Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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
Archives
  1. September 2001 – August 2004
  2. August 2004 – April 2005
  3. April 2005 – November 2005
  4. November 2005 – February 2006
  5. February 2006 – May 2006
  6. Mid May 2006 - July 2006
  7. July 2006-November 2006
Country/State debate archives
  1. June 2005-March 2006
  2. April 2006-May 2006
Terminology debate archives
  1. July - September 2006
  2. September 2006-October 2006

Contents

2005 general election and Parliamentary constituencies

I thought this talk page was as good a place as any to propose this, so here goes.

With an election due within the next year or so, I think it's about time that Wikipedia had articles on the UK constituencies showing, past and present, with a list of the past representatives and election results. There's loads of interesting stuff about pocket boroughs, rotten boroughs and disenfranchisement for fraudulant practices etc.. This would be a big project though, so if we start now we might have something approaching completion by the time fo the election. Mintguy (T) 22:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are now a few articles about the UK constituencies, including Southampton Test. Laurel Bush 10:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC). I am working myself on several articles about constituencies, including my own Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I have little or no history about any of them but I do intend to insert, when known, results of the now anticipated 2005 general election.Laurel Bush 16:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC).

"Official languages"

If a language is not de facto official in the state-wide (highest level or whatever you call it), then it doesn't deserve listing on top of the table. At United States, only English is listed, not Spanish or Hawaiian. Listing these other languages will only mislead and cause havoc at India. --Jiang 04:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well then, don't list them at India - for the specific reason that there's too many! I assume why Spanish is not listed at the US is that only English is official? If there is no official language per-se, then by all means Spanish SHOULD be listed!!!
It makes sense for this article to have the languages in use mentioned - as there is no official language overall. Also, note the above remarks about Wales and NI. (Yes, the GFA did make these languages official in NI).
Zoney 13:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no official language overall, but there is a de facto official language. That is English, both in the US and the UK. In the state of New Mexico, Spanish is co-official with English. In Hawaii, Hawaiian is co-official with English. In California and a number of other states, English is official. But federally, there is no official language in the US. We're only concerned about what is official on the highest level. In the UK Parliament, only English is spoken. Am I right? We don't want to confuse people and crowd the page by listing languages not official on the country-wide level. --Jiang 03:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Umm, not quite. (:-)) UK legislation, though primarily drafted in English, yes, has aspects of Latin and Norman French.
Which just makes life... complicated.
James F. (talk) 03:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How can something be "de facto official" anyways! I mean, English being "de facto" means its simply matter of fact that it is a language used in UK! There's other languages used in UK! Also - there are Welsh-speaking, well, Welsh Council Boards, I believe! I don't know about Scotland. Anyways, I think it is small-mindedness to wish to remove them. How can 3 languages besides English confuse people! Bah! Nach bhfuil aon theangacha eile agat féin? Zoney 10:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We don't care about ordinary folk and local governments using a certain language. What people (as in ordinary people) use is irrelevant. We're for the real thing (hence the word official). Nigeria only has English listed on top. English there is for the elite, but it is nevertheless official. That's how we've standarized things here on wikipedia. Let's not make people think that theyre debating in the UK parliament in Cornish just as they do it in French in Canada.--Jiang 11:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welsh should not have been relocated, however. This is a language that may be used in government.
Not for the entire United Kingdom. Similar, in fact, to Quebecois-French in Canada, no?
James F. (talk) 14:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French is used on the federal level (printed on currency, govt publications, and spoken in parliament) in Canada. That's our measure of officialness. Widespread use elsewhere is not a criteria. --Jiang 17:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that as "Not for the Parliament of the entire United Kingdom." -- is it really the case that French is spoken in the federal parliament? Wow.
James F. (talk) 18:23, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ulster Scots is the variety of the Scots language spoken in Ulster in the same way as Ayrshire Scots is the variety of Scots spoken in Ayrshire. It is not a separate language other than Scots.

See: http://ww2.eblul.org:8080/eblul/Public/member_state_committ/british_committee/uk2/view

The european charter from the Council of Europe(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CV=1&NA=&PO=999&CN=999&VL=1&CM=9&CL=ENG) "b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter." NOTE: _a_ regional or minority _language_ not two separate ones.

