases and almanacs not list them as such? Why do they not have their own representitives at the UN? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that there needs to be some explanation for these discrepencies. Hellbound Hound ( talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Following Missionary's edit which changed the nominal GDP ranking for the United Kingdom from sixth to seventh based on preliminary figures from the IMF for 2011 I must reaffirm the consensus for GDP figures on Wikipedia has always been that they are derived from the last publication of such figures from the IMF, World Bank and CIA. The last publication of these figures by the IMF, World Bank and CIA were for 2010 and these figures, and any rankings, should be updated as and when the IMF, World Bank and CIA publish their figures for 2011. They should not be based upon speculative figures as this would make the article a crystall ball on the matter. Quite vivid blur ( talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This should be updated as it is (rather for a while) outdated, e.g. source. Suggested edit: "London, one of the biggest financial marketplaces in the world. (maybe: second only to Hong Kong)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 ( talk) 12:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 ( talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be good if you added Duran Duran to the music section as they are a well known successful British band with over 100 million record sales and known worldwide also.
96.19.208.165 ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
Abhishek
Talk
12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)There is an error under 5.1: Science and Technology.
"Between 2004 and 2008 the UK produced 7% of the world's scientific research papers and had an 8% share of scientific citations, the third and second highest in the world (after the United States and China, and the United States, respectively)."
The Shadow 277 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops! Noob Move. I saw the double "United States" in the brackets, and immediately thought was an error. I really should pay more attention. Oh well. I'm still geting used to wikipedia. The Shadow 277 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
UK is a Christian country. This should be worked into the article? [1] 117.198.57.111 ( talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My addition of the word 'significant' to the start of the sentence 'British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' at the end of the second paragraph of the lead been reverted by Chipmunkdavis.
Although I can conceive of valid reasons for such a reversion, 'Word doesn't add any information' is not an acceptable or coherent one.
My reason for the addition is two-fold. Firstly it is factually correct and both highly relevant and of likely interest to readers. Secondly, many countries/polities/peoples can be validly said to have had an influence on the 'language, culture and legal systems' of many of the former territories of the British Empire, not least the Romans, Greeks, French and Germans. The addition of the word 'significant' is needed to clarify why this is a relevant and lead-worthy sentence in this article. Rangoon11 ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this change of Snowded's on 31 Jan to a long-running piece of text. [2] This edit deleted the sentences (in relation to the House of Commons) It is the ultimate legislative authority in the United Kingdom since the devolved parliament in Scotland as well as the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales are not sovereign bodies and could, theoretically, be abolished by the UK parliament. citation needed But not without a referendum (public vote) from the citizens of the country. For example, if the UK government wanted to abolish the National Assembly for Wales then it would need to hold a referendum with the people who live in Wales.
I am interested to know the facts on these and so have started to do some prelim. work on researching them but would be grateful for help. Is it the case that the UK Parliament could theoretically end the devolved governments? I assume the answer must be yes but can't easily see sourcing on that, can anyone be of assistance? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution requiring a referendum to alter it and constitutional matters are not among the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Parliament at Westminster could, in theory, dissolve the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly through legislation. In practice, the political circumstances in which it would do so, and the consequences for the internal relations of the United Kingdom, are unclear.
Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under that agreement, the United Kingdom guaranteed the Irish government involvement in the decision-making around matters affecting Northern Ireland that were not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. These include constitutional matters. Consequently, a decision to prorogue or dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly would require the involvement of the Government of Ireland.
The article would probably be better off without penultimate paragraph of the section. In theory parliament could enact legislation requiring that the sun rises at 6 every morning. It is only what they can do in practice that has any meaning and they always subject to outside forces such as the laws of nature, constitutional principles and ultimately the will of the people. The vexed question of how, and if, they could go about reversing devolution is largely speculative and cannot be adequately covered in a single paragraph.