Good Friday Agreement (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm) "3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Note: Ulster Scots was not referred to as a language.

The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999 describes Scots in Ulster as: "the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland."

Hope that clears things. — 217.225.26.59, 00:33 22 August 2004

Ulster-Scots and Ullans are both terms in quite common usage. Whilst it is right and proper that the pages Scots language and Ulster Scots language should make reference to the three being dialects of each other, rather than distinct languages, continually "correcting" articles is inserting POV. I have just — again — reverted some of these edits (pticly to my comments on Talk:European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which is really really irritating; if I'd wanted to say Scots, I would have). Please try to gain consensus before inserting these POV edits yet again.
You might also find my comments on User talk:217.225.26.59 of interest. Sorry for being rather grumpy in them, but few things irritate me more than people editing my comments to change what I'd written. — OwenBlacker 00:22, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the poor soul didn't know the references in the treaties quoted were POV. Good that someone makes it clear that there are two Scots languages not one. — 217.225.18.190 17:13:30, Aug 25, 2004

Well, that seems to be a point of some contention. But the articles on the two languages/dialect (delete as appropriate) do make it clear that some people consider them to be the same language, which is the most NPOV way of putting things, so I'd be very grateful if he's stop putting in his POV and create an account so we could discuss the issue properly, rather than going all edit war… — OwenBlacker 16:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
But the U.K. does have separate official languages, at least if one accepts the term as referring to languages of government. The Westminster parliament uses only English (apart from when the Queen signifying Royal Assent when Norman French is used - but this can hardly be referred to as an official language, as it can't be used in Parliament). So that's English in the list. The Welsh assembly uses English and Welsh - so that's Welsh done. Also Welsh can be used in Welsh courts, so it definitely qualifies as an official language of Wales. Scottish Gaelic is used, along with English, by the council in the Western Isles - it is also used on most road signs, often taking priority - so it can be said to be an official language of the Western Isles, though probably of nowhere else. In Northern Ireland, as usual, politics intervenes. The Republicans want Irish Gaelic (and get it) so the Unionists ask for Ulster Scots (and get it) and so English, Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots all have quasi-official status in Northern Ireland. Manx Gaelic is used in the Isle of Man (at least, it is used when proclaming Manx laws at the annual Tynwald at St John's), but the Isle of Man is not in the U.K. so Manx can be excluded. Cornish has no official status in Cornwall, and so should also be excluded.User: jongarrettuk 01:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. English is not the official language by statute because it is the uncontested official language of the UK. Try introducing legislation in Chinese and see what happens. I believe Gaelic is official in Scotland (can be spoken in Scotland) but we're talking about the UK here, not Scotland. Dr Zen 08:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Official Name

SND [[1]] gives the following pronounciations (X-SAMPA) for "great" [I., m., s.Sc. grIt grEt; mn., sn.Sc. ‡gr@it, Kcd. + grit]. Seeing that "greet" only occurs in Kcd. "great" may be a better pan-dialect spelling. "Greet" may be confused with "greet" (to weep or cry) though admittedly this is highly unlikely in this context.

Ken Mair 26 Nov.

New Europe footer

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UK / GB / etc confusion 4

I notice that there are quite a few pages. There is this one United Kingdom and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and there are a few more. There is a lot of confusion out there. If you look at my talk page, you will see long discussion on this topic. It seems that Wikipedia authors/editors and a whole lot of people in the world are either confused, or at best don't care much. I notice that some pages are simply set to redirect, for example Prime Minister of Great Britain redirects to Prime Minister of United Kingdom, similarly with Military of Great Britain. There are others too.

I am engaged in a long debate with Mintguy about whether it is reasonable, for example, to edit references about Churchill and William Pitt from Prime Minister of Great Britain to British Prime Minister and avoiding the redirect that would result from the Prime Minister of Great Britain link. I am sure we will never stop people writing new text that talks about things like the troops of Great Britain serving in Iraq. I have seen debates like this go on in other domains and there is always somebody new cropping up to start it again. In all apart from a few cases, people are referring to the nation, the culture, the people or the nationality and perhaps it hardly matters. I am not sure that I can keep up with some of the weird references like Kingdom of Great Britain.

We rarely worry about the various geopolitical and historical changes to other countries when we describe them. Wouldn't it be far simpler to have it all on one page where it could be all explained, then it wouldn't matter if people got the nuance wrong?
Bobblewik 13:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you be more clear about what you are proposing? United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already redirects here. Are you suggesting that all articles to do with predecessor states to the UK be merged? Or what?
I dispute your claim that "We rarely worry about the various geopolitical and historical changes to other countries when we describe them". I take care to distinguish the Roman Republic from the Roman Empire, the United Provinces from the Netherlands, Castile from Spain, the Soviet Union from Russia, the United States of America from America etc etc and I can see from page histories that plenty of other people take care too. Of course, there may be a few editors who don't care, and many more who are ignorant, but the ones who do care can fix that. Not everyone has what it takes to be a copy-editor.
I think that it's good that you are changing "Great Britain", "England", "Britain" to "United Kingdom" when the original usage was lazy or mistaken. However, please be careful to be correct. Gdr 14:08, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Have a look at the introduction to The Isles A History by Norman Davies. He explains how The British Library Cataloguing system has the same confusion about Great Britain/United Kingdom and England, it doesn't even have a section called 'United Kingdom' (Davies remarking on the peculiarity that the National Library of the United Kingdom does not even have UK as a category) and it also has redirections from Great Britain to England such as <<GREAT BRITAIN HISTORY - SEE ENGLAND HISTORY>> --Cap 20:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Channel Islands

I notice that the map shows '(UK)' beside the Channel Islands. That gives the false impression that they are part of the UK. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, it just shows that the Channel Isles are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It's custom that maps show (country) after dependancies to the "country".

I am far from convinced by the logic of the above. The Channel Islands (and the Isle of Mann) may be subject to the same head of state as the UK but they are not therefore under the UK. Please see also my question below regarding Crown dependency and Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 12:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Crown Dependencies

"Also under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, though not part of the United Kingdom itself, are the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and a number of overseas territories."

The above statement is incorrect. While British Overseas Territories do fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the Channel Islands & the Isle of Man do not. To fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the Channel Islands & the Isle of Man would have to come under the jurisdiction of the Government of the United Kingdom (which consist of the Crown & the Westminster Parliament), they do not. The Channel Islands & the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies falling under the jurisdiction of the Crown only (and as such autonomous states) having their own Parliamentary institutions (which in the case of the Isle of Man pre-dates that at Westminster). The Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster has no legal duty or responsibility with respect to the administration or running of Crown Dependencies except where agreed by treaty. For this reason Crown Dependencies are not part of the European Union (although they are treated as such for customs purposes). Perhaps Somebody can correct this error?

Peter.T 12:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While the British Overseas Territories come under the authority of the United Kingdom Government (Her Majesty's Government), the Crown Colonies come under the British Crown directly (in theory at least). Either way they both (the BOTs and Crown Colonies) come under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, via the Sovereign.

Is the UK itself perhaps a Crown dependency? It is subject to Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 11:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Firsts

I believe that GB was the birth place of postage stamp, mechanically powered railway & electric street lights. There seemed to be no natural place for significant facts like this in the article. David Thrale 21:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Little Britain

I thought Little Britain was Ireland, not Brittany? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Little Britain, is television programme, surely ;) Grinner 14:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sub-divisions

I have deleted "the northern regions and" following the referendum in NE England which overwhelmingly rejected regional assemblies 091104

Great Britain / United Kingdom

The articles entitled Great Britain and United Kingdom should be combined into one entry, seeing as how they are pretty much the same thing. Besides, United Kingdom is the proper name, and the Great Britain article contains less information. Just a thought. — 68.9.28.244 23:20, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

"pretty much the same thing"? I doubt the inhabitants of Northern Ireland would agree with you there. Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not! They're not the same thing, either timewise or geographically. It wouldn't be all that different to suggesting that United States and North America should be merged. — OwenBlacker 23:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Correct. They are not in any way the same. GB is a landmass. UK is a kingdom incorporating that landmass and a bit of the island next door.FearÉIREANN 19:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain is more than just a "landmass" it is also a political entity created by the Act of Union 1707. Peter.T 14:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, it is just a landmass, but it was also a political entity which lasted for some 93 years until the Act of Union 1800.
James F. (talk) 03:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, correct, but the point I was trying to make is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the Act of Union 1800. This was a union of the territories of two political entities (both referred two in the title) into a single territory/political entity. Thus I think it is safe to say that the Great Britain can be said to be the territory of the political entity created by the Act of Union 1707. Hope that makes sense. Peter.T 18:56 08 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Kingdom of Great Britain is already a separate article from Great Britain. Joestynes 01:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

British Commonwealth

Shouldn't the British Commonwealth be listed at the bottom. It is a very important organisation even though it does not command as much attention as others. HM the Queen is its head and Britain is linked culturally to its Empire and Commonwealth.