The paragraph on the Northern Ireland situation as it stands overstates the position. The Good Friday Agreement cannot guarantee anything. Again it would be speculation as to what would happen if either country decided to unilaterally violate the agreement. As (to the best of my knowledge) there has never challenge to government actions brought on the basis of international law in the British courts you cannot guarantee (or even be confident) that one would be successful. "The agreement requires that..." would probably be a better way of putting it. Eckerslike ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The following may be of interest [N. Burrows, "Unfinished Business: The Scotland Act 1998", The Modern Law Review, vol. 62, issue 2, (March 1999), p 249]:
“ | The UK Parliament is sovereign and the Scottish Parliament is subordinate. The White Paper had indicated that this was to be the approach taken in the legislation. The Scottish Parliament is not to be seen as a reflection of the settled will of the people of Scotland or of popular sovereignty but as a reflection of its subordination to a higher legal authority. Following the logic of this argument, the power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate can be withdrawn or overridden... | ” |
Also, [M. Elliot, "United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure", International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 2, issue 3, (2004), pp 553-554]:
“ | Notwithstanding substantial differences among the schemes, an important common factor is that the U.K. Parliament has not renounced legislative sovereignty in relation to the three nations concerned. For example, the Scottish Parliament is empowered to enact primary legislation on all matters, save those in relation to which competence is explicitly denied ... but this power to legislate on what may be termed "devolved matters" is concurrent with the Westminster Parliament's general power to legislate for Scotland on any matter at all, including devolved matters ... In theory, therefore, Westminster may legislate on Scottish devolved matters whenever it chooses... | ” |
ISTB351 ( talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In recent edits by RA ( talk), that user has attempted to use the Good Friday Agreement and an Act of the Oireachtas to support the text "Decisions to temporarily suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly have involved agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. They were affected through acts of Parliament at Westminster and necessitated corresponding legislative changes in the Republic of Ireland" and "Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under those agreements, the participation of members of the Northern Ireland Executive in the North/South Ministerial Council, and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a number of devolved policy areas, are prerequisites of devolution in Northern Ireland. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was also established under the agreements, whereby "the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals" on non-devolved matters with respect to Northern Ireland. However, the United Kingdom government remains sovereign over Northern Ireland unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to form a united Ireland."
I was not too impressed when i read: "The monarch itself is symbolic rather than political, and only has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"."
"only has"? .. no; David Cameron said not so long ago that people who refer to the Monarchy as "symbolic" underestimate the constitution. e.g source
The British Constitution, especially around the Monarchy is a paradox. Yes, it's true that there are very few documents within the constitution that referrer to the monarchy: the same can be said about the Prime Minister who isn't even mentioned in it.
The Crown, or "Monarchy" as it is said by the UK Parliament, is fused to all 3 branches of Government:
The Executive
The Judiciary
The Legislature
The monarch is, in practice, largely symbolic but has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". The most obvious consequence of these rights is a weekly meeting between the prime minister and the monarch.
I have read the book. I did not object to the phrase, but the use of the word "only", and I did not say anything about refusing assent to bills, simply that they need assent to become law. I emphasized the functions of the monarchy to back up my case about the word "only". I have noticed that the websites of the UK Parliament, British Monarchy and Direct.gov prefer the word ceremonial to symbolic - as ceremonial means relating to formal events, symbolic means only to serve as a symbol. I think "The monarchy is broadly ceremonial, but the monarch has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." sounds appropriate. Geord0 ( talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've taken out a few words, to leave the sentence reading: The monarch has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". That avoids any arguments as to whether the monarchy (or the monarch) is primarily symbolic, ceremonial, etc. - it simply uses Bagehot's words. I'm not wedded to that particular form of words, but it seems to me to be an improvement on the words that were there before. Happy to continue the discussion - which seemed to have died otherwise. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "The United Kingdom was one of the three main Allies of World War II." has a "citation needed" tag. Seriously? Seriously!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add to sport; Horse Racing, Cheltenham National Hunt Festival ,Cheltenham Gold Cup