Probably, yes.
James F. (talk) 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


That Map

That map should be changed to something more useful. It has a vage place in the orkneys but it dosnt have Leeds, Nottingham and Leicester.

United Kingdom

Term needs disambiguation. There have been several united kingdoms, including that of Norway and Sweden.

I think it'd be safe to say UKofGB&NI would be far and away the first thing English speakers would recognise from the name "United Kingdom". A link to a disambig page at the top might be appropriate, though, if we do have any articles about other united kingdoms. --Khendon 11:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll also agree that any use of "UK" to mean UKofGB&NI will usually be correct as the others were (afaiaa) all in the past. We could just as well ask why "United States" heads for those of America rather than any of the others. --Vamp:Willow 11:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean united states in other continents? Which ones then? Or do you mean Mexico, which is officially called (translated) 'the United States of Mexico', and is also on the continent of Ammerica, so it can claim exactly the same title? DirkvdM 08:02, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
I agree that UK means UKofGB&I or in a historical context UKofGB&I. There may have been several united kingdoms (lower case) but there has really only been one United Kingdom (capitals), ie, one state internationally known the planet over by that name. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

factual inaccuracies

I've corrected some rather dramatic inaccuracies.

  1. Scotland's modern parliament is not in effect a continuation of its ancient one. This one is a home rule assembly. That one was a sovereign parliament. Suggesting one is the successor of the other is like suggesting the modern French parliament is the continuation of the Estates General. It isn't.
  2. The distinction between the legislature and the executive was not clear.
  3. The role of the Queen in the constitution was not accurately explained.
  4. British governments are never elected, either by the electorate or by the House of Commons. They are appointed. However the Queen appoints someone capable of forming a government (which is not, BTW, the same as having a majority, another error. Minority govts for example, need only ensure that a majority doesn't vote against it - by opposition abstentions, for example)
  5. The British monarchy has no role in other commonwealth realms. Since the 1920s the Commonwealth has been operating on the principle of 'one wearer, multiple crowns'. So Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc individually and personally. She is not queen of Australia as queen of the United Kingdom, as appeared to be implied. Sometimes the United Kingdom, not its queen, had a role in a particular dominion. On occasion she as UK queen had a role on behalf of the UK. But for decades the role of being queen of a commonwealth realm has been fundamentally different to that of being UK queen. It just so happens that due to an accident of history the same person holds both parallel posts. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the government answerable to the Lords as well as the Commons? --Pauldanon 18:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Country vs kingdom

Discussion moved to /Country, Kingdom or State#Country_vs_Kingdom

"Country" or "state"

Discussion moved to /Country, Kingdom or State#Country_vs_State

Credibility of UK country/state/argument

Discussion not moved to /Country, Kingdom or State because I don't feel that the credibility of previous contributors has much bearing on the debate at hand (no offense meant to any of the below contributors)

Is it worth noting that there is not one single registered editor with a history backing the "UK is not a country" idea? Aside from User:Considered of course, who registered specifically to comment on this issue.

From this month:

  • User:20.133.0.12
  • User:81.129.12.95
  • User:81.155.110.54
  • User:81.156.0.9
  • User:194.35.219.101 aka laurelbush1952@hotmail.com
  • User:213.202.133.183
  • User:213.202.141.247
  • User:213.202.142.31
  • User:217.44.176.64
  • User:217.44.191.97
  • User:217.44.191.111

AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


How dare these anonymous individuals have the absolute audacity to consider themselves as worthy of making informed edits on this website?! Alistair, what do you sound like?!?

And why should the fact that these individuals are not registered users make their contributions any less valid, Alistair? You are right about one thing, though, I did indeed register as a result of your continued disregard of unregistered users' edits. May I remind you that the Wikipedia project is a public forum and not a "private members' club" and our common aim should be unbiased input and fair consideration for all, as opposed to the recent bouts of what can only be described as "playground politics" by individuals like yourself, who really need to reconsider their own aims in this project.

And on the subject of maturity and bullying, I would draw Arwel's (and others') attention to the message AllistairMcMillan left for me on my "User_talk" page. So, what exactly is a "sockpuppet" anyway?

Considered 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system." "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" AlistairMcMillan 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • ^^^^^^^ LOL!! Jooler 12:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Considered whether you like it or not a pattern of anon edits like that is somewhat out of the ordianry. I can think of a few things that could of caused it and not all of them are good.Geni 14:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alistair is not the only person to have been deeply suspicious of the edit histories of the accounts contributing to this debate. Consider:
20.133.0.12 - Edit history goes back to 29/9/04. IP address originates from CSC, Falls Church, Virginia, USA, but most edits on UK subjects.
81.129.12.95 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 15/1/05, to this article. BT address.
81.155.110.54 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 26/1/05, to this article. BT address.
81.156.0.9 - 3 edits ever made, 1 to this article, 2 to one other; first edit 7/1/05. BT address.
194.35.219.101 - Only 1 edit made prior to 21/1/05 (to Wars of Scottish Independence on 17/11/04). UHI, Inverness.
213.202.133.183 - 2 edits ever made, first on 23/1/05. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
213.202.141.247 - Only 1 edit ever made, on 25/1/05. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
213.202.142.31 - 4 edits ever made, first on 21/1/05 - 2 to UK, 1 each to History of Ireland, Federation. Ireland On-line address (ESAT.net).
217.44.176.64 - 2 edits ever, both to UK, first on 22/1/05. BT address.
217.44.191.97 - 3 edits ever, 1 to UK, 2 to English (people), first on 6/1/05. BT address.
217.44.191.111 - 1 edit ever, on 25/1/05. BT address
User:Considered - new account, first edit 21/1/05. Now you may well have edited anonymously before, but this plethora of anonymous users with little or no history of posting to anything but this article is highly suggestive of sockpuppet behaviour, i.e. the creation of anonymous accounts to back up someone's own arguments. -- Arwel 14:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
looks like three people then then. The changes in IP mean proabably dialup connetions. The wide area suggest conicdence or some form of board/mailinglist/blog campain that hasn't been very sucessful. Still it increases the number of wikipedians so the basic idea is no bad thingGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan, I really have no response to the apparently random and frankly, slightly worrying gibberish that you consistently see fit to write in response. It really isn't normal.

It's a well-known quotation from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arwel, I take your point in regard to the questionable validity of some of the more recent UK-specific entries and must confess to being slightly disconcerted at the (I'm sure unintentional) suggestion that I have been running round the country, using a plethora of different PCs as a "sockpuppet", as you term it. If that is the case, then there are two points I feel I must make:

1. My issue here is not about absolutes - I agree the UK is a country of sorts, but am aware that a large number of people would find this view questionable, hence not NPOV.
So why do you change it to an incorrect word? Kingdom would be more accuret (if only becuase the word queendom never really caught on). State is very much incorrect. Sovrien state would be closerGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. I can assure you that, unlike some of the perpetuators of this 'edit war', I have better things to do with my time than to invest my efforts in sitting by my PC at all hours ... but of course, I forgot, I am, afterall, the source of all the anonymous edits. Multi-tasking must therefore be a particular strongpoint of mine, given that I actually have a life beyond cyberspace, but seem to find time travelling around Britain, Ireland and the US to force my point of view on others, or perhaps I'm supposed to have been sad enough to have been calling various friends in different countries over such an 'important' matter.
The geographical location of ISPs is of little significance thanks to the Internet. I have an "American" alternative net presence, and one of my local correspondents uses a Russian email address. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will waste no further breath on AlistairMcMillan as I do not feel that his conduct merits further engagement, however I would respectfully ask you, Arwel, to brush up on your social skills and avoid making insulting remarks to other users, whom you deem "of questionable validity".