Flossieg (
talk)
03:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke has made a couple of recent edits to the article's Religion section. Effectively, the changes have made the Church of England and the Church of Scotland out to be state religions. I will leave comment on the status of the Church of England to someone with more knowledge of the issue (grey area with the Queen as head of the church?) - but the Church of Scotland is a national church not state church ... this was made clear in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and is described in the Church of Scotland article. I don't have access to the source provided ( Oxford companion to family and local history) but no page number is provided in any event, and it seems like an unlikely source for this kind of information. Connolly15 ( talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with RA. Also the Church of Ireland was always the Established Church of Ireland even when part of the UK until its Destablishment. It was regarded as the state church. So i agree with RA when he says they mean the same thing anyways. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The Church of Scotland is a National Church but not a State Church.. In fact it fought for over 300 years to get the UK government to stop treating it as a state church. That is the major reason for all the 18th/19th century schisms which are documented in our C of S article. In the 1920s it finally managed to get Parliament to admit defeat and since then it has been as independent of HMG as any UK organisation can expect to be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor insists on reverting my addition of Sugababes to the listing of British artists who had international success. The group is notable in said case because:
I mean if we were talking about Girls Aloud then fair enough, they are virtually non-existent outside of UK and Ireland. But Sugababes are a credible and notable act outside of the UK and so they should also be listed. Till I Go Home ( talk) 14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been correcting things lately on many pages which include 'England' in. Can I point out that England is not a sovereign state and in location details on many articles it says 'England', not 'United Kingdom'. Also, instead of 'British', it says 'English', and it's same for Welsh, Scottish, and Irish too. Someone explain what to do because every time I correct it to 'United Kingdom', an administrator changes it back. Thanks. Josh Robinson 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 ( talk • contribs)
There are united Kingdoms all over the world, most Kingdoms are. Using United kingdom is like calling London The town, is logical for Londoners but not for others. Great Britain should be used if not wanting to type the full name, or United kingdom of Great Britian. Some argue that there are more than the ile of Great Britian in the kingdom, but so it is in most states. Swabia is a part of the state Bavaria for instance. Internationally this Country is refered to Great Britain and just United kingdom makes no sense, united kingdom of what? What is decided in the British parliament makes no difference in the shorter forms, for people outside the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 ( talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You are completely mistaken to say that "United Kingdom" is a usage recognised only within the UK itself. "United Kingdom" is a long-standing, internationally recognised short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", just as "United States" is a recognised short form for "United States of America". The title of this page should certainly not be "Great Britain", which is a purely geographical entity, not a political one, and which includes only part of the United Kingdom. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It comes into this discussion because, if "Great Britain" is defined in purely geographical terms and is taken to include South Uist, then it has to include the Isle of Man too. I'm not aware of any purely geographical criteria that would include the former and exclude the latter. If Great Britain is taken to include South Uist, and not Man, then the definition of Great Britain is not purely geographical and is at least partly political. garik ( talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think Garik is right. When I said GB was "a geographical entity, not a political one", I meant that there is now no functioning political entity called GB. But of course there was between 1707 and 1800, and the definition of that 1707-1800 political entity (i.e. with Shetland and S. Uist, etc., but without the Isle of Man) continues to apply albeit now only in a geographical sense. I now see that I was wrong to imply that GB could be defined in purely geographical terms without reference to the political history. Sorry for sloppy thinking. -- Alarics ( talk) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost in every article I've read about member countries of the European Union, this fact is reflected more explicitly. I think it should be made clear in the introduction of the article, the fact that UK belongs to EU. I would begin the article, at least, with something alluding to the European Union, like this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[nb 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state, member of the European Union, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe."