Considered, I would respectfully ask you to point out where in this discussion I have said that anyone's contribution is "of questionable validity". I have not, and find your suggestion that I "brush up on your social skills and avoid making insulting remarks to other users" itself insulting - I believe an apology from you is in order. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do apologise if I have offended you, Arwel. I could not help but take your accusations personally. -- Considered 13:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice that this little "sub-debate" (for want of a better euphemism), seems to have conveniently side-tracked the whole point of this particular discussion. I apologise if I am being overly-suspicious myself now.

The point of the discussion should continue to be debated in the preceding section. This particular section is discussing the origin of the disputants. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I'd be most grateful if you could let me know to whom the "local administrators" like yourself are accountable?

There's no such thing as a "local administrator". All 400-odd administrators potentially keep an eye on all 460,000 articles on the English Wikipedia. I personally have just short of 2000 articles on my watchlist, covering a wide range of topics. As Geni says, if you have a problem with any user's actions you should follow the dispute resolution procedure. See also Wikipedia:Administrators. -- Arwel 01:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. -- Considered 13:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The community. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolutionGeni 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Considered, stop taking it all so seriously. In this game you can't get too involved emotionally, especially as a casual editor, as there are loads of people on here whose lives seem to revolve around this site so you must realise that sometimes your edits will tread on the toes of those who seem to have nothing else in life worth doing. But these 'stepping on toes' situations and the ensuing reaction from some of the people who need to get out more, makes it a bit more fun for everyone. Don't take it to heart and don't get sucked into making statements that just brings you down to the level of some others in the forum. Happy editing!

"One of the anonymous editors" aka Mark Gudrunsen (there, I'm no longer anonymous ;o) ) 17:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UK-Irish border

The UK is situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean? Somebody seems to have lost the UK's only land border. laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 Jan 25

Why is the UK not considered to have land borders with Spain (via Gibraltar) and, more contentiously, (the rest of) Antartica (via British Antarctic Territory)? Bovlb 20:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Neither Gibralter nor BAT (nor, for that matter, the Falkland Islands, the Channel Islands, or even the Isle of Man) are "part" of the UK. It's all very fuzzy. Doops 02:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


From laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 Jan 26th:

Gib is a 'dependency' rather than a 'part'.

And more to the point, it's (as I understand it) a dependency of the Crown, rather than anything directly to do with the United Kingdom as such at all. --Khendon 14:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion which exists over everything to do with British constitutional matters, in European Parliament elections Gibraltar votes are counted as part of the South West England region! -- Arwel 17:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cornwall Kernow Cornubia Cornewallia Cerny

Just added some information on the movement for home rule in Cornwall, it is worthy of note however it is often overlooked, hushed up or ignored. However the petition of 50000 signatures calling for devolution to Cornwall was probably the biggest political story out of Cornwall in a very long time. Additionally this sites information on the incorporation of the rump sate of Dumnonia, the Earldom of Cornwall and then the Duchy of Cornwall into the UK is non existent, why? Bretagne 44 26/2/05

So i see that my edit was removed and no reason given, can i ask why or is it that someone owns this board and i have trod on their toes. I will keep replacing the edit, it is just the begining of my edits on Cornwall's history in the UK, rest assured! Bretagne 44 27/2/05

I would suggest that you try and work towards a consensus rather than threatening people with edit wars.Geni 20:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Geni wrote "I would suggest that you try and work towards a consensus rather than threatening people with edit wars" Thanks you for your words of wisdom and of course you are correct, however i felt forced to make such statements because my edits where removed and even my discussion on this page was removed by persons unknown who failed to provide a reason or engage in debate. My obnoxious statement was meant to provoke engagement and therefore the beginning of consensus building. Laural Bush, i have provided a separate entry for Berwick on Tweed below.

I agree and think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.

  • Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.
  • The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).
  • Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between Anglia and Cornubia. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site Mercators Atlas by walking tree press. I am happy to provide further examples if required?
  • Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: Cornish nationalist, Constitutional status of Cornwall. If correct these arguments would indicate a de jure status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.

Bretagne 44 28/2/05

Claims to be counted as constituent parts

I believe both Berwick-upon-Tweed and Cornwall have some claim to be counted as constituent parts and this should be stated (so creating perhaps the start of a longer 'wish list') somewhere near the top of the article page. Laurel Bush 11:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC). The burgh of Berwick on Tweed is the only remaining Englander gain from the Wars of Scotland, which occurred when Englanders had ambition (contrary to the 1237 Treaty of York) to annex or absorb territory north of the River Tweed and south of the River Forth and River Clyde estuaries. Within a continuing Scotlander perspective the burgh is either occupied or neutral territory. If neutral and UK then it is one of the UK’s constituent parts. Laurel Bush 12:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Berwick on Tweed may have, like Cornwall, a certain disputed constitutional status, i would say however that is where the similarity with Cornwall ends. The Cornish can be considered a constituent peoples of the UK and one of the historic nations. So somewhere perhaps mention can be made of the disputed constitutional nature of Berwick and Cornwall, but i think mention of the national nature of the history of the Cornish, in relation to the creation of the UK and predecessor states, deserves mention. Bretagne 44 1/3/05

I believe Berwick on Tweed has actually been listed, historically, as if a constituent part of the UK in a declaration of war. Also the relevant article paragraph is about the politics of territorial boundaries and I cant see references to 'peoples' and 'Cornish' as very appropriate in this context.

That's a hangover from the 11+ times the town changed hands between England and Scotland between 1147 and 1482. There was never a dispute that the town did not belong to either Scotland nor England, just over which one. The Wales and Berwick Act, 1746, specified that when an Act of Parliament refers to "England" it includes Berwick. Until 1885, when the town was included in Northumberland, it was often but not always mentioned separately, such as in the declaration of war on Russia in 1853 which Victoria signed as "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and all British Dominions" - though mention of Berwick was omitted from the Treaty of Paris in 1856 which ended the war, which lead to the signing of a peace treaty in 1966 between the mayor of Berwick and a diplomat from the Soviet embassy, so that the Russians could sleep soundly in their beds! -- Arwel 17:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nation refers to a people ie Jewish nation (spread over many states). The Cornish are one of the constituent peoples of the UK, with a distinct identity and therefore arguably a nation. Or if you prefer a National Minority as the Council of Europe has urged the UK gov to recognise the Cornish. Additionally there is a dispute over the constitutional nature of Cornwall see my posting above. Bretagne 44 2/3/05

Politics

I do not appreciate User:Heimdal calling me a "vandal" for my edits. I have reasons for editing the article. Images should not be 350px (or anything wider than 300px) because it takes up over half the article width in 800x600 browsers. I believe the addition by Heimdal to the politics section was in good faith, but that section is already of sufficient length. Naming the other commonwealth realms is not necessary. Three sentence sections, such as "Head of Government" should not exist. all other subsections under the politics section only had one paragraph at most, again not long enough to make a section. According to wikipedia:summary style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, details should be kept in politics of the United Kingdom, not here. Heimdal should also note that in mass reverting my "vandalism", he removed the bn: interwiki link. --Jiang 21:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I've restored a good portion of Heimdal's edits, excluding those mentioned above. Please note that House of Commons is a general page and the page we're interested in is British House of Commons. There's no reason to revert me on that. --Jiang 21:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, please do not just revert me without explanation. I would like my objections addressed. I am very interested in knowing why you would want to keep images at 350px and leave out the bn: interwiki link. --Jiang 10:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no reason for reverting these series of edits. the lead section is too long and discussion of part not in the UK can go elsewhere. images that are too small for thumbing should not be thumbed - the coin image was actually expanded in size and looked hideous. the miscellenous topics section is designed for links not found elsewhere, why list links more than once? Please answer, Heimdal. dont just revert everything i change in this article. --Jiang 12:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had several similar experiences with user Heimdal, when I tried to improve the Germany page. I am sure there are more victims of his behavior about. Such Wikipedia inappropriate behavior can not remain unnoticed forever. Jiang, go ahead and make all necessary improvements to this page. gidonb 19:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page protected after request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to an edit war. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

What edit war? Please specify.
Err. He did link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#United_Kingdom... If you really can't be bothered to click the link, Heimdal's significant edits and Jiang's and others' reversions thereof.
James F. (talk) 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He does ask for discussion on the talk page but fails to initiate same. Laurel Bush 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Changes to Population

I've updated the article with the estimated population 2004. source: CIA World Factbook

--Benbread 17:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Continued in...

Discussion continued in Archive 3.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_Kingdom_Archive_2_fcbd.html"