I hope you'll take this into account when the article is edited, because although European countries now enjoy of certain sovereignty, it is undeniable that the fiscal union of state members in the EU last years, has been crucial to the development and future of Europe. And the fact that UK doesn't belong to the euro area, doesn't mean that it isn't a voluntary and important member of the Council of the European Union. Zathrian12 ( talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
For me the current wording is fine. Importance is not established by position in the lead. The lead has a structure based upon paragraphs with themes, as it should, and whether something is in the first or third paragraph should not be read as an indication of importance, purely of topic. The point about fiscal union above I don't understand, the UK is not part of the single currency, and even the single currency area does not presently have a fiscal union. Membership of the EU does have certain constitutional implications, although the UK can leave the EU at any time. Membership of NATO is arguably of more fundamental significant, with very profound security implications - an attack on one is an attack on all. This could well mean the UK is engaged in anything upto a full scale nuclear war without having been directly attacked. Furthermore, for the great majority of the UK's history it has not been a member of the EC/EU, whilst the article covers the whole of the UK's history. In my view shoe-horning a reference to membership of the EU into the first paragraph would be messy and undue. Rangoon11 ( talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking in general Terms, Is it as relevant being a member of the NATO or the United Nations Security Council, for the UK, as being a European Union member? Really?
Let me remind you that UK was one of the twelve founding members of the European Union. The development, politics and history of UK (specially the last decade) is closely related to the European Union and its participation, and not even to talk about the economics, for better or worse...
It is not my intention to overestimate the presence of the EU, but is it so difficult just to mention the name (European Union) at the beginning of the article? It's not just me; I heard some comments about it.
I'm not saying that it has to be an explanation about the situation of the UK in the EU in the introduction, but it should be mentioned at the beginning at least, as a EU country member, making this fact more explicit, and emphasizing it from the beginning to give a more simple general view of the UK in this article. It is my humble opinion, thinking for example, of a student looking for a general summary about this topic.
Here, I leave two links of a UK government website, specifically The Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/europe-approach/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/eu-act/
It is mentioned a little about the UK's role in the EU. Of course there are legal documents in support of this, but I consider pointless to extend such a simple subject. Zathrian12 ( talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That rendition of God Save the Queen by the US Navy Band is awful. It's too slow and has the wrong ending to it. The one played on BBC Radio 4 at 12:58am is by far the best and most correct sounding one, and it would be nice to have that on the page instead. A much nicer representation of the anthem. I have it in an ogg file. How do I put it on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbetdip ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are too many {{ in this article, due to a markup mistake in one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.223.136 ( talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article only have a few paragraphs on overseas territories whilst the France article has more info about them like geography etc. When I visit the UK only a few know about them but those who do only 2 territories Gibraltar and Falklands but don't know about the others at all. Ironic cause us Americans go there on holiday. If you put more info in about them maybe people in UK and around the world can find out more about them. It could help more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 ( talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
The article was protected in the incorrect state. The state was created by Ubiquinoid
here. It should be restored to before that point. --
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that there was no agreed consensus on this because until it was changed recently it was not disputed. Since it is now a matter of debate lets attempt to establish a local consensus on the implementation here of WP:OVERLINK - which includes a clause to "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." and WP:UNDERLINK - which states point to linking "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". Here are two proposals:
Please comment below:-- SabreBD ( talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There really is nothing firm or sensible supporting the subjective linking of diminutive territories but not major ones per P#2. That is counterintuitive. More so given this archipelago and the various constituent parts, but also others. Countries do not exist in isolation, and to delink those territories and geographic features of direct relevance is rather inane (particularly to novice users, who may not know better), and a disservice to all users. Also note that the article existed -- links and all -- for many more months ( at least 8 ) before being changed with the aforementioned script, without apparent discussion let alone consensus. This requires a wider discussion. Ubiquinoid ( talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The heat generated by this is pretty strange even by WP standards. I suggest all involved remember this is a very minor issue and not very important. DeCausa ( talk) 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I wish everybody would calm down. This is all a quite ridiculous amount of fuss over almost nothing. We are supposed to be grown adults here. Let us try to keep a sense of perspective. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are three constituent parts that must be discussed:
Which, if any should be linked in the lede and which can suffer to be linked later in the article? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Pointless debate here
|
---|
With the information that is given in this page, you will actually find Greater Glasgow is larger than West Yorkshire Urban Area, the population in Greater Glasgow is 1,999,629 and in West Yorkshire it is 1,449,465? 92.22.25.168 ( talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the legend to the Overseas Territories map like this:
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk)
16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "government" section of this page does not list the UK as a democracy. This needs to be corrected as the UK is a parliamentary democracy.
Kutuup ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"Broadly speaking, the British people seem comfortable with the present constitutional arrangement which could accurately be described as a Parliamentary democracy with a monarchical facade rather than a 'constitutional Monarchy' as in the standard textbooks." — F. N. Forman (2002), Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, London: Routledge, p. 202, ISBN 0415230357
"The British system of government is a parliamentary democracy."
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
$2,452.689 trillion Please change $2,452.689 trillion TO $2,452.689 billions 92.26.13.140 ( talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph under the 'Ethnic groups' subsection refers to 'ethnic diversity' by citing official ONS statistics:
Ethnic diversity varies significantly ... 30.4% of London's population and 37.4% of Leicester's was estimated to be non-white as of ... whereas less than 5% of...
Shouldn't this state the percentage of people in London and Leicester who don't identify as 'White: British (Persons)' [3] [4] rather than simply those who don't fall under the broad 'White (Persons)' category?
To say that people from Estonia and Poland don't contribute to ethnic diversity seems absurd to me.
--
Tshloab (
talk)
15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see a brief mention of the Romani (Romany) Gypsies and Irish Travellers populations. People may not care for them but they are an important part of the UK's demographic. Rough combined population of 350,000. Problems with accurately recording population due to fear of discrimination, movement away from traditional lifestyle etc. Their languages are still spoken in small numbers but data is once again difficult to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.245.90 ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably has come up before, but...the devolved administrations represent 16% of the UK's population. In this article, the UK Government section is 6kb and the devolved administrations section is 11kb. The two sections seem grossly out of proportion to their relative importance. DeCausa ( talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I was taking a look over just the Scottish and Welsh paragraphs, and after cutting all the details of previous elections and previous powers, we're left with quite short paragraphs:
Both these have all the information about devolved powers and current administrations that the current article has. Perhaps instead of simply saying Wales has more limited powers we shoudl describe its powers, but as it stands I don't think any of the information I cut out is needed at all. CMD ( talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Since we have no movement on this I have produced a version based on the idea of cutting out some of the detail of past situations and elections for which there seemed to be some support. This paragraph would replace the existing middle three paragraphs:
I notice that we have two sets of references to aerospace and automotive industries: one under the general Economy section and one under Science and technology. I suggest we combine these in the later section. I am also not sure why the opening section here is in the current order. I also suggest moving the bit on recession to near the bottom of the section as it is time limited (I hope). I would also welcome views on whether we need the historical bit here, or whether it belongs in the history section.-- SabreBD ( talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain is a widely used common name for the UK. It is, for example, the name of the UK Olympic team. In my view this should be be added to the opening, which I propose be changed to "(commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain)". I know that Great Britain is also the name of the largest island of the nation, but this is does not change the fact that the name is also commonly used in this context. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
A name does not to be a scientifically correct description of the subject however. For example "America" as used as a name for the United States, or "Russia" as used as a name for the Soviet Union. Even proper names are often not scientifically correct, for example The Carphone Warehouse is hardly an accurate description of the subject. In this case the question is whether "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK. In my view it is, particularly in the US and Germany. If cites were provided demonstrating this would it affect editors' stance? Rangoon11 ( talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
One other issue in the intro - the use of double brackets to embed "UK" - is this right? It might be better to replace
with
Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the above discussion is forgetting that the following is already in the article with two decent sources: "However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom". The question is should the lead reflect this? I think yes, and propose adding "and "Great Britain" (often considered incorrect, but common in North America)". And dispense with the brackets per James. DeCausa ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Actually only one source (correctly cited). MOS:LEADALT says: “Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." "Great Britain" is noted the Etymology section already. The relevant section says: "The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales. However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom." This single sentence, referring to GB use in the entire article, cannot be sufficiently notable to require inclusion in the lead. Further, any proposal to alter this important article along these lines, must cite relevant MOS guidelines and reliable sources. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I oppose using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the UK because it is incorrect. Please link to current WP policy and/or MOS that would allow an incorrect name to be included in the lead – no more OR, please. The link provided shows using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the sovereign state a long time ago, current usage seems to relate to sports. It isn't just the UK government that deprecates using “Great Britain" in this way. The BBC style guide begins its Great Britain entry: "Great Britain comprises England, Scotland, and Wales. It is a geographical term; … ". The Guardian and Observer style guide says "UK or Britain in copy and headlines for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but note Great Britain comprises just England, Scotland and Wales)". And regarding American use: here is the NSA style manual. It says, under UK, "Use the abbreviation for the United Kingdom either as a noun or adjective … In most cases use British for the adjective rather than UK". Daicaregos ( talk) 11:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Just realised that we now only have two alternates following the removal of the surplus brackets - "Britain" and "United Kingdom (UK)" - the latter being the same thing in reality. Even with Dai's proposal that we exactly follow the guideline, there is room for one more. I propose we have:
I can't recall our ever meeting... — JonC ॐ 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, Britain doesn't. If consensus dictates it must be in the lead, not the more appropriate "terminology" section, then I'll accept that, but it must be made clear it's erroneous. — Jon C. ॐ 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)My mistake. Still, "Britain" doesn't always (or even most of the time) refer to the island anymore. — Jon C. ॐ 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I just had a look in my Oxford English Dictionary. It states as follows: "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.". Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to find sources to say what something in not. Banana is not the correct name for a giraffe; but try finding a source to confirm that. What is not in dispute is that “Great Britain” is the name of an island in the northeast Atlantic, comprising only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Self evidently it is not analogous to the whole of the UK, which means that using “Great Britain” as an alternative name for the entire UK is incorrect. As James says, this discussion is about how we say that. My view is that the subject is already being handled correctly as an alternative name and in accordance with the relevant MOS guideline i.e. MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos ( talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with this discussion is that there is a three way argument going on - and it makes the discussion quite opaque and highly unlikely to reach a coinclusion in that format. One set of editors thinks "Great Britain" is just wrong and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. One set, although thinking it's incorrect, thinks it could be mentioned in the lead with an explanation that it is incorrect. One set thinks it should be mentioned and the "incorrect"/"correct" distinction is irrelevant (although within that there may or may not be an additional explanation of the extent of the usage. Would it simplify this thread if we simply establish whether there is a consensus to mention GB in the lead at all, and then subsequently work out how it should be described (if there is a consensus on that)? DeCausa ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You are tilting at windows. To varying degrees they qualify as common names. However they are not accurate or correct names and that has to be noted. ---- Snowded TALK 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The beginning of the previous thread suggested we all note our preferences. Going back over this discussion I've noted which editors are in favour of changing the lead and which editors are in favour of the existing wording. Please change your entry if I've misunderstood your preference, or note your preference as applicable:
Daicaregos ( talk)
As noted by DeCausa above, there is no consensus to change the lead to include Great Britain as an alternative name. Unless any new argument is introduced, re-stating previously made argument is pointless; still less, shouting at at everyone. This discussion should be put out of its misery, and closed. Daicaregos ( talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This is what I posted earlier: Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa ( talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, what I said has come to pass. This is only going to get more rancorous. There isn't, IMO, consensus for change. I think those who feel strongly about changing it should open an RfC. But otherwise this discussion will only continue to go down hill without resolution. DeCausa ( talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
We need to be sure people aren't just pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this. RFCs rarely seem to end conclusively or with lots of new editors. The usual eyes on this page are seeing this discussion. Clearly many are bored of these points (as I feel most of the time) because of the gaming, but I persist because there is some hope that we might end up with something approaching objectivity. I suggest we instead compare sources for the two contentions - contention (1) that it's very, very common and should be included and contention (2) that it isn't - the former appears to be pretty widely agreed with, but there are still some naysayers - and then it's just a matter of comparing a few alternative phrasings. We are actually nearly there and don't really need an RFC other than if this is repeatedly claimed to be "too contentious", a position we should ignore. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
But that isn't a useful proposal - I'm sorry, but you appear to be suggesting basically no change, as GB is already prominent in sentence 2 and this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions. That leaves the problem that despite GB being a very, very common alternate for UK, we won't say so - which is wrong. I propose we discuss the following change to the first sentence (refs only deleted here for copying brevity):
Something like this in sentence one is really where we need to get to. Definition happens in sentence two anyway, so the moderately intelligent reader sees what this is about. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I spend the day on the South Downs Way and this is still going on with the same misunderstandings. Great Britain is a common name, lets list it, but lets also make it clear that its an error as it excludes Northern Ireland. That way we respect multiple sources, and at the same time the truth. ---- Snowded TALK 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because that would imply that "Britain" and "Great Britain" are interchangeable terms. That is emphatically not the case. "Britain" means the UK as a whole, not as pars pro toto but in all educated usage. Northern Ireland is part of Britain. It is not part of Great Britain. -- Alarics ( talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The DirectGov list of definitions under the heading "UK or Britain"? that Jamesinderbyshire has cited above is exactly correct, and that is what we should say in the lead. -- Alarics ( talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets just go with The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. per the original Ghymrtle proposal and per MOS and per other guidelines about avoiding confusion. It acknowledges that GB is a common name, but educates the reader that it is not a proper short form. Failing that lets just leave it as it is. If someone wants to make this into a poll to test the water fine. Otherwise I can't see any progress being made above. ---- Snowded TALK 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
But "Britain" most emphatically **_DOES NOT_** exclude Northern Ireland. It is only "Great Britain" that, strictly speaking, DOES exclude Northern Ireland, though less strictly speaking, or "loosely" speaking, some people use GB to mean the whole state. I put forward the "loosely" proposal which falls short of what I think would be most ideal (because, while some editors agree with me as to what would be most ideal, other editors disagree), in a spirit of constructive compromise so that we could make progress. Now Snowded, who I thought agreed with me in the first place, doesn't accept my compromise proposal, while DeCausa, with whom I disagreed, does! It's a good job I am such a patient and even-tempered chap, or I would be losing my cool by now. -- Alarics ( talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The Central Office of Information, a government agency, used to publish every year (not sure if it still does) "Britain: An Official Handbook" which covers the whole UK. Here is an extract from page 1 of the 1975 edition:
-- Alarics ( talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What was wrong with "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands."? This would be a step forward on the current text, although "often" would in my view be more accurate per the Oxford English Dictionary and the surfeit of sources available. We don't require unanimity here, just a consensus. Rangoon11 ( talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. was supported at one time or another by myself, N-HH, Rangoon11, Alarics, & Ghmyrtle but opposed by Snowded. I think this is the best opportunity of resolving this. Let's leave it open for others who haven't commented to do so & see if that remains the balance of opinion DeCausa ( talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The alternative (given a lack of willingness to work out a compromise) is to go with Ghmyrtle's original proposal, namely The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. ---- Snowded TALK 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK well if you would like to spell out the 3 or 4 proposals that are "on the table" and give them numbers, we can all rate them in order of preference, as Snowded and I have done just above. -- Alarics ( talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a table like this. Maybe it would help the ill-feeling and improve the article? With a link near to the article top?
Etymology and terminology: Summary
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: is the full name for the UK. Its name reflects the union of the island of Great Britain with Northern Ireland.
United Kingdom and UK: is a standard name and abbreviation for the UK.
GB and GBR: are the ISO 3166 codes for the UK, used by e.g. the International Olympic Committee (IOC), UK passports, and the UK licence plate country code.[1] GB is occasionally used as an abbreviation for the island of Great Britain [4]
Britain: is an name for the UK, which is also used for the island of Great Britain, so it is ambiguous.[2]
Great Britain: is name for the UK, whose use is discouraged as it can easily be confused with the island of Great Britain.[3]
[1] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Olympic_Committees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain
[3] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Davis_Cup_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team
[4] See e.g. http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/page-how-can-i-become-a-gb-boxer.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
superficy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).